Quantcast

Comments about ‘Conservative states emerge as battleground on same-sex marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, May 14 2014 11:55 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

The left-wing will stop at nothing in its efforts to silence those who support traditional marriage. This includes stripping opponents of employment, community safety, and even the pursuit of happiness.

The left would rather see parents put out of work and have their children go hungry than to allow dissenting voices to be heard. In the vision of the left, only one viewpoint has the right to be expressed.

This Idaho case is simply one more step in this leftist agenda. I issue my strongest possible condemnation of those leftists who are seeking to destroy traditional marriage.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@John Charity Spring;

You're welcome to support "traditional" marriage all you want (I do too). You simply can't deny marriage equality. It's not your place to deny someone else the benefits you enjoy simply because you find it icky or it is against "your" religious beliefs. Nobody but you is obligated to adhere to your personal religious beliefs.

I personally condemn, in the strongest terms, those who would violate the civil rights of others and deny marriage equality.

Avenue
Vernal, UT

@RanchHand
Nothing in the constitution gives "civil rights" to anyone. The founding fathers knew that when they wrote the constitution. Only God can give anyone rights. Marriage is a God given right. Same-sex marriage is considered an abomination by Him, and is not a right.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Apparently at least one federal felt it was important to answer the concerns of conservative citizens in non-legal terms. Here are some excerpts from Kentucky District Judge John Heyburn's opinion in Bourke v Beshear:

"Many Kentuckians believe in “traditional marriage.” Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted Between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused even angry when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer."

Concerning religious liberty:

"The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom from it."

Overruling a popular law:

"The Constitution, including its equal protection and due process clauses, protects all of us from government action at any level, whether in the form of an act by a high official, a state employee, a legislature, or a vote of the people adopting a constitutional amendment.

SoloBoshek
Washington, UT

@RanchHand

"It's not your place to deny someone else the benefits you enjoy...."

Please, could you tell me what benefits you speak of? I can think of 2 major benefits that come from a marriage. Taxes and power of attorney equivalent.

1) Taxes. Why should a same-sex couple get the same tax breaks as married man and a women? Do people even understand the reason for the government to issue these tax breaks and financial reliefs to married couples? Its because it is an investment. These breaks don't usually kick in until the couple have children. So why should a gay couple get this tax break when they can't ADD to the system? Children are the future, so the government invests in future tax payers. Gay people can't do it. Period. (Adoption is another discussion, but not relevant to this.)

SoloBoshek
Washington, UT

2) Power of attorney equivalent. I've heard countless times about gay people complaining because if their partner is in the hospital, they can't act on their behalf, or go in to see them like a "spouse" could. Have you ever heard of Power of Attorney? Any gay couple can get the same "Authority" over each other as a married couple. Just go through the court system, and bam. You can take over their assets when they can't do it themselves.

My wife brought to my attention the other, non-state related, benefits of marriage. Stuff that doesn't need some stupid certificate to create. You can have your love and kinship without some state sanctioned certificate. There are plenty of "common law" couples out there who get along without it just fine.

SoloBoshek
Washington, UT

And one last thing. This is a constitutional republic. This country was founded to act in the interest of the majority. So if the majority of a state DON'T WANT TO RECOGNIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, they don't have too. Move to a state that does. That is the very magic and beauty of our nation. You can live wherever you want, and live by the laws of the majority in that state.

P.S. The federal government has NO authority to dictate the desires of the people in a state. Go read the constitution and you'll see what they CAN do. If its not in the constitution, its unlawful. So that federal Judge can cry injustice all she/he wants. There is no authority in the federal system that supersedes the desires of the residents and local legislatures of said state.

GingerAle
North East, OH

@SoloBoshek

"Please, could you tell me what benefits you speak of? I can think of 2 major benefits that come from a marriage. Taxes and power of attorney equivalent."

If marriage is of so little consequence, why are you so adamant that gays not be part of it?

Yes, children are the future. My wife and I have two. Adopted. It is not, as you say, another discussion. Keeping us from marriage means our family and our children have second class status. You harm them to limit access to something you are also claiming is of little importance.

This is why marriage equality will prevail.

Your side says marriage is special and sacred and a foundation of society and that it is nothing special and gays can get the same thing with some legal paperwork.

You say marriage is essential to healthy families and kids, then deny that benefit to the children of gay couples.

So in case after case liberal and conservative judges are ruling for rational equality.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Conservative states, Utah among them, are leading the charge for marriage equality. Way to go, living out the promise of small, limited government, individual freedom and support for all kinds of families. We should all be so lucky as to live in such states. We welcome Idaho as a state helping to overcome the prejudices of the past.

KellyWSmith
Sparks, NV

@SoloBoshek "This country was founded to act in the interest of the majority. So if the majority of a state DON'T WANT TO RECOGNIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, they don't have too. Move to a state that does. "

The fact of the matter is that the people of several states DID vote to not recognize "same sex marriage" but a single judge (in some cases) has "over ruled" their vote and those who were not part of the majority vote have forced their way on that same majority against their will and vote.

Is that "rational equality"?

It is not.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

If the "conservative" states truly believed in conservative political principles, they wouldn't be overreaching with government power, which is exactly what endorsing a religious position regarding marriage is. Actual political conservatives believe government should be closely limited and avoid intruding into people's lives wherever not absolutely necessary.

