Quantcast
U.S. & World

Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

Comments

Return To Article
  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    Jeff: "Marriage has always been about procreation... Same-gender marriage accomplishes none of the necessary goals of government intervention into marriage. It is rightly discouraged by any government."

    Marriage is a poorly designed and inefficient policy tool to encourage procreation. It affords benefits to married couples who do not procreate and does not prohibit procreation by unmarried couples. Not a great way to incentivize the desired outcome.

    I agree that ONE social policy goal (and probably the primary one) of marriage is to facilitate "nurtur[ing] children in as close to an ideal as possible." However, that is not the ONLY goal. Marriage is a broad institution and has room to contain (like Emerson) multitudes. Case in point, Utah law makes the INABILITY to bear children a mandatory precondition for first cousin marriages-- hardly a means to encourage procreation. Nor does marriage law (as practiced) approach fostering "as close to an ideal as possible." If two parents are optimal for children, marriage law allows for suboptimal families through divorce. Children of gay parents are also denied the ideal familial situation. As with first cousins, gay marriage accomplishes a legitimate government goal of promoting social stability and individual happiness.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 3, 2012 5:38 p.m.

    @ Lagomorph: It is in the best interest of the state to regulate sexuality, and definitions of certain sexual acts and preferences is necessary to that regulation. Many of the arguments in favor of same-gender marriage require a redefinition of marriage that is far too open-ended. Other arguments favor a shift in the definition to include "all consenting adults," which is too open-ended but also shows the very tendency to draw a line that the rest of us want to do, hence making that argument hypocritical.

    Marriage has always been about procreation (a redefinition would favor marriage's being about sexual attraction, which is not a good foundation for marriage anyway). It is in the interest of government to foster marriage in such a way that the procreation gives as much ability to the parents as possible to not only procreate, but to nurture children in as close to an ideal as possible.

    Same-gender marriage accomplishes none of the necessary goals of government intervention into marriage. It is rightly discouraged by any government.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 1, 2012 5:06 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    "I see Mormons on the political right who keep insisting marriage as being defined as between One man and One woman, suddenly jumping the bandwagon with this court’s finding, and suddenly giddy with the prospects of justifying PLURAL marriage."

    Now body is giddy with the idea of legalizing polygamy. What they are trying to say is that if you change the definition of marriage to include same sex unions then the other variables can also be changed such as the number of partners or even the age of the partners. No matter what changes you make there will still be a minority that will feel their rights are being denied. Keeping the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is the only way to avoid opening Pandora’s box

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 1, 2012 4:53 p.m.

    @ Riverton Cougar: The Oath of Office states, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    One of the President's duties is to "take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed,...."

    Obama has been advised that DOMA is unconstitutional. He has a conflict between defending the Constitution and executing the laws. He has been advised that the way to handle this is to enforce DOMA - which he does - while not wasting taxpayer time and money to defend it - which he isn't.

    There is a difference between defending and enforcing.

    Obama has not broken his Oath of Office.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 1, 2012 2:31 p.m.

    wrz
    These gay couples, If they want the benefits accorded married people, all they need do is marry someone who qualifies them... that would someone of the opposite sex. It's that simple.

    wrz
    They can marry just like anyone else so long as they chose someone of the opposite sex.

    wrz
    Children have rights too... and should not be subject to discrimination.

    ----------------

    You are wrong, and on so many levels.

    Here is what the LDS leaders have instructed us;

    Pres. Hinckley declared that heterosexual "marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices"

    Church leaders have warned that encouraging Gay members to pretend to have heterosexual feelings in order to qualify for marriage, generally leads to frustration, discouragement, and divorce. It shatters the lives of not only themselves, but those around them. They speak against those who enter into marriage under false pretense.

    Finally, children do not have the same rights as adults.
    Children do not have the right to smoke, drink, drive, vote, serve in the Military, buy firearms, or any other Constitutional right. So your entire rant is utterly moot.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    @Schwa: "Now if they start marrying their 14 year old daughters off, then I have a huge problem."

    In which case you're discriminating against 14 year old daughters. Some countries permit and even encourage early age marriages. This country used to at one time in our history and it didn't seem to reach the huge problem stage.

    @airnaut

    I think you're missing the point. A 'living Constitution' means it's not static and can mean whatever the courts want it to mean without changing the document. The amendment process leaves the original document intact and makes the changes needed not by a judge's order but by the people through their representatives (i.e., Congress).

    @Hutterite: "We should be able to find some way to let gay people marry without having to include the right to marry llamas or houseplants."

    In which case you&'re right back into the discrimination arena. I happen to be fond of my houseplant.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2012 1:20 p.m.

    John20000: "I have two dogs. Why does the federal government discriminate against my dogs?"

    Hook up with your dogs and the discrimination will end. That's where this whole thing will eventually end up

    @Cinci Man: "There will soon be no principle to invoke to block anyone from marrying anyone else of age..."

    Why stop at a certain age? Children have rights too... and should not be subject to discrimination.

    @George: "Why should they gay community 'accept' second class status? I am sorry that they do not want to go to the back of the bus sit down and shut-up but I don't blame them they should not have too."

    Why should people who love their pets or their underage neighbor have to go to the back of the bus, sit down and shut up?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 1, 2012 12:43 p.m.

    All this talk about "Gay Marriage is no different than polygamy" begs a new question ---

    If a man marries a woman, and another and another....
    And they are all bound legally and lawfully,
    Aren't then those Sister wives "Married" to each other - legally and lawfully?

