Quantcast
U.S. & World

Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

Comments

Return To Article
  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 24, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    When gay people can "naturally" reproduce another human being, I'll call homosexuality natural and ordained by our Creator. Until then, I'll call it something else.

    That said, I will hire you, be your neighbor, play with your kids, invite you to parties and be your friend. Homophobic does not apply to this commenter.

    Respectfully, I fight for traditional marriage and wish you happiness and peace.

  • Pac_Man Pittsburgh, PA
    Sept. 8, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    Did anyone actually read the ruling? He said that same-sex marriage may lead to incest. Really?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 8, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    firstamendment
    MARRIAGE legally sanctions, upholds, and enforces relationships that are crucial for the survival of Humanity. .. Homosexual relationships are primarily for personal interests.
    KJK
    Couldn't the same be said for marriages where the woman is over 50? Where one party is in jail? Where one/both have been sterilized? Why are these legal? We allow drug abusers, child molesters, wife beaters, etc… to marry and have kids without batting an eye, yet you are all upset over loving, law abiding gays getting married…even if they don't adopt?

    John Locke
    … the gay community, was about 1-2%....We are a Judeo-Christian country, founded on the principles and beliefs of the scriptures. The majority cannot be ignored..
    KJK
    Active LDS constitute the same %. Since America was founded on Protestant principles, should we LDS expect that the wishes of the majority be ignored when asking for equal treatment? Since they don't believe in temple ordinances, could they forbid the construction of temples? Why should we LDS demand Equal Protection and Due Process but look for ways to deny it to gays?

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Sept. 7, 2014 9:42 p.m.

    @Frozen
    MARRIAGE legally sanctions, upholds, and enforces relationships that are crucial for the survival of Humanity. Homosexuals are free to love but it is wrong to push everyone into enforcing relationships that have only personal/selfish interests.

    Homosexuals can't have children together, heterosexuals can. No Judge (including Vaughn) NOR ANY INDIVIDUAL has any business determining which heterosexuals can have children. My sister was told she would never have children due to an accident. She had children naturally.

    We should let the people decide this crucial issue. :) That is a simple freedom. No judge shouold have the right to push their morality on the States.

    It does not matter how many studies are suppressed, manipulated etc. It is perfectly clear that homosexuality is not best for children. If it were, homosexuals would have been created with, or evolved, the ability to procreate.

    We should be kind, but research shows that promoting homosexuality is harmful for our children& humanity (gays included :)).

    For activists marriage is not about forwarding children or humanity. Nor is it about "Civil Rights," visiting rights, rights to work, or any other rights. Gay marriage is about promoting sexuality which the State of UT has no interest in.

  • Cheesecake Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 6, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    I look forward to the Supreme Court ruling against gay-marriage bans, so we can all move on and find something else to argue about.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 4:57 p.m.

    @Light and Liberty "However, both of us have a civil right to vote for whatever things we want and make it a part of the laws of this country. "

    You're incorrect. The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of NO elections.

    In Loving v. Virginia (1967) a main argument was that race had EVERYTHING to do with the 'supposed purpose' of marriage. Mixed-race children would suffer from poor social treatment and polygamous or incest marriages would be next. Those arguments along with the relevance of immutable characteristics, were not enough to save the interracial marriage ban. Today, It's hard to see how non-existant children "who can't even be born from same-sex couples" would suffer any worse of a negative outcome.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    @Mikhail

    Judge Posner said that Indiana and Wisconsin were hurting the adopted children of same-sex couples without good reason. He said: "Minorities trampled on by the democratic process have recourse to the courts; the recourse is called constitutional law." The ruling dismissed the state's argument that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they can't conceive children together, noting that Wisconsin and Indiana allow elderly couples to marry. Both states also forbid first cousins to marry but make a specific exception to allow such marriages if the couples are infertile.

    The decision similarly rejected arguments that gay marriage should be restricted because of tradition, with Posner noting cannibalism and foot-binding are long-standing traditions in some cultures. Posner said he was not considering any possible moral arguments for or against gay marriage because none was advanced by either state.