Liberal governance is based on the idea that government should be strong and use its power in ways to improve people's lives. Things like regulating the food supply, providing health care, tinkering with the economy through monetary policy, protecting jobs with import duties, or setting safety and education standards.

I would argue with you that enforcing prohibitions that are clearly religious, while it may be discussed as "socially conservative" or "traditionalist," is actually politically liberal, the intrusion by a strong government into private lives, and unfortunately, an intrusion into my denomination's practice of religion.

In our secular but majority Christian nation, there are many widely divergent denominations. Mine believes it's up to our Christ-guided Meetings and not Government to discern which couples are marriage eligible. Ours believes gay couples share in Christ's love, and should be married, equally.

SAS
Sandy, UT

@SoloBoshek:

"So if the majority of a state DON'T WANT TO RECOGNIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, they don't have too. Move to a state that does."

Seems to me that this argument was also used to prop up the Jim Crow South. The federal government stepped in, and ruled that states couldn't segregate their schools and public buildings, or ban interracial marriage, regardless of what their majorities voted for.

"The federal government has NO authority to dictate the desires of the people in a state. Go read the constitution and you'll see what they CAN do."

When I read the constitution, I come across an interesting clause in Article 6:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Care to explain it?

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

This case is over and equality won so friends lets now get on with our lives and be happy for our gay and lesbian church members and not allow anyone to denigrate them. Here in California approx.100000 couples got married ,nothing had changed besides more happiness in the lgbt community and elsewhere. Soon homophobia will be a thing of the past just like most racism has disappeared.

donquixote84721
Cedar City, UT

For their to be Marriage Equality, Males and Females would have to be Equal, which implies that they are interchangeable, and they never will be. Supporters of traditional marriage need to be as outspoken as the other side. I would support a Domestic Partnership that would give same sex people many of the legal rights of Marriage, but Marriage is between a Male and a Female, and nothing man can do or say will ever change that.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

For all those who happily jump on the SSM rights band wagon saying "well it is not for me but I can't deny someone else that right"; you need to read article The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987.

Indifference on this subject is not acceptable. As soon as SSM becomes the law of the land there will be expanded efforts to indoctrinate our school children as is already happening in California and a few other states. We will be pressured to not just tolerate it or to accept it but to embrace it.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

"But Rosky calls the states' rights argument "window dressing" on the real argument. The only argument is whether the law, regardless if passed by voters or the Legislature, violates the 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection and due process..."

Utah's marriage law allows all people the same privilege; All men may marry any woman that will have him. All women have the right to marry any man that will have her. Nobody can have more than one spouse at a time.

If the law stated that Gay men could not marry, they would have a point. Gay men can marry any woman that will have him just like any other man. The law does not say that.

BTW Discrimination is not unconstitutional. As a matter of fact it is impossible not to discriminate. Every decision you make that involves money discriminates against everyone you did not give the money to.

As long as people have a right to make their own decisions they have a right to discriminate.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

A SS relationship simply does not fit the definition of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. A husband is a man married to a woman, a wife is a woman married to a man. No man can be a wife and no woman can be a husband. No two men or no two women in a relationship can be husband and wife and cannot provide a mother AND a father to children. The States do have vested interests in having successful families, the ideal family being a husband and wife marriage and thus the only relationship that should be sanctioned as marriage by the state. States should defend their marriage laws and promote that which encourages the ideal. Other relationships may be entered into by persons as they see fit but they are not marriage despite what congress enacts, judges rule, or the populace may vote.

micawber
Centerville, UT

@Avenue:

If Nothing in the constitution gives "civil rights" to anyone, what stops the majority in a state from instituting a ban on guns?

@SoloBoshek: To me, the magic and beauty of our country isn't that it acts in the interest of the majority. There are many magical and beautiful things about our country. One is the system of checks and balances which, albeit imperfectly, accommodates the interests of the majority and the rights of the minority at the same time. I mean no disrespect to you, but it seems contrary to the spirit of the Constitution to essentially say to minorities, "If you don't like it in our state, go someplace else."

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Avenue;

Since god doesn't exist, and only he grants rights, nobody has any rights whatsoever since there is no god to grant them to us.

@SoloBoshek;

1100 legal benefits. You can do your own research.

1) Why shouldn't they? Equal protection, right? The 14th Amendment for instance?
You're living in the 12th century if you think that LGBT couples can't have children; we can have children using the exact same methods infertile heterosexual couples use.

2) Why should an LGBT couple have to pay thousands of dollars for the EXACT SAME THING that a heterosexual couple gets for a $50.00 marriage license?

Finally, the Bill of Rights was created to prevent the "majority" from oppressing the minority. BTW, the 10th Amendment PREVENTS states from violating the constitutional rights of citizens.

rhappahannock
Washington, DC

Conservative state legislatures need to be more pro-active. They need to pass laws that if their marriage laws are jusdged unconstitutional one of two things happen: 1. The state will no longer issue marriage licenses, or 2. open marriage to all arrangements, including pets and inanimate objects. Such laws would force judges to consider whether marriage should be defined on scientific and moral grounds, or whether it should fall under the whims of "feelings."

to comment

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