Quantcast

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
1 Voice
orem, UT

@ BJMoose

The fact that we disagree is why this is in the courts. Unfortunately, a few liberal judges in lower courts misunderstand the ramifications of their misinterpretation of the constitution. The constitution does not give individuals the right to define marriage as they wish. It is not about equal rights. If it were then states could not restrict marriage in any way as it would be considered discrimination.

If polygamy and bigamy can be excluded from the definition of what constitutes a legal marriage then so can marriages between individuals of the same sex. If not then anything goes.

The constitutions does not guarantee the right to marry whomever you want. Supporting traditional marriage does not, as you say, trample the rights of individuals who wish to live in SS relations or polygamous relationships. They still have the right to pursue happiness as they see fit.

Again, I believe traditional marriage with all its flaws is in the best of society. This is why I support the traditional definition of marriage.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ LovelyDeseret

"I miss our democracy, and please don't tell me we are not a democratic government because you are wrong."

Nope. This country never has been, nor will it ever be, a democracy. We are a republic. Listen to the Pledge of Allegiance once in a while. "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands,....."

Equal protection applies to everybody. Nobody gets to pick and choose who gets rights.

LiberalJimmy
Salt Lake City, UT

Really? Arguing Satan, God, and The Bible in a courtroom. Good luck with that legal strategy. Posts mentioning this only confirm how many in Utah are in for a serious reality check once Judge Shelby's ruling is upheld.

Cole Thomas
Salt Lake City, UT

Uhhh, hey guys. Satan isn't real. You know that, right?

Ranch
Here, UT

@higv;

The Constitution guarantees equal protection to ALL American citizens. You should read it sometime. 'God' and 'Satan' are irrelevant.

@1 Voice;

Article IV Section II:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

@dave4197;

Many religions believe in marriage for LGBT. What about their religious views? Don't they matter to you?

@Ajax;

Equal means equal.

@I Choose Freedom;

Don't count your chickens before they hatch; Jesus said "treat others as you want to be treated", he didn't say "discriminate against others".

@Mike Richards;

Once again, go re-read amendment 10. It PROHIBITS violation of the rest of the Constitution by the states.

@LovelyDeseret;

Guess what, dear. LGBT people ARE Americans too AND covered by the Constititution.

@Back Talk;

Separate is not equal, besides Amendment 3 precludes Civil Unions.

@1Voice;

Polygamists and bigamists are already married to one person. That is what we are seeking.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@MikeRichards 6:28 p.m. May 4, 2014

What you apparently don't understand is the fact that, while the states can control the decision-making where marriage is concerned, the states' decisions cannot infringe on the protections found in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Judge Shelby correctly found that Amendment 3 to the Utah Constutition violated the Plaintiffs' 14th Amendment rights.

Shelby's decision quoted a dissenting opinion solely as dicta, and it did not serve as controlling authority for his decision. Shelby's decision was soundly based on controlling authority from a multitude of Supreme Court cases going back to the 1880s. Shelby agreed with the established and authoritative cases from the US Supreme Court.

Free to preach and argue God's law as much as you want -- it is your 1st Amendment right to do so -- but recognize that "God's law" is not controlling authority in the secular country that is the USA. Shelby's job was to consider and interpret secular law, not God's law, since the USA is not a theocracy. Shelby did not "legislate from the bench" nor did he act contrary to the US Constitution or the Supreme Court.

hockeymom
Highland, UT

@Really??? "Men are that they might have joy". You do deserve to love and be loved. We all do, but within the bounds the Lord has set. I sincerely hope you can find true happiness. You may one day realize it will only come from following the commandments of God. If you choose to live in this life contrary to His commandments, you will be disappointed to find there won't BE any happiness "beyond".

@Baccus0902 & BJ Moose: I don't know who your "heavenly father" or "god" is, but I know mine is most certainly NOT pleased. If the definition of marriage can be changed, I suppose the definition of God and His commandments will be next. Good luck with that.

@I Choose Freedom: I agree. I have had SSM supporters vehemently state; "YOU will be on the wrong side of history". I may be. But I choose to worry less about history and more about Eternity. America has been great because she has been good. When she ceases to be good, she will no longer be Great.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Of all the possible outcomes, I hope freedom rings. First amendment rights and freedoms are so important.

Taking away freedom of speech and freedom of religion will only make the divide worse, not better.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

So many claim that the 14th Amendment guarantees them the right to marry someone of the same sex. That is completely false.

Nothing in the Constitution gives "rights" to anyone. All "rights" come from our Creator (God), as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Any male can marry any female who will have him.

Homosexuals have told us that there is no gene that "makes" them homosexual. They have told us that there is no physical evidence that distinguishes them as homosexual. They have told us that there is nothing that medical science can use to prove that someone is homosexual. So, their only "evidence" is that they "feel" differently towards others than those who are not homosexual.

Nothing in the 14th Amendment gives anyone the "right" to claim discrimination because of their "feeling".

ElmoBaggins
Escalante, UT

Why can't Utah devote it's energy to helping families rather than limiting the definition of these families?Gary Herbert turning down Medicare funds that would insure a lot of people who can't afford it is a good example of how they don't!

mcdugall
Murray, UT

@Badgerbadger I sincerely hope that you do not define freedom as the ability to take away the rights of a marginalized group. Your same arguments were used to try and maintain slavery, prevent interracial marriage. and other atrocities. Also, not all religions/faiths are against SSM.

