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
equal protection
Cedar, UT

@bj-hp, you must have and old copy of the Proclamation. The new update can be found here:

2014 Proclamation from the National Cathedral

"LGBT men and young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less." Rev Jerry hall

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Dear Editors: If somebody wrote “The pope is the only true earthly representative of Jesus Christ”, it would be flagged as disruptive. As it should be, no matter how fervently the writer believes it. Please, then, tell me why you allow comments such as “Whether you recognize him or not is not the question. The fact is the he is an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ” . This discussion is not, and shouldn’t be of whose religion is the “true” one, let alone making announcements about hell as a destination for anybody who doesn’t follow your religion.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

Ranch:

The bathrooms in my home and the ones in pucblic are very different. "Separate but equal" exists throughout our society and is perfectly fair and logical. In CA, same-sex couples had every right they could ask for, but still went to court to use the word "marriage". There was nothing to gain but to damage and destroy the institution of marriage. But then, that is the plan for the LGBT....

Ranch
Here, UT

@RedWings;

Sorry but you didn't do your homework. Civil unions in CA did NOT provide all the legal protections and benefits of marriage, only the local ones.

The only ones who can "destroy the institution of marriage" are those who are married and are not doing a very good job at it.

1 Voice
orem, UT

@ Ranch
Your arguments make the case against SSM very well. It is fair that everyone has the same rights under the constitution to marry one person of the opposite sex. Everyone is treated the same and that would be fair.

Polygamous marriage is banned by law and you seem to be OK with restricting marriage in that way. Logically you should then be OK with restricting marriages between people of the same sex.

Marriage is not a constitutional right only that we treat people equal under the law. Supporting traditional marriage, even with all its flaws, is what is best for society and should be law. Everyone is then treated equal under the law which allows marriage only between two adults of the opposite sex. As you say, that would be fair.

RedShirtUofU
Andoria, UT

To "Really???" that is a nice emotional response, but lets look at the grand plan. God loves everybody. From Hitler to Mother Teresa, they are all loved by God. I know that there are people who's heads are going to explode thinking about that, but it is true. God loves all his children.

The question is do you love God enough to do the things that he has asked? I don't question God's love for all his children, even the murderous ones. I do question the love that God's children have for God when they rebel against His commandments.

To the Gay Marriage supporters. Why do you insist on declaring gay marriage the same as hetersexual marriage? They are not the same. Before you respond, lets do an experiment. If you take 100 heterosexual couples and put them on an island and give them the things needed for survival and wait 150 years. Now do the same with 100 gay couples. If the couples are 100% faithful, which island will have people on it after 150 years?

If you want to think about the children, explain how a gay household can provide their children with a mother and father.

LiberalJimmy
Salt Lake City, UT

@Laura Bilington...Mam, my I say what an excellent post your wrote to The D.N. Editors referencing the religious card. Now. Try living in Salt Lake City!

Candied Ginger
Brooklyn, OH

Hi, dave4197

"Marriage is a religious institution and its definition is best left to people of religion."

Ok, the religions can have marriage. But that means marriage has no civil and legal meaning. None.

Your wife wants your last name after your religious marriage? Get lawyer and file.

You want mutual power of attorney for medical care? Get a lawyer.

You want to file taxes as a couple... sorry, "marriage" a religious rite and not recognized by the IRS.

You want to inherit without tax penalty? Sorry, you are married and that does not help with taxes.

And your kids? Your church may see them as yours, but the law says they are illegitimate because marriage is only a religious thing.

Breaking up? Fight over the property as you see fit... your marriage is a religious thing, there are no legal protections.

Sounds like a plan to me. The church can define marriage any way it wants and the state has no involvement at all.

Oh. By the way. I am a Unitarian. My church, along with about 70 others, recognize and affirm same-sex marriage.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@1 Voice

"It is fair that everyone has the same rights under the constitution to marry one person of the opposite sex. Everyone is treated the same and that would be fair."

How about we really level the playing field? Here's my suggestion: you (if you are married) divorce your current spouse. Next, find someone of the opposite sex who you really have no desire to spend the rest of your life with and marry them. Don't like that idea? Tough, it is EXACTLY what you are suggesting as the equitable solution for the LGBT community and I think it should apply equally to you as well.

Ajax
Mapleton, UT

@ Ranch

You are mistaken in your claim of unconditional equal rights for all. Surely you are aware that equal rights are qualified under law. Violate the conditions of your rights to drive, own property, etc. and see what happens.

And laws vary according to circumstances. By law the rights of children differ from those of adults; the rights and obligations of divorced parents vary according to their circumstances, and on and on. So while there are similarities in heterosexual and homosexual unions, by no stretch of the imagination are their circumstances and conditions identical. To pretend otherwise is short-sighted and limiting to both.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"To the Gay Marriage supporters. Why do you insist on declaring gay marriage the same as hetersexual marriage? They are not the same. Before you respond, lets do an experiment. If you take 100 heterosexual couples and put them on an island and give them the things needed for survival and wait 150 years. Now do the same with 100 gay couples. If the couples are 100% faithful, which island will have people on it ?"

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

Both. There are other ways of having children besides being unfaithful. Thank science and ingenuity.

______________

Now take older, infertile heterosexual couples and put them on an island. Would they have people on it in 150 years? Why do we allow older, infertile couples to marry? With your logic, we shouldn't.

Give gays the same marriage that you give older, infertile couples. Keep your other marriage for those who are going to have children.