    Isn't that in essence a "Gay Marriage"?, regardless if there is no sexual contact between wives?
    or going even further, even if there was such --
    would that no longer be considered a sin, since the Law of Chastity is no sexual relations, except for with your husband of wife, to whom you are legally and lawfuly wedded?

    This could open up a can of worms no-one will be happy with....

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    wrz: "Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not discriminate against homosexuals. They can marry just like anyone else so long as they chose someone of the opposite sex. DOMA says nothing about love, devotion, companionship, sexual activity, etc."

    See my previous post. What you are suggesting is that the State is in the arranged marriage business, selecting whom one can marry and denying personal choice to the participants in the martter. DOMA may be silent about love, but western tradition for the last few centuries has not been. Romantic love is a significant part of human pair bonding. Would you be comfortable living in a world that only let you marry someone that you had no affection for?

    wrz: "What has the payment of taxes to do with marriage?"

    As long as a Form 1040 has a check box for "Married filing separately" or "Married filing jointly" with separate tax tables for each, payment of taxes has everything to do with marriage.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    wrz: "These gay couples who marry... they got it wrong. If they want the benefits accorded married people, all they need do is marry someone who qualifies them... that would someone of the opposite sex. It's that simple."

    The couples who brought the suit WERE legally married to someone who qualified (in their state). They sued because they were denied federal benefits provided to other legally married couples in their state.

    As to those who argue that gays are not discriminated against because they are completely and equally free to marry... someone of the opposite sex: You wholly discount the role of love in marriage. Do you deny that emotional attraction contributes to marital stability and happiness? This notion that one has equal access to marriage because one can marry someone for whom there is no attraction is at best flippant and shallow, but actually fraudulent and cruel. Those are the true counterfeit marriages, not loving same sex ones. It's a throwback to the days of arranged marriages, where women were treated as chattel and married off by the parents to strangers in exchange for property or to secure political alliances. Now that's traditional family values.

  • OLD-GUY Central, Utah
    May 31, 2012 11:33 p.m.

    From my perspective we talk a lot about definations (in this case marriage.) I have seen some laws that have pages of definations.

    I am prohibited from doing certain things based on that I do not meet the full and complete defination. I think of the ability to write perscriptions because I am not a Doctor as defined. I might have even studied medicine for years, I may even only lack a few hours of formal study, but still I do not qualify as a Doctor. I can be called something else that I do qualify for, perhaps a druggist.

    Historical precedent is important in a lot of things, I think marriage is one of those words, just as is Doctor etc.

    I don't have any problems for those in a civil union to get the same benefits as others however.

    I do have a question for my own knowledge. When a marriage breaks up we call it a divorce. In a same-sex union is there a "divorce" and are there provisions that one pay "support" to the other like you have in some divorces? Are the courts involved in these civil union divorces?

  • fowersjl Farmington, Utah
    May 31, 2012 10:49 p.m.

    Can anyone in this forum tell me that a man marrying a woman is the same as a man marrying a man? In other words: a woman and a man are exactly the same? I think the answer is obvious. Society is best served and continued through heterosexual marriage which provides children. That is the bottom line.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    May 31, 2012 10:17 p.m.

    This will not sit well with the electorate. Politically, this could not come in worse timing for the Obama administration. This will be one more reason why the evangelicals, Catholics, and many other faith-based groups will be running to the polls on election day to get rid of the stench of the Obama administration. It is also another reason why it is necessary to get a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman only. Only then can we take this issue out of the hands of liberal judges.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    May 31, 2012 9:50 p.m.

    Middle of the Road:

    Man's law can trump God's law because we are a secular nation, and I do not believe in your God. You do not have the right to tell me how to worship. The first amendment makes that quite clear.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 9:04 p.m.

    Darrel: "Couple of easy solutions: 1) Define marriage as between two people..."

    An easier solution... define marriage as between one man and one woman.

    And an even easier solution is to define marriage as between a man, woman, pet, children, your vehicle, fuzzy-wuzzy, your computer, your TV, etc., separately or all at the same time.

    @UtahBlueDevil: "Ultimately it is going to come down to a supreme court ruling that says states can not create laws that expressly grant rights to one group while denying those same rights to another - based on any criteria."

    Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not discriminate against homosexuals. They can marry just like anyone else so long as they chose someone of the opposite sex. DOMA says nothing about love, devotion, companionship, sexual activity, etc.

    @atl134:

    "Your dogs will never pay a cent in taxes. Kids presumably will eventually."

    What has the payment of taxes to do with marriage?

    "Conservatives look at handgun bans and say that's a violation of rights, I look at it and say the second amendment has the word militia in it."

    Militias are always a possibility which is the purpose of the Amendment.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    May 31, 2012 8:33 p.m.

    Actually, as far as "gay marriage" goes, I don't see that it's interfering, as long as it's understood to be a reference to the civil/secular meaning only and not to be applied to any private religious or spiritual ceremonies and beliefs. Then it takes only what the civil law can do. And as some have brought up polygamy (or maybe referring to multiple spouses of any gender as well, I don't know), making those legal as well would allow legal recording and oversight to be sure that situations like the one occurring with FLDS and other such groups did not occur. Sometimes legal is good....

  • Madden Herriman, UT
    May 31, 2012 8:00 p.m.

    The LDS church has made it clear (in press releases and in their support of SLC policies) that they support rights of LGBT people - those that truly matter, such as visitation etc. Too many social conservatives cannot get past the LGBT perceptions though. They think that protecting rights somehow ruins the sanctity of marriage, when all it does is provide a needed legal framework. We need to get people past that.