Sank You, Doctor
Salt Lake City, UT

Mike: "Is homosexuality learned, or is it the product of certain childrearing practices, or are homosexuals "born that way"? Evidence points to the latter conclusion.
   
  First, there is the evidence cited earlier that children who become homosexual are different from an early age.
   
   Second, there is the ease with which homosexual behavior can be produced in non-human animals by manipulating sex hormones.
   
   Third, there is the discovery that male homosexuals have brain areas and biological responses to sexual stimuli that resemble those of heterosexual females more than those of heterosexual males.
   
   Fourth, there is evidence from a variety of sources pointing to genetic influences on homosexuality.

  to be continued...

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Continued...
   
  " What are some findings regarding genetic influences on homosexuality?
   
   One group of researchers studied identical twins and found that, of 56 sets of identical twins in which one member was gay, the other twin was also gay in 52 percent of the cases. That means that nearly half the identical twins of gay men were not gay, so it suggests a strong but not determinative genetic component (Adler, 1992) In Thomas Bouchard's study of identical twins separated at birth, there were three pairs of male identical twins in which at least one was homosexual. In two out of three cases, the other twin was homosexual also, despite being raised in a different household and never seeing his twin brother during childhood.""
   
   
   Psychology: An Introduction
   by Russell A. Dewey, PhD

SlopJ30
St Louis, MO

"Again, I believe traditional marriage with all its flaws is in the best of society. This is why I support the traditional definition of marriage."

Good for you. I fully support your right to define your marriage this way. Define away, till you turn blue. I have one of those trusty "tradtional marriages" myself, and it works pretty well most of the time.

I'll never support the idea that "supporting traditional marriage" has to also mean "forbidding gay marriages." Valuing one thing does not automatically mean you have to actively prohibit the other. The word games we play are just that; games. When someone says "I support traditional marriage," it's just a softer way to say "Gay people ain't getting married while I have anything to say about it!"

Just drop the disingenuous use of buzzwords and say what you mean. Repeat after me: "All this gayness is icky and I don't like it. Even though it's been happening for ages, if they can't get married, I can kinda sorta ignore it. Something something Satan and states' rights."

See? Much more honest.

illuminated
St George, UT

Wow. The willful ignorance by the SSM supporters on this topic is pretty staggering (Ranch, I'm looking at you).

#1. Equal Protection does not take precedence over States Rights under the 10th Amendment. If it did, Utah could be forced to legalize pot because Colorado is doing it, and a thousand other State-specific laws. Nice try.

#2. "Separate is not equal" is false. We have separate bathrooms for men and women, separate schools for young and old, and the handicapped. Separate universities for the more ambitious and the less so. Separate does not mean not equal. Different people have different needs, true equality will never exist because we are human beings and we are all unique.

#3 It is most certainly NOT the responsibility of judges to ensure minorities are protected from the majority. Their responsibility is to uphold the Constitution, period. The Constitution does not allow for States Rights to be undermined for any group, minority OR majority.

illuminated
St George, UT

The SC ruled today that prayer, even Christian prayer, is allowed to be held in town council meetings. This is all the evidence you need to understand that individual States and communities can have differing laws, based upon the MAJORITY of its citizens desires.

This can be applied to prayer in school and marriage laws in individual States. Under the Constitution, State majorities have the right to define laws for its own people. Equal Protection does not undermine this one bit.

If the courts are consistent with today's ruling, they will side with the Constitution and the 10th Amendment in allowing Utah to continue its own definition of marriage.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

1 Voice said:

"My opinion stems from my beliefs in God"

And why should your belief in god trump the civil rights of others?

"It isn't about ones right to redefine marriage as many try to twist the debate, it is about what is best for society."

41% of 1st marriages end in divorce (60% for second marriages); number of people choosing to marry is at an all time low; and, 40.7% of all births to single mothers. Looks like "between one man and one woman" is doing a bang-up job.

"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."

We already have the legal mechanism in place to meet these needs. It's called state licensed marriage.

dave4197 said: "Marriage is a religious institution and its definition is best left to people of religion"

Marriage is a civil function of the state. Churches are granted permission to represent the state in performing marriages; not the other way around.

bj-hp
Maryville, MO

Many of those who wish to legalize same-sex marriage need to listen to an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and what he had to say last night. As he stated and what was stated a few months ago. Courts may legalize same-sex marriage but they can't change the moral law. The Law of Chasity states that sexual relations is only authorized between those that are legally married in the definition the Lord has given to the WORLD through the Family Proclamation. As I stated the world so that applies to everyone that lives on earth, has lived on earth or will live on Earth. Failure to do so will bring the magnitude of punishment from our Heavenly Father as seen in the Book of Mormon and the Flood. If you are willing to give into the deceivings of Satan and become part of his cohorts then that is your choice. It is your choice to act upon your attractions and that was made perfectly clear by Elder Ballard. Whether you recognize him or not is not the question. The fact is the he is an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...States rights are the future...".

Back...to the future...

Slavery and anti-miscegenation laws will be the future?

Ranch
Here, UT

@illuminated;

1) You are incorrect. The states are PROHIBITED from violating the US Constitutional rights of citizens (go re-read 10th the amendment).

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor PROHIBITED by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (i.e. states are prohibited from violating the other sections of the US Constitution).

2) Your bathroom analogy is ridiculous - in your home, the males/females share a bathroom right?

3) It is absolutely the role of judges to rule on the constitutionality of laws - especially when they disenfranchise a minority.

@bj-hp;

You only have the word of your "apostle of the Lord" that he really is one. I don't believe he is so whatever he has to say is, imo, not the truth.

to comment

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