    Judge Posner said the states' legal arguments were "so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously." - I agree.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    @Mikhail

    Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a established fundamental right of ALL individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” The last case was Windsor v. US.

    It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

    Along with the 9th and 7th circuit court of appeals, SCOTUS has applied heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation (Romer v. Evans) as described in Smith Kline v. Beecham. While there indeed has been ample opportunity to do so, the rational for discriminatory laws have failed even rational basis. As you may know, the court simply doesn't go farther than it needs to when confronted with irrational argumentation.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    "In light of still-binding precedent, this Court declines to fashion a new suspect class. To do so would distort precedent and demean the democratic process."

    "The Court also hesitates with the notion that this state's choice could only be inspired by hate and intolerance. Louisiana unquestionably respected 'a statewide deliberative process that allowed its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage.'"ROBICHEAUX v. CALDWELL

    Apparently, other courts of review disagree with this. Let's see what SCOTUS says.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    @5th Amendment

    "What do you think "must respect the constitutional rights of persons" and "subject to those guarantees" actually means?"

    Answer: An established and acknowledged constitutional right.

    Question: Where is the established and acknowledged constitutional right for people of the same sex to marry?

    Windsor: cricket's chirping

    What court decisions support same sex orientation as a protected class?

    Answer: "They fail, however, to recognize that neither the Supreme Court nor
    the Fifth Circuit has ever before defined sexual orientation as a
    protected class, despite opportunities to do so. See, e.g.,
    Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (majority opinion); Romer, 517 U.S. 620;
    Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Baskin
    v. Bogan, Nos. 14-355, 14-404 & 14-406, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
    86114, at *34-*35 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014)"

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    Sept. 5, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    Light and Liberty" :

    Does your democratic process include the courts and "unconstitutional?

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    5th Amendment: You are confused. You have your opinion when the "debate" is over. You are free, just as I am, to express your opinion. I never said being chaste was something that I wanted codified in law. However, both of us have a civil right to vote for whatever things we want and make it a part of the laws of this country. No one is being denied their civil rights when society codifies into law something that anyone might find disagreeable. There are a lot of things I find repulsive, but I go along with it because I believe in Democracy. Do you? I hope you aren't trying to deny me my right to vote because it appears that you not only don't want to allow some people to vote, you are determined to deny them even the expression of that right in a free deomcracy.

    Ranchhand: Thanks for your opinion. I absolutely give you that right, but I sense a little animus toward me for expressing my opinion. You don't have to live up to my version of Chastity, nor do I hope that you want to compel me to live your definition.

  • 5th Amendment Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 1:03 p.m.

    @Mikhail

    Directly from Windsor "State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

    What do you think "must respect the constitutional rights of persons" and "subject to those guarantees" actually means?

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Sept. 5, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    @Mikhail
    "he chooses to carefully and logically follow legal precedent"

    Except he chose to follow the dissent, not the majority opinions in legal precedents, for example, quote John Roberts, or Kelly, who are the dissenters in Windsor and UT, OK cases. in another way, he chose to ignore the rulings and majority opinions in Windsor and 10th circuit UT, OK cases.

    You can extol this judge all you want, but still can not change the fact that his ruling is the ONLY one against SSM after many many more rulings in favor of SSM.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    If you haven't read the written decision of the court in Louisiana, you should - even if the word processor or typewriter has spacing problems. The judge seems to have no motivation to satisfy fashion. Rather, he chooses to carefully and logically follow legal precedent - which is every judge's job. He points out that there is no legal precedent for providing sexual orientation as a "fundamental right." He also points out that choosing to follow psychological studies is a slippery slope. His reasoning is clear and carefully set forth. He repeatedly goes to the Windsor case - where it was pointed out that the state has the right to determine the definition of marriage.

