Quantcast
Utah

Sen. Mike Lee won't speculate on gay marriage becoming legal

Comments

Return To Article
  • RSLfanalways Why, AZ
    May 29, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    I remember when Mike Lee also said that Government Shutdown was not inevitable but he was wrong about that. I beleive that gay marriage is inevitable.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 29, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    " I do accept whatever the courts say." (Orin Hatch)

    This is the same sort of nonsense as saying I personally oppose abortion but I support the right to perform an abortion. What exactly does that mean?? Are you just a rubber stamp guy or are you a Senator who will FIGHT against those things that are WRONG and make them RIGHT? I think this is case in point why we need to get rid of Orin Hatch - the man is nothing more than a rubber stamp guy who just wants to get a long....no waves. We need a guy who DOES want to make waves - BIG ONES!!! If the US congress and the president sign into law the right for states to decide about gay marriage or even a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage then it doesn't matter what the federal courts say. Orin doesn't seem to get this idea.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 29, 2014 4:36 p.m.

    Mike Lee said: "What I do know is that it's wrong for these decisions to be made by federal judges"

    No, it was wrong for the question to be put to a public vote in the first place. Civil rights are not up to the whim of the electorate.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    May 29, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    Absolutely, without a doubt!
    Our nation will always turn to Mike Lee and Jason Chaffetz for accurate, state of the art, up to the minute opinions on the important issues in the United States and abroad.
    Yea, right.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 29, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    re:Understands Math

    show me in the US Constitution where gay marriage is a guranteed civil right. It is NOT. Your idea of civil rights are just your ideas and nothing more. I don't share your "civil rights" opinions and in fact I strongly disagee with them. The question you need to ask is "what does the US Constitition say". We live in a society of laws....a hard concept for liberals to grasp.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    May 29, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    @Patriot
    Lets pretend that Mike Lee is right, and the courts don't force the states to legalize gay marriage. Do you think that in 10 years voters wouldn't be able to just give gay people the rights they deserve? Look at the polls, it's pretty consistent, younger people don't care about gay marriage, even here in Utah. Even if the anti gay crowd wins this one, in the near future there will be the support to legalize it. Dude, it's over.

  • Why oh why In Utah, UT
    May 29, 2014 5:02 p.m.

    Actually the state was forced to define marriage as a part of the state statute by the Federal Government before they let it into the Union. Every state also has laws on the level of consanguinity that can legally marry, the age of consent, and guidelines regarding parental approval. Marriages have always been approved through the authority given to the state, hence they were able to amend their constitution to ban it.

    The Supreme Court will have to overturn around 30 state constitutions if they declare it a protected right under the 14th Amendment. Given their reluctance to make broad decisions, I don't know if this is as inevitable as it seems.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 29, 2014 5:03 p.m.

    @ patriot

    Actually Senator Hatch does get it. He knows full well that getting an amendment passed is incredibly difficult and in today's enlightened America passing an amendment banning gay marriage is frankly impossible. It won't happen so you can give up on that goal. You will also not see marriage left up to the states because, and I'm not sure if you know this, but people move from state to state. So if a gay couple is married in California and moves to Utah well, I hope you see the issue there. Society has already moved on from the incorrect and flatly wrong attitudes about gay marriage to a better and more enlightened place.

    Also I would like you to show me where the following rights are in the Constitution: The right to privacy, travel, vote, life, liberty, political parties, fair trial, jury by peers, marriage of any kind, procreation, and well I could go on. We do live in a country of laws - and thankfully same sex marriage recognition will be a law soon. Something that will make this country a better place to live for everyone.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 29, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    @Patriot: My rejoinder in three points:

    1. Amendment 9 notes that not all rights are enumerated in the US Constitution.

    2. The Supreme Court has stated in the past that marriage is a civil right (for the most famous example, see Loving v. Virginia.)

    3. States are forbidden from depriving citizens of equal protection under the law through the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment 14.

    @patriot wrote: "Your idea of civil rights are just your ideas and nothing more."

    Ideas that are supported by constitution and by legal precedent. That's a bit more than nothing.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 29, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    Well, he's wrong then. It's not a surprise, really. On the other hand, it's never wrong for judges, especially federal ones, to protect the rights of citizens.

  • Guam_Bomb BARRIGADA, GU
    May 29, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    Patriot,

    To answer your question, neither the US Constitution nor it 27 amendments says anything about gay marriage. In fact they say nothing about marriage period. The words "Marriage" and "Marry" to not appear in the constitution or it's amendments. Marriage is not a constitutional right enumerated in the constitution. Since we live in a society of laws, please show me where the right to marry is enumerated.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 29, 2014 5:30 p.m.

    "show me in the US Constitution where gay marriage is a guranteed civil right. It is NOT. Your idea of civil rights are just your ideas and nothing more."

