Comments about ‘Possible outcomes plentiful in appeal of Amendment 3 ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 4 2014 8:04 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
higv
Dietrich, ID

Are Judges lawmakers. If that is the case we can throw away democracy, elected representatives and the constitution as the judges find things in the Constitution that are not in there to overturn the will of the people in the name of so called Equal rights. Real sad thing is since Satan does not support those that listen to him in the end people that engage in sin and try to make it legal will not get his support once he has them drug down.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

higv wrote:

"Real sad thing is since Satan does not support those that listen to him in the end people that engage in sin and try to make it legal will not get his support once he has them drug down.

I see a glaring problem with your comment. Concepts such as "Satan" and "sin" differ and conflict amongst various religious groups that profess a belief in them, and are therefore, unreliable.

The article discusses the complicated and varied possible outcomes of the Marriage Equality issue as they relate to the court system of the United States. Arguments that reference "Satan" and "sin" are simply not relevant in a court of law. In fact, offering them in a court setting would mark you as an un-serious person. You are completely free to hold those beliefs and make those arguments to your fellow citizens as a means of persuasion. Just be clear that they won't get you anywhere in front of a judge.

Really???
Kearns, UT

"...Satan does not support those that listen to him in the end..."

Wasn't his plan to limit--actually forbid--choice? I think we all need to take a strong look at who is listening to Satan when we try to force all people to live the same way. We know that such a plan does not leave room for growth.

It took me a long time to grow to the point of accepting who I am and knowing that God still loves me. It took years of fasting and praying to realize that I deserve to love and be loved. I finally understand that God does not want me to be alone, and he's leaving it up to me to find somebody I will love for the rest of my life--and beyond.

For too long I was listening to Satan. I believed that I wasn't worth loving. I believed I was doomed to be alone for the rest of my life. Those are the lies that he has been telling us.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@higv

Just like those SCOTUS justice who struck down Colorado Amendment 2 which discriminates gay people, judges on this case they are also just doing their jobs: follow the US constitution to determine whether Utah Amendment 3 is constitutional.

And my bet is they will strike down Amendment 3.

1 Voice
orem, UT

Defining marriage as the union of a man and a women is constitutional.
If the courts rule (as the have) that it is not in the best interests of society to redefine marriage to include polygamous marriages, then how we define marriage isn’t about rights and it is within the constitution to bar same sex marriages.

I believe it is in societies best interest to define marriage as between one man and one women. I hold this belief not because I am homophobic or hateful. My opinion stems from my beliefs in God (a constitutionally protected right) and my beliefs about why we are on earth, that traditional marriage with all its flaws is best for society.

It isn’t about ones right to redefine marriage as many try to twist the debate, it is about what is best for society. People have the right to pursue happiness and if living with a same sex partner is what makes them happy so be it. Any legal relationship concerns for these and other people who wish to live together for what every reason can easily be managed through common law relationship laws.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

States rights are the future, no matter the ruling! Even the tolerate anything crowd will be annoyed at the federal intrusion into everything in our lives, which is the natural result of not having any morals, but still wanting a civil society! Can't have it both ways!

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

The Oklahoma case is kind of a mess because of the "standing" issue. The Gay couples sued the Governor but the Circuit Court said that was the wrong person to sue. They told them to start all over and sue the County Clerk instead. Unlike Utah, in Oklahoma the County Clerk works for the judicial branch so presumably the Governor would have now power over them. To make matters worse, the State is challenging if the Clerk is the right person to sue. Its a mess.

Since both sides in the Utah case are in agreement as to the issue of standing I doubt very seriously that's going to be a problem. One outcome however, may be that the justices send the case back to Utah to have a trial on the facts of the case. In particular, the assertion of the State that excluding same-sex marriages is for the benefit of children.

This is what "full judicial review" is all about though. There will be several rulings by several different District Courts before the Supreme Court takes one up I expect.

dave4197
Redding, CA

Marriage is a religious institution and its definition is best left to people of religion. The US Constitution nor its amendments does not say or imply that marriage is a civil right, thus the court needs to except the proposed changing of the definition of marriage in order to gain equal rights. This court and others need to clear their minds and accept the facts above and decide for marriage as a man and woman union, not something else.
In California the legislature defined civil unions for those same sexers who want legal recognition for their unions. And the legislature gave equal rights under the state laws to those civil unions. Case closed, and it's a model for other governments. But the same sexers weren't satisfied until they could make over the institution of marriage into something that it isn't for their own (immoral) purposes and justifications.
We can have a government that realizes and supports equal rights under the law without changing the definition of marriage from its time honored standing and biblical beginnings into something convenient and politically correct in this day.

windsor
City, Ut

Find the picture accompanying this article interesting. And telling.

Supporters of SSM and all things LGBT scream about the immorality and illegality of crosses on highways at the site of car wreck victims--or Nativities on public squares.

