Comments about ‘Sen. Mike Lee won't speculate on gay marriage becoming legal’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 29 2014 3:55 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Why, AZ

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.

Cedar Hills, UT

" 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

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.

St.George, Utah

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.

Cedar Hills, UT

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.

Poplar Grove, UT

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

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

@ 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

@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.

American Fork, UT

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.



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.

salt lake city, utah

"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.

Provo, UT

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.)

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.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

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

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

"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).

Spanish Fork, UT

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.

Saratoga Springs, UT

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

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.

to comment

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