Gay Marriage Ruling: Local Reaction

Set Text Size SmallSet Text Size MediumSet Text Size LargeSet Text Size X-Large
Share
Updated: 6/27/2013 8:34 am
Local residents shared their reactions to the Supreme Court Rulings.
Johnn Perryman said that, he is "Pretty excited, equality is what were all about in this country. That’s what we fought the wars for, that’s why we have our constitution and bill of rights…it’s important. It was a step in the right direction today.

Elaine Johnson noted that, "If the Supreme Court hadn’t knocked that down, it meant that the same gender could get married and at least they would have to get a divorce. Why is it important to you that they need to get a divorce? Because then they would not be looking for a partner all the time. It would put them in the same relationship where they have to stay with that person.

Steven Spangler, in defense of traditional marriage said, "The institution of marriage is a sacred thing and it supplies our nations with people. I think that a man and a woman married deserve a little special status or consideration for raising our next generation. Its fine I think if Gay people want to have a partnership, a legal partnership, but marriage per-say, no I don't agree with that."

In an earlier live interview, NBCs Steve Handlesman gave his view on whether or not today’s ruling would present a blue print for gay marriage supporters to gain legal status to their cause, moving forward.

Handlesman's response was that,"Maybe, except keep in mind that it’s at least conceivable that in the case of California and Prop 8 that another group can come forward can file a lawsuit, can say that the overturning of prop. 8 by the lower court was improper and can actually get a hearing here in the high court, Dave remember the only reason that prop. 8 has been struck down is because the high court here said the people who brought this case didn’t have standing, weren’t hurt by what happened, so it couldn’t come to the high court for a remedy because it didn’t need a remedy. If that’s different coming up we could have a different result, not just in Idaho but also in California as well."

Share
3 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

Chazael - 6/28/2013 2:04 PM
0 Votes
@Honestabe: Which, as already shown, means the nation is immoral. Based upon the logical possibilities alone... Btw, if there is an objective morality then everything is judged as good or evil from an objective source. Which automatically means nothing is amoral. From this objective reference point everything is either good or evil.

Honestabe - 6/28/2013 12:54 AM
0 Votes
We are actually an amoral nation. In other words, we have the freedom to believe what is good without a state religion’s tyranny denying our rights of liberty in our own beliefs of what is good and evil.

Chazael - 6/27/2013 1:13 AM
0 Votes
If equality is what the US is about, then we are truly an immoral and unjust nation. Making (A) and (notA) equivalent is placing evil with good. But good is in opposition to evil. Which means the state has stopped what is good by prohibiting that opposition. It used to be liberty within what was just. Not liberty despite what is just...
Watch our LIVE NEWSCAST
All content © Copyright 2014 to Idaho Broadcast Partners LLC . All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.