    Those who are advocates for SSM should study up on the legal precedent on this, and related issues. This matter will come down to the definition - under legal precedent - of "fundamental right" and "rational basis." Regardless of your opinion on what these terms should mean, the judges need to look at the legal precedent to justify their decision.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    @Cats;

    "Common sense: The collection of prejudices one accrues after the age of 18".

    --- Albert Einstein

    In any case, it's about the LAW, not "common sense".

    Light and Liberty says:

    "I don't see any irony because there isn't any irony. An unchaste life is any sexual relations outside of marriage, which according to most Christians is between a man and a women."

    --- I'm not a Christian and according to the law, we're not a theocracy so your "chaste" requirements apply to you, nobody else. Your god didn't define anyting as he doesn't exist (debate not over). Also, if "chaste" is being married, then by definition, SS couples who are married are "chaste".

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    Aurelius maximus:

    "Hmmm..seeing as the country was founded by religious persons seeking refuge from religious persecution. I am sure that a lot of the original laws that were established were in respect of God's laws."

    ---------

    Just the opposite is true--because they were not allowed to worship as they wanted to in England because of laws passed there, our Founders made sure that all were allowed to worship (or not worship) as they pleased and made sure that there were no laws regarding religious requirements.

    Unless you want to go back to the Puritans and see the crazy way they carried out their religious laws (Witch trials, etc.), you would need to look to those who wrote our constitution. Why didn't they incorporate the 10 commandments in it? Why is it only a framework of laws to be built upon if they wanted all of us to believe in God and obey him? Could it be that they did not agree on what religious laws were to be codified? Could it be that they are smarter than some of us here who still want to codify our beliefs into laws?

  • 5th Amendment Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    @ Light and Liberty "God has revealed His word. Debate over."

    Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Differing faiths, ministers, and individuals can define marriage for themselves. At issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons. The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom FROM it.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    Ranchhand: I don't see any irony because there isn't any irony. An unchaste life is any sexual relations outside of marriage, which according to most Christians is between a man and a women. It doesn't matter whether society changes that definition, God hasn't. So, SSM is considered Unchaste. Simple.

    Furry: To equate SSM to "inter-racial" marriage is shallow. Race is culturally defined. Blacks and whites are of the same race. Racism is a learned behavior that basically divides people for some perceived cultural bias based on the color of skin, etc. The counsel to marry someone with the same values, color of skin, income level, goals, etc., isn't bad counsel. If someone misunderstands that counsel as a reason to be a racist, then that is their problem, not the person giving counsel. When you consider the times in the sixties, it probably was pretty good counsel. The black and White races weren't exactly getting along. I wouldn't advise my son to marry a rich man's daughter either. Am I biased against rich people. No. A man marrying another man is quite different. God has revealed His word. Debate over.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    Finally a judge with some common sense.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 5:13 a.m.

    @greatbam22 1:38 p.m. Sept. 4, 2014

    '"Anything else was considered both illegal and contrary to the will of God."

    It certain states this may have been believed but I can't imagine that this was a national sentiment.'

    I was 19 years old when the LOVING case was decided. I have personal knowledge of what the national sentiment concerning mixed-race marriage was at the time. The sentiment of the country, religious and civil, was that it was wrong and immoral to marry someone not of your own race. In lots of states it was illegal. It was considered scandalous and immoral, and contrary to God's will and rules. Just like I said.

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

    @cjb 10:44 a.m. Sept. 4, 2014

    "please explain how calling gay relationships marriage will affect your marriage negatively."

    Excuse me for butting into this conversation, but I had something I anted to contribute. Today is my 45th wedding anniversary. Calling gay relationships marriage will have absolutely no affect on my marriage, positive or negative. The only things that affect my marriage are the things my husband and I do.

  • 5th Amendment Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 8:05 p.m.

    @ Aurelius maximus

    re: "...... a talk by President Thomas S. Monson "Stand in Holy Places" in his talk he talks much about the world and the changes in morality over the years.

