Quantcast
Utah

Challenge to Utah's same-sex marriage ban

Comments

Return To Article
  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    @ConservativeSmasher --

    "Polygamists deserve equality too."

    Here we go again. This issue has been explained many many many times already.

    Yet again --

    Polygamy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. all convey a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    Look up the harm principle. It's a foundational principle of our legal system.

    Here's a quick illustration: Drunk driving conveys a significantly increased risk of harm compared to sober driving. All driving causes some risk, but that risk is greatly increased when the driver is drunk. Therefore, drunk driving is illegal but sober driving is not. And we don't have to prove that each and every drunk driver is a danger on the road, either -- we know that the vast majority of drivers will be at greater risk when drunk, so we keep drunk driving illegal even if a small majority of drivers may be able to drive safely while they're drunk.

    Gay marriage does not greatly increase risk.

    Polygamy (and the other forms mentioned above) does greatly increase risk.

    Therefore polygamy is illegal.

  • ConservativeSmasher Anaheim, CA
    Dec. 5, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    If Utah's ban on gay marriage is struck down, the ban on plural marriage will have to be struck down as well.

    Polygamists deserve equality too.

    On the other hand, since plural marriage harms no one, that's probably a good thing.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    @ Lagomorph:

    Since you've already agreed that gay marriage is a "suboptimal" arrangement for raising children, and we all agree that other suboptimal arrangements exist (single parents, etc.), what sense is there in allowing additional substandard situations for children to exist?

    The state is already trying to reduce other suboptimal environments for children by such practices as requiring parents considering divorce to undergo counseling prior to a divorce being granted. So with the goal of trying to minimize suboptimal children environments, it would make no sense whatsoever to purposely allow additional such situations via legalizing gay marriages.

    @ skeptic:

    It's not "tens of thousands" of us who believe in God as our Creator. It's multiple billions. It's very seldom, if ever, that billions have or would fall for a falsity... especially in our modern day, somewhat enlightened environment. And we definitely haven't in this case either. Thankfully, unenlightened atheists are a relatively small minority in society.

    @ Kalindra:

    And it doesn't mean that it is an existing right, either. That's an ongoing judicial argument yet to fully be determined.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    JSB: "What we do know that children raised in a home with both biological parents are more likely to grow up to be well adjusted citizens than children who are raised in other environments."

    Yes, having two biological parents is optimal for child welfare. Yet family law in Utah and other states allows for suboptimal families. The state's testimony in the court referred to the "gold standard" of procreation, but Utah law allows for silver, bronze, and even lead standard families. If the gold standard of two biological parents raising their own children determined the law, then there would be no divorce and no single parenthood. But the law is open to other, suboptimal family arrangements. Suboptimal family structures are legal. That horse has left the barn already. The precedent has been made. Optimality in childrearing is no longer a persuasive argument against gay marriage.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    @toosmartforyou,
    And just because you believe it doesn't make it true; and even though tens of thousands of people believe and support a falsity it is still a falsity: with truth might does not make right.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    @toosmartforyou --

    "just because you don't believe it doesn't make it false. "

    And just because you do believe it doesn't make it true.

    " because it isn't "marriage." "

    How do gay couples act any differently than any other infertile couples?

    "If you do, why do you want to be labeled as being "married?""

    Because separate is not equal.

    Google the report by the New Jersey Civil Rights Commission, concerning their previous civil partnership laws, for more details on the multiple ways in which partnerships fail to be equal to marriages.

    "This is a serious question LGBT's don't want to answer."

    Actually, it's already been answered many many times.

    @JSB --

    "children raised in a home with both biological parents are more likely to grow up to be well adjusted citizens than children who are raised in other environments. "

    No.

    Children who grow up in stable two-parent homes are more likely to grow up to be well-adjusted citizens. Studies have NEVER shown that the genders of those parents makes any difference.

    Remember -- all the professional groups of child development experts in this country SUPPORT gay marriage. There's a reason for that.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    For those making Constitutional claims:

    Article VI, Clause 2: "This Constitution, ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    State Constitutions and laws cannot violate the Federal Constitution.

    Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power ... shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ..."
    Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ..."

    The Supreme Court gets to decide if a law - federal or state - is Constitutional or if it is unconstitutional. Declaring a law unconstitutional is not the same as creating a new law (legislating) because, if a law is unconstitutional, things go back to what they were before the law was passed - no new laws are created.

    Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Just because a right is not listed by name in the US Constitution does not mean it is not an existing right.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    @toosmart
    "they have discovered Egyptian chariot wheels," Because of course there could not be any logical reason for their being there that does not include a mythological parting of the waters like say a military ship wreck, geological shifts over time etc?

    sodom is were they committed numerous popular sins of the far right such as lack of hospitality to by the sodomites to the stranger, economic crimes, bloodshed. One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, after inscribing their names on them, and then subsequently refusing to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.

    As to the supposed reference to homosexuality. "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." genesis 19.5. It is worth noting that the Hebrew word for know appears over 900 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, only approximately 1% of those references is it clearly used as a euphemism for realizing sexual intimacy.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:34 p.m.

    @JSB

    Two things first those seeking rights have no obligation to prove their actions are a benefit or even are not a harm to society, secondly and more germane to this argument there are actually longitudinal studies out of NYU and other columbia dating back to the early and mid 1980's that have studied the effects of children raised in same sex households (the most common source of argument by those that oppose SSM) which show that children, Many of whom are now adults with their own children suffered no harm.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:32 p.m.

    @ Ranch Hand

    Sorry, you are mistaken about God being "made up by men." It's ok if you want to ignore the religious history contained in the Holy Bible, but just because you don't believe it doesn't make it false. I suppose you think the account of the parting of the sea to allow the children of Israel to escape the pursuing army of Pharaoh is a myth, too, even though they have discovered Egyptian chariot wheels, which were manufactured during that period, at the bottom of the sea.

