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
Mlawrence
Salt Lake City, UT

@Lane Myer Mildred Loving supported marriage equality.

Aephelps14
San Luis Obispo, CA

There is a lot of commentary about a gay couple being unable to provide all the needed attributes to raise a child. In all honesty, my husband and I do not fall along the stereotypical qualities often assigned exclusively to each gender (within the LDS church) and I know many other couples that do not as well. I sought out someone who would create balance in our relationship, not someone who had those randomly assigned qualities. If I had, our marriage would not function. Taking this into consideration, perhaps it is best to not use this argument for why gay individuals should not be able to adopt children. They seek out partners who complement them and create a greater whole just as a heterosexual does. I cannot see any viable reason that they would make "lesser" parents. This argument is speculation only. The Proclamation on the Family does not assign attributes to genders, only roles (and even those are subject to prayer and family situation). Children need a family and gay individuals are just as capable of creating one because they are just as capable of loving their children.

Neanderthal
Phoenix, AZ

Lane Myer: "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."

Gays/lesbians are completely wrong if the think they can't marry... just follow the law... pick someone who's (1) of age, (2) mentally competent, (3) not closely related, (4) not already married, (5) not the same sex, (6) not your pony or a flower, etc.

Some say not allowing SSM is unconstitutional, citing the 14th Amendment. That Amendment requires equal protection under state law. State law, get it? State law [The Feds (SCOTUS, etc) have no authority to define marriages]. And Utah State law provides that all can marry provided they meet the requirements, as above. So, you gay people, go out and find someone to marry. Making sure they are not your same sex, not already married, of marriageable age, not closely related (such as father, mother, brother, sister, aunt cousin, etc.). Go for it. And stop complaining and bellyaching. It's not rocket science.

RPrice
Dallas, TX

@Schnee&Tiago
The norms I listed are the lived reality of the majority of gay male couples. They are fact. Research--surveying and asking hundreds of gay male couples--has revealed that open relationships are the norm. Here's the kicker: Open relationships last longer than closed relationships. Which means--open or closed, gay relationships do not last. They are inherently unstable. Tiago's gay LDS friends are the exceptions--the outliers.

The gay community, lead by Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage, knows this is true. They declare not only that it is normal and natural, they believe that legalizing SSM will lead to the entire institution of marriage adopting these same standards.

Is instability good for children? Forty years of social science research practically shouts that instability among heterosexuals is very very bad for children, women, and society. It is only logical to believe that instability among homosexuals will yield similar negative results.

Here's a sampling of what instability does to children: higher rates of poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, teenage promiscuity, school failure, being sexually and physically abused, mental health problems, higher infant mortality rates, and more.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Mlawrence

Salt Lake City, UT

@Lane Myer Mildred Loving supported marriage equality.

--------------

That's shy I quoted her.

She believed in it along with Cora Scott King: ""I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," Coretta Scott King. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Mlawrence nailed it.

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.

Maybe not so unwittingly as the conservative party consistently attacks these groups too, through legislation, their radio representatives and good folks like the Eagle Forum.

The tent getting smaller.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Neanderthal, I would believe you that you know that the Feds can't stop a state from defining marriage, but we have Loving v. Virginia where the SCOTUS decided that they knew better than Virginia. No. The 14th does not apply to only state law.

Even though the law was equally fair to both sectors (black and white) and both could marry someone as long as they married someone of the same race, the SCOTUS said that it was unconstitutional under the ...14th amendment.

Please explain to me what the difference is between allowing all to marry as long as they meet state requirements as Virginia had allowed (and you say is constitutional), and the ruling on Loving v. Virginia that states that "marriage is one of the fundamental rights" afford to all Americans to marry the person they choose.

Doesn't this make your argument fall apart? You may say that at least it was man-woman, but I can tell you that Mildred Loving was very much in favor of gay marriage. She did not understand why any state would keep two people who love each other from being allowed to marry.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

@RPrice
I never realized how weak and easily influenced the hetero community is.

RPrice said: "They declare not only that it is normal and natural, they believe that legalizing SSM will lead to the entire institution of marriage adopting these same standards."

So if I say, the the Hetero Community is led by Fred Phelps, does that make what he says, true for all hetro folks?

RPrice said: "Is instability good for children? Forty years of social science research practically shouts that instability among heterosexuals is very very bad for children, women, and society. It is only logical to believe that instability among homosexuals will yield similar negative results."

So give them the stability of a Family, seems they should get the same chance to Succeed or FAIL like heterosexuals do, or do homosexual relationships need to meet a higher standard than yourself?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "A two-thirds vote is necessary in the state legislature to place a proposed amendment before the state's voters."

Exactly.

And that's the process the law requires people to use.

Not some dangerous, illegal, unconstitutional kluge-together, that involves forum-shopping for unethical jurists, corruption of the judicial process, the law, and the Constitution, and the setting of very, very dangerous and irregular precedents.

Had the LGBT community followed the example of women suffrage activists, this issue would likely now be settled, with many fewer ruffled feathers -- on both sides -- and LGBT would be enjoying what I would suspect most actually want -- protection of their rights within an understanding and, to one extent of another, supportive community.

Instead, the overreaching, in-your-face radicals have muddied the water and polarized the issue to the extent we will never have peace or universal buy-in on this issue, regardless of the outcome of their addled, in-your-face approach.

I can't believe most LGBT would prefer a never-ending, abortion-issue-type outcome over a settled, accepted, women-suffrage outcome.