    What the LDS Church does not want is to have these rights and protections labeled as marriage. Living the LGBT lifestyle is a serious sin according to our moral code, and we cannot support marrying these folks in our churches or temples - any laws that seek to force that upon us should be met with resistance. On the other hand, laws and rulings that simply protect decent people are no threat, and we should support them. The slippery slope arguments are pretty thin - I think the line is pretty clear in what we should and should not support.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 7:58 p.m.

    "A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples..."

    These gay couples who marry... they got it wrong. If they want the benefits accorded married people, all they need do is marry someone who qualifies them... that would someone of the opposite sex. It's that simple.

    They way we're going, before you know it a person could marry their horse just to claim the benefits accorded marrieds.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    May 31, 2012 7:22 p.m.

    It seems a bit odd that you would care about someone else's private life that much. It's none of your business.

    As for the religious argument, I'm not a member of your church. I don't believe in your god. Your rules do not apply to me.

    I have no desire to have children so your 'think of the children' reasoning also doesn't apply to me. Plenty of heterosexual parents divorce. Society seems to carry on.

    You are free to marry the consenting adult whoever you want. I don't care. Why do you?

  • Middle of the Road Home Town USA, UT
    May 31, 2012 7:06 p.m.

    How can all of this law and battle over the Gay Marriage "rights" trump GOD? He is the creator of the law in the first place! To override, or overrule is an act of "man." Our Constitution is based on the Judeo-Christian model. I shutter to think the repercussions of such a "law."

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 6:58 p.m.

    VOR @5:24 p.m. May 31, 2012-
    I rarely agree with your positions, especially on the gay marriage topic, but I gave you a "like" for the gracious tone of your post. (And anyone who listens to TED talks can't be all bad.) We need more thoughtful, respectful discussion here and less venom (even if, as procuradorfiscal sometimes shows, venom can be clever and smart).

    While I'm handing out pats on the back, cheers to atl134, Kalindra, and Ranch for ceaselessly waging the good fight in an articulate, intelligent, and civil manner (and for generally good spelling and punctuation).

    I respect the DesNews moderation for keeping the flames and trolls under control, but the 200 word, 4 comment limit is chafing. Any chance of bumping it to 6 comments? Or accepting HTML coding?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    May 31, 2012 6:20 p.m.

    RE: airnaut

    You got your facts wrong.

    Prohibition was lead by the "progressives" the name of the liberals used in i the 20's and 30's

    And Prayar in schools should be local issue not a federal one. schools are NOT federal instituions, but local institutions,

    But what is so wrong about trying to change the constitution? There is a mechanism built in for changing the constitution. Would it be preferable if conservative used the courts like the liberals?

    -
    -
    -
    RE: LDS LIberal

    You need to brush up on LDS polygamy,
    polygamy is NOT a plural marriage,

    Each marriage is a singular entitly of one man and one women, and has nothing to do with any other women, though they may have a choice whether to allow it.

    -
    -
    -
    My guess is the supreme court will over turn this decision, since the law does not disallow civil unions for gays.

    Instead of fighting over this why do not the gays stop "marriage" from federal recognition?

    The answer to this shows thier true agenda.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 31, 2012 6:06 p.m.

    This is OK. We should be able to find some way to let gay people marry without having to include the right to marry llamas or houseplants.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 5:24 p.m.

    atl134,

    I'm sorry, I didn't see that you replied. Bear in mind I can't reply after this. But I want to thank you for your respectful reply.

    ---

    I didn't understand this sentence: "Unless of course... marriage out of the gov't."

    I can support SOME kind of civil union to allow for protecting gay couples from circumstances such as nuptial agreement disputes, tax benefits, and especially more sensitive issues like hospital visitation. My concern with unions is that some desire to force religions, restrict speech, and thus I don't favor them. I could support a constitutionally protected civil union, SO LONG as certain religious rights were equally protected as well.

    I'm not anti-gay at all. I do believing in a virtue-ethic style of government placing 'value' on something (as Michael Sandel illustrated at TED (it's on youtube)). I don't think it's wrong for government to encourage something. Encouraging and restricting are different. I'm not trying to restrict anything gay, just establish/place certain value on what the telos of marriage is. I wish we had more room here to talk. I'd like to further discuss this point.

  • djk blue springs, MO
    May 31, 2012 5:12 p.m.

    marriage is between 1 man 1 woman...not 1 man and 1 man, 1 woman and 1 woman, not 1 man and multiple wives. our Heavenly Father is perfect, man is not but when we follow Heavenly Father's plan we learn-grow-succeed. marriage is sacred. the world says marriage is not sacred. I say marriage is sacred and to be respected

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 31, 2012 4:59 p.m.

    Talk about unconstitutional how about an unelected three judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals overturning, without clear Constitutional basis, an act of a duly elected Congress defending one of the foundational institutions of our civilization!

    The "equality argument" for same sex marriage is a red herring. Homosexuals already have the same right to get married as anybody else i.e. they can marry one consenting person of the opposite sex of the appropriate age, who is not too closely related to them! They are entitled to this but not t have the rules changed to fit their fancy, much less to change the definition of marriage. Finally "same sex marriage " is not real marria.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 4:53 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon,

    Does being "open minded" mean that you can substitute church teachings when it is convenient for you, does it simply mean that you are open to other possibilities besides the truthfulness of the LDS Church, or does it mean that you just don't have to be 'all that devout'?

    It is no secret that I have questioned why people say "I'm Mormon" and preach doctrines contrary to the church. However, I'm not pretending to be the 'better Mormon', nor do I even nearly feel that way. But facts are facts and you have not given as much credit to the person you criticized as you ought to have.