    Revile against God all you want. They did the same thing in Sodom. After all, you have the freedom to be as anti- as you wish.

    Just don't worry about being "married" to another of the same gender, because it isn't "marriage." You should have all the legal rights of heterosexual couples. If you do, why do you want to be labeled as being "married?" Why is that term so all-important if you enjoy all the legal rights? This is a serious question LGBT's don't want to answer.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:03 p.m.

    @ Baccuus. You said "I would add; When SSM becomes the norm the sky will not fall and nobody will care." How do you know this? What long term, multigernerational studies can you cite that show you are right. The trouble is that we don't know what the unanticipated consequences will be. And they might be devastating to our society. What we do know that children raised in a home with both biological parents are more likely to grow up to be well adjusted citizens than children who are raised in other environments. Are we willing to risk the welfare of future generations just because you don't think the sky will fall?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:00 p.m.

    @Tators;

    Your god is irrelevant because we are not a theocracy; whether or not he's the "creator" is not proven (I couldn't care less anyway).

    Your god is relevant to you but your god isn't a valid reason to deny equal treatment in America. Sorry, but that is the truth.

    The truly "sad, somewhat empty" life is the one that dwells on the sex lives of other people.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:59 p.m.

    Tators
    "Jesus said to them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's
    Millions of us LGBT people believe as you, that God is never irrelevant in our lives. However, many of us also believe as millions of secular heterosexuals do that we cannot pass laws based on religious dogmas.
    The God that endowed us with intelligence and wisdom also bestowed upon us freedom and control over our lives and societies.
    What religion should rule in the United States? There are many Christians who believe in SSM, should we follow them? Or should we follow those who oppose SSM?
    If we were to follow either one, we would have a civil discrepancy based on the different interpretation that we give to religious concepts.
    The N.T. is filled with references that we can use to back up homosexual relationships, the definition of eunuchs being just one example. Yet, people opposed to SSM use the teachings of Paul, who was the only Apostle who never knew Jesus Christ in the flesh. Not only that, Paul explicitly taught O.T. ideas to the church i.e. slavery, women subordination and silence, etc.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:51 p.m.

    @Linus

    the same "constitution" that protects individual liberties from the tyranny of the majority? the same liberties that the courts are charged with protecting, that "constitution" written by those "founding fathers"

    @rators

    the same way you are Cherry picking not only the constitution but the bible to support your positions? were exactly does it say that the will of the majority out weights the rights of the individual? were in the bible did it say you get to sit in judgment of others life choices?

    @trueblue87

    if we were talking bout single homosexual people raising children perhaps your studies would have some relevance but we are talking about married couple and the research that has studied same sex couples raising children does not support you claim, but I suspect you already knew this which is why you bring up irrelevant studies instead.

    @Alex1

    A states amendment to its constitution that violates the federal constitution is hardly "air tight," if it were that simple we would likely still have pockets of segregation if not slavery.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 6:32 p.m.

    @ RanchHand:

    God is NEVER irrelevant. He more relevant that anything pertaining to this particular argument... or anything else for that matter.
    And He truly does exist... whether you believe in Him or not.

    What a sad and somewhat empty life someone must lead who can't even acknowledge the existence of their own Creator. Its kind of Him to give you that option. But it's somewhat sad that you chose it.

    The whole irony of the situation is that you don't even know how much you don't know.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 6:32 p.m.

    Kaladin: "To members of many faiths marriage is more than benefits. Mormons are not to live together or have sexual relationships until married."

    That seems like an extraordinary benefit. I was speaking of benefits generally, not just about financial or insurance benefits. Do you think people would still marry if they did not receive the particular benefits of marriage you mention?

    trueblue87: "The detriment to society that would come about should same sex marriage be allow is significant." (citing population decline, single-sex parents)

    Gay couples already have children without the many documented benefits to the children of having married parents. Allowing SSM will not change the population growth rate, but will improve the lots of those children of gay couples by giving them married parents. Negative outcomes for single-parent children is more likely due to the "single" than to the lack of a father or mother figure. There just isn't enough manpower to carry the load (regardless of the sex of the parent). Two same-sex parents may not (arguably) produce the same outcomes as two opposite sex parents, but two is still better than one.

    AZKID: "I acknowledge my error."

    Thanks. That rarely happens here.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 6:18 p.m.

    @Tators --

    "you are cherry-picking... "

    If you believe so, please feel free to present other bits and pieces of either Constitution or court cases which contradict my factual evidence.

    I'm fascinated to see what you can come up with.

    "God created and ordained marriage ..."

    The earliest recorded marriages were CIVIL marriages -- not religious ones.

    And remember -- this isn't a theocracy.

    @trueblue87 --

    "lack of procreation is detrimental to society in general."

    Then outlaw infertile marriages and marriages for people over the age of procreation.

    "if you are going to quote me"

    I didn't actually quote you on the point you're objecting to, so your complaint has no merit.

    "Even in heterosexual homes children struggle when the father or mother is absent."

    So outlaw single-parent families.

    "Here is one study that backs me up. "High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households," by Douglas W. Allen"

    No it doesn't. Allen compared UNmarried gay families to MARRIED straight ones. He used Canadian data that was gathered in 2006, but gay marriage was only legalized in Canada in 2005.

    And there's a lot of other problems with that study as well.

    Keep trying.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 6:02 p.m.

    @trueblue87;

    Allowing us to marry isn't going to change the rate that heterosexual couples reproduce, nor the overall rate of reproduction in the US or the world as a whole. We're already living together and not procreating as it is.

    The only "detriment" to the children of same-sex couples is having to deal with bigots who tend to make their lives miserable. BTW, studies conducted and backed by anti-gay groups are hardly unbiased and trustworthy.

  • trueblue87 Provo, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    @Contrariusier

    First of all I was not arguing whether Procreation was a requirement for marriage. I was arguing the fact that lack of procreation is detrimental to society in general. We are seeing this even in our own country that as the baby boomer generation is aging, the economy is suffering because there are insufficient professionals to fill the spots being vacated by retiring professionals.