What? There is only one kind of marriage? Let's pass a law to keep gays from marrying since they are not worthy of that privilege in our beliefs...they are sinners and will bring the distruction of our civilation (and just forget that we are treating them differently than other simularily situated citizens!)

mrjj69
bountiful, UT

too bad the ballot that was passed by the people means nothing, when 3 people override it.

Candied Ginger
Brooklyn, OH

Hi, RedShirtUofU

About your experiment.

My wife and I adopted two kids, but before that we looked into artificial insemination. We know several lesbian couples who have children through this means. No cheating, a medical procedure. We also know of two gay male couples who have children through a surrogate, via artificial insemination from one of the fathers.

But what is your point? If you put 100 infertile hetero couples on an island they wont be able to have children without medical help. Or a hundred couples where the woman is post-menopause.

But your experiment is flawed from the start, because the parameters are meaningless. We are raising two kids who were stuck in the system because they are special needs. Several couples we know have adopted special needs kids.

Gays and lesbians who don't have children also help with the children of relatives and friends - one of my best friends says she will never, ever have children but she is my most trusted baby sitter. Oh, and she is straight and intends to never marry.

About your island? To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm, "Life finds a way."

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Ajax: Read all about "simularly situated" and how it applies to equal protection of the law. Is there any heterosexuals who are allowed to marry who are simularly situated as gay couples? Hint: infertile couples and older post-menopausal couples.

Why are they allowed to marry and not gays?

Why are murderers allowed to marry? How about child molesters? Again, allowed to marry and have children!

Yet you want to fight against two loving, same-sex partners committing their lives to each other?

Why are you wasting your time on such a small portion of the populations? Why not work to better society by teaching marriage to the children of the US? Teach them how to abstain until marriage or use safe sex. Over 40% of children today are born to unwed mothers. That is where the problem lies! Not in the small 1.25% of the population that might want a same sex marriage.

Why the obsession with keeping them from the same rights and privileges that others who are simularly situated enjoy? That is why "equality under the law" or the 14th amendment will rule in this case. Not beliefs or tradition - but our constitution.

1 Voice
orem, UT

@ my_two_cents_worth

You missed the point. Read Ranch's post regarding why he thinks its OK to restrict polygamous marriage but not SSM.

If this issue were truly about a constitutional right to marry then states could not restrict marriage in anyway as that would be discriminatory in some way to some group who wants to define marriage according to what would benefit them.

We define and restrict marriage as traditional marriage, with all its flaws, because that is what is best for society. We do not based marriage on how individuals wish it to be defined. Those in SS relationship are still free exercise their constitutional right to pursue happiness as they choose. They are treated equally under the law.

RedShirtUofU
Andoria, UT

To "Lane Myer" so then you agree that gay marriage is not the same as hetersexual marriage based on the simple fact that the gays require scientific means to reproduce and hetersexual couples don't.

If the gays want something similar to marriage, let them have it, but don't say that it is equal to marriage between a man and a woman because (as you helped point out) they are not the same. If they gays want to be unionized or joined or partnered, or whatver they want, let them, as long as they don't call it marriage. Had they gone that route they would most likely have laws in every state that would grant legal recognition of their unions that mirrors marriage for hetersexual couples.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ RedShirtUofU

Being able to have children has never been a requirement for marriage. Infertile couples, elderly couples, and heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children get married all the time. Conversely, there are thousands of same-sex couples who have, and are raising children. Also, single people can adopt in this state, leaving children without a mother and a father. Why aren't you upset about that? Are you equally appalled by divorce as you are by SSM?

Candied Ginger
Brooklyn, OH

mrjj69

"too bad the ballot that was passed by the people means nothing, when 3 people override it."

I think George Wallace said almost exactly the same thing when he was standing in the school house door.

RedShirtUofU

"Had they gone that route they would most likely have laws in every state that would grant legal recognition of their unions that mirrors marriage for hetersexual couples."

Not in Utah. Amendment 3 specifically said gays and lesbians could not have any recognition of their relationships at all in any way.

In fact, most of the amendments had language like that.

So instead of agreeing to something separate but possibly equal, you voted to deny us any possibility of any rights at all.

Sorry, that ship sailed and it was not by our choice. In Utah it was 66% of the voters who made the decision that lead directly to where we are today.

RedShirtUofU
Andoria, UT

To "Two For Flinching" I never said that being able to have children was a requirement for marriage. I am saying that the fact that in general heterosexual couples can have children makes their marriage different than the union of 2 gays.

I don't think that single people should adopt, that isn't good for children either. Yes, I think the divorce rate is much to high and the no-fault divorces should be done away with. Just because I don't list out all marriage related issues that bother me does not mean that I don't care. What about abuse within marriage, are you ok with that or should we spend more time combating abusive relationships?

To "Candied Ginger" what do you think would be easier for people to accept. Gays telling them that marriage is whatever the gays decide it will be, or the gays asking to have their unions granted the same rights as marriage without calling it marriage?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

I claimed that homosexuals had no gene that caused them to be homosexual. Several posters stated that "studies" showed that homosexuals were different. Okay. What GENE can be found in homosexuals that defines them as homosexual? What chromosome exists in homosexuals that does not exist in heterosexuals? What physical evidence could be used in court under oath to prove that a male is really a female in a male body?

Without physical evidence to the contrary, there is no discrimination. "Feelings" are not a legal basis for discrimination. If feelings were allowed as an excuse, no bank robber could ever be convicted. All he would need to say us that he "felt" the need to be rich. Under the "equality" clause of the 14th Amendment, he would prevail.

to comment

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