Quantcast
U.S. & World

Women aim to block Idaho from gay marriage fight

Comments

Return To Article
  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:22 p.m.

    JS
    "But the fact is, state does not have a compelling rational argument against same sex marriage."

    Alfred
    Oh, but they do... it's called the eventual demise of all marriages.

    LDS4
    Please explain how SSM will cause straight people to stop marrying.

    Alfred
    Marriage is primarily to provide a home for the bearing and raising of children. The state has compelling interest in that arrangement.

    LDS4
    Then why are women over to allowed to marry? How are heterosexual newlyweds in their 50s/60s different than homosexual newlyweds? How is that hypocrisy is justified?

    Alfred
    It does not have compelling interest in seeing that two people have a homosexual relationship.

    LDS4
    Does it have compelling interest in seeing that two people over 50 have a relationship? How about the infertile or sterile? Why are such a compelling state interest?

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    @Alfred

    If your "responsible procreation" argument is compelling, then why it not only failed in Judge Shelby's court, but also failed in Judge Walker's court? failed in 9th circuit court? failed in NJ state court? failed in NM supreme court?

    In fact, does that argument ever win in the courtroom?

    If this old argument works, why AG has to hire expensive outside lawyers?

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:07 p.m.

    @Contrarius:
    "Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage."

    Heterosexual marriages also contain risks... called domestic violence.

    There hasn't been enough same-sex marriages and for long enough time to allow an informed study of potential damages. Same with incestuous marriages... of which there has been none, incidentally.

    @J. S.:
    "Each state actually CAN ban SSM, polygamy, underage marriage etc, IF the state can provide compelling rational argument against each situation."

    If the state can ban polygamy it should be able to ban heterosexual marriages as well. Then where are we?

    "But the fact is, state does not have a compelling rational argument against same sex marriage."

    Oh, but they do... it's called the eventual demise of all marriages.

    Marriage is primarily to provide a home for the bearing and raising of children. The state has compelling interest in that arrangement. It does not have compelling interest in seeing that two people have a homosexual relationship.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:34 p.m.

    Contrariuser
    "If states could define marriage any way they wanted to, then we would still have bans on interracial marriage."

    States can and do define marriage anyway they want to. Most states have laws against same sex marriages, polygamy, incestuous marriages, juvenile marriages, old men/young girl marriages, etc. I guess what you're saying is that states can define marriages anyway they want except for gay marriages.

    "All state laws MUST conform to the US Constitution."

    And the Constitution tells us that the powers of the federal government are limited and does not include defining marriages... which is left to the states. Which means that federal judges can't come along are redefine states' marriage laws.

  • cougarsare1 Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 30, 2013 5:36 p.m.

    Harm...blah blah blah. For one, race or skin color is NOT the equivalent of an action by an individual.

    And 10 years...blah blah blah. It has already been mentioned, but the premise that there has been no harm in the past 10 years is faulty, as well. Time will tell and prove to those who want to see.

    The 14th amendment trumping all other portions of the constitution is a faulty argument that has been worked on for the past 50 years and has finally worn on people to the point of being accepted. Just remember that when those seeking religious protection are using the same argument in addition to the 1st amendment. It can't work for only one side.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    @Contrariuser:
    "States will not be allowed to continue ignoring the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution for much longer."

    If you're so concerned about 'full faith and credit,' why is it you haven't gone to bat for the use of marijuana in Tennessee since it's legal is other states such as Oregon? Maybe you have. If so, tell us about it.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    JPLoM
    Redefining marriage is unwise, but it is doable. This however should be done through the legislative process, not the judicial one. It is a matter of public policy, and the public policy should be determined by either the people directly or their elected representatives in a legislative body, not by unelected federal judges.

    LDS4
    That's what the Good Ol' Boys down South said too after the Loving decision allowing mixed race marriages. Those opposing same-sex marriage are grasping at straws since they have no objective reasons to ban same-sex marriage. We have moved beyond allowing the majority to impose subjective morality on minorities who would be objectively harmed by such impositions. We LDS should know better after our experiences regarding marriage 125 years ago.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:20 p.m.

    @Pops

    "given that homosexual couples, as a general rule, have neither the desire nor the capacity to provide in return any benefits to the state"

    Here's the difference between same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents... the children they have aren't "accidents". They can provide all the same capacity as opposite-sex parents once that child is born.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    Since the line is drawn in between understanding what you want to understand, or, what you might understand if you ask for reasons beyond your present knowledge.

    I understand that this debacle over judges is a chance for interpretation.
    But interpretation is a thing of human mind and culture, it will lead you.
    You need to free yourself of any limits to understand purpose.