    Second. if you are going to quote me, make sure that you are quoting me exactly. I never referred to same gender couples adopting children was robbing heterosexual couples of children. So don't go throwing rhetoric around attributing it to me. My argument was that it is detrimental to children because the children are without a mother or father. Even in heterosexual homes children struggle when the father or mother is absent. There are entirely different aspects that a father and mother bring to the table. And to be correct most studies are inconclusive. Here is one study that backs me up. "High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households," by Douglas W. Allen

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    @atrulson;

    Do we get to vote on whether you can marry?

    @RedShirtCalTech;

    I have an "ilk"; Cool!

    @aceroinox;

    If your worry is simply children w/o a mommy/daddy combo, you need to outlaw divorce. Preventing gays from marrying will have no effect on that.

    @Flashback & DEWCougars;

    I wouldn't be married in your Temple if you paid me.

    @brianofohio;

    The US Constitution trumps Utah's.

    @Reflectere;

    Religion has no patent on marriage. God is irrelevant.

    @suzyk#1;

    What you wrote is called "bigotry".

    @Linus;

    The Constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority. You don't want a same-sex marriage, don't have one otherwise MYOB.

    @RedWings;

    Bigotry is also immoral, yet you don't seem to have a problem with that particular sin.

    @kiddsport;

    "Equal" treatment is not "special" treatment.

    @The Reader;

    Your own marriage will not be recognized after death either, regardless what your religion says. There will be nothing.

    @trueblue87;

    Many hetero marriages are non-procreative; that's a non-starter. Any "challenges" our children face will be due to dealing with people like you.

    @worf;

    It's "accept".

    @Tators;

    God is irrelevant and doesn't exist anyway.

  • Shuzzie53 HAYWARD, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    Utah will go down kicking and screaming. Emphasis on down.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    As has been pointed out, my earlier comment regarding civil unions in Utah was incorrect. Utah in fact does not allow civil unions. I acknowledge my error.

    What was going through my mind was the reasonable stance of the LDS-church-supported 2009 Salt Lake City ordinance which prohibits general housing and employment discrimination while preserving the rights of religious institutions. I am all in favor of such reasonable approaches.

    I stand by the rest of my original comment.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    BTW: I believe I forgot to include it, but my original comment was meant to be directed to CONTRARIUSIEST.

    Comment monitors... Please add this followup comment to my original. Thank you.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 4:55 p.m.

    Utah's Amendment passed on the November 2, 2004 hardly 100's of years?

    The Reader said: "In the long way it matters little what the court decides. Marriage of anyone other that male to female will not be recognized after death."

    Actually this is a unique idea held by mormons "Till death do you part" so not universally accepted, like your Idea of traditional marriage is based on your religious views not some imaginary universal marriage laws.

    God, by the way had a lot more to say about divorce than gays so maybe you should be fighting to out law divorce before you go about changing America into a theocracy.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    Marriage between same-sex partners is no more immoral for them than is marriage between opposite-sex partners. For either category to marry contrary to their natural attractions would be "immoral" in a very real sense.

    Would those of you opposing SSM be content to have a gay or lesbian marry your straight son or daughter? Of course not.

    Would you be satisfied being deeply in love with someone only to have your state or religion tell you to be celibate, or to marry someone to whom you aren't attracted? Of course not.

    Have some sense and compassion, people.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    You make your arguments sound reasonable, but after further thought, it becomes obvious you are cherry-picking bits and pieces of the Constitution in an effort to support your ideology. You are also doing the same thing using particular court cases.

    Unfortunately, the Constitution has parts that seem to be somewhat open to interpretation. Liberals like to call it "a living document' that should change with the times. Fundamentalists want it left alone to stand for the very principles and reasons it was created for. I support the latter group.

    The arguments you make neither sound right, nor feel right. Obama got elected because of his smooth use of verbal rhetoric with little substance. You seem to be a cut from the same cloth. There is a certain art to making wrong sound right and right sound wrong. And you do it well. But in the long run, such reasoning never withstands the tests of time.

    God created and ordained marriage for the benefit of mankind. He married Adam and Eve as the basis for family structure in society. He never married or joined Adam and Bob, nor has He ever condoned such a union... or homosexuality itself.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 4:46 p.m.

    Noodlekaboodle:

    I don't think my beliefs are typical of the segregationists. I think they are more in line with the Founding Fathers. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your insults will not alter the truthfulness of my position. I continue to believe in a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," without said government being overthrown by one perverted totalitarian judge.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    @ Worf
    I'm sure gays do not care if you, religous zealots or anyone else cheers their life choices. They only ask that their choices be protected under the same constitional rights as every other American. Simple and American enough to understand if you take one's religous beliefs out of the equation.
    And for others that think that gays will now ask for sealing in the Mormon temple, that is a separate argument and not applicable in this case. If that ever arises, I'm sure the DN News will cover that with all the vigor of a Mitt Romney occurence.
    Conservatives continue to look like bigots on this issue and are forcing millions of potential voters away from the GOP party. For the party's long term stake it needs to focus on important economic issues and not cater to a small, declining voting bloc.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 4, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    @ Worf
    you wrote: "
    worf

    Mcallen, TX

    "You get out of life what you put into it.

    If gays want to marry each other, just do it.

    Don't expect others to cheer for you, or except your practices."

    Worf, I think for the very first time we are in total agreement.

    Yes, we are responsible for our own actions
    Yes, LGBT people should be allowed to marry.
    I agree, nobody should act because of expectations of cheering up, acceptance or rejection from other people.
    I would add; When SSM becomes the norm the sky will not fall and nobody will care.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    @trueblue87 --

    "First it is non-procreative. "

    Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage under US law. Millions of current US marriages are nonprocreative. This issue is a nonstarter -- as was specifically pointed out by the SCOTUS justices during the DOMA and Prop 8 hearings.