    Calling something "lame & just plain stupid" isn't just irrational, I would argue that it is deplorable. If you read the proclamation on the family, and the statements given about how marriage and procreation are inseparably connected- I would ask if you feel that way about the leadership of the church also? It's one thing to question leaders, even members. But considering their views completely unintelligent simply for aligning with doctrine- that's incredible.

    All the anti-LDS hate on here is truly very sad.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    May 31, 2012 4:33 p.m.

    Darrel, I agree with you. The government should stay out of marriage. The government should allow genetically unrelated consenting adults a "union" issued in the court house and performed at the moment of request, with the documents to prove no genitic link. Then the couple, group, whatever, can have whatever cerimony they wish and all are the same under the law.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 31, 2012 4:32 p.m.

    Federal Way, WA
    There are two views of the constitution:

    Liberals believe in something called a "Living Constitution". A living constitution is really no constitution at all.

    Conservatives believe in a written constitution. You know what that constitution is because you can read it for yourself. It is stable and reliable.
    ===============

    Then PLEASE explain why it is always the Conservatives who are the one’s Constantly trying to change, and Amend it?
    Prohibition,
    Flag burning,
    Balanced Budget,
    Repeal the Natural Born Citizen clause,
    Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments,
    Banning Abortion,
    Allow Prayers in Schools,

    BTW - name the last time a Liberal called for a Constitutional Amendment?
    [I think it was the Equal Rights Amendment back in 1972].

    As for “Living” Constitution and leaving it alone – I think you have it all backwards my friend.

    And if you want to save the Constitution, leave it alone and stop Trampling it,
    or get enough votes to pass normal legislation with a 2/3 majority in Congress -- per the Constitution.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    May 31, 2012 4:30 p.m.

    @ Ranch: If marriage is redefined by the courts, as it was by the California Supreme Court and later the 9th Circuit in the case over Prop 8, then the only recourse is to amend the constitution (as we Californians did with urr state constitution)

    You ask a hypothetical, rhetorical question about whether or not I would amend the Constitution to take away a right granted by that Constitution. You imply by your question that you want me to accept the premise that same-gender marriage is a right guaranteed by either the California State or US Constitutions. I do not accept that premise, which makes your question moot.

    I think amending any constitution is something that should be generally avoided unless it becomes necessary. I think it is too bad that we should have to amend our Constitution for something that should be so basic that the Founding Fathers never even considered it a possibility (nor, by the way, did the framers of the 14th Amendment). It is too bad, but it is becoming necessary.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 4:30 p.m.

    @A Voice of Reason
    Okay, I'm glad you support equal protections. I believe that would leave the one source of disagreement with your position being the idea that "separate but equal is inherently unequal". Unless of course you supported civil unions for all couples gay or straight and just get marriage out of the gov't. Then obviously that argument wouldn't apply either. Personally, I support gay marriage or the get it out of the gov't and give everyone civil unions thing (I'm partial to this latter one because if we make our marriage rules similar to Europe then that means the LDS church can get rid of the 1 year waiting period on civil marriages before temple sealings in this nation and that'll make things more comfortable for non-member family members of converts).

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 3:46 p.m.

    atl134,

    But that's exactly the problem with people arguing against me. I DO NOT support denying such benefits. Calling it second class because I won't accept it as moral- is one thing. I still disagree with that and can support that opinion with rational arguments. But to argue that TO ME and on the grounds that 'because of said benefits' is unwarranted.

    George,

    SCOTUS did rule, but on heterosexual marriage.

    I have hardly touched on the "2nd class citizen" point. I very often talk about my voting rights, state recognition not being a right, and the equal protection clause. I may not seem to have new "material" to you, but that does not negate my claims nor the VALUE in discussing them, debating them, or even restating them. Do you suppose you and everyone supporting gay marriage feel exempt from ever having argued redundantly? Whatever you think of my commentary, I made a point to show you respect; such a calloused response doesn't seem appropriate.

    Thinkin\' Man,

    I posted an interesting point about that on another article, titled "Most important religious freedom case".

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 31, 2012 3:26 p.m.

    Thinkin\' Man
    Rexburg, ID
    Of course the provisions discriminate! That's the whole point! Society has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage because it is society's foundation and is necessary to create and raise the next generation.

    ===============

    I'm in my 50's
    My wife is in her late 40's
    We can no longer have children.

    Using your lame reasoning that marriage is only about sex and having children means MY marriage of 28 years is now null and void,
    Adoptive Parents can't be married,
    and Abraham and Sarah could not been considered married for 100 years either -- so please stop using it!

    It's just plain stupid, full of holes, and does not hold in the court of common sense.

    And if propogation of the species is your only defining factor of marriage,
    almost 50% of America's children are born out-of-wedlock.

    So once again,
    Your point is moot.

    Marriage is defined by L-O-V-E,
    not S-E-X or having K-I-D-S.

    Why is that so hard to define?

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    May 31, 2012 3:19 p.m.

    I don't have a problem with polygamy, either. If consenting adults want to all be together, who am I to tell them how to live their lives? Now if they start marrying their 14 year old daughters off, then I have a huge problem.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    May 31, 2012 3:15 p.m.

    There are two views of the constitution:

    Liberals believe in something called a "Living Constitution". Nobody knows for sure what such a constitution actually means because a living constitution means what some judge says it means; and that is final, until another judge changes it. A living constitution is really no constitution at all.