    What the constitution does guarantee is equal protection from the state imposing different privileges for some and not for others, regardless of who you are.

    Persons "within its jurisdiction" are entitled to equal protection from a state.

    So patriot, it doesn't make any difference what you believe is a right if the state gives a right to one it must give it to all within reason (so don't start the I can marry my dog thing). In fact that's exactly why the state of Utah has not argued constitutionality but rather reasonableness, and based on reasonableness you will lose, if not now some time in the near future because SSM does not pose a threat to traditional marriage or children.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    May 29, 2014 5:31 p.m.

    Will someone-- anyone -- please explain to me how my religious liberty is taken away from me if same sex marriage is allowed? I just do not get that argument, and the fact that otherwise rational people are making the argument mystifies me. The only "right" being taken away is the right to force other people to adhere to my religion. I am still free to NOT enter into a gay marriage. And no church is or will be forced to perform them. (Just as the LDS church is not currently forced to let Joe Blow and Jane Doe off the street pop on into the temple for a temple wedding.)

  • 04/13/2014 S. Jordan, UT
    May 29, 2014 5:40 p.m.

    Marriage is about companionship, sex, and children. Gay "marriage" cannot legitimately fulfill even one of these three purposes. Government officials are absolutely right and absolutely rational to sanctify only man-woman relationships with the label as well as the benefits of marriage.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 29, 2014 5:44 p.m.

    Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. No man can be a wife, no woman can be a husband. No man can be a mother, no woman can be a father. Not in any state regardless of how laws may be changed by vote, legislation or judicial decision.

    The issue in the marriage debate is really "what is marriage". If marriage is just about the interests of adults whose relationships deviate from the norm then there is some logic in allowing SSM. But marriage is more than that - it is the fundamental unit of society. Thousands of years of history and the vast majority of research shows that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. It is unreasonable to think redefining marriage as an institution will not impact our society and result in many unintended negative consequences.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 29, 2014 6:04 p.m.

    Contrary to what many state constitutionality concerning SSM HAS NOT been decided by SCOTUS at this point. Remember that in California Prop 8 SCOTUS did not take the opportunity to rule that SSM is a universal Constitutional right, but that those bringing the suit did not have standing. Utahs Governor and AG do have standing and it is their duty to defend and support the laws of the state. Will SCOTUS rule in favor of Utah and 33 other States? Or, will they rule against Utah and traditional roles of States? Until then all of our opinions of constitutionality are just personal opinions, only 5 SCOTUS opinions will matter.

    If SCOTUS decides with SSM it will then be legally recognized. If SCOTUS recognizes the states rights it will not be legal in all 50 States. Mr. Lee has simply said while current judicial rulings might cause some to believe SSM is inevitable it is not a given that SCOTUS will rule that way. In my opinion, if I had to give a probability I would say 80 percent chance of SSM 20 percent States rights. A little different from the absolutes many give.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 6:42 p.m.

    @patriot
    "as saying I personally oppose abortion but I support the right to perform an abortion. What exactly does that mean??"

    It means 'I don't want (an abortion/a same-sex marriage/to own a gun/to drink alcohol) but I support your right to do so nonetheless'.

    "If the US congress and the president sign into law the right for states to decide about gay marriage or even a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage then it doesn't matter what the federal courts say."

    It'd require a constitutional amendment since your first option listed would just be struck down as unconstitutional. The problem for you is that a constitutional amendment is not going to ever pass to do that since you need too many from Congress/Senate and too many states to ratify it.

    The courts have ruled several times that marriage is a right, for instance in Loving vs Virginia. Unless you think that ruling was also incorrect (in which case I'd think you were wrong but logically consistent).

  • RockOn Spanish Fork, UT
    May 29, 2014 6:51 p.m.

    Let's keep this simple: focus on the children. Every child deserves a FATHER (male) and a MOTHER (female). Every child deserves a Dad and Mom.

    Don't let bad marriages (35%) that end in divorce be the canard to give the children less than they deserve. A child living in a home with a biological parent and a step-parent is 100 times more likely to be abused than a child living in a home with two biological parents. THOSE ARE PROVEN FACTS -- OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

    Let's make better biological parentS our national priority.

    Everyone else is welcome to have a contractual relationship -- I don't care -- BUT NOT IF CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED.

  • happymomto9 Saratoga Springs, UT
    May 29, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    it is a states issue. why shouldn't we be able to decide as a state?

    Lee is awesome! so glad i voted for him! and i am reminded why i did NOT vote for hatch.

    the constitution is hanging by a thread and it will take great men like Mike Lee to restore this country to the constitutionally based nation it was meant to be. we don't need senators that are swayed by current "trends". (Hatch)

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 29, 2014 7:15 p.m.