    "So to support a relationship that can produce no offspring will be detrimental to the future of Utah."

    Baloney.

    Only around 5% of the population is LGBT. Therefore, same-sex marriages will always be a small minority of the total marriage count. They do not offer any risk at all to "the future of Utah".

    "These relationships would deny the child/children being raised in that family of a father or mother."

    1. Gay couples already raise children, with or without marriage.
    2. Utah already allows gay people to adopt children.
    3. Utah already allows SINGLE people -- gay or straight -- to adopt children. Therefore, Utah doesn't especially care about that hypothetical two-parent home.
    4. Gay couples don't steal children out of happy stable straight homes. There is no "denying" going on.
    5. Studies have NEVER shown that children do worse in married gay homes than in married straight homes.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    BYU9293

    Uhm, it’s only circular logic if you ignore COTUS Article III and VI powers and live in a pre-Marbury v Madison world (decided 1803). Welcome to the 19th Century! I can't believe you missed those parts of the COTUS given the self-proclaimed "studying" you've done.

    In reality, the logic is linear: COTUS Articles III and VI grant judicial review powers to SCOTUS, standing is established and cases come before the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS issues a ruling on the constitutionality of said issue in line with their powers under the COTUS, and laws/statutes/et al are informed by said ruling.

    So, I have the COTUS, hundreds of years of American jurisprudence, thousands of legislative acts/statutes, and compliance from federal and state gov’ts my side of the argument.

    Your “judicial activism” perspective is considered valid by which relevant governing body?

    At the end of the day, I would love for you to prove me wrong. Please, file an amicus curiae brief on the next SSM case that reaches the SCOTUS outlining your "alternate universe argument" and let me know how that goes; I won't hold my breath.

  • Alex 1 Tucson, AZ
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    If air-tight constitutional amendments Utah can't withstand this challenge, then no state constitution will.

    If a federal judge can dismiss an iron-clad state marriage amendment (a state matter) backed up by hundreds of years of case law out of hand, then he can also force a religion to marry gay people, even in the temple. I wish it were unthinkable, but it is not. Gay marriage advocates argue that this would not happen because of the first amendment. As long as the Constitution is secondary to a clever arrangement of case law, then religious liberty can be anything the court says it is and for any reason. So sorry, I don’t believe you. Of course churches would not be forced to perform gay weddings......not yet. However, give it a few years as carefully crafted decisions are handed down that set the stage. Watch as some "evolved" judge EVENTUALLY finds a way for the Constitutional guarantee of religious liberty not to apply to marriage. Also watch as those who are currently reassuring us that we will never have to surrender our religious liberties sit in conspicuous silence as churches are forced to do exactly that.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:26 p.m.

    You get out of life what you put into it.

    If gays want to marry each other, just do it.

    Don't expect others to cheer for you, or except your practices.

  • trueblue87 Provo, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    The detriment to society that would come about should same sex marriage be allow is significant.

    First it is non-procreative. No matter how you look at it a man can not produce a child with another man nor a woman with a woman. We are already seeing the burdens China is facing because of the 1 child only law. They are seeing fewer people to sustain their economy. And recently eased up on these laws. So to support a relationship that can produce no offspring will be detrimental to the future of Utah.

    Second assuming that the same sex couple decides to adopt or use other means to produce a child. These relationships would deny the child/children being raised in that family of a father or mother. Numerous studies have been done that show that children raised in single-parent homes face significant challenges later in life. This is due to the absence of either a father or mother. Children of same sex couples will face similar significant challenges, no matter how much love they provide.

  • The Reader Layton, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:06 p.m.

    In the long way it matters little what the court decides. Marriage of anyone other that male to female will not be recognized after death. What is wrong is wrong no matter what public opinion says. Gay and lesbians know they are wrong to want marriage between same sex couples recognized as correct. They are on the losing side of what is right and will forever be on the wrong side of God's law!

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:05 p.m.

    @Linus
    Your using the same argument that segregationists used in the 1960's. If black people wanted to have the same rights as whites they should vote for them. Your the Strom Thurmond or Robert Bird of the 2010's.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    @MAYHEM MIKE --

    "you failed to state why (or if) the legalization of marriage shouldn’t be extended to other groups beside gays and lesbians. "

    This question has been asked and answered multiple times already.

    Again -- pedophilia, bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc., all significantly increase the risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    Look up the harm principle.

    "overturned the majority “will of the people.” "

    That is one of the things our US Constitution was created for -- to protect individuals against the tyranny of the majority.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    Re: "It is just a matter of time before same sex marriage is legal through out the country."

    While unfortunate, it's beginning to appear that statement has an outside chance of coming true.

    If it does, it'll be interesting to see what LGBT activists will demand next.

    My money's on a big push for "hate crime" legislation that'll impose draconian penalties for the thought crime of refusing to abandon principle, longstanding and wise tradition, and true religion. It'll attempt to force embrace of LGBT assertions that they're perfectly normal people.

    It's probably at about that time, real people -- who are the American majority -- will wake up to the fact that there IS a good reason to oppose the LGBT agenda, and that creating a new, extra-constitutional "freedom," especially and exclusively for the LGBT, really WILL adversely affect the currently-cowering majority of Americans.

    Once that happens, fear of what have become effective liberal and LGBT bullying tactics will likely be replaced by outrage, greatly reducing the out-of-any-reasonable-proportion liberal and LGBT influence on politics of this issue.

    Hope they've thought of that.

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    @ liberal larry:

    No, it is not up to the courts to decide if society has a compelling interest in who may marry. In my opinion, the decision is the up to the citizens who don’t reside in the rarified realm of jurisprudence but who live in the “real” world. Through their votes they have the moral right to decide the effect a particular kind of marriage will have on them, their children, and on society. In California, the citizens voted against gay marriage, but the elite judges, clearly assuming their intellect is superior to the masses, overturned the majority “will of the people.” I think the bigger question you should ponder is whether, in a democracy, our votes still matter.

