Comments about ‘Challenge to Utah's same-sex marriage ban’

Return to article »


  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Farmington, UT

Posters here seem to be basing their arguments for same-sex marriage on the rights, desires and happiness of strictly the adults involved. Aren't we forgetting that once a same-sex home is sanctioned by the government that same government must permit that couple to adopt? That government sanction in the same stroke approves depriving that adopted child of the right to either a mother or father.

All of us, especially parents and children from a single-parent home, know that, try as they might, a mother can never fully replace a father, nor a father a mother. There are inherent, natural differences that enable each gender to bless their children in unique ways. President Obama, in his yearly Fathers' Day message, consistently decries the detrimental impact of father less homes. "Well, isn't that better than languishing in the foster care system," some will ask? When establishing law it behooves us to approve and encourage the optimal scenario, and to protect the rights of the weaker party in any transaction, in this case the children, who have no voice in the matter. We must not put the state's stamp of approval on more fatherless or motherless homes!

Kearns, UT

The next part of their agenda will be to demand marriage in an LDS Temple. They say they won't but I know some militant folks that would like to see that as the endgame.

It seems like that couple that was "married" in Iowa shouldn't have any standing in a case like this. They are already "married".

brian of ohio
Kent, OH

My own 2 cents. Doesn't Utahs CONSTITUTION define marriage between a man and woman? So it has nothing to do with law. a judge can't say the law is unconstitutional according to the state constitution. He has to go on if the rights of marriage are governed by the states or the country as a whole. That should be the argument.The state of Utah says no, the Supreme court has said yes. Who according to our federal constitution has jurisdiction here over marriage.
I think the state, as nowhere does it really explicitly talk about marriage at the US level. Precendence (polygamy example) shows otherwise.
Besides, when has marriage ever been a right? It was a religious ceremony that the government then took over. Anciently, it was a religious right, not civil right. So, you see the problem when government tries to rear its ugly head where it should not, like here and insurance healthcare, and public education. Now, religion can't even be spoken about in school except when defamed(cursing using the word of God)
Sad but true
Still there is hope

college sports fan
Alpine, UT

Allowing same-sex couples to cloak themselves in the terminology of marriage discriminated against other family relationships.
For example two sisters who choose to live together. A woman moves in with her sister. Are they going to have sex? No. Are they a family? Yes.
But why is their 'family' of less value to society than two lesbian women living together?

mid-state, TN

@RedShirtCalTech --

"video titled "Lesbian Activist's..."

One lesbian extremist doesn't speak for the entire LGBT population any more than Warren Jeffs speaks for all Mormons.

@aceroinox --

Gay people can **already** adopt, even without marriage.

Oddly enough, Utah law allows SINGLE gays to adopt, but NOT gays in committed relationships. How does that make any sense?

"depriving that adopted child of the right to either a mother or father."

Gay people do not steal children away from happy straight homes. There is no "depriving" going on here.

" We must not put the state's stamp of approval on more fatherless or motherless homes!"

The State of Utah already does that by allowing ANY single people -- gay or straight -- to adopt.

@Flashback --

"that couple that was "married" in Iowa shouldn't have any standing in a case like this. "

Look up the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Utah insists on ignoring it.

@brian --

"a judge can't say the law is unconstitutional according to the state constitution."

This Federal Court will determine whether Utah's constitution conforms with the **US** Constitution.

It doesn't.

"when has marriage ever been a right? "

See my previous post about SCOTUS.

Utah, UT

Last time I read the constitution, no where did it define that "the choice of a marriage partner is a 'fundamental right and liberty interest.'" Marriage is an institution - a religious institution. It was not established by the state, but by God. God defines what is a "fundamental [human] right" - not man. Even the founders understood this when they declared their independence and eventually formulated the constitution to protect the God-given, inalienable rights afforded to human kind - those rights which every human deserves to enjoy regardless of social status, sex, or religious affiliation. Marriage is not one of them. It is not an individual right, but a religious institutional privilege which has been hijacked by the state and degraded by society.