    Conservatives believe in a written constitution. You know what that constitution is because you can read it for yourself. It is stable and reliable.

    The constitution does not ban discrimination. If it did it would ban freedom.
    The difference between freedom and a dictatorship comes down to one thing: Who makes the decisions.

    It is impossible to make any decision that effects anothers life without discriminating. When I eat at McDonald's I am discriminating against Denny's. When I buy a Ford I am discriminating against GM and Chrysler and Toyota...

    If we need to change the constitution we can do that with an amendment.

    I sure wish that Federal Judges respected the written constitution and freedom.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 31, 2012 3:07 p.m.

    @CI

    round and round we go in never ending circles

    I am guessing you will not be shocked to find out none of your "articles" or your reference to the National registry of sweden, what the few references they do make they all pretty much state that same thing the states that do allow gay marriage do not keep separate numbers for gay and straight couples, they are all lumped into one. Just for future reference articles that do not provide information on what they are using to support their claims not really credible
    source anyway. I would suggest you may want to keep that claim in your back pocket until you can find actual evidence to support it.

    Again read my last comment separate is not equal and ""traditional marriage" is not all that traditional when you look at it through the lens of history it is a rather modern construct and therefore hardly set in stone.

    if you can actually get through my rather awkwardly worded post you will see that I was trying to state that most posters that support gay marriage are not opposed to polygamy among consenting adults and therefore a poor counter argument,

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    May 31, 2012 2:44 p.m.

    Of course the provisions discriminate! That's the whole point! Society has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage because it is society's foundation and is necessary to create and raise the next generation. To promote it, alternatives must be discouraged by denying something to them.

    Laws treat people unequally all the time, taxes and fees being prime examples.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    May 31, 2012 2:36 p.m.

    Civil rights shouldn't not be subject to popular vote, and government has no business protecting the "Sanctity" of anything. Churches? Sure, churches should not be forced by the government to recognize the “sacred” joining of a couple in marriage if they don’t want to, for whatever reason. And I believe the 1st Amendment is on their side, just like the 1st Amendment bar your church from requiring that I obey your religious institutions definition of the “sanctity of marriage” however said religious institution wants to define it. I don’t even have a problem with Polygamy, as long as its consenting adults making that decision, why should that be anyone’s business? The issue with modern day Polygamy is that it’s usually not a true “choice”, but rather a combination of religious coercion and threat of punishment if (usually the young bride) refuses to go through with it.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 31, 2012 2:23 p.m.

    Gar marriage should be legal. Polygamy should be legal. What's the problem? We live in a free country ... or so we're told.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 31, 2012 1:32 p.m.

    A voice of Reason
    Salt Lake City, UT

    Gays aren't prevented from using the same restrooms, drinking fountains, schools, etc. Gays aren't considered a less moral citizen, a less lawful citizen, or anything "less" than anyone else.

    =============

    NOT true—

    Mormon Church Supports Salt Lake
    By Aaron Falk and Scott Taylor, Deseret News
    Nov. 11 2009

    Summary
    Salt Lake City to offer housing and employment protections for gays and lesbians — an action supported by the Mormon church.

    Salt Lake City Council, passed a pair of nondiscrimination ordinances that would bar landlords and employers from discriminating based on sexuality — a protection NOT currently afforded under state or federal laws.

    In a rare public appearance before local lawmakers, a representative from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read a supporting statement at a public hearing before the Salt Lake City Council regarding the ordinances proposed by Mayor Ralph Becker.

    "The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage"


    You and the Republican led Utah State Legislature did not support it.

    You supported Prop 8, but convienently ignored this one all the time.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 31, 2012 1:25 p.m.

    @Anne26;

    Would you just simply accept discrimination against you for no valid reason other than people find you "icky"? Why should we?

    We ARE American Citizens. Citizens rights shouldn't be put to a vote.

    @RivertonCougar;

    Please get your facts straight; Obama IS enforcing the law, he's just not defending it.

    @CI';

    Then don't. But please stop trying to force others to live the way you want to.

    @Hawkeye79;

    Sorry, but even though CA's CU law gave most of the rights of marriage, not all of them were available. For instance, they still don't get federal recognition or benefits.

    @Jeff;

    You would be okay changing the Constitution to revoke certain parts of the Constitution? Equal treatment for all citizens, reciprocity, etc.? What happens when your own rights are put up to an amendment as the next step? What then? Will you still be happy about it?

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 31, 2012 1:10 p.m.

    This debate has already played out in the courts due to the very fact that even in states that have laws that clearly state that gay people should have the civil rights you listed are still denied equal access. it has been proven time and again in the courts that these separate rules for gays and straight people ends up in an unequal application of the civil right laws which pretty well voids your argument. The courts have ruled separate is not equal. I would also remind you laws are not about spreading your morality they are about preventing harm and since we now have hundreds of post by you and you have yet to prove and social harm it pretty clearly shows the facts do not support your claim that we should restrict access.. I am not really interested in having another protracted conversation that covers the same ground over and over again, do you actually have any new material because your old material is really left wanting. I will not be responding to anymore of the same old arguments it is a tiresome waste of time. sorry.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 1:03 p.m.

    @Counter Intelligence
    I'll tell you the same thing I tell straight people, if you don't want same-sex marriage don't get one. Just because you don't want one is no reason to stop other people from getting them.

    @byu rugby
    Slippery slope logical fallacy. Same argument used by those who opposed interracial marriage seeing as a lot of those people considered black people to be sub-human.

    "I should be able to have as many guns as the outlaws do!"