Tiago
Seattle, WA

@RPrice
I understand your point, but resist being characterized based on averages since I am an individual. I am a member of the "gay community" and neither Andrew Sullivan nor Dan Savage is my leader.

My views on relationships come from my upbringing and what I have seen be successful for my family and friends. My parents have been married 47 years. All six of siblings are married. If I commit to someone it would be for life. Whether they are in the majority or not, there are a lot of gay people like me with "traditional" or "conservative" values about faith, fidelity, and family. I encourage you to welcome them in your church and in your family, but I can't force you to do that. I will fight for their legal right to follow their conscience and make the commitment of marriage though. My understanding is that is a fundamental right that they can no longer be denied in America. I think that is a good thing.

Demiurge
San Diego, CA

It is very hopeful when the comments of those opposed to SSM draw far few likes than those for it. Fundamentally, those opposed have no rational argument at all. Not one that isn't based on fear - fear of a deity, fear that their own marriage will be devalued, fear that children will become gay (I guess), fear that the sky will fall.

In reality, where SSM exists, it came with a barely a ripple in the lives of everyone else.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

procuradorfiscal, five Supreme Court justices threw out DOMA, because it violated the US Constitution. Are these five all unethical jurists? Does a judge become an unethical jurist when s/he disagrees with you?
I have no clue as to what you mean when you compare women suffrage and gay marriage equality. Women were not content with halfway measures, [imagine something like advisory ballots, which indicated their preferences but carried no weight, or having their votes be worth three-fifths of a man’s vote]. You think that gays should be content with civil unions--instead, they have the audacity to demand equal rights. Do you also think that blacks should have been content with the separate but [allegedly] equal schools, drinking fountains, or restrooms?

mrjj69
bountiful, UT

gambling is against the law in utah. but is legal in nevada. what another state does in not germane

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

Hosea 8:7 "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up."

Amnendments 3 could have allowed civil unions while preserving marriage as a religious term and practice.

But that couldn't be allowed. You had to make sure gay couples had nothing - no protection, no rights, no respect.

Legally, you planted wind and now, a decade later, you are reaping the whirlwind.

Harvey Milk said: "Every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends if indeed they are your friends. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in. Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and all."

We came out. We stayed out. We are visible.

Demiurge
San Diego, CA

Actually, mrjj69, it is. See the "full faith and credit" clause.

Neanderthal
Phoenix, AZ

Lane Myer:
"Neanderthal, I would believe you that you know that the Feds can't stop a state from defining marriage, but we have Loving v. Virginia where the SCOTUS decided that they knew better than Virginia. No. The 14th does not apply to only state law."

The 14th says... 'nor shall any STATE deprive any person .. within its (STATE'S) jurisdiction the equal protection of the (STATE) laws.' The fed has no 'laws' re marriage so the 14th must refer to STATE law only.

And Utah's laws say all, ALL can marry provided they meet certain requirements (and I think you know the requirements). That seems like equal protection under the law to me.

"Please explain to me what the difference(on the Loving case)..."

You need to direct that question to SCOTUS. It made the ruling.

Also, you need to explain, if SSM is OK'd, why not all other relationship combinations who share love such as polygamists, father/daughter, mother/son, sister/brother, close relatives, groups of friends, people already married, teens, sub-teens, ponies, roses, etc. (well, you can forget the ponies and roses for now).

Brown
Honeyvale, CA

@Demiurge

No, you are wrong. The pro-gay propagandizers seek out headlines, make their pro-gay comments and tell their friends to go on-line and like each others posts...the rest of us have to go to work during the day to support our families. :) (I know this for a fact!)

Brown
Honeyvale, CA

@Utefan60 posted:
--"There are so many children raised by people that don't conform to the Man/Woman perfect marriage!"

Why don't you go and talk to those children (even those who have grown up) and ask them if they wished their family was one with both a Mother and a Father? What would those children say? Just because there are things that occur in society doesn't mean they are in the best interest of children or that children would choose that lifestyle if they were given the choice.

Your argument doesn't work and, like gay marriage, doesn't think about the desires and choices children would make if given the choice. It seems the only "rights and choices" you all are concerned about are your own selfish desires.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Brown: "Why don't you go and talk to those children (even those who have grown up) and ask them if they wished their family was one with both a Mother and a Father?"

My Dad was a draftsman by trade and a mechanic and carpenter by hobby. He loved to fix things and rarely owned a machine he didn't have ideas on improving. I hated every second I was forced to spend in the garage helping him, hated the expectation that I not only had to learn to do that stuff but had to like doing it.

I wasn't supposed to really like cooking and writing, wasn't supposed to enjoy playing with certain toys or reading certain books. I especially wasn't supposed to prefer playing with the girls in the neighborhood instead of the boys.

I love my dad and I do appreciate that he taught me how to do certain things, but I didn't need the years of misery trying to conform to standards that did not ever fit me. I wish I had known some gay adults as I grew up, so I could have seen choices earlier.

Equal Rights Straight
Riverton, UT

I have read through the comments regarding same sex marriage and I am appalled by the bible thumpers who use religion to interfere in other person's lives. Your gay marriage will have no effect on my marriage or anyone else's. With the divorce rate in Utah, I wonder how many writers have left a family to start over again with another mate. If the time should come that any of my grandchildren or great grandchildren should announce they are gay and in love. I want them to have the same rights as the rest of us to marry and find happiness. It is an equal rights issue, and not a religious issue. What you do in your life with your religion is none of our business. Just as your meddling in others lives based on your religious beliefs, is a crime in this country. Separation of church and state was placed there just to combat people like you.

to comment

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