The other point of this debate is the difference between individual rights - protected by the constitution - and group rights - invented "rights" by groups of people who collaborate to change societal standards to embrace their new "morals." The constitution does not protect group rights - which is what the fight of legalization of same-sex marriage is - it protects God-given, inalienable, individual human rights.

Mount Pleasant, UT

It's certainly our hope that the homosexuals will not win the approval of Utah. I'm sure there are many more who are against their practices than for. I surely do not want my grandchildren and great grandchildren to have to grow up in this kind of environment. I'm sure many of these men and women are good people but just misdirected. Their choices to live outside what is morally clean and right will only bring problems and heartache to themselves and their families. Sexual perversion is not right and is an abomination in the sight of God. They were not made that way - they chose to follow their own desires.

Bountiful, UT

So true! Homosexuals ARE included in "the people," and as such, they have every right to vote. Elections, initiatives and propositions do not pass unanimously. Even though they do not represent the will of ALL the people, they represent the "voice of the people" when they pass by whatever majority margin is required. My point is that the "voice of the people" is being silenced by the totalitarian bench of ONE person.

Clinton, UT

To Contrariuserer and Stalwart Sentinel,
You are absolutely incorrect. You are using a circular argument without turning to the constitution. I never said judges hadn't said it is, but the constitution does not. You are saying that because judges have perverted the words of the constitution to further their own morality and beliefs, then that means it is in the constitution. I am sure you can see the fallacy here, at least, I hope you can. If you can cite me a reference from the constitution, I would by it but having studied our constitution and documents it was created from, you have no reference. Quoting the same corrupt judges is only circular reasoning and only shows you cannot show it as constitutional but can only claim that there are judges who think as you do. That is not a good argument. The fact is the Constitution does not give this right, what judges did later does not change the constitution itself.

Greeley, CO

The Constitution died when the Supreme Court became politicized. If they were truly determining the Constitutionality of laws there wouldn't be so many votes split down party lines. Years in the legal field have taught me that the Supreme Court is a joke. As to this particular line of cases, the courts will all eventually strike down laws denying homosexuals the right to marry. Eventually that will lead to polygamy being allowed as well despite "science" (that one is funny) showing that "polygamy is harmful." Consenting adults choosing to marry has been the battle cry of the gay marriage activists and will be by the polygamy camp.

Lafayette, IN

Linus, good argument. We are marching towards rule by tyrant-judges. BTW, if marriage cannot be constrained by sexual preference, then the legalization of polygamy must follow. For the FLDS, that will result in a major loss of Federal cash (due to AFDC payment losses).


The court will likely rule in favor of the same-sex couples. This is the trend across the country and federal court judges tend to be very liberal and like to legislate from the bench.

All of this does not change the immorality of homosexual behavior. That cannot be changed by public opinion, or anyone's post on this site. it is just wrong.

Those who struggle with same-sex attraction have options. They can work to overcome those desires, as I have done. We all have a choice. This fact is hidden by the media and denied by the LGBT activists because it weakens their arguments.

Fairview, UT

When proponents of same-sex marriage claim coverage under the 14th Amendment, it seems they focus only on the "equal treatment" and ignore "under the law." Since a States' Rights argument holds that states are free to establish law, the Constitution does not abrogate that freedom to some special interest group seeking "special treatment" under the law. All are not free to marry their 10-year-old 1st cousin (at least in some states)and all are free to marry someone of the opposite sex as defined in Utah state law, hence, equal treatment is affirmed.

