Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah lawmaker questions if gay marriage case will reach U.S. Supreme Court’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 3 2014 5:43 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

@wrz--Wow. The state could have saved two hundred thousand in legal fees if they had just talked to you first--they might even have let you argue the case, and I'll bet you would have done it for free. Any day now the 10th Circuit will rule against Utah, and you'll be able to tell them you told them so; you knew they would lose because they were just arguing the wrong points.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

And the wind force just picked up significantly. The state of Oregon amendment blocking gay marriage was overturned. The state declined to appeal the decision. The national organization for marriage tried to file an appeal, the Supreme Court denied it.

I can't help but wonder, had Utah been the 17th case instead of the first case what the Supreme Court would have done with the stay.

skrekk
Dane, WI

@wrz "Wait a minute... marriage is not denied anyone. All anyone need do is marry someone of the opposite sex. Applies to all adults."

That's the exact same argument the racists used 50 years ago against mixed-race marriage, that everyone had an equal right to marry someone of the same race as themselves. No wonder your side is losing in court unanimously once again.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Marriage is not a right, it is a rite.

We would be far better off if all laws were marriage neutral. No one should pay estate taxes. Everyone should be able to designate who can visit them in a hospital. The state could recognize domestic contracts, but never marriages. Regardless what the state wrongfully does, I will not recognize state marriages of SS couples. Marriage requires a man and a wife, male and female. Contracts can be between any two or more people. They aren't the same thing, no matter what any court says.

Shadow01 says it well. "I do not need to recognize them or their so called marriages. I will continue to vote against those who do. My vote may be unheard but my defiance will continue."

Bob K
Davis, CA

Shall we protect conservative religious people from having to get used to others' achieving freedoms that you do not like?

I remember very well "Why don't those Black people stay on their own side of town like God intended, and stop this immoral race mixing?"

And how about "Why are those immoral mormons, with their strange religion and their pushy door knocking coming to my town, when they belong in Utah?"

Why to those Jews of Mexicans or Chinese want to rent an apartment from me? Don't they know their place?

--- Gays don't come knocking on your door and insist you listen to how they believe. The only reason you are hearing much about them is that they have to speak up to get their rights, which is a shame.

By the way: To my knowledge, the only Judge dissenting in the marriage rulings was the Idaho mormon on the 9th Circuit, Judge N. Randy Smith. in the original Prop 8 case. He is the judge who should be criticized, because he exposed himself to the charge that he violated his Oath of Office to avoid controversy for his family in his stake.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Badger and Shadow: You are welcome to be as defiant and non-recognizing as you wish. Your neighbors will probably not copy your behavior. They know only too well how Lester Maddox and George Wallace--with their bluster about "Segregation Forever!"--ended up in history.

Testimony
Philadelphia, PA

Quoting BadgerBadger, 'Shadow01 says it well. "I do not need to recognize them or their so called marriages. I will continue to vote against those who do. My vote may be unheard but my defiance will continue."'

Everyone is free to hold whatever opinions they want, and act however they wish within the law. This does not extend, of course, to throwing rocks, damaging property, or violating individual rights.

You may hold a same-sex marriage in contempt, but if you work in a hospital, tax department, social welfare agency, physician's office, or for an undertaker, you are legally required to extend to such people their rights as next-of-kin to each other, and to calculate benefits or liabilities on a household income basis.

Maybe you can't accept their romantic equivalence to a "traditional" couple, but you must accept their next-of-kin, survivorship, guardianship, and household income status for all medical, legal, official, and financial purposes.

What's so hard about that?

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Badgerbadger: "Marriage is not a right, it is a rite."

Marriage comes with over 1200 legal protections and benefits. Marriage in modern society has value because of the law, not because of the church.

In fact, there is no discernible difference between a marriage performed by a local justice of the peace and a religious figure. Both give exactly the same rights under state and federal law.

Jeffsfla
Glendale, CA

I truly hope the SCOTUS takes a case so this issue can be finalized once and for all. Plus I want to see Brian Brown sitting on the steps of the court with head in hand asking "why did I take this job?" Either that or he will be on his back crying like a little spoiled brat. Either way I will be content.

2 tell the truth
Clearwater, FL

Re: "Marriage is not a right, it is a rite."

Sadly, you have confused the religious rite of holy matrimony with what WE are talking about, namely, civil marriage.

No religious rite makes a couple legally married in America.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

Some said: "I do not need to recognize them or their so called marriages. I will continue to vote against those who do."

I always wondered what Jesus meant when he said":

"The second most important commandment is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’"

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

George Spelvin
KAYSVILLE, UT

I feel great sorrow for so many people who have chosen to ignore God's laws, including His ordaining that marriage is between a man and a woman. (See Genesis)

I empathize with Senator Hatch, whose political background prompted him to issue the warning that same-sex marriage will likely become law. His words were not a concession, but a warning.

At the same time, God also decrees the right of agency, or the right to chose one's own actions and life course. We are not free, however, from the consequences of those choices.

I join the plea for people and governments to uphold correct principles, including that marriage is only between a man and a woman. To chose otherwise will bring upon this nation the calamities foretold by men of God, both ancient and modern.

to comment

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