    The pictures next on this page about the Book of Mormon by Arnold Friberg, shows us this when Abinadi explained :

    "...and little children also have eternal life. But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins."

    Either you know, or you don't. If you do, you have responsibility.
    That is what some of the post in here are trying to tell you.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    This is the most ridiculous move ever. If you sue to overturn a state's law, of course the state has a vested interest in being a party. The constant attempt by the homosexual lobby to exclude people from participating in making marriage law is disturbing. This is especially true since with county clerks, judges, wedding chapel operators, florists, bakers, photographers and many others there are many people with key religious freedom and freedom of speech rights closely connected to marriage.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    Marriage needs to be in the form of a man/woman relationship to connected it to its primary goals of creating a situation where as many as possible children are raised by their biological parents.

    Redefining marriage is unwise, but it is doable. This however should be done through the legislative process, not the judicial one. It is a matter of public policy, and the public policy should be determined by either the people directly or their elected representatives in a legislative body, not by unelected federal judges.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    @nlowder83350

    "I would like to see more from Idaho to respond to this then [sic] out-of-state folks."

    First of all, this is a Utah newspaper, so we can expect those of us in Utah to read and reply to the article. Secondly, since other articles here on the same topic get responses from all over the US, why should this one be any different?

  • nlowder83350 Rupert, ID
    Dec. 27, 2013 3:38 p.m.

    I would like to see more from Idaho to respond to this then out-of-state folks. There's a lot from out-of-state who think that they know what is best for Idaho. I am not telling those folks what to do in their state, but let us Idahoans be. I have seen my states constitution and there isn't much room for debate.

  • Bobster Boise, ID
    Dec. 27, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    Why do we even need states? That is just a lot of unnecessary duplication. Why do we even need state legislatures. More unnecessary duplication. (They can't do anything right, anyway). We still have the US Congress, but they only have an approval rating of 14%. Based on that dismal number, they cannot possibly be doing anything worthwhile or beneficial for the country. That leaves judges and President Obama to tell us what to think, do and say. Nirvana!

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Dec. 27, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    @Pops

    all you need to do is to look around those married gay couples, they are taking care of each other, especially for those in their senior years, their marriages reduce state's burden of caring individuals, caring lonely seniors.

    Gay couples are adopting and raising children just like those straight couples who can not have their own child, such behavior benefit state interests. and by the way, they are doing this by choice.

    To say that "homosexual couples, as a general rule, have neither the desire nor the capacity to provide in return any benefits to the state" is another evidence to support jurists such as Justice Kennedy and Judge Shelby' opinion, that such anti-gay marriage law or view is coming out of bias and discrimination.

  • Embarcadero SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    Dec. 27, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    This is so awesome. Idaho's legislation was virtually written by Utah LDS/proph8/Amendment 3 leaders. It's going to fall together with Utah's.

    We told you so.

    Watch as Utah's reputation and that of LDS leaders swirls circles the drain.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    @Pops --

    "Gay marriage advocates are, in essence, demanding the benefits of marriage for gay couples without any expectation of them assuming the responsibilities of marriage. "

    That's baloney.

    You have not yet showed any way in which gay couples fail to "assume the responsibilities of marriage" any more than any other infertile couples do.

    Unless you wish to ban all infertile marriages, you don't have a leg to stand on.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    J.S. said, "You have to prove such claim in the court..."

    Actually, I don't, as I'm simply commenting on a Deseret News website. I would be grateful if those defending the institution of marriage were successful in said endeavor, though like you I don't expect that they will given the current make-up of the Supreme Court and their proclivity of deciding cases on the basis of might be popular or politically correct rather than on the basis of reason and law.

    Gay marriage advocates are, in essence, demanding the benefits of marriage for gay couples without any expectation of them assuming the responsibilities of marriage. That's clearly irrational and unjust and it should not be allowed to stand.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    @robert muttenthaler

    Each state actually CAN ban SSM, polygamy, underage marriage etc, IF the state can provide compelling rational argument against each situation.

    But the fact is, state does not have a compelling rational argument against same sex marriage. This has been happening over and over again in both state and federal courts.

  • Filthy Kuffar Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    10 years of homsexual marriage is not enough time to determine if any harm has taken place in soiciety. It will take at least 50-100 years to see the results. Glad I won't be around then, and I'm sure many of the gay marriage activists will be happy I won't be around either.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    @Reflectere

    "Suspending a man for expressing his religious beliefs concerning what behaviors are sin - that is discrimination"

    Phil Robertson has his freedom of speech, freedom of religion as everybody else, but such freedom does not shield him from having consequences.