    One of his quotes goes as follow: "Although the world has changed, the laws of God remain constant. They have not changed; they will not change. The Ten Commandments are just that;commandments. They are not suggestions. They are every bit as requisite today as they were when God gave them to the children of Israel."

    The problem may very well be that not all of President Monsons talks have been codified into our nations civil laws.

  • 5th Amendment Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 7:54 p.m.

    @ Cougar

    re: "They are not denied any rights; it's just that marriage is between a man and a woman and should stay that way."

    Folks said the exact same thing about interracial marriage bans, and mixing of the races. One then has to ask, what rights were interracial couples being denied?

    Thinking cap on here.... What rights could they be?

    Light comes on brightly in my head. Drum roll:

    - The same exact rights interracial couples, felons, and folks who did want to procreate were denied. -

  • Aurelius maximus Berryville, VA
    Sept. 4, 2014 7:46 p.m.

    @ Bob A. Bohey

    "It seems clear to me that people who speak of "god laws" simply do not understand this issue or this country's laws at even a fundamental level."

    Hmmm..seeing as the country was founded by religious persons seeking refuge from religious persecution. I am sure that a lot of the original laws that were established were in respect of God's laws.

    Your comment reminded me of a talk by President Thomas S. Monson "Stand in Holy Places" in his talk he talks much about the world and the changes in morality over the years.

    One of his quotes goes as follow: "Although the world has changed, the laws of God remain constant. They have not changed; they will not change. The Ten Commandments are just that—commandments. They are not suggestions. They are every bit as requisite today as they were when God gave them to the children of Israel."

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 6:18 p.m.

    "--- Bigotry and discrimination are never the "right decision"."

    I agree with you on that. However, not extending the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples is neither bigotry nor discrimination. They are not denied any rights; it's just that marriage is between a man and a woman and should stay that way. To say otherwise is like me complaining that as a male I am being discriminated against because I will never get to be a Queen.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Sept. 4, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    It seems clear to me that people who speak of "god laws" simply do not understand this issue or this country's laws at even a fundamental level. One would get a better conversation speaking to rock rather than those who spout off about "gods laws".

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    @Riverton Cougar

    But whose religious belief should be codified into civil marriage law?

    "LGBT men and women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less." 2014 Episcopal Proclamation - National Cathedral

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    Daedalus, Stephen’s 2 posts show why the past 20 rulings, by both liberals and conservatives, have favored SSM. There is no “rational basis” for denying SSM. Animus and religion are the only rationales. They don’t qualify as legally legit reasons so SSM opponents try to use children, but as others have shown, SSM has no effect on the relationships between straight couples and their kids, nor does it logically incent straight couples to reproduce less.

    Since gays meet the 4 requirements of being a suspect class (History of Discrimination, A Discrete Minority, Immutable Characteristics, Political Power), laws limiting their rights have to meet at least heightened scrutiny rather than rational basis scrutiny. They can’t even meet that latter.

    Not allowing SSM vs. simply allowing them to live together advances no state interest. Since not allowing it prevents kids in same-sex households from having the same rights and protections that other kids have, it harms kids and therefore contrary to states’ interest.
    An activist judge is someone who rules based on their own subjective bias rather than on the facts and the law. Judge Feldman, by definition, is an activist judge.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    re
    greatbam22
    andrews afb, MD

    When I said, ..

    "please explain how calling gay relationships marriage will affect your marriage negatively."

    What I was looking for from you, is for to give to me a believable explanation of exactly what I was asking for.

    Rather than do that, you said the following,

    "So what you are saying to me is that you aren't for honest debate you are more interested in just shutting me up".

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Sept. 4, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    Judge Richard Posner, writing for unanimous 7th Circuit, today:

    "The challenged [WI and ID SSM-bans] discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction— that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents. The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny..."

    BTW - Posner is a conservative of the old school.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    @greatbam22;

    You totally ignore the argument that marriage has already been defined and that definition is defined as a 1 man and as many woman as he can get (per the bible), and one man and his property. YOU changed it to one-one only.

    "A large majority people in many states hold ..."