    The issue is the definition of marriage. A man with a man can no more be a true marriage than I, as a man, can be the true Queen of England.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 29, 2014 7:27 p.m.

    Rocket Science: In regard to "no man can be a wife", etc....

    You've written this at least six times already. Nobody's arguing with you.

    However--there are married couples where there are two wives. And others with two husbands. Sometimes they have children. Frequently these kids are adopted as older kids--you know, the ones that come with problems. They adopt these kids because they want to change these kids' lives.

    My husband and I have adopted ten kids, only two of whom were babies. The others were between three and twelve years old when they were placed. How many did you adopt?

  • OhBoy Washington, DC
    May 29, 2014 7:46 p.m.

    Orrin Hatch is right. Love it or hate it, same-sex marriage is coming. PS-I predict Mike Lee is going to be a one-termer.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 29, 2014 8:35 p.m.

    @ RockOn

    I commend your concern for children. Let's see if you are sincere in your concern for them.

    You wrote: " Let's keep this simple: focus on the children. Every child deserves a FATHER (male) and a MOTHER (female).
    SSM is a new concept.Therefore it cannot be blamed for children being raised throughout the centuries in single family homes, orphanages, streets, slavery, prostitution and other less favorable conditions.
    Most children in SS families are adopted. The LGBT people who adopt these children did not create their problem. These LGBT people are actually one of the solutions.

    You wrote:
    "Let's make better biological parentS our national priority."

    O.K. Do you accept that is legitimate for straight couples to use artificial methods of contraception i.e. In vitro, surrogates, etc.? They still are the Biological parents of the offspring, Right?
    It is exactly the same for SS couples.

    Please, do tell, percentage-wise what is the rate of success or failure of children raised by SS couples. My partner and I have a daughter and we know other gays couples with children. We see only happy and healthy children do you have evidence of the opposite taking place?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:38 p.m.

    @RockOn
    Then why ban same-sex marriage in a state where single people can adopt? If you want to use statistics, two parent households do better than one parent households on average but you're preventing some one-parent households from becoming two-parent households.

    "A child living in a home with a biological parent and a step-parent is 100 times more likely to be abused than a child living in a home with two biological parents. THOSE ARE PROVEN FACTS"

    Well then, if that's a proven fact then I assume you can note a reference to that 100x ratio you gave that personally I think was pulled out of thin air (since a 1% bio-bio abuse rate would mean 100% bio-step abuse rate and that makes no sense).

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:41 p.m.

    "Lee said the decision should rest with states, not courts, because nothing in the Constitution prohibits states from recognizing marriage as an institution between a man and a woman." But doesn't the Constitution require equal protection under the law for all?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:43 p.m.

    I made a mistake in last election and did not vote for Mike Lee - I will not make that mistake again! On the other hand, I was wise enough to not vote for Orrin Hatch. We need more men like Senator Lee who understand the law and is fighting for what will strengthen America. I whole heartedly agree that the issue of SSM should not be decided by a bunch of federal unelected judges. If SSM becomes legal (and that is not a done deal), I would remind those who are gloating about the possibility of it becoming law that it is not possible to legislate acceptance. Abortion is legal yet hundreds of millions of Americans find it unacceptable. SSM will only divide Americans in this "enlightened age". Some sort of legal contractual relationship would be better than trying to re-define marriage.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 29, 2014 9:01 p.m.

    Meckofahess, the best thing you could personally do to "strengthen America" is to adopt a few older kids. Give them a home and give them a future and give them a safety net. All this railing about SSM is just hot air.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:17 p.m.

    “Preserving the 'traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples” - Lawrence, 539 U.S. AT 601 Justice Scalia

    Allowing more people to marry does not change the definition of marriage any more than freeing the slaves changed the definition of freedom.

    As Justice Robert Jackson so eloquently stated: "The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in operation.”

  • Grateful American Tremonton, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:42 p.m.

    Way to go Mike!

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    May 29, 2014 10:04 p.m.

    @Understands Math:

    I agree that civil rights should not be up to the whim of the electorate; however, so called "gay marriage" is not a civil right. It is the corruption of the normal, moral, proven, and historical bond between a man and woman that provides the best environment to raise the next generation of human beings. Every person clamoring for a "gay marriage" has every equal civil right to go marry a person of the opposite gender. Anything else is not really marriage. The push for "gay marriage" is about lustful adult selfishness and political agendas. Nothing more.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    May 29, 2014 10:18 p.m.

    This is why Mike Lee is the future and Orrin Hatch is the past. Mike Lee defends the Constitution and Orrin Hatch defends what is popular inspire of what the Constitution says.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 10:46 p.m.