    I don't think anything is stopping you from that. The US is #1 by far with regards to guns:person ratio (Yemen is 2nd).

    @A Voice of Reason
    Being a gay couple without marriage benefits costs them approximately 200,000 dollars worth of said benefits over their lifetimes. There absolutely is a 2nd class status. And yes, saying they have to have civil unions instead of marriages is no different than saying they have to use the other water fountain instead of this one.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    May 31, 2012 12:58 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil

    "Ultimately it is going to come down to a supreme court ruling that says states can not create laws that expressly grant rights to one group while denying those same rights to another - based on any criteria.

    Its not going to be a gay rights issue, nor any specific minorty group/class issue, but a general ruling that states can not discriminate benefits/rights. No protected nor privilaged groups. We are even starting to see this same argument used in affirmative action challenges."

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th Amendment)

    The government might have a problem if they did what you suggested.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    @John20000
    Your dogs will never pay a cent in taxes. Kids presumably will eventually.

    @Cinciman
    "Now that the slippery slope is out in the open, what possible reasoning can be used to EVER block polygamy?"

    Slippery slopes are logical fallacies. You're using an argument used by people who were against interracial marriage seeing as they pretty much considered black people to be sub-human.

    @Anne26
    "The problem is, the gay community is unwilling to accept that."

    If someone thinks a law or statute is unconstitutional (regardless of whether or not it actually is) then why are you surprised they aren't willing to accept something they believe is unconstitutional? Conservatives look at handgun bans and say that's a violation of rights, I look at it and say the second amendment has the word militia in it. I think those bans are constitutional, but since conservatives think they are unconstitutional I can see why they refuse to accept it.

    @Coug420
    "we should also allow dogs to vote."

    My goodness, politicians would be lobbying heavily for the votes of crazy cat ladies and their 70 cats.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 12:44 p.m.

    George,

    It isn't second class. Gays aren't prevented from using the same restrooms, drinking fountains, schools, etc. Gays aren't considered a less moral citizen, a less lawful citizen, or anything "less" than anyone else. We're talking about state-recognition of two people's choices. They are still free to live by those choices. I am not invading homes, forcing people apart, or doing anything involving the private practices of two individuals. I simply refuse to believe or state endorsement for... OR politically publish any document that gives recognition to behavior that I believe is wrong.

    That may upset you. I'm not going out of my way to intentionally upset you or anyone else. I believe that gay persons and everyone else should not be denied hospital visitation rights, and whatever other rights are basic to civil, human, and decent existence. But where sexuality has been established for thousands of years AT VERY LEAST as a morally debatable issue, then a state not prohibiting the exercise of such an act is infringing no freedom whatsoever. Marry all you want, but state-recognition can factually be distinguishable from social recognition.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    May 31, 2012 12:42 p.m.

    This is another illustration for the need to push for and support a federal Constitutional amendment fixing the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 31, 2012 12:34 p.m.

    Ultimately it is going to come down to a supreme court ruling that says states can not create laws that expressly grant rights to one group while denying those same rights to another - based on any criteria.

    Its not going to be a gay rights issue, nor any specific minorty group/class issue, but a general ruling that states can not discriminate benefits/rights. No protected nor privilaged groups. We are even starting to see this same argument used in affirmative action challenges.

    Maybe not this year, or the next, but eventually the Supreme Court will have to rule on this broader issue.

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 31, 2012 12:28 p.m.

    @CI
    While I certainly disagree with those that would tell you to go the the back of the bus and sit down, I would remind you others challenging your claims and offering counter points of view is not the same as trying to silence you. I do have a couple of problems with your reasoning. Assuming you are correct about only 20% of gay couples choosing to get married, my question is does it really matter what percentage decide to do so? If it is something that gay people should be able to access it really does not matter if 1% or 100% decide to do so, not all straight people are required to get married just because they can. Secondly this is the second thread you have made claims that only 20% get married and that divorce rates are 167% higher then their straight contour parts and this is the second time I have asked to sight your source since I have never seen any evidence to support this claim.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 31, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    This is just another battle in the on-going war of humanism vs faith. Humanist's want a society where traditional marriage is dissolved which happens when gays are allowed to marry. Humanist's want a God-less society or atheistic society. Humanist's want a society free of ANY patriotic sentiment toward a country. Humanist's want a society without morals. Basically humanism and liberalism are twins and both lead to the complete and total destruction of any society. The bottom line - children need a proper nurturing environment based on healthy Father-Mother relationships. Gay marriages destroy that environment. There is more to raising a child than love - you also need healthy teaching and nurturing. Homosexuality is ab-normal no matter how the politically correct nonsense plays out. A little boy - for example - has no chance of developing healthy relationships with girls when the only example he sees in his home growing up is his two male care givers kissing , hugging, etc.... Again - homosexual behavior is ab-normal and children have the right to be raised in a normal environment.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 12:06 p.m.

    Marriage: 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock;

    Tried looking up gay marriage or gay union, they don't exists in the Webster dictionary.

    I'm sure the definition would go something like: legal union of a man and a man or a woman to a woman for life.

    My question is why change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman? Why would we change the definition of a horse to include all four legged animals with tails?

    To add clarity to society we need to call things what they are. Marriage is between a man and a woman. When a man chooses to be with a man or a woman chooses to be with a woman it should be called what it is and allow them many of the same rights and benefits. But not force religions to have to change their belief.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    For folks who believe the bible and who believe same sex marriage is sinful they will never accept that it should be made legal. I suppose the argument might be that something that is immoral like sex between same gender folks should not fall under anti-discrimination laws. After all, for thousands of years foks have discriminated between right and wrong. What is different now I ask?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 31, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    Irony of the day –

    I see Mormons on the political right who keep insisting marriage as being defined as between One man and One woman, suddenly jumping the bandwagon with this court’s finding, and suddenly giddy with the prospects of justifying PLURAL marriage.

    The LDS Church statement remains ONE man, and ONE Woman.
    Since you have fought so diligently against Gay-marriage,
    You must remain as vigilant and continue to stand against PLURAL marriage as well.
    Or
    Are you just a bunch of hypocritical dirty old men?

    BTW – If you want another wife, you can have mine. I already have one wife to many.
    [That’s a joke!]

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    May 31, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    @ Darrel,

    "Couple of easy solutions:
    1) Define marriage as between two people"

    However, keep in mind that the argument from same-sex marriage advocates has been that definitions of marriage that exist to exclude a minority group's preferences are inappropriate and unconstitutional. Your proposed limitation of "two people" is no less discriminatory than the limitation of "one man and one woman."

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    May 31, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    Hi birwin,

    The court's ruling conspicuously did not strike down the law's provision that prevents states from being forced to recognize marriages performed in other states. That portion of the law is still in effect (technically every part of the law is in effect until the Supreme Court rules on it, but the cross-state recognition portion is not even being questioned). Because of the inclusion of a severability clause, the removal of one portion of the law does not invalidate the rest (which was not the case with the Affordable Care Act).

    So, according to the law, a same-sex marriage performed in one state does not have to be recognized as valid in another. They would only have to be considered married for matters that take place in states that decide to recognize same-sex marriages.

    As far as insurance goes, the paying out of benefits falls to the insurance company, not the state. You would have to check with an individual provider to know what their policy is.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    May 31, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    Hi LDS Liberal,

    To suggest that it was the "Ultra-Conservatives" who went for broke would be revisionist history indeed. Please refer to California's family law at the time when Proposition 8 was on the ballot. The state law already guaranteed equal rights and privileges to marriages and civil unions, yet advocates of same-sex relationships still fought against efforts to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

    Why would that be?

  • byu rugby Crystal Lake, IL
    May 31, 2012 11:14 a.m.

    Well if Gay Marriage is legal, shouldn't every relationship be eligible for marriage?

    two men, three women

    one adult, one child

    one adult, one pet (any kind)

    I mean if nothing is sacred, then shouldn't everything be acceptible? Who needs laws if, somebody is going to feel opressed by it. I want to drive 150mph on the way home tonight. It is not fair that only emergency vehicles and race car drivers can do so. I am being descriminated against. Why do only outlaws have guns? That is oppressive to me as a law abiding individual. I should be able to have as many guns as the outlaws do!

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 31, 2012 11:14 a.m.

    @Cinci Man

    Couple of easy solutions:
    1) Define marriage as between two people
    2) Those desiring plural marriage propose a reasonable solution to the various tax and inheritance problems that would arise. Whether it be something simple as no tax benefits beyone the initial couple, and with every new addition to the marriage, a new "will" be presented to the court.

    Bottom line, I really don't care what consenting adults do in their own bedroom. I have my beliefs, I hold them sacred, but those are between me and my God.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 31, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    @Riverton Cougar

    The President is enforcing it (Federal employee same sex couples still cannot get benefits), however, he has said he will not DEFEND it.

    Enforcing and defending a law are two different things.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 31, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    @Anne26

    The problem with that is, marriage is such an integral part of society, how would 50 different laws work? If two men got married in MA, and one got transferred at work to UT, would they still be married? One could argue the 10th amendment, and the other could argue the full faith and credit clause. There has to be one National Standard on something this big.

    Personally, I think government should get out of "marriage" and allow "unions". Require everyone to go to the courthouse to get married by a Judge, and then whatever religious ceremony you want can be done afterwards.

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 31, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    I am not sure why those that oppose gay marriage think they arguing to get out of bring polygamy into the conversation every-time. Do they think are remaking some kind of point? Every time they bring it up those that support gay marriage always agree polygamy between consenting adults probably should be legal. So again what is the point, maybe to try to find something we actually agree on?

  • birwin Herrmian, UT
    May 31, 2012 10:59 a.m.

    To @Hawkeye79 and @Anne26 posts I would have to say that there will be some messy issues that will need to be resolved if this is left up to states (Not saying this should not be a state issue, just saying it will be messy if it is).

    By moving across state lines, people could suddenly have their marriage annulled?

    If someone is on a vacation and gets injured and they are on their spouse's insurance, will they be uninsured if the other state does not recognize the marriage?

    Does this have interstate commerce ramifications? If so, can the federal government legislate this?

    Just asking...

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 31, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    You had the chance to protect traditional Marriage with the compromise of allowing Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships --
    aka, legal records at the County Couthouse, with a Justice of the Peace.
    No Church, No Religion, No God.
    Just a legally binding document, like a business agreement.

    Even the LDS Church's statements about securing legal rights for the GLBT community could have been taken into account without the need for redefining "Marriage".

    But No, the Ultra-Conservatives had to go for broke, All-or-Nothing.
    No compromise.

    Well, Guess what...

  • williary Kearns, UT
    May 31, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    @Anne26

    Sort of like we did with slavery?

    That worked out well.

    Letting the majority vote on an issue that does not affect them in any way at all, but only affects whether a couple in the minority can get a piece of paper that says "Marriage?"