But they don't see the irony of the hypocrisy of co-mingling their 'religion' with the city offices of San Francisco.

mcdugall
Murray, UT

@higv - Sir, you have it so terribly wrong. The Constitution is what grants individuals rights not restrict individual liberties. A state law cannot supersede federal law, the ruling found that state of Utah amendment three was in violation of the 14th amendment. Hence, amendment three has been overruled pending the state. The constitution is working as designed.

Ajax
Mapleton, UT

I can understand the frustration of those of same-sex attraction. Their stand on equal civil rights is obviously constitutionally firm and their full acceptance in society long overdue. Still, I see no advantage to anyone in insisting that straight and gay unions be declared identical. Billions of years of evolutionary growth unmistakably favoring bisexual unions and group welfare prove otherwise. I would think that it is to everyone’s benefit—straight and gay alike—to recognize and appreciate the uniqueness of what got us here.

I Choose Freedom
Atlanta, GA

Red Corvette said, "Only one outcome counts and that will be the one issued by the Supreme Court granting marriage equality to all."

No, that is very short sighted thinking. The only outcome that REALLY counts is what will occur at judgement day when we will all stand before Jesus Christ and give an accounting of whether or not we complied with His commandments. That is one judgement that will not be overturned.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ higv
Dietrich, ID

"Are Judges lawmakers." No, they are not. They are the branch endowed with the power to verify the constitutionality of the laws passed by the US Congress and in this case by the States. You see, Democracy may be a dangerous and misunderstood concept. The SCOTUS is precisely there to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a minority. Our Constitution Rocks!!!! don't you agree?

Across the land of our country the whisper of justice is "blowing in the wind". (Sorry, I was listening to Peter, Paul and Mary this morning)

Same Sex Marriage soon will be an option in our country. That, my brothers and sisters is a beautiful thing. My Heavenly Father is pleased!!!

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ higv

The Constitution exists to protect the minority from the "will of the people." Also, this country is not a democracy. It's a republic.

BJMoose
Syracuse, UT

To 1 Voice: I completely disagree with your points.
Defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman is not constitutional. The definition of marriage cannot trample on the rights of anyone.
I do not believe societies best interest is to define marriage between man and woman. I believe it should be defined where the maximum number of people benefit from it. My God also allows woman to hold the priesthood and blesses same sex marriages, unlike yours.
Your statement: "Any legal relationship concerns for these and other people who wish to live together for what every reason can easily be managed through common law relationship laws." Just read the second part of Amendment 3 (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect. It specifically prohibits any other way of accomplishing the rights gained in marriage including your so called common law relationship laws.

(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Look at what the choice is. The Federal Government cannot rule on marriage - according to the Supreme Court. The STATES have the right to determine what form of marriage is acceptable within that State - according to the Supreme Court. Judge Shelby disagreed with the Supreme Court. He used the minority opinion as the basis for his ruling; therefore, according to same sex advocates, the Supreme Court is wrong and Judge Shelby is right.

God defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. God declared that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. Judge Shelby disagreed with God. Judge Shelby declared that he, not God will define marriage.

The people of Utah voted and decided that marriage in Utah would be defined as a union between a man and a woman. That became part of the Utah State Constitution. The Supreme Court approved a State's right to decide. Judge Shelby legislated from the bench, which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Again, Judge Shelby decided that he was right, that the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution are wrong.

It is a strange case.

BJMoose
Syracuse, UT

To Really??? I found your comment very moving and thought provoking. I am glad that you have found your true self and now know what you are seeking and what is intended for you. May you find that special someone and have a lifetime and beyond of happiness.

rhappahannock
Washington, DC

The state legislature needed to make a law that if the amendment is found by a court of law to be unconstitutional, all marriages based on "love" should be considered legal. Those "loving" marriages should include polygamy, marriages between close relatives, and marriages between adults and their animal or physical possessions. After all, who are gays to say that people with these "loving" desires should be denied their right to marry what they "love?"

This law would also force the judges to consider the slippery slope argument up front. It would force those who want to avoid the implications of marriage based on "love" to deal with the logical reality - if there is a right to marry based on "love" it extends to all people, no matter their inclination.

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

This is strange. No one who wrote or voted on the Constitution thought it extended to redefining marriage to gay. No one who wrote or voted on the equal protection clause thought it extended to redefining marriage to gay. No one who wrote or voted on Loving v Virginia thought it extended redefining marriage to gay. Yet, Utah has to spend millions protecting its Constitutional right because a few rogue/shopped Judges one day decided that all those documents extend the redefining of marriage to gay.
I miss our democracy, and please don't tell me we are not a democratic government because you are wrong.

Back Talk
Federal Way, WA

The CA Prop 8 is still the best scenario to be litigated. THere, the government provided a means for gays and lesbians to record their relationships. They recieved all benefits of marriage so no benefits were lost to those groups.

The term Civil Union was also a resonable term to describe these relationships which are certainly different than what marriage has represented throughout history. From a simple matter of proper communication and understanding using the terms "Civil Unions" and "partner" are better representations of what these relationship really represent. Wives having wives just doesnt make sense.

to comment

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