    Mike Lee keeps showing us how very poorly educated he is on this subject. Hatch at least realizes that this could happen. As for losing religious freedom? Religious freedom also includes freedom from religion. As a member of the predominant faith I do not want other so called Christians or even radicals within my own religion to dictate my beliefs nor laws that I'm then required to live.

  • Surfs Up Huntington Beach, CA
    May 29, 2014 11:34 p.m.

    I am proud of Mike Lee

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    May 30, 2014 12:46 a.m.

    @Understands Math:

    "Civil rights are not up to the whim of the electorate." Perhaps, but same-sex marriage is not a civil right. The definition of Marriage is up to the electorate.

    "The Supreme Court has stated in the past that marriage is a civil right". Right, but in these cases, marriage was understood to mean the union of a man and a woman. The SCOTUS did NOT rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, but that traditional marriage is a civil right.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    May 30, 2014 12:54 a.m.

    @Hutterite:

    You imply that SSM is a right of citizens. Many court cases state that marriage, as defined at the time of the case -- thus a traditional marriage -- is a right. SSM is not a right of citizens unless the courts invent such a right out of thin air, as some have done. It is very wrong for judges to invent rights out of thin air.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    May 30, 2014 1:04 a.m.

    @equal protection:

    "Allowing more people to marry does not change the definition of marriage any more than freeing the slaves changed the definition of freedom."

    You are right. Allowing more unions of one man and one woman would not change the definition of marriage. However, allowing for any other type of union would definitely change the definition of marriage.

    It's not a question of the quantity, but of the nature of the participants.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 30, 2014 1:36 a.m.

    @ Lovely Desert

    I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of this actual court decision. Could you kindly explain it to me?

    The Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.”
    Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012).

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 30, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    @LovelyDeseret 10:18 p.m. May 29, 2014

    This is why Mike Lee is the future and Orrin Hatch is the past. Mike Lee defends the Constitution and Orrin Hatch defends what is popular inspire of what the Constitution says.

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

    In truth, you've got that backward. Mike Lee has no concept of what the Constitution really says, what it really means and how it really works. The only thing he knows about it is how to use it as a tool to get what he wants, and to heck with the damage he causes to it, and to us all, as a result. The Constitution is hanging by a thread now. if, as you say, Mike Lee is the future then that thread will be quickly cut. I really don't want to see that happen.

    Orrin Hatch, while I don't agree with a lot of what he says and does, at least has a clue. Mike Lee does not (and cares only about pandering to the people who did, and will, contribute heavily to his campaign fund). And that's sad.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    May 30, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    To those who consider themselves "strict Constitutionalists":

    Your argument against SSM rests on the notion that the Constitution does not contain language which allows SSM and gives non-enumerated strictures left to the states. Your argument is so completely off base that I wonder if you also believe the Earth is flat.

    The Constitution contains overriding principles for our laws. One of these is equal protection under the law. This means no one person has more or less rights/privileges than any other person. Denying same sex couples the ability to enter into legal marriage denies them this protection. Period. Nothing else need be said, nor argued. Your religious and social prejudice have no place in secular government.

    You "strict" constructionists also engage in a huge degree of hypocrisy. I would ask you where in the Constitution does a corporation gain personhood? Please show me one penumbra, allusion or even mention of the word as we currently know it. Our Courts have increasingly given a corporation the rights of personhood through the rulings of "conservative, strict constructionist" judges. These rights include freedom of speech (to spend $) and freedom of religion. You may not have it both ways.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 30, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    "The Supreme Court has stated in the past that marriage is a civil right". Right, but in these cases, marriage was understood to mean the union of a man and a woman. The SCOTUS did NOT rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, but that traditional marriage is a civil right."

    They didn't say SSM was a civil right because they weren't asked. The 14th amendment clearly states that a right given one class of citizen cannot be denied another. Also the 14th amendment has over the years been expressly interpreted to mean classes other than race.

    So why is the ruling of a federal judge that says a state law that denies SS couples the right to marry, unconstitutional? It appears it is the very essence of the 14th amendment.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    May 30, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    Just a few more years to go before Utahns bring Mike Lee home. He's done nothing constructive yet in Washington and that seems likely to continue.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 30, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    I find it astounding that Lee would say such things. He is supposedly be well educated, so I assume he is playing politics and speaking to his core constituency. Federal judges are local people, chosen locally from the community. Normally the President (of either party) will nominate judges who the local leaders choose. It is in the federal courts where such decisions should be made, as they relate to the rights of the citizens of the nation. Rights are not subject to state boundaries. The Constitution applies to all, including the principle of full faith and credit, and the Bill of Rights, a principle reinforced by the outcome of the Civil War. We are not a collection of mini countries. We are one nation. Senator, read the Gettysburg Address. And finally, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting religious freedom. In fact, the reverse is true. It expands the rights of the minority and frees them from the dictates of a majority. Anyone with a Mormon background should appreciate this. One may not like the result, but once we shed our baggage and bias, we realize it was the right thing to do.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 30, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    It takes imagination to envision the future. Mikey clearly has none.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    May 30, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    @pragmatistferlife:

    "They didn't say SSM was a civil right because they weren't asked."