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 31, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    So, let's get the balance of powers right. The legislative branch, led by Congress (the House and the Senate), make the laws. They did that with DOMA, passing it as law in 1996. The executive branch, led by the President of the United States, enforces the laws passed by Congress. Then the judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court of the United States, interprets the laws and decides their constitutionality. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws or enforce them, and neither Congress nor the President should interpret them.

    This law is going to the Supreme Court to be judged of its constitutionality. However, it currently stands as law, and the President is sworn under oath to enforce it! He is failing in that duty. His refusal to defend the law is a violation of his oath to uphold the constitution.

    Likewise, he refuses to enforce it because he deems it unconstitutional. Therefore, he is overreaching his power into the judicial branch. He must enforce it until they pass judgment.

    Either way, Obama has broken his oath of office. He should know his place! If he truly understood and loved the constitution, he would enforce DOMA.

  • Jake2010 bountiful, ut
    May 31, 2012 10:41 a.m.

    If we open the legal marital union between gay lovers we MUST as a matter of congruence open up marital union to polygamists.... Anything short of that will be discrimination.... Polygamists should be able to file joint tax returns too shouldn't they? Supposing that any of the wives have jobs..... Any argument to the contrary simply shows ignorance that will never be overthrown so please argue my point carefully.

  • Coug420 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    John20000, your argument assumes that humans and dogs are equal which isn't a valid comparison. I know you are trying to be clever and aren't serious but with your line of reasoning, we should also allow dogs to vote.

    I'm not sure why everyone gets so bent out of shape with gays trying to get married. Especially in this state, it has become some religious duty to deny equal rights for gays just because the bible condemns homosexual practices. I'm sorry, but the world won't come to an end just because 2 guys or 2 gals get married.

    I agree with commentors that polygamy should be legal as well as long as they are consenting adults. It is hypocritical to deny one and allow the other. The hypocrisy can go either way. Anyone who knows about utah history would know that Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilfred Woodruff wanted rights to pracite marriage in their own way so it's ironic that we are now leading the charge against equal marriage rights.

  • birwin Herrmian, UT
    May 31, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    The courts haven't destroyed the sanctity of marriage... We have... Look at our divorce rate! If we want a marriage that is pure, wholesome and eternal in the sight of God, we can have it. The courts can't take that away from us! Why is this a big deal?

    It really sounds like a money issue to me. Are we afraid we won't collect as many tax dollars from people living alternative lifestyles?

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 31, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    @anne26
    why should they gay community "accept" second class status? I am sorry that they do not want to go to the back of the bus sit down and shut-up but I don't blame them they should not have too.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    May 31, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    @Cinci Man

    "Here's how it works. Now that the slippery slope is out in the open, what possible reasoning can be used to EVER block polygamy? There will soon be no principle to invoke to block anyone from marrying anyone else of age, because that would be discrimination. Congratulations court system. You've done it again!

    Polygamist compounds should relocate to states that allow same sex marriage then let the lawsuits begin.

  • Anne26 West Jordan, UT
    May 31, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    I say leave it up to each individual state. Let the people vote and then respect their decision. The problem is, the gay community is unwilling to accept that.

  • LVIS Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    And, of course, the ultra-Libs never go ballistic over anything. I mean, not counting Prop 8 in CA, of course.

    Because here's how it works. When the courts overthrow a law the ultra Libs hate, then the judges are.... Well, you get the idea.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    May 31, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    Actually, I think opponents of same-sex marriage will be pleased with this ruling. Take note of the grounds for which the court ruled.

    According to the judges' ruling, DOMA is unconstitutional because it interferes with the rights of states to define marriage. This would suggest support for the 30+ states that have defined marriage as between "one man and one woman" in their state constitutions. Additionally, it would suggest support for the voters of California to pass laws like Proposition 8, as they have the right to define marriage in their state.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    May 31, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    Everyone knows this is headed to the US Supreme Court. So just be patient....it isn't settled yet.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    May 31, 2012 9:53 a.m.

    Some will say that laws against polygamy are already on the books. Well, that's what many states are trying to do with marriage protection laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But supporters of gay marriage claim that infringes on the rights of same sex partners who love each other to be married to each other. The same argument can be applied to laws limiting marriage to a single partnership of 2. In the same way, it infringes on the rights of groups to inter-marry. I see this as a dangerous precedence and the occurrence of stable homes and marriages will suffer as a result. Of course there are lasting relationships of all kinds and many heterosexual relationships fail. But society WILL take a hit when marriage is no longer protected as a sacred union between a man and a woman. That's all I'm saying.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    May 31, 2012 9:53 a.m.

    Here's how it works. Now that the slippery slope is out in the open, what possible reasoning can be used to EVER block polygamy? There will soon be no principle to invoke to block anyone from marrying anyone else of age, because that would be discrimination. Congratulations court system. You've done it again!

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    May 31, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    I have two dogs. Why does the federal government discriminate against my dogs? I should be able to claim them as dependents. The definition of "dependent" in the federal regulations is unconstitutional. I pay for my dogs' food, shelter, education, and entertainment. Why should a family with children get tax benefits by claiming their children as dependents and I don't get those same benefits? There is no difference between their children and my dogs. We both take care of them and love them and consider them part of our family. What is with this ban on dog dependents?

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 31, 2012 9:33 a.m.

    @LDS Liberal
    Here's how it works. When the courts overthrow a law the ultra Cons hate, then the judges are strict constructionists. When they use the exact same logic to toss out a law the ultra Cons like, then they are "legislating from the bench."

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 31, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    Ouch!

    The ultra-Cons are going to go ballistic with this news.

    Pull up a chair,
    pop some corn,
    and let the show begin....