Quantcast

Comments about ‘Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 9 2014 8:36 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
USU-Logan
Logan, UT

Great News for Arkansas!

equal protection
Cedar, UT

"It has been over forty years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice. The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it." The judge said.

Bigotry and vile animus places same-sex couples in a unstable position of being in a second tier marriage. The differentiation demeans these couples, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects and whose relationship the State has sought not to dignify. This humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The marriage ban makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

Serious
Rexburg, ID

Perhaps law schools around the country should begin including a course in human biology in the curriculum. Then, perhaps, these judges could see the rational reason a gay marriage makes absolutely no sense.

The Loving vs. Virginia case which is so often pointed out, was a case where the court ruled that a man was allowed to marry a woman.

I'm waiting for a day where two brothers want to marry... What is the rational reason for preventing that?

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

No reason except that gay marriage does not fir the time tested definition of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. A husband is a man married to a woman a wife is a woman married to a man. No man can be a wife and no woman can be a husband. No two men or no two women in a relationship can provide a mother and a father to children.

Laws, definitions and traditions have stood since the founding of the nation and now many act as if their rights have been taken away. There were no rights for SSM until recent judges read it into law that judges not seen to do for over 200 years.

Those who advocate SSM now want to label those who are for the traditional marriage with bigotry and vile animus. These professed rights are newly claimed in contradiction to long held laws and definitions. No one has been trying to take away any rights.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ Serious. The constitution protects the moral and intimate sexual conduct of same-sex couples. Moreover, opposite sex couples engage in the exact forms of intimacy that same-sex couples do. So in that sense they are similar situated. Even in the use of assisted reproductive technology. Procreation is not a requirement of civil marriage law, nor is there a parental fitness test for any couple.

Marriage has a presumption of intimacy, and establishes a legal relationship where none existed. Two brothers already have a legal relationship, and there is no presumption of intimacy or immutable characteristic to do so.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

@Equal Protection

I was about to use the same quote but you beat me to it. That's fifteen in a row for Marriage Equality.

higv
Dietrich, ID

I guess you can throw away ballot inititives now and only elect representatives so they can approve judges since a judge makes the laws and will find something in the Constitution that is not there. 14th amendment most abused amendment. Judges used it to legalize abortion and think equality means the right to marry someone of the same gender. Marriage is not mentioned in that amendment. It will be a failed social experiment since the counterfeiter the Devil himself does not support his followers once they subject themselves to him.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Serious: "Perhaps law schools around the country should begin including a course in human biology in the curriculum."

This is not about biology. From the judge's order: "Procreation is not a prerequisite in Arkansas for a marriage license. Opposite-sex couples may choose not to have children or they may be infertile, and certainly we are beyond trying to protect the gene pool. A marriage license is a civil document and is not, nor can it be, based upon any particular faith. Same-sex couples are a morally disliked minority and the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages is driven by animus rather than a rational basis. This violates the United States Constitution."

I think he hit every note pitch-perfect.

Wilf 55
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Step by step closer to equality for all! The U.S. will soon be part of the group of the most advanced nations where democracy and respect for human rights triumph. Contrast it with the nations that condemn homosexuality and persecute LGBT persons -- the likes of Uganda and Iran, to realize on which side we should stand.

El Chango Supremo
Rexburg, ID

"Marriage has a presumption of intimacy, and establishes a legal relationship where none existed. Two brothers already have a legal relationship, and there is no presumption of intimacy or immutable characteristic to do so."

Two adult brothers don't have the legal protections of marriage... What if two adult brothers fall in love? Why can't they get married? What about a mother and her adult daughter. A mother child relationship doesn't have the same tax-benefits as a marriage. If two men can have an intimate relationship and have it sanctioned by the state, why do they have to be unrelated? Isn't that discrimination?

An opposite sex relationship between two adults who are not closely related is the only relationship that makes sense. If biology is no longer an important requirement for marriage, why restrict familial status? One can't possibly argue that siblings have all the protections that a marriage offers!

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

"Moreover, opposite sex couples engage in the exact forms of intimacy that same-sex couples do." But that isn't why society should encourage men and women to marry before they have sex. Because when men and women have sex there is a good possibilty that a child may be the result.

I love my sister. Why doesn't the law allow me to celebrate that love with a marriage?

Well, a lot of people will say, "Incest will harm the children!" Why do people assume I will sleep with my sister just because I love her? I just want recognition that I love my sister and that she loves me. The reason for the resistance is that people assume that marriage is all about sex. What if the man in the relationship is impotent? Are we going to have police mkaing sure that couples have sex at the right frequency? We don't because marriage isn't about sex either.

Marriage is about having a stable relationship for the children who may be conceived, or who might have been conceived in the case of an elderly couple. Marriage is a liberal value because it fights out of wedlock births.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Amazing how equality has replaced the word "excuse".


You can lie, cheat, steal, and commit many crimes by saying it's equality.

Hmm?