    You are engaging in revisionist history if you believe that judges from the 1800s and even the 1900s would have thought that a ruling about marriage included SSM. The people of these eras would have been absolutely repulsed by the idea that people of the same sex would even consider the possibility of marriage.

    No, had they been asked, we would have absolute precedent that SSM is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, they weren't asked, and our new breed of judges are therefore lost in the weeds on this issue.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 30, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    I notice that a lot of the defense of mike is just like his bumper sticker solutions of no substance "I Like Mike."

    Lee served as a law clerk to Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The following year he clerked for Judge Samuel Alito, who was serving at that time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court in Newark, New Jersey.

    How could he be so clueless in his comments, of how our nation works?

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    May 30, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    @rocketscience;@rocket
    You do see the problems with your position don't you? What you believe every child deserves is not reality. There are many children in single parent households and many children with no mother or father. What about them?
    ps I'd like to see the source for your assertion that a child living in a home with a step-parent is 100 times more likely to be abused.
    Almost 50% of marriages end in divorce.
    You are less likely to be divorced if you are an atheist.(see dailyinfographic)

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    May 30, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    The only thing that is inevitable is Hatch being removed from office.

    Come on, people, he's a dinosaur and a career politician. He plays whatever game will get him reelected. Oust him!!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 30, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    @ Constitutionalist:

    You wrote:
    " No, had they been asked, we would have absolute precedent that SSM is unconstitutional."

    But we don't! Therefore, I thank you, I consider your comment as an step in the right direction.
    By your own admission you cannot claim SSM as Unconstitutional. Baby steps, but we are moving forward.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 30, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    @patriot;

    US Constitution: Amendment 9:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Think about it.

    happymomto9 says:
    "why shouldn't we be able to decide as a state?"

    --- Because you DO NOT get to vote on the rights of your fellow citizens. If you think you should be able to do so, be very careful, someday your own rights may end up on the ballot.

    @Rock On;

    "Think of the children" (runs around in tiny circles waving hands wildly in the air).

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    May 30, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    @something to think about
    Let's just say a lot of very prominent Republicans with deep pockets are committed to getting rid of Senator Lee in the next election. Getting the count my vote initiative through sealed the deal. People will support the mainstream Republican when the heavy hitters(and their financial backing) come out in support of him over Mike Lee. Mike will not have a track record to run on and he's upset to many people to get re-elceted. He'll be one and done.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    May 30, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    @Constitutionalist
    Let's be fair though, many of those judges(especially in the 1800's) also had no problem with one human being owning another human being as a slave. So i'm not sure that you want to hold them us as beacons of virtue.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    May 30, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    Laura Bilington has the right idea . . all the sputtering and righteous indignation about keeping things "traditional" is just ineffectual nonsense. Bluster for bluster's sake.

    I can't believe you "traditionalists" don't get tired of making the same tired points, which are all diversionary tactics. This is not an issue of (1) what you think God says is right, (2) the Constitution, (3) "activist judges," (4) states' rights, (5) liberal indoctrination, or (6) an attack on religious freedom.

    The simple reality is that in our society, adults have the right to do what they please as long as it causes no demonstrable harm to others -- and not in a "slippery slope," fantasy-land, speculative way. "SSM will have innumerable awful effects in the future . . what of the children?!" is nothing but alarmist hand-wringing.

    If any "traditionlists" here can cite a single instance when you personally have been denied your right to practice your religion or the freedom to marry whom you wanted to marry, I will be shocked. Someone else doing something that has nothing directly to do with you does not qualify as an assault on your religious freedom.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 30, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic 9:58 a.m. May 30, 2014

    Lee served as a law clerk to Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The following year he clerked for Judge Samuel Alito, who was serving at that time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court in Newark, New Jersey.

    How could he be so clueless in his comments, of how our nation works?

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

    That's an easy one. As a clerk, his whole mission was to serve the judge's wants. The judge would decie how he wanted to decide an issue, and then tell the clear to "go find cases that support that position." The clerk would go find the cases.

    As I said before, I don't doubt that Lee knows how to use the Constitution as a tool, and as a weapon to support his positions. That doesn't make him conversant as to what the Constitution really says and what it really means and how it really works.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    May 30, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    @Baccus0902:

    You wrote:

    "How can you claim that something is the "Best", when that is the only way "You Know".??
    How can you dismiss SS raising children if you are not willing to give it a try?"

    First, thousands of years of human history demonstrates that both mom and dad is optimal for children. Second, many, many studies on the subject have demonstrated that children fair best when raised by their two natural parents. Google it. Third, assuming that you and your partner are attempting to do this, I can only say that you are engaged in a dubious social experiment. What will be the consequences? Do you know? Are you prescient enough to know what the fallout will be to that child? Gender confusion? Sexual acting out? What will it be?

    I have thousands of years of human history on my side. What do you have? From my perspective, all you have is a current fad of pop culture and a political agenda while you experiment with a child's life and upbringing. I'm sorry, but there is no way I can support that.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 30, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    Here is the problem with the logic of the SSM supporters. With the ban on SSM in place, the LGBT people still are afforded the same protection under the law. There is nothing preventing a gay man from getting married to the woman of his choice. There is nothing preventing a lesbian from getting married to a the man of her choice. The case of Loving vs. Virginia removed the last barrier for marriage.

    If you say that marriage is about letting 2 people who love eachother form a legally recognized union, first you must tell us how you measure love. (I said measure not define.) Since love cannot be measured, and that when people love eachother they should be allowed to get married then you will have to allow anything that people want to call a marriage as being legitimate. If 3 women and 1 man want to be married, they can. If 4 lesbians want to be married, they can. If 4 gay men want to be married, they can also. If marriage is defined by love, then you have to allow any people who love eachother to be married.

    Do you really want to open that door?

  • Jason F. Provo, UT
    May 30, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    "Marriage is about companionship, sex, and children. Gay "marriage" cannot legitimately fulfill even one of these three purposes."

    Excuse me? I know two different gay couples - in spite of the fact that marriage was never even a possibility for them until very recently, both couples have been together for more than 30 years. I'm not going to speculate about their sex lives, but both couples have raised several wonderful children and both couples clearly find a great deal of emotional and spiritual fulfillment in the companionship of their loved one.

    In other words, what you have said is blatantly, unequivocally false.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    May 30, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    @Wonder

    If you are a child, SSM takes us one step further away from the already research-proven and revelation-proven ideal of a biological mom and dad in traditional marriage. I know, I know, there are many kids who do not live in the ideal home. So should we then give up on it? Or should we take steps to get back closer to the ideal.

    I have known several gay people in the past. Many have been sincere, honest, and intelligent, but some have been quite militant. I am convinced those activists will not be happy till they get every concession they want, every law changed they can, and especially every attitude/opinion won over.

    I know there are those with same sex attraction who sincerely try to abstain from same sex physical relations or any sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage. I applaud you and wish you the best in you struggles. Having my own weaknesses and temptations, I can sympathize with those who struggle. I am mainly speaking to those who are militants and activists in the GLBT cause.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    May 30, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    Sodomy is different than skin color, creed, nationality, gender, religion, or other characteristics used to determine minority status. It’s OK to admit that it’s different and that it does not deserve the same legal protections.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    May 30, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    I know some of you say you do not accept the LDS churches’ Proclamation on the Family. That essentially it has no value because it is not legally binding. To you I say, you ought to read it and give it great value if you want to avoid the “calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” I am fully aware you do not believe it and scoff at it. You ought to reconsider. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just because it is not binding by man’s laws does not mean it is not binding in the eternities.

  • Jason F. Provo, UT
    May 30, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    @RedShirt - That's not actually a "problem with the logic of the SSM supporters." On the other hand, the fact that you think that "gays and lesbians are free to marry the opposite sex partner of their choice" is actually an effective (or original, or meaningful) argument is a problem.

    And also, for the record, I have no problem with the idea of legalizing polygamy in general. The only problem is that many polygamous relationships just end up being abusive and destructive (and non-consensual,) so there'd have to be some safeguards in place so it doesn't just become an open door for certain fundamentalists. But yeah, in theory I have no problem with the idea of two men marrying two women or three women marrying one man.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 30, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    "What I do know is that it's wrong for these decisions to be made by federal judges" Mike Lee

    This is really all that should be said about the matter for now. Mike has stood before the US Supreme Court for years and argued cases so he knows how federal law should and should NOT be enforced. As Mike correctly points out the REAL issue here is FEDERAL POWER and how it is being rammed down our throats. The STATE of Utah , the STATE of Texas, and so on.... should be ones setting laws in their respective states about gay marriage and NOT some gay activist federal judge. This is NOT how the US constitution is supposed to be applied.

    Unlike Orin Hatch - Mike is determined to FIGHT for UTAH and the right to set our own laws. Gay Marriage is NOT protected by the US constitution - I repeat it is NOT protected or gauaranteed by the US constitution and the US Supreme Court will have to rule on this issue....whether it be a STATE issue or a federal one.

    Bottom line - Orin Hatch needs to go and Jason Chaffetz needs to replace him.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 30, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    @RedShirt wrote: "With the ban on SSM in place, the LGBT people still are afforded the same protection under the law. There is nothing preventing a gay man from getting married to the woman of his choice."

    A supreme court justice once opined that "A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jewish people."

    In that same vein, a ban on same-sex marriage is a discrimination against LGBT people.

    Oh, you say that gays and lesbians can still marry someone of the opposite sex? Yeah, and Jewish men can cover their heads with different hats.

    A ban on same-sex marriage is a violation of equal protection under the law. And since the Windsor case, that's been the opinion of federal courts in case after case after case.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    May 30, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    "Sometimes government steps on religious liberty, perhaps inadvertently, but it does so just because government's big," he said.

    Sorry, but that makes no sense. Why does government have to be big to step on Religious freedoms?
    The Taliban didn’t offer much in the way of governance in Afghanistan, but Mormonism wouldn’t have any chance under a Taliban government.

    All this big government talk is complete NONSENSE.

    Mike Lee is just another Koch brothers’ employee pretending to work for the good of the nation, but he really doesn’t have a clue.

    The guy is completely out of touch with reality.

    Is it any wonder he is so attractive to Utah’s Republican majority?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 30, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    What's Senator Lee going to DO about it? --
    Shut the Government again if the SCOUTUS doesn't rule the way he thinks it should?

    Hint:
    You'd better be tinking of a plan "B" or alternativce plan senator,
    because whining, crying, tantrums and shutting things down will be the last nail in your political coffin.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    May 30, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    rw123 said: "If you are a child, SSM takes us one step further away from the already research-proven and revelation-proven ideal of a biological mom and dad in traditional marriage."

    I really had no idea that the Gay Mafia's agenda was to take kids away from their biological parents. I thought gay couples were either using artificial insemination or adopting kids whose biological parents couldn't/wouldn't keep them. You've shattered my world.

    Regarding the Proclomation to the Family: I get it! Even though I don't believe in something, I should go ahead and believe in it anyway. Because you, like, say I should. I don't believe in ancient prophets' dire predictions, but I should heed them anyway. Got it. I don't believe in any of this "binding in the eternities" stuff, but I should roll with it anyway.

    Well, I got nothin'. I've been defeated.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    May 30, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    My biggest concern in granting protected status to LGBT is that we are crossing a line in discrimination law. We are protecting behavior, not a characteristic.

    Same-sex attraction is likely a characteristic of some form. However, homosexual behavior is always a choice. To be forced to have sexual relations is rape.

    Religion is choice and behavior as well, but it was also specifically written as the first right in the Constitution. The framers of that document obviously felt that it was a right that must be preserved. Sexual preference is not listed as protected at all.

    I personally have no problem with gay couples being given all the secular benefits that straight couples have. What is truly troublesome if the venomous hatred of all things religious shown by the gay rights advocates. Some judges today appear to have distain for religious freedom as well.

    The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Understanding and compromise can benefit all...

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 30, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    Let's try this... just take whatever you think the legal definition of marriage is (the secular one, not the church one) and replace "a man and a woman" with "two adults". That's what we're going for.

    "Do you really want to open that door?"

    Love is an open door. (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist).

    @rw123
    "To you I say, you ought to read it and give it great value if you want to avoid the “calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”"

    As someone who doesn't believe in those modern prophets, I would need a reason why I should give credence to these predictions. Suffice it to say I lack such a reason.

    Besides, if God hasn't destroyed us for segregation, slavery, dropping nukes, the Trail of Tears, or any of the other atrocities in the world like the Holocaust... I don't think he's going to destroy us over Adam and Steve or Anna and Sophie marrying.

    "ideal of a biological mom and dad in traditional marriage."

    Let's ban Mississippians from marrying. On average kids are less well off there so by your logic...

  • Lia Sandy, UT
    May 30, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    Why is Mike Lee on front of a camera, instead of getting a second job to pay back his college loans and the house he backed out of?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 30, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    The ones most unhappy with Mike Lee are the liberals who don't like a conservative no matter what brand of tea he doesn't drink.

    Keep railing at him. It makes me happy. It makes me laugh. Can't wait until he blows the next democrat out of the race! Your predictions of doom for him are wishful thinking. Your smear campaigns are pathetically transparent. (Too bad the President's Administration isn't as transparent, as he promised it would be.)

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 30, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    rw123, I have no doubt that you sincerely believe every word spoken by your church leaders. You see them as prophets, I get that. And you believe that you are helping people by warning them of the grievous harm that will befall them if they fail to heed the proclamation.

    I am assuming that you would like to also warn us not to drink alcohol or coffee.

    People who belong to other churches which claim that they have The Truth (Witnesses, Catholics, Islam, Evangelicals, Adventists) believe their church's teachings with equal fervor. Each of them has particular restrictions. Witnesses don't do blood transfusions. Adventists don't work Saturdays. And while you are eager to share your church's teachings, I do not see you as at all interested in having other religions "shared" with you.

    The beauty of our Constitution is that it protects us from having restrictions (like forbidding transfusions) which have no non-religious basis imposed on the rest of Americans.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 30, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    @04/13/2014
    S. Jordan, UT
    Marriage is about companionship, sex, and children. Gay "marriage" cannot legitimately fulfill even one of these three purposes. Government officials are absolutely right and absolutely rational to sanctify only man-woman relationships with the label as well as the benefits of marriage.

    5:40 p.m. May 29, 2014

    =========

    What the?...

    1 out of 3 = Failed.

    You only got the first one right,
    and as far as I know,
    that was the only reason SSM supporters support it.

    BTW -- I got married for L-O-V-E and Companionship.

    If you got married just for the sex and children,
    You got married for all the wrong reasons.

    The truth is --
    One day the children and the sex will be gone,
    and then what are left with?

    THAT'S what marriage all boils down to.
    If you can't figure that out, I'm sorry for you.

    Sincerely,
    a happily married, heterosexual, LDS man, with 4 adult children.

    P.S. 32 years because it was for the right reason in the 1st place.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 30, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    @ AZKID
    You wrote:
    "First, thousands of years ... demonstrates that both mom and dad is optimal for children.... many studies on the subject have demonstrated that children fair best when raised by their two natural parents."

    In theory I may agree with you. However, thousands of years of human history don't show a rosy pictures for millions of children.

    You wrote:
    " assuming that you and your partner are attempting to do this, I can only say that you are engaged in a dubious social experiment. What will be the consequences? Do you know? Are you prescient enough to know what the fallout will be to that child? Gender confusion? Sexual acting out? What will it be?"

    Ouch! My daughter was 6 when she came to us, a skinny and frighten little girl. She will 20 soon, She is beautiful, smart, sweet, she just finished her freshman year in college. She has a boyfriend in a very serious and respectful relationship.

    You wrote:

    " I have thousands of years of human history on my side."

    Sorry, you don't! You obviously have lived in a bubble. Life is very different and perhaps way more beautiful than what you think. Explore it!!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 30, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    You don't suppose is approval ratings tail-spinning from well over 75% to now being well under 40% and he's 1st re-election coming up has anything to do with his more reserved, cautious, let's wait and see approach vs. his signature "In -Your-Face -- Take THAT!" Tea-Publican Mike Lee back-fire of just last October...

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 30, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    Rarely, is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of same-sex couple parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights". These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers,Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    May 31, 2014 3:48 a.m.

    News Items of the day:

    1- Mike Lee says what conservative mormon leaders want him to say

    2- Deseret News says what conservative mormon leaders want it to say

    3- Orrin Hatch reads the handwriting on the wall to us, even though he does not like it, in an attempt to help us face reality.

    Hatch is the only one of the above, in my view, following what Jesus would have told us, which is seek the truth, but he gets ripped apart in the comments.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    May 31, 2014 5:25 a.m.

    If Mike doesnt know by now he has a major problem,even ritewing Hatch noticed which way the wind is blowing.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2014 2:47 p.m.

    @Riverton Cougar...Apparently one residing in Riverton may dub themselves a "Cougar" so why not The Queen of England"? What a highly intellectual comparison.

  • Utefan4Lyf West Jordan, UT
    June 2, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    These arguments will never stray because those who fight against SSM will never be able to walk in the shoes of those who are being discriminated against. Truthfully if we could deny them the right to be married to the person they love they may change their mind. Unfortunately that will never happen. Therefore, we need the decisions of "activist" judges to utilize the writings of the constitution and the precedents set forth to make these final decisions. I hope that by the end of the year (we can even give it until 2015) we have been able to overcome this hurdle. After all, gay marriage has been taking place in numerous states and countries for at least the past year and none of them have become overly heathonistic nor have they fallen into the ocean.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    June 3, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    "That’s where those decisions need to be made. They shouldn't be thrust upon the states by federal judges who aren't elected. They're not accountable to anyone who is elected,"
    This. No matter how much one screams "rights" or "equality" or "you're a bigot if you don't think like I do", it doesn't change this.

    "On Wednesday, seven-term GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch said anyone who doesn't believe gay marriage will become the law of the land hasn't been watching what's going."
    It's not law; see above. When "law" consists of whatever a few unelected extremists decide, it becomes arbitrary declarations from kings with no regard for actual laws of the land that have been-in the vast majority of cases-ignored or subverted through illegal means.