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    @Sneaky Larry:

    Perhaps you didn’t understand my statement. Regardless, you failed to state why (or if) the legalization of marriage shouldn’t be extended to other groups beside gays and lesbians. If your justification is for a married unit to enjoy “companionship,” “love,” or to rear a family “in a moral environment,” shouldn’t that same privilege be extended to groups with multiple partners? If not, I ask, once again, where do we “draw the line?”

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    @suzyk#1
    "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."

    Funny, 'many of these men and women good people but just misdirected' is a phrase I tend to think of when it comes to people who are against same-sex marriage.

  • Kaladin Greeley, CO
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    @Lagomorph - That is simply not true! To members of many faiths marriage is more than benefits. Mormons are not to live together or have sexual relationships until married. That is why this has become such an issue - to us marriage is a religious rite. The government got tangled up in it.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    @aceroinox
    "That government sanction in the same stroke approves depriving that adopted child of the right to either a mother or father."

    Oh please... if Utahns' really cared about making sure every adopted child had the "right" to a mother and father then Utah wouldn't allow single people to adopt.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    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.

  • DEW Cougars Sandy, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    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!

  • Brad J West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:08 p.m.

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

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    @college--

    "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.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Flashback
    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.
    KJK
    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.

  • BYU9293 Clinton, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    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.

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    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.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    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.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    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).

  • Kaladin Greeley, CO
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    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.

  • BYU9293 Clinton, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    RANCH,
    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.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    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.

  • Reflectere Utah, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    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.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    @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.

  • college sports fan Alpine, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    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?

  • brian of ohio Kent, OH
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    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

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    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".

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    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!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    @Billy Bob;

    Just for you, directly from the US Constitution:

    Article 4 -
    Section 1 -
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof

    Amendment 14 -

    1. ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    (last post)

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    Billy Bob says, I think it should be left up to each state to decide.

    Fine. I'm sure most couples would be willing to travel to Vegas to marry.

    Let each State decide if they will grant marriage licenses to gay couples. But a State does not have the right to say that people married in one state are no longer married once they cross state lines. If you are married, you are married.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    To "Sneaky Jimmy" you are wrong. The state cannot do anything to prevent 2 gays from getting married. They can go to any preacher or even set up their own ceremony so that they can be married. These legal battles are to force the state to grant them the legal benefits of marriage. In other words, the gays have been holding out on getting married so that they could get benefits.

    To "AZKID" the gays want to do more than normalize their behavior. They want to destroy marriage. See the video titled "Lesbian Activist's Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a Lie to Destroy Marriage" at The Blaze.

    To "Ranch" is your definition of a family based on the legal benefits granted by the state or is it defined by your attitude? You and your ilk define it by the legal benefits. What prevents your ilk from finding a preacher to perform a wedding ceremony and declare you married to whoever you want?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    Thanks, Contrariuserer

    BYU9293 - Sorry, incorrect on both assertions.

    Re: marriage - As pointed out already above, it is quite simple to find that there are at least 14 SCOTUS cases in which marriage is deemed to be a fundamental right, some more explicit than others. Are you unable to look them up? So, you keep your John Locke/activist judge theory and I'll side w/ the SCOTUS; we'll see who wins the day. Deal?

    Re: LDS on being gay - From the LDS' own website dedicated to dealing w/ same-sex attraction, we read, "[e]ven though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them." In other words, since it is not a choice, they are born gay but the Church does not condone acting on said desires. Just as straight people are born with opposite-sex attraction but the LDS Church does not condone acting on those desires until marriage.

    You finish by saying, "[w]e can lie to ourselves all we want, but just still remember the truth is the truth." Honestly, given your commentary, I cannot express in words the irony of such a statement coming from you.

  • atrulson cohoes, NY
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    Did the the killing of DOMA make it unconstitutional for a state to hold a vote on the issue?

  • Twinkie the Kid OREM, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    (Sarcastic post)

    While we are on the topic of equality, we should legislate against the law of gravity. Everyone should be equal and measured to weigh 150 pounds. Truly this is social justice!

    Too many people get made fun of and are second-class citizens that weigh over 300 pounds. We cannot let this old-fashioned gravity stuff get in the way of our enlightened society. All people should be equal and weigh the same.

    Gravity, go take a hike! Repeal the law of gravity! It is unconstitutional and making people unequal!

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    @BYU9293 --

    "The LDS church does not admit that being gay is immutable. "

    But it does specifically acknowledge that "individuals do not choose to have such attractions".

    "the constitution does not protect ones right to marry, period"

    SCOTUS has affirmed many times that marriage is a basic civil right:

    -- Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'..."
    -- Zablocki v. Redhail -- "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"
    -- Skinner v. Oklahoma -- a person, being cut off from "marriage and procreation," would be "forever deprived of a basic liberty."
    -- Turner v. Safley -- invalidated a prohibition on marriages by prison inmates under privacy rights
    -- 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..."

    @JSB --

    "People are already agitating for their right to have sex with children because they were "born that way.""

    Look up the harm principle.

    Pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, etc., all significantly increase the risk of harm. Gay marriage does not.

    If you believe otherwise, please present some evidence. Be specific.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    I think it should be left up to each state to decide. Seeing as it is not against the United States constitution to allow it or to not allow it, I don't see why a federal court should even be involved. If the people of Massachusetts (for example) want to allow it and the people of Utah (for example) don't, then let each state have laws accordingly. I guess the tricky part is whether or not Utah should recognize homosexual marriages done in Massachusetts. Once again, let each state decide. The federal government should stay out of this discussion, and that includes the Judicial Branch.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    @AZKID;

    Actually, Utah BANS civil unions right alongside marriage to LGBT couples: See "Amendment 3" of the Utah Constitution." Anything that resembles marriage in the least way is banned in Utah.

    Just because my family does not look like your family does not make it less of a family.

    Additionally, what is "unprecedented" is that Americans are VOTING to take away the rights of other Americans.

