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

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 28 2014 5:05 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT


I totally agree with your comments. I would add one point: many in the Gay community don't want us to raise the issue of God's will or traditional morality because that would bring into question their immoral behavior. If they can remove God and morality from the equation then they can argue that there is nothing that sanctions their immoral behavior. That is why they want to remove God and religion from the discussion in the public square. America was founded on principles of faith in God and on morality, yet the Gay community wants to erase that foundation and history from the history books. We must stand up NOW for morality and for the place of faith in God and his commandments in our society. America was founded on more that the action of activist judges who may only be interested in man's law and ignore God.

Seattle, WA

@ Brown "Maybe if you were to read the briefs..."

I have read the briefs. I want was is best for the U.S., for the LDS church, for my married brothers and sisters, for my 14 nieces and nephews, for my GLBT friends and family. Until three years ago, I believed civil unions for gay couples and marriage for straights was the best. As I have followed the debate I've realized that complete marriage equality is best.
Legally/constitutionally, I really don't understand how anyone can argue against legalizing same-sex marriage. Read the majority and dissenting opinions on Lawrence v. Texas to understand that Americans have a fundamental right to engage in same-sex relationships and laws cannot be designed to discourage or inhibit this right.
Read Loving v. Virginia to understand that Americans have a right to marriage and the state cannot limit who they can marry without a rational basis. Read the Utah court briefs and listen to the hearings and the brief from Michigan and other states to understand that there is no rational basis. Rational, according to law needs to be more than religious or moral disapproval.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

First, the letter writer needs to review what is required constitutionally for a gov't to meet the barriers of rational basis and heightened scrutiny. The explanations he gave are not correct.

Second, after years and years of back-and-forth on this subject it is very heartening to me to see that conservatives still have no valid arguments which will hold water in the court of law. I am quite overjoyed reading these posts because most, if not all, of those who oppose SSM still don't grasp the concept that their personal moral convictions literally are given zero credence in the court of law. When you cut through all the noise, every single reason conservatives have for opposing SSM can be distilled down to one thing: personal moral objection. And with that as their only justification, they will surely continue to lose.

Salt Lake City, UT

Tooele, UT

Well said, you speak the TRUTH! I would add that the Gay agenda exemplified in the SSM cause will in fact remove the right of freedom of speech as they did with the CEO recently who they pressured to resign because he gave a little money in support of proposition 8 in California. Their position is that we may have freedom of speech but that there are "consequences for how we use that freedom". In other words, if we disagree with them and openly express our disagreement they will make our lives miserable and cause harm such as pressuring employers to fire us because we "discriminate". Well they discriminate against our Christian beliefs by attempting to stop us from invoking morality or God in the public square. We need to wake up to the harms that the same-sex marriage agenda brings to society before we totally lose our freedom of speech.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

@Happy Valley Heretic

Thank you for your entire 8:28 comment.


Thank you for your 8:54 comment...

"...I can't really believe that the opponents are down to arguing for "separate but equal"...".

DEW Cougars
Sandy, UT

Here we go again. Do we Straight people teach anything to same gender couples? How about this, can same gender couple can bring new born child to the world? Adoption doesn't work because they are not part of your biological DNA! I didn't think so.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

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

To you we say - NO WE WILL NOT STOP using our freedom of speech to disagree with you. We have every constiutional right to express our religious opinions in the public square. With what authority does the Gay community presume to tell us to leave God and morality out of the discussion?

KTC John
Wetumpka, AL

Those who favor same-sex marriage draw heavily upon an analogy to the eradication of slavery and its vestiges, such as the prohibition against interracial marriage. There is a stark difference between interracial marriage, which incidentally involves a man and a woman, and same-sex marriage. Morality was clearly on the side of abolishing slavery and its vestiges. Morality is clearly not on the side of establishing same-sex marriage or diminishing the divine institution of hetero-sexual, father/mother marriage. Same-sex marriage is an obstacle to the great eternal plan of family happiness and joy. Those who say or believe that allowing others to practice same-sex marriage does not hinder them are naïve and unrealistic. An entire civilization that permits same-sex marriage will be adversely affected. It is absolutely foolish to believe we can change the most fundamental, stabilizing unit of society and not expect dramatic adverse changes to that society. The resulting ills will permeate all facets of society, and I don't feel that I need a scientific study to prove that proposition to my mind.

Daedalus, Stephen

@DN: 'Schearr argued for rational basis, meaning the plaintiffs must prove Utah's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. Tomsic says the judges should use "heightened scrutiny," under which the state has the burden to prove the law should be upheld'

This is not accurate, as there is no 'burden of proof' at this stage of review. The 10th Circuit will determine whether, as a matter of law, Utah’s SSM-ban is unconstitutional, even when all factual questions are assumed in favor of Utah.

Playing offense, Schaerr must persuade 10th Cir of two things: 1) rational basis should apply, and 2) singling out gays to exclude from marriage is rationally related to Utah’s legitimate interest (ex. promoting child-centric marriages), in light of no similar exclusions for infertile couples, sex-abusers, drug/alcohol addicts, etc. Playing defense, Schaerr must counter Kitchen’s position that intermediate scrutiny applies, only because it will be that much harder to prevail at trial, if remanded.

Schaerr is playing Twister and Whack-a-Mole simultaneously as district courts keep striking down SSM-bans for slightly different reasons.

Syracuse, UT

To BrotherJonathan with support from ODannyBoy: Though not of the persuasion I basically agree with your statements concerning civil unions. Speaking only for myself I think most of those effected would be fine with having their rights conveyed that way. I think way to much emphasis is put on the word marriage and it's definition. The problem with your scenario is the amendment itself

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.

Even if everyone was fine with your civil union concept the amendment would still have to be struck down because of item (2). "No other domestic union, however denominated" specifically excludes civil unions, partnering or whatever other name you care to call it by. "Or given the same or equivalent legal effect" precludes granting the rights gained in a marriage to said union. If it had been left with only item (1) in it I think compromises could have been reached. As it is, that is not possible.

Logan, UT

"The state, and many others arguing to preserve marriage, have given plenty of rational arguments."

Did those so-called "rational arguments" ever prevail in court? NO, they have been refuted in courtroom over and over again. In NJ, in NM, in OH, in UT, in OK, in KY, in TN, in VA, in MI, in TX, in IN, and will be in OR, PA....., not to mention they already failed in MA, CT, CA and IA in the past.

Salt Lake City, UT

"With what authority does the Gay community presume to tell us to leave God and morality out of the discussion?"

Oh it can be in the discussion, and can even be a motivator for your own personal support, but it cannot be the sole basis for creation of laws, because that would violate the establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment, and would be as unconstitutional as attempts to incorporate pieces of Sharia Law on the basis of it being Islamic teachings. There needs to be a secular reasoning for the law (that's why murder and robbery are illegal, it violates the rights to life and property).

Berryville, VA

Mosiah 29:26-27

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

Seattle, WA

@KTC John
Under you view, how could a gay or lesbian person live a moral life?
I suppose you would say they could remain celibate or marry an opposite-sex spouse.
Those are both very hard, maybe impossible options. People of particular faith may pursue those options and have a right to. If they do, they should do it willingly and completely aware of what that entails.
Our law cannot and should not compel gay people to be celibate or marry an opposite-sex spouse. If you tried to compel this, you would end up with broken people and broken families.
There are many good, moral gay people who feel the same desire you do to commit to one person for a lifelong partnership. They want to be a part of their community and extended families and many want to raise kids. Many want to be part of our churches.
It tears me up to see how we exclude and try to frustrate good desires and push these people to the fringes then try to legislate to make sure they are permanently characterized as fringe/other/immoral.

Berryville, VA

@ Schnee

Religious discussion can and already is in laws as it is. Laws are put in effect all the time that discriminate against all sorts of life styles.

So why not against the homosexual life style? Is it because you have a lot of media support that believes that your life style should be acceptable?

It is one thing to tolerate a persons life style and another thing completely to authorize it.

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”
― Henry Ford

Deep Space 9, Ut

I still don't understand why we must declare gay civil unions equal to marriage. A gay couple is not the same as a hetersexual couple. They are different.

The only thing that is the same is that they love eachother. Declaring that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage is like declaring apples are the same as oranges. Both are fruits, but that is about where the similarities end.

Dallas, TX

Same-sex unions are not capable of conferring the same benefits on men, women, children and society as the marriage of a man and a women does. A brief comparison of the norms of both traditional marriage and same-sex unions illustrates just how hazardous and toxic same-sex relationships will be to marriage as an institution.

Norms of Marriage:
Man and Woman
Both parents are related to their children
Exclusive (fidelity, loyalty)
Permanent (commitment)
Formally and legally sanctioned
Romantic love brings them together
Shared household, benefits, etc.

Dallas, TX

Norms of Same-sex couples:
*Gay female couples are mostly monogamous
*Gay male couples are Polyamourous (The norm for gay male couples is to be in an open relationship. Furthermore, research has found that gay couple relationships last longer when they are open. Put another way, their relationships are shorter when their relationships are based in sexual fidelity. This means that gay male relationships are inherently unstable. Fidelity among gay couples is the exception. Research has found that typically only gay male couples with HIV have exclusive sexual relationships.)
*Man and Man, or Woman and Woman
*Cannot bear children
*Only one parent can be related to the child
*Are not exclusive (open relationships)
*There is no fidelity (open relationships)
*Lack of fidelity undermines loyalty
*Are inherently incapable of *permanence* because of their open relationships, with the exception of having HIV or gay female couples
*Romantic love brings them together, but so does convenient, casual, anonymous hook-up sex—which is not the equivalent of love, but is rather based in lust
*Share a household, benefits, etc.
*Marriage is legally sanctioned in a dozen states, but constitutional amendment defines marriage as between a man and woman in 30 other states

Salt Lake City, UT

That children deserve to be raised in a home with a mother and a father is irrelevant. And here is why. We already have children and gay and lesbian couples will continue to have and to raise children married or not. Building families is a human right and not subject to public discourse or opinion. If we dropped Kitchen V Herbert tomorrow and let Amendment 3 stand, we will still have and raise children and our families will continue to thrive and grow. However our families will be harmed by the government sanctioned discrimination that is being promoted by those who falsely claim to be pro-family and pro-children. The number of children being raised in gay and lesbian families will not change when Amendment 3 is overturned. What will change is the protections and security that all families deserve. Second parent adoptions for parents who have raised their children from birth for example. Social Security and insurance benefits for all families. Those who oppose these cannot take the moral highroad you are wrong.

St.George, Utah

When the older "diverse frightened" generations pass on, the younger generations who now exhibit open minds and open hearts, will prevail and be the norm. Younger people already embrace diversity and do not exclude individuals for the reasons older generations are famous for.
Just look at the two individuals who have recently been at the top of the media's list.......the elderly Nevada Rancher, and the elderly owner of an NBA basketball franchise.
How out of sync, cruel, and bigoted they appear, just as those do who are fighting against SSM.

to comment

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