Quantcast

Comments about ‘9th Circuit Court issues stay in Idaho gay marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 15 2014 11:45 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

The good news for Monte Stewart is that the Supreme Court has made it clear that it will decide the fate of state laws banning same sex marriage. Unfortunately, it has also made clear they will strike them down just as they struck down DOMA. Just ask Justice Scalia.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

There would not be "chaos" in Utah if the State had not decided not to recognize legal contracts.

slcdenizen
Murray, UT

Chaos? LOL, so dramatic.

Aggie238
Logan, UT

When are people in states like Utah and Idaho going to learn that the best way to handle this issue is to get their governments out of marriage altogether, rather than spending a fortune on a losing legal battle? Civil unions for everyone of legal age, marriage for those who wish to do so under the auspices of their chosen church, spiritual authority, or dot com pastor.

Marriage is inherently an intensely personal and private contract between two individuals, or at most two families, and ought not merit any concern or regulation from the state. Nobody should have to seek permission from their government to be married.

I am actively opposed to gay marriage on a personal level, but every person in this country is guaranteed the freedom of association by the United States Constitution, and that freedom of association absolutely must include marriage. That supreme law of the land does not permit any local, state, or federal government, no matter how many people support it, to deny that right to anyone on any basis.

The only solution that has a snowball's chance in h*** to satisfy both parties is for government to exit the marriage equation altogether.

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

What about the chaos in Massachusetts? Marriage rates in Massachusetts are the lowest in the country. Bottom line is nobody there cherishes marriage anymore. We are slowly dipping into a marriageless society. That chaos is unfathomable.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Just ask SSM couples who were married during that brief period if chaos does not prevail in Utah - they'll give you the straight scoop.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

A SS relationship 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. States have a vested interest in successful families, the optimal family opportunity being a husband wife/mother father marriage and therefore endorse and promote that which encourages the ideal. Other relationships may be formed by persons as they see fit and the same legal rights may be extended but SS unions are not marriage despite what judges may rule.

SSM advocates label any differing opinion as bigotry, homophobic and having vile animus. Professed rights to a SSM are newly claimed in contradiction to long held laws, and definitions. No one has been trying to take away any rights. SSM advocates are inventing new rights while shouting down, discrediting, and even threatening any who advocate for the true definition of marriage.

Jim Cobabe
Provo, UT

While they show little enough regard for democratic process, bless their hearts, the dear sensitive Federal judges profess a desire to avoid creating "chaos"? Not credible. Perhaps these judges need to elaborate on just what they mean by "chaos".

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

For all those who jump on the SSM rights band wagon by 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. The overall agenda is much bigger than inventing the right to SSM.

You will recognize these same methods, marketing strategies, and techniques outlined over 25 years ago with what is happening even right here in the discussions of comments on this and ever other related article. If that is what you are all about it is your right to go for it but make no mistake the morals of this Nation will decline further.

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

WRK
Riverton, UT

And what is interesting about us bigots and homophobs is that all we ask is for our rights to believe how we want. We are not the ones driving others out of business for not thinking the way we do.

ODannyBoy
Sandy, Utah

"Since the Supreme Court’s intervention, all but one of the district courts that ruled against man-woman marriage stayed their own decisions".
None of the judges has ruled against man-woman marriage.

airnaut
Everett, 00

@Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

States have a vested interest in successful families, the optimal family opportunity being a husband wife/mother father marriage and therefore endorse and promote that which encourages the ideal.

======

Then "States" should be doing a better job making sure ONE Father can provide for his family, and ONE wife can stay home and take care of the kids and home and be a Mom.

Tell you what --
You get that fixed, and I'll listen to the rest of your sob story about screwed up marriages and families.

It's not Rocket Science...

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Rocket Science
"We will be pressured to not just tolerate or accept SSM but to embrace it."

How old are you? If you believe and feel you can be pressured "to embrace SSM" may be you are not what you think you are. Just a thought! You see, we LGBT people have been pressured since we were born to be heterosexuals and marry somebody from the opposite sex, it just doesn't work for us, unless..... you know.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

WRK, believe what you want. Act like a nice person.

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

"SS marriage doesn't hurt anyone"
Can't tell you how many times I've heard that. Maybe someone should tell that to the ex-CEO of Mozilla (Brendan Eich). He contributed $1K to a lawful proposition that was ultimately passed by the majority of California voters, then 5 years later he got canned for it. So yes, there is a direct impact. He never tweeted anti-LGBT propaganda. He silently contributed to a cause based on his opinions. There's no freedom of expression, no right of free speech when you can do something like that and get fired for it years later. Yes, Eich resigned, but you can't honestly tell me there wasn't serious pressure to do so from both outside and inside. His views on SS marriage have nothing to do with his ability to run a company, yet somehow his right to free speech was used to harm him. SS proponents have no qualms trampling the rights of others, as outlined in the constitution, to get their way.

mcdugall
Murray, UT

@LovelyDeseret - You're wrong. The great commonwealth of Massachusetts, does not in fact have the lowest rate of marriages per capita. There are numerous states with lower marriage rates than Massachusetts that do not allow SSM. Massachusetts does hold the notable distinguishment of having the lowest uninsured rate in the nation, in part due to legislation that was developed with the assistance of Mitt Romney.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Now comes the interesting part:

The 9th Circuit has issued a temporary halt to enforcement of the lower court's decision while it considers whether or not to extend the stay during the appeals process. But keep in mind that the 9th Circuit ruled in SmithKline v. Abbott that equal protection cases involving sexual orientation are subject to a "heightened scrutiny" standard of review.

Unlike "rational basis," this higher standard means Idaho has a more difficult burden of proof that their law is constitutional. Few people believe same sex marriage bans can survive "heightened scrutiny." Therefore the appeal is unlikely to succeed.

Usually when an appeal is unlikely to succeed, you don't get a stay. On the other hand, the Supreme Court issued a stay in the Utah case (without any explanation.) Which why does the 9th Circuit go?

By the way, this is the case that is the most likely one to end up in the Supreme Court I believe.

El Chango Supremo
Rexburg, ID

Whoa Rocket Science, you'd better be careful... That's an awful lot of logic you're injecting into this conversation!

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

WRK says:

"And what is interesting about us bigots and homophobs is that all we ask is for our rights to believe how we want. We are not the ones driving others out of business for not thinking the way we do."

No, you're the ones who voted to deny equality to LGBT Americans. You're the ones who are fighting against LGBT families being treated like your family by our government. You're the ones who go around calling LGBT people "perverts", "broken", "disordered", etc.

You're not just "asking to believe how we want", you're trying to legislate your beliefs into law.

@Blue AZ Cougar;

It isn't SSM that "hurt" those people you mention; it was THEIR OWN actions coming back to bite them in the butt (Karma). Same sex marriages haven't hurt anybody.

BJMoose
Syracuse, UT

The complete text of the Supreme Court stay issued January 6th:
(ORDER LIST: 571 U.S.)
MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2014
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
13A687 HERBERT, GOV. OF UT, ET AL. V. KITCHEN, DEREK, ET AL.
The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and
by her referred to the Court is granted. The permanent
injunction issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013, is
stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

From this news story:
Stewart said the Supreme Court made it clear when it issued the Jan. 6 stay in Utah that it will decide the marriage question and no lower court decision should allow same-sex couples to marry or have their marriages recognized.

Ok Mr. Stewart, where in what came forth from the Supreme Court does it state "that it will decide the marriage question and no lower court decision should allow same-sex couples to marry or have their marriages recognized." All I see is a stay, nothing more.

to comment

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