Comments about ‘Greg Bell: Conservatives and liberals alike will regret dilution of equal protection’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, June 20 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

higv, you've asserted in many postings that "thousands" of gay men have somehow turned themselves straight and thrived in heterosexual marriages. You're right, lots of them have married women. But I have yet to read of one who does not admit still being attracted to men--they simply choose to squelch these feelings because they value the family they now have. Well, at least for a while. Any number of Mormon and Evangelical Christian men did just that and, five or ten years into the marriage, were caught sneaking out for liaisons with other men. If you don't believe me, go into any gay bar and holler, "Dad! What are you doing here?". Then count how many men turn around to see if they are the one who was "recognized".

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Furry1993" actually, it is only recently that marriage was declared a right.

In the SCOTUS majority opinion they state that marriage laws are a state issue. See "UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR". The Supreme court agrees with me that the definition of marriage is a state issue. They mention multiple cases where it was established that it is up to the state to determine the definition of marriage.

You also have yet to show that marriage laws prevented a homosexual person from getting married to a person of the opposite gender. According to the laws, sexual orientation and love have no bearing on people getting married. Nowhere is sexual orientation something that will prevent a person from marrying a person of the opposite gender, a marriage license also does not require that the couple love eachother. There is no discrimination when marriage is defined as the legal union of 1 man and 1 woman.

Discrimination is introduced by saying that marriage is defined by who you love. If marriage is defined by who you love, then it is discriminatory to preven a group of sexually confused people from being married.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Redshirt1701, what states are allowed to do is enact requirements for marriage, not "define" marriage. And it has been repeatedly asserted by SCOTUS that these requirements must have a rational basis. That is why restrictions on blood relatives, on minors, on mentally incompetent people, and on already-married people exist. Each of these restrictions have a rational basis. The restriction on SSM has none. Tradition, the children argument, and religious belief all fail the sniff test. That is why anti-SSM laws are falling like dominoes.

Pasedena, CA

To "Laura Bilington" yes, and the states did define marriage on a rational basis. Rational #1, the best situation for a family is for the biological parents to be married and raising their children. Rational #2, there is no benefit to the State in recognizing SSM. Rational #3, according to the DOJ, when a gay couple co-habitates they double their risk of domestic violence.

Those are the basic rational behind defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

What benefit to society is there to encourage or recognize gay marriage? The only logical answer is NONE.

Eagle Mountain, UT


Rational #1: I agree it's best; but not often the case. Are we to take kids away from single mothers? Disallow foster child adoption? Also parents can simply cohabit without being married, so why create this special protection? This creates a special class of society and deprives equal protection.

Rational 2: What benefit does "marriage" have on children over their parents just living together? What interest does the state have in defining such a union?

Rational 3: Certain people are going to live together whether or not they can marry. Preventing this marriage does nothing to slow down the rates of abuse.

With the above arguments, what benefit is there for the state to recognize any form of marriage? Equal protection would state that if you recognize one, you must recognize all, unless you can through due process show why it would be of harm. The same-sex community does not have to justify their right, society has the burden to prove why they should not.

Pasedena, CA

To "Darrel" the state recognition of marriage is to encourage Rational #1.

You missed the point of #2. What benefit does the State get if it was to recognize the marriage of gays? They will lose out on taxes revenues since inheritances can be passed from one partner to another and avoid that tax. There are some tax breaks given to married couples that will also cut tax revenues. Plus, there are the SS benefits that are paid to the survivors. Since they are infertile, they are incapable of producing children that would add to the tax base. Since less than 1/4 of gay couples have children, they would represent an overall drain on society as they age, where 90% of heterosexual couples have children and represent a net gain for society.

Rational #3, discouraging a behavior that leads to harm will decrese the harm. Since the rate of harm is high without encouraging the behavior, what do you think will happen when the behavior is encouraged?

You missed the big question. What benefit to society is there to recognize SSM?

Philadelphia, PA


As usual, you're asking yourself the wrong question. Have you read Amendment 3? It doesn't provide anything, it prohibits something.

So, the proper question when examining a law that prohibits something is, what does society gain by prohibiting it? And that's where your beliefs run into a brick wall.

.--Gay people are already allowed to have sex. It's a Constitutionally-protected private matter.

.--Gay people are already allowed to have children. Some of them had children while they were trying to be straight, because society puts so much pressure on them to deny who they are, and they really do try. Others have already adopted, because adoption agencies, and states, have looked at them and determined that they'd be fine parents. Others have used their own reproductive capacity along with licensed assistance.

.--Married or not, gay people are allowed to choose partners, live together, and form familes. Whether that involves children or just the two partners, those are families.

Given the above, how does society benefit from prohibiting them from marrying? I can think of several ways that prohibition is harmful. Be specific.

Dane, WI

@Redshirt1701 ....."Nowhere is sexual orientation something that will prevent a person from marrying a person of the opposite gender, a marriage license also does not require that the couple love eachother."

So you admit that it's discrimination based on the relative gender of the spouses, in the same way that the bans on mixed-race marriage were discrimination based on the relative race of the spouses? It's great that you admit that, but just be aware that both race and gender are subject to heightened scrutiny by a court.

Perhaps that explains why your side is losing unanimously?

Pasedena, CA

To "Testimony" Ammendment 3 defines marriage, and prevents people from redefining it based on their whims.

Society is benefitted by prohibiting SSM because gays will pay higher taxes, which will offset their expense later in life because 75% of gay couples will NEVER raise children.

By discouraging SSM, you also reduce the cost for police and social services because they will not have to deal with as many domestic violence incidents.

In other words, by prohibiting SSM, the gays and their lack of children will not be a drain on old age entitlements, and they will not drain the social services because of violence.

To "skrekk" prohibiting SSM is no different than prohibitions on bi-polar people from acting out violently. Being gay is not like race. There is NO gay gene. All we know about gays is that they have abnormal brain chemistry. Do we make laws to legitimize the behavior of people with abnormal brain chemistry, or do we seek treatment? Until we know what cause a person to be gay, we are doing nothing more than taking an overweight person to a buffet.

to comment

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