Quantcast

Comments about ‘Same-sex marriage decisions in other states argued in Utah case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 28 2014 5:18 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Abinadis friend
Boise, Idaho

Marriage was created in the first place because man and woman had families and someone had to stay home and raise them. Benefits were given to help them if one should die and the other could get benefits because they were not
able to work while the children were young. I cannot see why a same sex couple could have children without adopting other children.
Why can't they have another union that is not called marriage do just as well?

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

Marriage is a civil contract creating a legal relationship between two legal strangers, giving certain benefits, rights, responsibilities, and remedies.

Siblings, and parents and children, have a defined legal relationship that precludes marriage.

Children are not able to legally consent to civil contracts, including marriage.

Animals, plants, and inanimate objects are not able to give legal consent for any civil contract, including marriage.

Legalizing polygamy will regulate it, giving protections, benefits, and remedies, making it less likely to be coercive or abusive. Polygamy will require a different legal structure because it includes multiple consenting adults, which will complicate the legal situation.

Same-sex marriage will allow same-sex couples to get married. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ranch
Here, UT

arand says:
"Just give Gay couples the same legal rights, just don't call it marriage. Call it Gay union or anything you want. Is that too much to ask from the Gay community. "

Yes, it is too much to ask. LGBT couples marrying has no affect on you. None. Besides, Amendment 3 prevents your solution anyway (you wanted to give us nothing initially, now you're offering "civil union" but we're going to win marriage rights).

@El Chango Supremo says:

"What is the rational reason why an adult man should not be able to marry his adult sister ..."

Marriage creates a familial bond where none previously exists. Hence there is no need to marry your mother, sister, father, brother in order to create that bond.

Ranch
Here, UT

Serious says:

"Do you think siblings should be allowed to marry? parents to children?" (familial bond already exists).

The state does tell people who can & can't marry?

1. consenting age (Rational)
2. opposite sex (Irrational)
3. not closely related (Rational)
4. not currently married to another (Rational)

How can we argue that one should be thrown out and not the others? (Do you see how one of your situations is not rational but the others are?)

@LibertyInLaw;

It is absolutely foolish to think marriage of LGBT couples is going to have "repercussions" other than we'll be married.

@Brown;

Denying LGBT marriage does absolutely nothing to "protect the children". Nothing.

JBQ
Saint Louis, MO

Justice Anthony Kennedy who is usually the "swing vote" on the U.S. Supreme Court has made this issue very plain. It is a matter of the "voice of the people" as seen in the state system to decide the morality of that particular state. Charles Krauthammer has weighed in also on this subject. He believes that it is the "mood of the country" to allow gay marriage. However, the basis of this must come from the people and not from individual judges. The courts are there to enforce the law. They are not there to "makes the laws". This is the duty of the people. This issue for Utah looks bleak in light of what happened with Proposition 8 in California. Nevertheless, implications are there for other issues such as education. The U.S. Constitution states that education is a "state function". The current administration believes that it is the right of the federal government. This dovetails with the current issue because it would appear that "common core" is only one more way of reeducating the "young people" to the acceptance of gay issues.

ordinaryfolks
seattle, WA

Not one good argument against same sex marriage here, again. Some say it will destroy the country (does not that Beck dude say God whispered in his ear something to that effect?). Some say it is just icky. Some say children will suffer. Some employ the vacuous use of the slippery slope argumentation. And lastly, some just use religion.

If history shows us anything, it shows us these arguments are the last resort of those who know the argument is lost. I find smoking icky, but grant others the right to pursue this habit. I avoid the logic of people who claim God whispers in their ears, as this is usually a sign of mental illness. I listen to professionals who know that children are not harmed by same sex parents. And even most fools know the slippery slope form of argumentation is logically invalid.

Most young adults, regardless of their faith traditions, recognize these arguments are devoid of anything but pure prejudice and are logically devoid of reason. I think it is time that we listen to the youth.

brotherJonathan
SLC, UT

Civil Union/Gay Marriage.
Those words have the same meaning.
Marriage definition:
the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
Constitutional in principle, civil unions must have the same legal rights, between them, as a marriage does. Those rights spelled out in a legal contract, as a marriage.
This the true goal of same-sex marriage. If it is then let the laws reflect the truth:
Marriage definition can't be same-sex, there is civil unions, which should have the same legal benefits under laws; like tax, or social security/health and retirement benefits.
Those rights being protected just the same as a marriage partnership offers. The difference would actually have the opportunity to define this new partnership as prenuptial agreements do for marriages. Specific rights would be in writing and understood by both partners.
This distinction protects the rights of both groups' beliefs. Constitutional laws protect the rights of personal beliefs.
By this compromise between both parties a just solution can be achieved.
Defend the rights of both sides of this issue with fairness. If you agree with my assessment make it known with your voices.

BJMoose
Syracuse, UT

If the 10th is looking for some anti SSM evidence to weigh, they need look no further than at some of the comments on this story. It's obvious the love thy neighbor crowd isn't present. I think the level of intolerance displayed by these comments is both sad and disturbing. Especially when the actions of others would have absolutely no effect on the lives of those who protest the loudest.

brotherJonathan
SLC, UT

Why must it be called a marriage? It is a civil union. Allowing other citizens the right to chose for themselves what lifestyle they would embrace is not the same as teaching their choice as a recommended way of life to your children. So we walk a delicate path of protecting individual rights of choice and defending our own right of choice in our schools and other places of gathering.
Tolerance for others rights with respect for our choice when it comes to teaching our own children the principles of a happy fulfilled life, obeying the commands of our conscience. Because of the fact that children are impressionable and do not have founded psychological beliefs in experience and outcomes, we who have the responsibility to nurture and guide belief structure have the ultimate say in what should be and not be taught as a viable lifestyle for them until they are adults. Homosexual partnerships without science intervention cannot produce offspring, this is the facts. So nature has female and male as a parent structure and is the natural means of raising young humans to adulthood. Beyond those facts this is fairly new territory, protecting freedom of choice for both.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "How does my gay marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?"