    If in A&E's opinion, he made vulgar, insensitive and discriminatory remarks towards gays and black people, and that may taint the company's image, they also have their right to suspend him.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    @Pops

    "given that homosexual couples, as a general rule, have neither the desire nor the capacity to provide in return any benefits to the state"

    You have to prove such claim in the court, and good luck with that.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    !robert muttenthaler:

    Despite your four-page rant, your religious beliefs or those of others aren't a factor in how our courts decide cases. If the religious beliefs of the majority of US citizens were the deciding factor in our laws, your beliefs, as well as mine and those of many other minority religions, would be severely limited by law.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    @nlowder83350
    Rupert, ID

    "I live in Idaho and if the voters say no to gay marriage then so be it."

    You aren't living in that compound down near Hayden Lake, are you? Would you also argue that if the voters said yes to slavery, segregation and limiting voting to white males, "so be it"? One of the basics that we all learned way back in civics class is that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the role of the judiciary is to determine whether particular laws and statutes fall within the limits of the Constitution.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    @New To Utah: I don't find it surprising that a Utah news source discussing another state would includes comments from Utah. Since the arguments against the state law focus on federal jurisdiction, it seems appropriate to have comments from many states.

    My suggestion is: Let Same Sex Marriage exist by enacting state laws that leave it entirely in the hands of a Justice of the Peace. Nobody else will be forced to participate in it, whether for photography or bakery or the marriage itself.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    @robert muttenthaler --

    "other groups will be coming out of the wood work"

    Here we go again.

    Individual rights are always limited by harm.

    Polygamy, incest, 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.

    "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..." -- In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.

    Justice Bauman of the Supreme Court of BC, reaffirming Canada's polygamy ban: "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,"... "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

  • robert muttenthaler Welland, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    Ask him with a sincere heart and He will reveal to you in His own way what His will is. He will answer your prayers, and sometimes it's not what we like because it's not what God wants. If after you still think you are more mightier then our Heavenly Father and believe you can change His laws, then I feel sorry for you come judgement day. For you alone will have to stand before Him and answer for what you have done.

  • robert muttenthaler Welland, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    God's laws and commandments are known worldwide and taught in every language around the world long before you or I were even thought of. So what gives you the right to Challenge God. Do you honestly believe that He would change His mind for the likes of you. I certainly think not. God's commandments have been around for thousands of years and they have never changed, and they never will. I encourage you to go to our Heavenly Father in prayer and talk to Him with an open heart.

  • robert muttenthaler Welland, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    . We who follow the teaching and guide lines of the LDS have a proclamation that states that we will follow and observe the laws of the land until such time that the laws of the land go against the laws of God and His Commandments. And the laws of God states that a man shall have only one wife. Nowhere in any of our Heavenly Father Commandments does it state that it is ok for a man to take another man or a women to take another women for a spouse. Those of you who are trying to change the laws of the land to suit your own purpose honestly think that you are greater and more powerful and knowledgeable then our Heavenly Father to challenge Him and His laws.

  • robert muttenthaler Welland, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    If this keeps up with the same sex marriages other groups will be coming out of the wood works claiming their rights to being able to marry whomever they like at whatever age. Where does it end, or is there going to be an end. Advocate groups for lesbian and gay marriages and polygamy are just the beginning. This is going to continue and it will be a snow ball effect. When the Constitution was written and signed, it was in the belief and best interest for all US citizens. Now we have groups challenging the Constitution claiming that it is their right for same sex marriage. Well I have news for those of you looking to challenge it.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    @Reflectere;

    Voting to deny other citizens the same privileges and rights you possess IS discrimination.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    @nlowder83350 --

    "I live in Idaho and if the voters say no to gay marriage then so be it. I believe that it's up to the citizens of each state to decide if to allow these marriages. "

    If states could define marriage any way they wanted to, then we would still have bans on interracial marriage.

    That's exactly what Loving v. Virginia was all about.

    All state laws MUST conform to the US Constitution.

  • KTC John Wetumpka, AL
    Dec. 27, 2013 6:41 a.m.

    Lest we forget, the states created the federal government, and not vice-versa. A vote of 3/5ths of the states can create an amendment to the U. S. Constitution that trumps the Supreme Court. No amendment has ever been adopted by that state-proposed amendment process. But the procedure is already available.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 5:53 a.m.