    @toosmartforyou;

    Men just made up "God's Laws"; your god doesn't exist. "Believe it or not, it's true".

    @azreader1;

    Our laws are not based on "morals", rather they're based on how we best work together as a society. There's nothing "moral" about that; unless you agree that treating each other well is a "moral" issue, which I might agree with.

    @Linus;

    Homosexuals are also "The People", right along with heterosexuals.

    @Ticus;

    It is "moral" in many countries to mutilate the genitals of women. It is not "moral" in the USA. Hence, "morality" is relative. There are 1000's of examples.

    @Tom in MS;

    Oh boy, the "White Horse" prophecy. I'm impressed.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    So here we are again with the "will of the people" vs the ideology of an activist judge. The national pattern has been the will of the people is thrown out in place of one judges opinion which is NOT based on constitutional law but rather the ideology of the judge. 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. America is seeing a disintegration of individual rights due to federal judges who decide to legislate from the bench which they should NOT be doing. Our constitutional government is melting away before our eyes and with it our individual rights as citizens and communities. I recall something that the Prophet Joseph Smith once said to the effect that the time would come when the constitution of the United States would hang by a thread.... I personally believe we have reached that threshold in America. So goes the constitution - so goes the United States and its freedom and liberty.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    Allowing gays to marry is a significant change in what is legal and socially acceptable. Since this is a relatively recent development, there are no long-term (multi-generational)studies of how this may affect society. People are already agitating for their right to have sex with children because they were "born that way." Or how about the hundreds of thousands of "families" that have multiple partners of each sex plus children. The social problems with these arrangements are obvious but how can they be prevented from being legalized if the criteria is that "we love each other and are committed to each other and want to live together." Will multiple partner families become a civil right? What will our society be like in a couple of generations with multiple partner families? What problems will their children have? How will this affect the spread of STDs? I hope the court can take into consideration the possible long term disastrous effects of changing the marriage laws and stick with one man and one woman. A change is a very slippery slope into social chaos, misery, poverty and disease.

  • BYU9293 Clinton, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    To Stalwart Sentinel,
    Your comments is false. The LDS church does not admit that being gay is immutable. Admitting that one person may be born more susceptible to certain temptations is not the same as admitting they must be that way. The LDS has not ever said and they never will, that a person is just born gay. Science, although they have tried, still cannot prove this claim.
    Further, the constitution does not protect ones right to marry, period. The pursuit of Happiness term is a term of art taken from John Locke and specifically referred to the right to own property...read for yourselves and not the propaganda issued by gays/lesbians. The Constitution itself states that all rights not specifically (key phrase here) setforth herein are reserved the states. The right to marry is not specifically set forth in the constitution, thus, each state can decide for themselves. Unfortunately, are judges do legislate because they twist and go beyond the constitution in order to approve or deny the laws they want. This was never supposed to be their function. We can lie to ourselves all we want, but just still remember the truth is the truth.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    @ AZKID: No, actually, Utah law does not allow for civil unions.

    To those of you arguing against Ranch's moral comment: There are a great many things that are morally relativistic or that at one point were considered moral but no longer are - examples include war and the death penalty (morally relativistic) or slavery (espoused Biblically, but no longer considered moral). (And if you try to justify slavery in the Bible by claiming "they treated their slaves better back then," than you are being morally relativistic.)

    The sins of Sodom were greed, laziness, a lack of care for the poor and the stranger amongst them, and unjust judgements. These are lauded as virtues in today's society. The Ten Commandments speak directly against lying and adultery. Many who speak against homosexuality use lies in their arguments or have engaged in adultery. Many others who speak against homosexuality also speak against safety nets for the poor. All of this relies on moral relativism.

    The second Great Commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. You can't do that if you are lying to or about them.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    DN2: Judge Bork's words are relevant here but not for the reason you give. Bork condemned liberals for "radical egalitarianism and radical individualism" thirty plus years ago. If he were alive to comment today would he have the same opinion? In the current healthcare debate, who would you say is taking the egalitarian individual side? Can we agree here that it is the "radical" right that is espousing that cause in the face of the view that individuals owe a debt to the society we live in....that no man is an island. Healthcare costs cannot be contained and canceling sick insureds cannot be changed without collective action.

    Aren't you saying Bork's words apply today? How so to the ACA debate?

  • Tom in MS Madison, MS
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    AZKID, you are right on the money. Unfortunately, this is not the beginning of the problems; no, they started many years ago, and are continuing now. We are moving into that period where the "Constitution will hang as if by a thread," and we will be virtually powerless to do anything about it. Pres. Monson and Pres. Hinckley both have said to be prepared, and we wouldn't fear. With the current occupant of the White House having total disregard of the laws of the land and its Constitution, not fearing will be very difficult, whether prepared or not.

  • Tad TOOELE, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    @AZKID: Your appeal to history is both fallacious and inaccurate. It is fallacious in that the past does not equal the future. It is inaccurate in that at least one of the greatest civilizations in history, classical Greece, openly practiced homosexuality and flourished, while the Hebrews in Judea were still pretty barbaric and ended up conquered by the Persians and the Greeks.

    If you believe that forcing someone with a natural same-gender preference into a heterosexual relationship just to please the dogma of your faith and your personal prejudice, then you and I have much different views of "happiness." To me, your argument is the same as not letting a person listen to the Missionary Discussions or attend a church meeting because his/her parents/friends think Mormonism is immoral.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    @AZKID
    No, Utah law most certainly doesn't allow gay people to get a civil union. The constitutional amendment says gays can't be married or participate in any other legal procedure that simulates marriage. Your 100% mistaken.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    MayhemMike - The answer is a bit more complex than the word count allows but basically it depends on the legal standard applied (ie strict scrutiny, immediate scrutiny, or rational basis). Marriage is a fundamental right under the COTUS (strict scrutiny standard) - suffice it to say that almost any limitation on a fundamental right will be unconstitutional. Granted, gay marriage has been tested in courts under the lower standards in times past, but it is increasingly apparent that being gay is an immutable characteristic (even the LDS Church admits this now). So, limitations against SSM are nearly de facto unconstitutional.

    The argument that being polyamorous is immutable is not as strong legally. I have no issue with polygamy being law (I'm happily married in the Temple, it doesn't affect me) but their hurdles are higher from a legal perspective. Regardless, it seems that polygamy will be deemed the law of the land eventually.

    For these reasons, the limitation proposed by StevenSJarvis is dead on arrival in a court. He'd have to prove a harm in order to justify contractual limitations for two competent, consenting adults which opponents of SSM have failed to do in dozens of court cases.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    @Tekaka --

    "It brings in the connatation of a sexual dimenson to the relationship."

    We already allow marriages between people who are never going to have sex -- for example, convicts in prison who have no visitation rights, quadriplegics, and so on. We also allow marriages that are never going to be procreative.

    @Steven --

    "contract law is discriminatory by nature."

    Nope. Remember that, legally speaking, "discrimination" means treating similarly situated individuals differently **when there is no legitimate reason for doing so**.

    "Utah does not allow a 12 year old "

    Minors are not legally capable of informed consent. This is not discrimination -- it's an acknowledgment of immaturity.

    "(polygamy) and that law too was discriminatory."

    Anti-polygamy laws are not discriminatory -- they are based on the harm principle.

    @Mayhem --

    "Why, oh why, is it a constitutionally-protected right for gays/lesbians to marry and not for other groups (i.e., polygamists, three-somes, etc.) to marry?"

    Because polygamy significantly increases the risk of harm. Gay marriage does not.

    Look up the harm principle.

    @Azkid --

    "and make them more likely to embrace, rather than shun, this lifestyle."

    Why would it be a bad thing for our kids to embrace a lifestyle of monogamy?

  • Tad TOOELE, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    @Mayhem Mike: The "because [they] want to" argument is just as valid as the counter argument offered by the LDS Church and others, "Because we don't want them to." The right is Constitutionally protected by the 14th amendment which guarantees "equal treatment under the law" to all citizens. The line should be drawn in favor of liberty and should only discriminate when protecting a right for a specific group and not another group causes substantial harm. In fact, the "because [they] want to" argument trumps the "because we don't want them to" argument, which is based on nothing more than personal prejudice justified by the fallacious appeal to tradition; when one group asserts a right enjoyed by others, whether same gender couples or Mormons, it is the obligation of those opposed to present compelling arguments against. The "burden of Proof," sir, is yours, not theirs

  • Ticus Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    Ranch: You said: "Moral? Right? Beneficial to society? All three of those things are relative. What is moral, right, beneficial to you is immoral, wrong and non-beneficial to someone else, somewhere."

    Don't we wish Physics were that way? NASA's rockets must follow Newtonian physics, but I don't like that kind, so my rocket surely will get to the Moon using my own kind of Physics.

    The reality is, Morality is like Physics -- you can't change it, no matter your opinion, and if you try to fight it then one day your proverbial rocket will explode on lift-off.

  • Tad TOOELE, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    The concept of "marriage" exists in at least three distinct dimensions: economic, social and religious. The government's authority to regulate only applies to the economic area, and is prohibited from any legislation related to "morality" which would be defined on religious grounds. The economic dimension traditionally includes the state's right to ensure the support of children, but the current social climate in which nearly half of the children born in the US are to unmarried parents and many divorced/separated parents fail to support has failed, requiring the courts to settle patrimony and child support disputes, and operate collection agencies. Other economic issues include rights of survivorship, tax benefits, etc. These are not related to gender and should not be denied on the basis of gender or preference without a very significant policy interest. Allowing relationships to exist in the framework of marriage allows creation of standard rules for dealing with the relationship in law. Even if the government has the authority to regulate social conduct, it lacks the power; same gender relationship will exist whether recognized by law or not in much the same way that Protestantism defied the Roman theocracies.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, and for the people?" One homosexual judge decided that the people of California had no right to govern. Will one judge decide that the people of Utah are henceforth disenfranchized? "We, the people" are being overthrown by a totalitarian bench manned by lawyers. We will soon have "government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers."

  • azreader1 tucson, AZ
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    To quote Ranch, "All three of those things are relative. What is moral, right, beneficial to you is immoral, wrong and non-beneficial to someone else, somewhere."

    Actually, no, they're not relative, and this is where you and I appear to have fundamental disagreement. Moral relativism cannot by its very nature be a sound basis for law and public policy. Ultimately, true moral relativism would demand the abolition of all laws based upon moral imperatives, and that would have disastrous consequences for individuals and society at large.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    You can change the laws of man and decide issues or morality by majority vote, but you can't change the laws of God. You can only despise and break them but as the late Cecil B. Demille stated, "The wheels of God grind slowly but they grind exceeding fine." This nation will pull down the wrath of the Almighty one of these days and then it will be a dreadful day indeed, too late due to being ripened in iniquity. Believe it or not, it's true.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    Mayhem Mike,

    It is up to the courts to decide if society has a compelling interest in denying rights to certain groups. I don't think that critics of same sex marriage have established that it is detrimental to society to allow gays to marry.

    My cousin's same sex marriage has provided the stability she needs to continue her genetic research, and to raise a child rescued from South America. I can't see the justification for denying her, and her partner, this opportunity to make such a huge contribution to society!

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    The goal of activist gays is to mainstream their lifestyle. Utah law already provides for civil unions. The result of legalizing so-called "gay marriage" will be to further undermine the moral perspectives of a complete generation of our children and make them more likely to embrace, rather than shun, this lifestyle. This is one of the many reasons I am opposed to "gay marriage". I firmly believe--and thousands of years of human history will back me up--that family life, based on mother and father and children, is fundamental to a happy, prosperous society. To have my children embrace the gay lifestyle, would be to limit their happiness.

    What is occurring is an unprecedented and, I believe, ultimately misguided, social experiment with consequences far beyond what we see today. We are actually starting to see such consequences in the lawsuits stemming from private citizens--such as photographers--refusing to provide services to gay couples. Where does that sort of thing end? When will the courts force me to compromise my core beliefs and religious liberties to accommodate those who pursue "gay marriage"?

    I don't know where this is heading, but the possibilities are extraordinarily alarming...

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi: "If we give marriage benefits to family arrangements that are obviously non-procreative, then we have to do the same to all family arrangement that are obviously non-procreative."

    Utah already does this. Check out section 30-1-1(f) of the Utah Code, which makes infertility a mandatory precondition for certain couples to marry. You can't get any closer to "giv[ing] marriage benefits to family arrangements that are obviously non-procreative" than that. By your own definition, we've created a class of second class citizens by preventing gays from marrying. So why aren't you on board with gay marriage?

    JDL: "So, what are the names of those wishing to marry?"

    I like Ranch's response to your question so much better, but if you are asking who the plaintiffs in the case are, they are Derek L. Kitchen and Moudi D. Sbeity, Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge, and Karen Archer and Kate Call.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    DNS2 says: However, making something "legal" does not necessarily mean it is moral, right, or beneficial to society, even if it gratifies the desires of the participants.

    It is not the purpose of the courts to determine if something is moral, right, or beneficial to society. The purpose of the court system is to determine if something is legal.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    @Mayhem Mike You ask for something other than "because we want to". Why did you get married? Was if for tax benefits? To start and raise a family in a moral environment? For companionship? Because you love someone and want to spend your life with them? Same-sex couples wish to marry for the same reasons. It's embarrassing that a state and some of it's citezens would want to deny this blessing to people.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    For all those that either have stated or will state that if the court rules against the law that this is legislation from the bench, remember that there are 3 branches of government.

    1 - Executive - Enforces the laws
    2 - Legislative - Creates the laws
    3 - Judicial - Determines the legality and constitutionality of laws.

    So, if the amendment is thrown out as unconstitutional, that means that it is bad. This is all part of the checks and balances process.

    Legislating from the bench would be the court ruling against the state and then crafting in their ruling mandates and procedures outside of those for heterosexual couples that the state must follow in order to ensure that their ruling is adhered too.

    However, if the ruling is against the amendment and states that the state cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, that is not legislating from the bench.

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    Why, oh why, is it a constitutionally-protected right for gays/lesbians to marry and not for other groups (i.e., polygamists, three-somes, etc.) to marry? Where do society and the courts draw the line? Please, gay and lesbian readers of this newspaper, respond to me with some logic and legal arguments, not your silly "Because we want to" argument.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    "Can't justify treating same-sex couples differently"? The "couple" fit for marriage consists of a male and female! It is independend of race, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation.

    If I truly wanted to wed someone of the same sex, I wouldn't even want to stay some place that doesn't recognize that union; I would do everything I could to go elsewhere, there are plenty of such places. Besides that; as has been demonstrated, these bullies who keep trying to change marriage have no interest in law as it is, freely distorting or ignoring it when it's not already in their favor.

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    If the attorneys are to argue in favor of the ban, they should argue from the point that marriage is a contract and contract law is discriminatory by nature. The State designates who or what is allowed to enter into the contract and who is not. The state also designates age requirements besides gender requirements. Utah does not allow a 12 year old no matter how mature to enter into a marriage contract. The lawyers could also argue that The Supreme Court once ruled that consenting adults could not enter into a secondary marriage contract (polygamy) and that law too was discriminatory.

    Frankly, I don't really care about whether or not states decide to allow certain marriages (polygamy, cats and dogs, etc). It really doesn't effect me or my family if Bob and Joe can enter a marriage or not. What I do care about is all the courts creating law from the bench and breaking the constitutional balance between the three branches of government. The courts should not be making law as they have been on this issue. It isn't their place to legislate and any judge who does should be removed from office.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi said: :If we give marriage benefits to family arrangements that are obviously non-procreative, then we have to do the same to all family arrangement that are obviously non-procreative. If not, we've created a new class of second class citizens."

    Being "procreative" has never traditionally been a condition of marriage, so that has no place in the argument.
    We're righting a wrong that treats families, families which exist with or without your permission, like second class citizens

    "We need to have family equality here."

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    If we give marriage benefits to family arrangements that are obviously non-procreative, then we have to do the same to all family arrangement that are obviously non-procreative. If not, we've created a new class of second class citizens.

    We should leave out the term 'marriage' because it is exclusionary. It brings in the connatation of a sexual dimenson to the relationship. A man and a woman get married and as a natural part of that arrangement they are likely to have sexual relations which is likely to produce children. Society gives them special benefits because the woman may sacrifice her career for the important part of child-rearing.

    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 more value to society than two lesbian women living together?

    We need to have family equality here.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    Eventually Utah will be forced to drop objections to same-sex marriage, and it will become legal here, like in so many other states.

    However, making something "legal" does not necessarily mean it is moral, right, or beneficial to society, even if it gratifies the desires of the participants.

    Former United States Court of Appeals judge Robert H. Bork. Bork's 1996 book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline" observes that American and more generally Western culture is in a state of decline and that the cause of this decline is modern liberalism and the rise of the New Left. Specifically, he attacks modern liberalism for what he describes as its dual emphases on radical egalitarianism and radical individualism.

    'Tis to weep.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    @JDL;

    Too many to name them all.

  • JDL Magna, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    So, what are the names of those wishing to marry?

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    Utah and the GOP is on the losing side of the gay marriage issue. The shift in opinion has been dramatic over the last 10 years especially among young people who have been weaned on television shows with gay characters and with gay themes.

    After the PR disaster surrounding California's prop. 8 even the LDS church has toned down its anti gay rhetoric.

    It is just a matter of time before same sex marriage is legal through out the country.