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@Serious 8:55 p.m. May 9, 2014
Perhaps law schools around the country should begin including a course in human biology in the curriculum. Then, perhaps, these judges could see the rational reason a gay marriage makes absolutely no sense.

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

Perhaps you should realize that biology is a subject for medical school, and has nothing to do with the law. I assume you are talking about the ability to procreate being a requirement for marriage. You should realize that procreation is not a requirement for a valid marriage and marriage is not a requirement allowing or banning procreation. They are two separate issues.

The real issue in the LOVING case had nothing to do with the genders of the couple, and everything to do with their race, specifically the fact that the voters of Virginia decided that inter-racial marriage was immoral and a sin and an affront to God, and they tried to codify that prejudice. The basic arguments against inter-racial marriage at that time were the same arguments that are being made against same-sex marriage today. The anti-mixed-race marriage laws laws were unconstitutional then; the anti-same-sex marriage laws are unconstitutional today.

Good job, Judge Piazza.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

To El Chango and Tekakaromatagi: If you are serious about wanting to marry your siblings, you have the right to sue the state to permit you to do so. But it's well documented that laws against incest have a rational basis (unlike the laws against SSM), so be prepared to come up with an argument to counter these.

The "slippery slope" argument has been made in thousands of cases (regarding SSM and a host of other topics, from tax rates to gun control), and it has rarely been seen to have had merit. Some states have had gay marriage for a decade and there have been no cases of siblings, dead people, or pet ducks filing suit to permit them to marry.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

Two things:

1.) At this point, it would be more newsworthy if a state or federal court did --NOT-- find in favor of Marriage Equality for same-sex couples. (Notice how far beneath the virtual fold DN placed this news item).

2.) Judging from several of the above reader comments, may I suggest DN do an informative piece on the "slippery-slope fallacy" and "slippery-slope" arguments, in general. The article could define them, provide some examples and history and then finish by covering the effectiveness of such arguments/reasoning in front of judges.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Unless Attorney General McDaniel has an actual reason for appealing--e.g. he has evidence that the judge was bought off, the judge kept him from introducing critical evidence, the judge cited "evidence" that was clearly false --he has no basis for an appeal. Being miffed because you lost a case is not a valid basis. Arkansas citizens voted for an unconstitutional law; it was overturned. Why is he wasting resources on trying to revive a dead (and discriminatory) horse? Unfortunately, we all know the answer.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Tekakaromatagi: "I love my sister. Why doesn't the law allow me to celebrate that love with a marriage?"

You meet a woman. You begin dating. You have a social relationship, not a legal relationship.

You continue to date and become intimate. Social relationship, not legal.

You move in together. Social, not legal.

You marry. Now you have a legal relationship recognized by civil law.

You are married for decades but are no longer intimate. You still have a legal relationship.

You break up, move to to opposite sides of the city. You still have a legal relationship, though may not have a social connection.

You divorce, legal relationship broken.

You were born. A few year later your sister was born. The day she is born the two of you have a legal relationship.

That is why you cannot marry your sister, you already have a legal relationship.

OSM establishes a legal relationship between two legal strangers.

SSM establishes a legal relationship between two legal strangers.

Both have a social relationship (couple), marriage establishes a legal relationship that confers over 1000 legal rights, benefits and responsibilities.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

. . . and the first wedding, post decision, has taken place:

via twitter -- "Meet the 1st #gay couple married in #Arkansas! (Kristin and Jennifer) Their witness was Cheryl Maples, lawyer whose case brought down ban."

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ Tekakaromatagi "Marriage is about having a stable relationship for the children who may be conceived, or who might have been conceived in the case of an elderly couple. Marriage is a liberal value because it fights out of wedlock births."

In addition to the marital benefits you well described, even when they use assisted reproduction or adopt.. So to marriage provides a stable relationship for the parents and children in same-sex relationships, adopted or no matter how they are conceived. - What is your point? Certainly you don't want to harm same-sex couples and their children.

@ElChango "One can't possibly argue that siblings have all the protections that a marriage offers!"

Yup!

Do siblings have what is considered to be an immutable characteristic to marry each other (innate and and fundamental to their identity and person-hood, like ones' sexual orientation, gender or race)? It is un-reasonable for the government to require changing ones gender or sexual orientation to civil marry. Where different reasonable choices can be made, the government does not recognize EVERY type of relationship a person may seek to enter. Therefore, NO pension, social security and spousal health care for two adult bothers.

fact based
Salt Lake, UT

@ Rocket Science "Laws, definitions and traditions have stood since the founding of the nation and now many act as if their rights have been taken away. There were no rights for SSM until recent judges read it into law that judges not seen to do for over 200 years."

Ancient lineage of a legal concept does not give it immunity from attack for lacking a rational basis. The fact that a
particular discrimination has been "traditional" is even more of a reason to be skeptical of its rationality. Any Court must be especially vigilant in evaluating the rationality of any classification involving a group that has been subjected to a tradition of disfavor for a traditional classification is more likely to be used without pausing to consider its justification than is a newly created classification.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments