Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah appeals to U.S. Supreme Court in gay marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 5 2014 11:30 a.m. MDT

Updated: Wednesday, Aug. 6 2014 10:28 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

There's also that recent 4th circuit appeals court ruling striking down Virginia's same-sex marriage ban (2-1 decision).

slcdenizen
Murray, UT

"Gulp"

-Supreme Court

I M LDS 2
Provo, UT

Because so many Circuit courts are ruling consistently, the SCOTUS may decide to simply let those rulings stand.

Which is a victory for justice and equality in Utah and America!

Beehive1
Spanish Fork, UT

The supreme court has delayed this decision long enough. It's time for them to settle this once and for all. The state no longer has the right to define marriage.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

I understand the need for full judicial review, but how many lower court opinions does the Supreme Court need to proceed? SCOTUS started this ball rolling with the Windsor decision, how about a final decision one way or another?

How about letting the three Appeals courts that are having oral arguments in the next month complete their work, and then get on with it? Do we really need to have every state and federal judge in America weigh in on this?

Inis Magrath
Fort Kent Mills, ME

@Beehive1: States have never had the right to define marriage in such a way that it violates Federal Constitutional civil rights provisions. See: Loving v. Virginia.

christoph
Brigham City, UT

Polygamy is wrong, and all other practices that this article refers to; if we allow one then we open a floodgate and have to allow all. Then chaos reigns. People may disagree, have a right to disagree. Yet a law suit culture is not good for the future. We can all argue about art and philosophy and sunsets and flowers and what to eat for dinner and where to go hiking or what book to read, or which of the 472 hobbies in the world are best to take up, or we can rearrange the furniture. Forgive others and don't live by lawsuit. The Bible is more important than the Constitution, and with the topic of this article, you have to choose which one you will follow.

ConservativeSmasher
Anaheim, CA

@I M LDS 2

"Because so many Circuit courts are ruling consistently, the SCOTUS may decide to simply let those rulings stand."

No. You're wrong. Justice Ginsburg has already stated that the Supreme Court will rule on this issue.

waikiki_dave
Honolulu, HI

Let's see, now what was that tune Dandy Don Meredith use to sing on Monday night football?

Oh yes, it goes something like this:

"Turn out the lights, the party's over, they say that all good things must end"

"Call it tonight, the party's over, and tomorrow starts the same ole thing again"

. . . . Willie Nelson, oh and btw, I believe Willie supports marriage equality too.

ConservativeSmasher
Anaheim, CA

@I M LDS 2

No. Justice Ginsburg has already stated publicly that the Supreme Court will rule on this issue.

SoCalChris
Riverside, CA

Federal judges are creating a Constitutional right that didn't exist in 1972 - after Loving. See Baker v Nelson.

Yes, the Supreme Court needs to decide this matter, and I hope they follow the actual meaning and intent of the Constitution.

Objectified
Richfield, UT

There still remains very strong feelings about this issue in both directions. Hopefully, both sides can maintain civility and respect for those who don't necessarily share their same opinion. It's sometimes extremely difficult to walk in someone else's shoes and thus remain non-judgmental.

No matter what the Supreme Court ultimately decides on this, there will always remain strong feelings in the other direction for various reasons. It will be a test of our society's civility and strength in seeing how well that decision is accepted and upheld by our country in general, since that Supreme Court decision is basically final and can't be appealed further... no matter what the ruling ends up being.

Dutchman
Murray, UT

Even if SCOTUS rules that the states can ban gay marriage and define marriage as they see fit the states will cave on this issue and eventually allow gay marriages because of the economic threats and boycotts that will follow.

Objectified
Richfield, UT

@ waikiki_dave:

Wow. If Willie Nelson supports SSM, then by all means it must be the way to go. Afterall, letting old, has-been and washed-up entertainers decide such critical issues in our society seems like the only sensible thing to do.

If that is your strongest argument, you really need to go back to the drawing board. It's one of the weakest I ever remember reading. It actually makes the other side's perspective somehow seem stronger.

Michael Hunt
Murray, UT

@Dutchman

Isn't that how the free market works? I factor in your ethics before buying your goods, thus promoting more social unity and cohesion. If I choose to discriminate or produce negative externalities without paying for them, is it not acceptable for my customers to encourage better behavior by patroning another merchant?

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@christoph wrote: "Polygamy is wrong, and all other practices that this article refers to; if we allow one then we open a floodgate and have to allow all. Then chaos reigns."

This is what we call the slippery slope fallacy. Just because it's inevitable in your mind does not mean it is inevitable in reality.

"Yet a law suit culture is not good for the future."

I hope you sent a strongly-worded letter on this topic to Speaker Boehner.

"The Bible is more important than the Constitution, and with the topic of this article, you have to choose which one you will follow."

I must have missed where it says "thou shalt prevent same-sex couples from marrying under civil law." It's probably right next to the verses about selling cakes.

SharpHooks
Lake Sammamish, WA

All the natives screamed that the investigation of Swallow was a waste of money.
That was an INVESTMENT. THIS is a waste of our money.

Owen
Heber City, UT

Objectified - "No matter what the Supreme Court ultimately decides on this, there will always remain strong feelings in the other direction for various reasons. It will be a test of our society's civility and strength in seeing how well that decision is accepted ... ."

It will never be accepted by some. The test of civility will be whether we, as individuals who disagree with the Court, condemn the inevitable incivility and violence that follows. We have civil rights and abortion decisions that still inflame extremists - but too many citizens accept the occasional abortion-clinic shooting/bombing or racially motivated discrimination.

Back Talk
Federal Way, WA

It is inevitable. I think even the State of Utah wants to prove that they have done all that they can and then live with the result.

RockOn
Spanish Fork, UT

Excellent. It had to be appealled. Two points: 1) The citizens of a State MUST have the right to define marriage correctly -- ONLY between ONE man and ONE woman. 2) Equality in marriage already exists. Any man of age can marry any woman of age. If you delude yourself into thinking you are "for equality" in all things, then are you for stripping out "age" as a determining factor? Equal would then be universally equal.

to comment

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