It diminishes its value. It makes it less worthwhile. It makes it less holy, less special. But, most of all, it attempts to legitimize acts, a perspective, a lifestyle that are universally acknowledged -- at least among objective, unbiased, and unselfishly un-self-interested observers -- as inimical to the family and its many benefits to our society and to the individuals that comprise it.

LGBT Americans are as entitled as other Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But that pursuit is limited, by law, to activities not harmful of the rights of others.

Real people bear LGBT no ill will in their pursuit of protection of pecuniary rights. But, their unfair, scatter-shot, oppressive, confrontational, ultimately unconstitutional approach is extremely dangerous to the rest of us.

Its focus is not limited to protection of acknowledged rights, but on creation of new rights.

Those new rights amount to thought control and a very real threat to our Constitutionally protected right to disagree with their odd, minoritarian definitions of virtue and decency.

brotherJonathan
SLC, UT

The constitutional cure: Civil Union (Marriage) license/ Marriage License. If both have the same power under law but show the difference in the meaning of the word marriage. That way we don't have to change dictionary meaning and protect the beliefs of those that base religious faith on its meaning. Now we are arguing over nothing.
Rights are preserved.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

If it seems familiar....it is:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

To the religious arguments, do us all a favor and stop using religion as a moral fig leaf for your naked prejudice.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@Brown 7:22 a.m. April 29, 2014

Let me correct your comments and make them accurate:

Same old anti-gay statements from the same old commenters on this site. Really folks, do you just seek out headlines so you can propagandize with your comments? Maybe if you were to read the briefs you would understand the pro-gay-marriage stance...not one of discrimination but one of protecting children. Or don't children's rights matter? I really wish the anti-gay hate speech and attacks would end.

Okay -- fixed.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Kouger says that a gay marriage is not a real marriage.

Many religions would agree with you. The Catholic church says a validly contracted marriage lasts forever, and that my 35 year long marriage is not "real" because in the late 1970s, my husband and I were each of us was divorced from our former spouses. But we have freedom of religion in the US, and each of us have civil rights, even if some churches don't agree. America is not Iran. Neither is Utah.

CDL
Los Angeles, CA

Polygamy was 'not' the norm. It was accepted, but practiced by a very small percentage. Marriage is a religious 'rite' not right. Always has been and should be protected under the 1st amendment. However, belief that people have the freedom to choose their own path also exists. The only way that this situation can be fairly resolved without stomping on the rights AND beliefs of others is to allow legal coupling for 'civil unions' but setting any and all legal applicable rights as equal to that of marriage.

Demiurge
San Diego, CA

This isn't about the children, and protecting the children. That's a separate issue entirely in law. This is about bigotry, and the unwillingness of some to live their own lives in as moral a manner as they like, while others do the same.

Also, separate but equal has been tried in the USA. It doesn't work, and it won't work here.

At the end of all this money being spent and hand-wringing by opponents, gay marriage will be the law of the land. It is the only position that logic and rationality bring one to. Those who oppose it will someday be remembered the same way that those who opposed racial civil rights are remembered.

ODannyBoy
Sandy, Utah

@arand: Big problem.

Utah Amendment 3 says -

Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

so - give a little? Not much room, is there.

Demiurge
San Diego, CA

Marriage has always been about inter-family alliances, inheritance, and rights of survivorship. In that past in most cases the people may not even have known each other before marriage. Daughters were married off to the sons of other families along with a dowry.

A "traditional marriage" was never about "love", although it would form later in many cases. Getting married for love is a very new idea in human history.

Also, the religions adopted marriage as another rite. Marriage existed long before the churches managed to pull it in.

I can't really believe that the opponents are down to arguing for "separate but equal" and the definition of a word that is secular in origin.

USAlover
Salt Lake City, UT

Until two men can conceive a baby together, the conclusion that homosexuality is normal and natural just doesn't hold water.

That said, you probably are entitled by the US Constitution to the right to "pursue" your "happiness". One day, we will all learn what we are entitled to and what we are NOT entitled to by an authority much higher than the US Constitution. Until then, my goal is to love and show compassion, if not agreement, with all of God's children. The rest will be ferretted out by Him...

LibertyInLaw
Provo, UT

@USU-Logan

"The problem for gay marriage ban is that the state can not give rational reason for such law"

Not true. The state, and many others arguing to preserve marriage, have given plenty of rational arguments. The problem is not lack or argument but prejudice towards those arguments. Many SSM advocates are not interested in rational argument, only name calling and shutting down debate through intimidation. Too many have bought into the notion that equality means sameness and that this ideal of equality should trump everything else.

The issue in the marriage debate is really "what is marriage". If marriage is just about the needs and interests of adults then there is some logic in allowing SSM. But marriage is more than that - it is the fundamental unit of society. Thousands of years of history and the vast majority of research shows that children do best when raised by their biological mom and dad. It is unreasonable to think redefining marriage as an institution will not impact our society.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments