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
RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

USU-Logan: "Did those so-called "rational arguments" ever prevail in court?"

Just because a court disagrees with an argument does not make it irrational...

Courts are falling in line with the current of society. Today, anyone who opposes gay rights is a "bigot" or worse (simply read the posts here to see this). Judges are people and, like it or not, they are influenced by what others may say about them.

The gay rights bully machine is operating at peak efficiency on society right now, and it will ultimately be to to detriment of everyone's freedom....

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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."

Here is a quote from Mildred Loving: "Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights."

In case you don't know who she is, think Loving v. Virginia and the end of racial barriers for whom you could marry.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Even if everyone was fine with your civil union concept the amendment would still have to be struck down . . . ."

Well, that's not actually true -- but let's address your argument about civil unions.

One may make a cogent, if not compelling argument, that civil unions are necessary to preserve the inarguably valid pecuniary rights of LGBT.

OK. So make the argument. In the state legislature. Let legislators listen to all voices. Then, they're free to craft new law -- including a repeal of the necessary provisions of Amendment 3 -- that accomplishes the objective and protects all stakeholders.

That's the way the legislative process is designed to work. America stands for the Rule of Law. It accomplishes it by adherence to the Constitution.

Not by vesting unelected, doctrinaire, self-interested jurists with unfettered authority to legislate public policy, in the name of "judicial review."

That's the primary objection most conservatives have to current LGBT rights debates -- they're being held in the wrong fora, between the wrong parties, with the wrong arguments, and under an extremely dangerous interpretation of the proper role of judges in the process of governance.

Beaver Native
St. George, UT

I have read studies that show that indicate that the average gay relationship lasts a much shorter time than the average relationship between a straight couple. Gay marriage opens the way to adoption of children by gay couples. Most people would agree that children deserve to be brought up in stable relationships, and having both men and women role models is important in the emotional development of children. We hear lots about the rights of adults in this country, but few consider the welfare of children when discussing those rights. I believe that most children were much happier and more emotionally sound before the days of short-term relationships. I believe what children need in this country is a man and a woman in the home who love and respect each other and are committed to making the relationship work. While some of the values held in the past may not have been right, for the most part need to return to the values of the past for the benefit of the children. At the same time, however, we need to show genuine love, compassion and tolerance towards others regardless of who they are or what they believe.

EstoPerpetua
Holden, MA

@ El Chango Supremo "It's also simple, common sense that men & women belong together biologically. It's the way we're made".

It may be the way you were made which only you can determine, but it is not the way I was made.
Each of us can only determine who we are, not other people. Civilization is learning more about its differences and similarities, especially the younger generation. Through our communication networks, people are becoming more educated about not only who we are, but also that many speculations of the past simply are not true.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

Tiago wrote:
"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."

On that subject, there is a new book out that is causing considerable fundamentalist panic because the author, a gay evangelical Christian, argues for the integration of gays and gay relationships into Christian faith communities. One would expect that view from those who consider themselves progressive Christians, but not from an evangelical. Remarkably, the author affirms the full inspiration and authority of the Bible, while making the case for re-interpreting scripture to embrace an understanding of homosexuality that simply was not possible during the time the ancient book was written.

(DN probably does not allow book names or authors, so I'll not include them, but it shouldn't be too hard to track them down).

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Meckofahess, I'm sure I'm not going to change your mind, but...I am going to assume you get your concepts of morality from the Bible. But throughout the books of the Bible, there are passages endorsing slavery. Human sexuality is infinitely more complex than slavery. Morality wise, slavery is a no brainer. Now if the writers of the Bible got slavery --something pretty simple--so wrong, what are the chances that they got something more complex right?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

procuradorfiscal, I totally disagree with you. When the legislature was passing the legislation to put Amendment 3 on the ballot, all these arguments were brought forth. They would not listen to anyone but Gayle Riszika (sp?) and passed the toughest law they could. Gay advocates tried to get the second part taken out which does not allow any kind of legal arrangement between gay couples, but the church gave its approval and Amendment 3 passed with 66% of the voters voting for it.

Because of it being an amendment, the legislature cannot just repeal any part of it. It must be put in front of the people again.

The legislature cannot even pass a non-discrimination bill affording gays the right to work and housing, let alone put another amendment on the ballot for another change to Utah's constitution.

Gay couples are using the constitution to resolve what they believe (and has been determined so far) to be an unconstitutional attack on their right to a privilege that other americans are enjoying: the benefits and legal privileges of - Marriage. It was set up in the constitution to go to unelected judges so the the majority cannot rule over a minority.

BJMoose
Syracuse, UT

For procuradorfiscal: Your statement "Let legislators listen to all voices. Then, they're free to craft new law -- including a repeal of the necessary provisions of Amendment 3 -- that accomplishes the objective and protects all stakeholders." is incorrect. They can craft proposals for the ballot but amendments to the constitution can only be accomplished by a vote of the people.
Here are the two ways.
Via the legislatively-referred constitutional amendment process:
An amendment can be proposed in either chamber of the Utah State Legislature.
A two-thirds vote is necessary in the state legislature to place a proposed amendment before the state's voters.
Votes on proposed amendments must take place at general elections.
If more than one proposed amendment is on a ballot, the amendments must be placed on the ballot in such a way that voters can register their opinion on them separately.
(This is how Amendment 3 was created.)

Via a constitutional convention:
A ballot question about whether to hold a convention can go on the ballot if two-thirds of the members of the state legislature vote to put it on the ballot.
Votes on whether to hold conventions must go on a general election ballot.

sfcretdennis
Nice, CA

TO: RanchHand Huntsville, UT @Rocket Science; You say"Accept our "lifestyle" or not, you don't get to tell us who we may or may not marry. That is not your right. Discrimination is based on some level of dislike no matter how you slice it. Dislike is just another form of hate. It is absolutely intolerance to deny others the legal benefits you enjoy - and there is nothing immoral about LGBT couples forming. Nothing"

We hate not, we choose to follow God's law, if you not like talk to him, we follow God's law sin is wrong.You don't see people who believe in living together before marriage screaming people of faith hate them, or anything ells that is a sin. You are the only one screaming hatred. We as a God fearing people are asked too speak out agent sin, but you have a God given right to sin if you like and he well judge you on judgment day but don't expect or force us to say you are right and God is wrong well never happen. I fear not you but fear the judgment of God.

Tiago
Seattle, WA

@RPrice
@Beaver Native
You both make the argument that gay people are especially promiscuous and unable to establish committed, long-term relationships. You are welcome to share your perspective and believe you when you say that the gay people you know fit that stereotype.

I can only offer my personal experience as a counter example. I have met hundreds of GLBT people. I met them on my mission, at BYU, at firesides, on online support groups, at work, and in my YSA ward. They are some of the warmest, most loving, loyal, strongest people I know.

Some of them have decided to pursue same-sex relationships, but the vast majority continue to hold on to the values they learned in the church. They are looking for people who share those values and want to commit for life. One of my closest friends is married to his partner and adopted a baby recently from a family member who could't take care of it. I know many partners who have been together for decades.

You don't know me or my friends. When you judge without knowing, that is called prejudice.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Aerilus Maximus
"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?"

Oh I'm not worried about my life style being considered acceptable. After all, I'm straight; that's always been acceptable and always going to be acceptable.

@Redshirt
"Declaring that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage is like declaring apples are the same as oranges"

They're both marriages/fruits.

@RPrice
"Norms of Marriage:
Monogamous
Man and Woman
Child-bearing
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."

All of those except "man and woman", "child-bearing", and "both parents are related to their children" are possible with same-sex marriage though I see from your second post that you just want to stereotype.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Schnee" they are only the same in a very broad and generic sense. It is like saying that a man and woman are the same. Are they really the same?

If apples are the same as oranges, why can't I juice an apple the same way as an Orange. They are both fruits, and according to you are the same.

Why can't I start an orange orchard here in Utah? You said that one fruit is the same as another?

Why can't I cross pollinate an orange with an apple, they are both fruits?

It seems that declaring 2 dissimilar fruits to be the same doesn't work in nature. Neiter does declaring gay marriage the same as hetersexual marriage make them any more the same than declaring apples the same as oranges.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@RedWings
"Just because a court disagrees with an argument does not make it irrational..."

I agree. But what if there is more than one court disagree? In fact, since Windsor’s ruling, courts in NJ, NM, OH, UT, OK, VA, TX, TN, MI, IN all rejected those arguments. The winning streak for SSM in courtroom remains unbroken, not to mention previous wins in MA, CT, CA and IA court.

And BTW, is there any court agree with your argument? If there is not even a single time, not even a single court, is on your side, can you still claim that argument rational?

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

MoNoMo: "Please provide a logical answer to this question: 'How does my gay marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?'"

It won't hurt current straight marriages. But, in the long haul it will mean the eventual demise of the institution of marriage. Legalizing SSM will mean that all other companion associations such as polygamy, incest, close relatives, father/daughter, mother/son, sister/brother, cousin/aunt, children, you name it... will also have to be legalized for the same reason... discrimination. Allowing one aberration of marriage (SSM) and not all others will mean the anti-discrimination provision of Amendment 14 will be totally nullified and meaningless.

USU-Logan: "The problem for gay marriage ban is that the state can not give rational reason for such law..."

The rational reason is that marriage will eventually disappear resulting in social chaos... see above.

Darmando: "... 14th amendment to the constitution, place overwhelming weight on the side of marriage, same gender and opposite gender, as a civil right ..."

If so, the Amendment should also provide overwhelming weight on any other type of marriage combination... see above.

kvnsmnsn
Springville, UT

Utefan60 posted:

=Again it befuddles me that in this state where Polygamy was the norm a one
=time, that people can talk with a straight face that Marriage is between a man
=and a woman? There are so many children raised by people that don't conform to
=the Man/Woman perfect marriage!

Utefan60, what reason do you have why gays and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry while heterosexual triples should not? Try to get a law passed that allows two or three adults of any gender combination to get married, and I would support that law. I'm not saying I want polygamy to come back to the LDS Church; I don't think it ever will, and I don't want it to ever come back. I just want vindication. I want the US government to admit it erred in dragging the LDS Church kicking and screaming away from its own alternate sexual lifestyle.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@wrz and others
"The rational reason is that marriage will eventually disappear resulting in social chaos..."

Oh, yes, the sky will fall! don't you think that argument is getting old?

Ranch
Here, UT

@JBQ:

The courts ARE enforcing the law: The US Constitution (supercedes ALL State Constitutions) guarantees Equal Protection to ALL US Citizens - even LGBT Citizens.

@brotherJonathan:

I don't know where you got the idea that Constitutional Law allows you to force others to live by your "personal beliefs".

Additionally, separate is not equal.

@procuradorfiscal:

--- Oh brother. Only you can do that to your "marriage" - nobody else can.

@CDL;

What about religions that are find with SSM? Their 1st Amendment rights don't matter?

@USAlover;

One day we'll all be dead. The end. It'll all be over. No "higher authority" to answer to.

@Meckofahess;

Zeus considers your worship of another god "immoral".

@AerilusMaximus;

Quoting fiction does not advance your position. (I find "religious lifestyles" objectionable but tolerate them).

@RPrice;

You don't know what you're talking about.

@Beaver Native;

You don't know many LGBT couples, do you. I've been with my partner longer than some of my siblings were in their opposite sex marriages.

@sfcretdennis;

If you "chose to follow god's law" you would treat others as you want to be treated. Your god has no standing in civil matters. Sorry.

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

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

SSM legalization will change that in order to comply with anti-discrimination provisions of the 14th Amendment.

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

Which, of course, is discrimination against children.

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

How do you know my horse can't consent... it speaks sign language not unlike someone who' may be deaf-mute.

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

Wrong. It will mean all other relationship combinations where love exists to also be legalized.

Ranch:
"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."

Marriage also provide a myriad of legal benefits which could be enjoyed by marriage of the combinations you cite.

Besides, gays/lesbians don't need marriage to enjoy the bonds you reference. Just live together... not unlike fathers, mothers, and children do. Problem solved.

Mlawrence
Salt Lake City, UT

If tomorrow morning we withdrew the lawsuit Kitchen v Herbert, stopped the proceedings, and let Amendment 3 stand, gay people would still have children. We would continue to form our families, and our family structures would continue to thrive. Creating families is a human right not subject to public policy and discourse. Gay and Lesbian people already have children and will continue to have and raise children—married or not—because our families are not predicated on marriage because marriage—until recently—has been withheld from us.

That children deserve only to be raised by a biological mother and father is a spurious claim rooted in questionable social science. In attempts to validate their claim, opponents have unwittingly attacked single parents, children of divorced parents, couples who choose not to have children and adoptive families with children. These opponents of equality have launched an attack on a huge percentage of the population; and they have become so convinced by these misleading claims of potential catastrophe that they have sacrificed, so to speak, their own character within the community, which mostly sees them as fanatics filled with animosity and desperation.

to comment

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