    The equal protection clause cuts both ways. If the state of Idaho can be required by the courts to extend to same sex couples the same benefits traditionally provided to heterosexual couples, the state of Idaho stands to lose the legal authority to require heterosexual couples to feed, clothe, shelter, nurture, correct, and teach their children as a condition of marriage, given that homosexual couples, as a general rule, have neither the desire nor the capacity to provide in return any benefits to the state,

  • nlowder83350 Rupert, ID
    Dec. 27, 2013 3:03 a.m.

    I live in Idaho and if the voters say no to gay marriage then so be it. I believe that it's up to the citizens of each state to decide if to allow these marriages. It can be put on the ballet's every 2 to 4 years depending on the demand of it. I know that I'm going to take a lot of heat over this but that's how I feel about this topic at this point in time.

  • Reflectere Utah, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 2:49 a.m.

    @ Jeffsfla

    Defending traditional marriage (historically, a religious institution) is not discrimination.

    Suspending a man for expressing his religious beliefs concerning what behaviors are sin - that is discrimination.

  • Reflectere Utah, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 2:47 a.m.

    One of the other dangerous fights behind the same-sex marriage bandwagon - state sovereignty.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 12:18 a.m.

    Those who oppose same-sex marriage constantly predict horrible consequences for the future: destruction of the family, growing immorality, incest, social chaos... Such predictions resemble the predictions made when slavery was about to be abolished, or racial discrimination, or the ban on interracial marriage. But fear-mongering is not an argument.

    Countries that have had same-sex marriage for more than a decade now prove that it becomes a non-issue without any negative consequences, on the contrary. The desirability of marriage is reinforced and the importance of a steady, strong commitment between two persons is reaffirmed. Even more important, this kind of tolerance allows all people to live in peace and pursue happiness.

  • Morgan Duel Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 11:53 p.m.

    Here we go again. We no longer live in a Republic where the Majority rules!

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 10:25 p.m.

    "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their... power [is] more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal... It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

    -Thomas Jefferson

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 9:14 p.m.

    All 10 comment are people who don't reside in Idaho.i think the
    State & it's citizens should make the laws of
    each state.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:45 p.m.

    Wadsen is right. He has the right to speak for the people. Irrespective if it is not popular amongst some. His voice needs to be heard, just like those who support Gay Marriage.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:31 p.m.

    Legalizing gay marriage will pave the way for polygamy and other marriage combinations. Things are progressing nicely.

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:29 p.m.

    Federalism is dead. We once had strong states that defended their laws and jurisdiction against the federal government. Within a decade we will have one set of marriage and family laws (once the domain of the states), one set of laws against indecency and pornography, one set of laws period. There will be no differences between states, no local laws, no differences... just one monolithic federal government.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:03 p.m.

    So just to be clear, a suit is brought against the State of Idaho, and those filing it don't want the AG to defend it? Hmmmmmm. Is there some legal precedent for not allowing the respondent in a lawsuit to have counsel? The Governor is the Governor, he and the State are entitled to be represented by legal counsel, so if the plaintiff gets to decide if the respondent may have counsel, where is the due process here?

    Correct, there isn't any.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    This would also create complications for the case presented by State of Idaho. It sounds like someone is doing some political posturing in case they lose. As others have pointed out however, all it accomplishes is to waste resources.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:00 p.m.

    States will not be allowed to continue ignoring the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution for much longer. Ohio has already ruled against it on a limited basis. More wide-ranging decisions against it will not be much longer in coming.

    "They contend Idaho has historically recognized marriages performed in other states that would have been considered illegal under Idaho law, such as marriages between first cousins and common-law marriages, but has unconstitutionally drawn the line at gay marriage."

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    @Nate
    The burden of proof lies with the state to provide evidence of a compelling state interest in denying someone equal access to their constitutional rights not on the individual to prove they deserve their constitutional rights the state has failed repeatedly to do so. Following your logic a person accused of a crime would be required to prove their innocence.

    If an infertile couple needs the help of science then it is not "producing a child on its own" anymore then a gay couple seeking the help of science or adopting a child. It also does not account for those straight couples that make a choice not to have children. There is also no were in the current laws anything stating that marriage is exclusively for the purposes of reproduction. Even if such a clause existed the state would still need to provide compelling evidence as to how changing that definition would cause a substantial harm. Again something they have failed to do.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 26, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    AG Lawrence Wasden may believe that, with his joining the lawsuit, the big government has better chance to keep a discriminatory amendment, which denies same sex couples' individual liberty, in place.

    The truth is, unless they can present some new and more persuasive argument in the court, they will fail just like those other opponents of marriage equality. and I doubt they can present anything compelling.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Dec. 26, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    I am very surprised that governments first want to spend money on defending discrimination but furthermore they seem to duplicate their efforts and end up spending more money. They cannot seem to get anything right.