Clinton, UT

The misunderstanding of the full faith and credit clause here is absolutely staggering. under the interpretation given, each state must allow all that another state allows, thus making one state adopting law in essence forcing them all to adopt it. That is not its role or purpose. Understand the laws before spouting senseless dribble about them.
Further, there is no federal family law...period, thus family law is an issue of the state. By the reasoning given here, if one state makes marijuana legal, Utah must honor that...NO. Get a clue people and make truly rational and logical arguments. If you don't know true logic, study it, read documents for yourself. Quoting SCOTUS only furthers the arguments that our judges are wrong and have taken on themselves powers they were never supposed to.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Seriously? That would be forcing a clergyman to marry them. Every church in the US would help us pass a constitutional amendment to prevent this. No politician would dare oppose it. Even if it failed, the church would simply not perform legally recognized marriages in temples. LDS couples would be married by their bishops and then go to the temple for a strictly religious ceremony. Anyone claiming that the gays will marry in the temples if SSM is legalized hasn't thought it through.

Also, if the state tries to use the “procreation” argument to justify keeping SSM illegal, perhaps the court will agree with them and order the state to stop issuing marriage licenses to women over 50 and order the state to rescind the marriages of couples who haven't given birth within 5 years of marriage. If the state really believes its argument, they should't have a problem with that.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

I heard many of the comments on this board 40 years ago. Just replace "same-sex marriage" with "interracial marriage." Other than that the arguments are the same. People claimed it harmed society. People said children would be disadvantage. People said the Bible prohibited it. People were wrong however.

I have two predictions. One is that same-sex marriage will become legal in Utah. The second is that the good people of Utah will embrace the Gay Community the same way they now embrace the Black Community even though the Mormon Church once prohibited blacks from marrying in their temples.

Its going to be OK folks.

mid-state, TN


"But why is their 'family' of less value to society..."

It isn't. But sisters are already legally protected in many ways because of their blood ties. Unrelated couples (gay or straight) who wish to get married are not.

@Reflectere --

"a religious institution."

Actually, the first recorded marriages in human history were CIVIL marriages -- not religious ones.

@BYU9293 --

" ...the constitution does not. "

Oddly enough, I trust SCOTUS to know more about the Constitution than you do.

"If you can cite me a reference..."

Again, from Meyer v. Nebraska -- the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment "without doubt…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to ... marry, establish a home and bring up children..."

"Quoting the same corrupt judges"

The SCOTUS marriage decisions span more than 100 years and many different panels of justices. Do you wish to claim that **all** SCOTUS justices are corrupt?

"The misunderstanding of the full faith and credit clause.."

Because of that clause, first cousins who legally marry in another state are still married when they cross into Utah. The same clause legally applies to gay couples who are legally married in other states.

Brad J
West Jordan, UT

Polygamy makes more since than then two guys or twp ladys getting married.

DEW Cougars
Sandy, UT

Sad, I think Utah going to lose. If they got what they want you will never be granted be married inside the Lord Temples nor at the LDS Champles. Why don't you go to Las Vegas where there are plenty of misinsters there. Come on, give a rest and leave us alone here in this great state of Utah! And beside, we can't do the judging here on earth, only the Lord can do that!

Salt Lake City, UT

patriot: "If the judge has sympathy toward the homosexual movement (as in California ) then he will always rule in favor of homosexual marriage. If the judge - on the other hand - is neutral and bases his opinion just on constitutional law then traditional marriage will win the day."

Let's deconstruct and look at unspoken subtext, shall we? The sympathetic California judge referred to was a gay man and therefore completely beholden/subservient to his group identity (defined by his sexual orientation) and incapable of neutrality on marriage. His decision is suspect merely because he is gay. In contrast, a neutral judge (it is not even necessary to specify heterosexual here because that is a given) is not influenced by his or her sexual orientation and only rules on constitutional merits. Have you considered that a straight judge could find same sex marriage constitutionally sound but rule against it based on prejudice and fear?

RedShirtCalTech: "...benefits ...benefits ...benefits. What prevents your ilk from finding a preacher to perform a wedding ceremony and declare you married to whoever you want?"

Would anyone, gay or straight, marry if there were not benefits involved? Otherwise it is a meaningless exercise.

to comment

About comments