    --- Then they can marry someone of the opposite gender. The "majority" does not get to take away rights from the minority.

    @Liberty For All;

    I guess those adopted children aren't in real families. Shame on you.

    @greatbam22;

    Its not that you "think differently" that makes a bigot, the problem is that you're trying to force others to adhere to your beliefs.

    Did you bother to read the DN article today listing all the LGBT people fired for being LGBT?

    @tabuno;

    Per the US Constitution, states may not give one group of citizens legal protections it denys another group.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Sept. 4, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    @ Furry1993

    Yes, I understand that laws regarding marriage have gone through some changes through time prohibiting and then allowing different circumstances and occurrences.

    The fact is Marriage has involved two parties. A man and A woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman or anything else other than a man and a woman.

    Yes, you can reference polygamy but I think most people I have interacted with don't use polygamy and marriage interchangeably.

    "Anything else was considered both illegal and contrary to the will of God."

    It certain states this may have been believed but I can't imagine that this was a national sentiment.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    The U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. Rodriguez (1973) held that an education was not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution and that Texas did not have to provide exactly equal funding for education for each school district in Texas. It was up to the State Legislature to address this matter. As for gay marriages, there also is no legal precedent inherent in the U.S. Constitution that defines an individual's right to marry a person of the same sex as a fundamental right. It can be argued, like a right to education, that the State has the primary legal authority and responsibility to define how such education and marriage is to be conceived in their state and that for a Court to decide otherwise might be considered an unconstitutional use of legislative, not judicial exercise of power. Advocates of gay marriage may need to reserve their optimism that the U.S. Supreme Court would so easily adopt the positions of the vast majority of federal and state judicial opinions overturning state marriage bans.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Sept. 4, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    @cjb

    "please explain how calling gay relationships marriage will affect your marriage negatively."

    Since you said please...

    I have read on DN boards that I am a bigot from people because my views don't conform perfectly with yours. To me that is just calling me a free thinker. So what you are saying to me is that you aren't for honest debate you are more interested in just shutting me up.

    I have already seen the constricting of ideas and beliefs in society because of this whole debate. Mostly they have been going against people who are religious in nature.

    It is interesting how so called "liberals" are not very liberal when it comes to people who think differently than they do.

    I can see that in the future that I will have to be careful in what that I say because it is already evident in today's world the lack of tolerance in sharing ones views regarding a subject.

    Look at Brendan Eich for example. He was fired just because he supported Prop 8. Do you think his firing hurt his marriage? Who says that won't happen to more people?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    @ PJB Newsgram. "...while marriage between two people of the same gender is not essential to our existence because of biological realities."

    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965) SCOTUS established a fundamental right not to procreate.

    Care to try again?

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    This is great news as the judge clearly identifies the importance of marriage linking children to their biological parents. Harms to innocent helpless children are so often overlooked with 'adult centric SSM friendships can be marriages too' activist model. The democratic process is the best way to protect what time and eternity has shown best for the raising of children, a mother and father. Preventing harm is a legitimate interest of the state. The ruling identified the harm to society if the marriage door is opened to marriage of siblings to their parents and anyone who proclaims they love each other.

    We can see elections matter in judicial appointments. We need more people of faith like this Louisiana Federal Judge who actually understands the real meaning of marriage and rules based on facts, plain common sense, even what is right and wholesome rather than giving into trends or the fads of the liberal agenda or other activist judges.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    Daedalus, Stephen: I disagree. It meets the highest threshold of society, a threshold that has been around for thousands of years, and even before that, as the most stable influence for society's growth and development the world has ever known. There is no government in the history of mankind that has been able to promote a more steady medium for human progress. It can't promote it because it was not invented by it, had no understanding of how to do it, but which was inherently accepted by it as the best means for the propagation of the species, as well as offering the best protection for the growth and development of children. Government's have tried to change it, bend it, break it, redefine it, but human nature cannot be changed. Humans naturally inclined itself toward it because of its usefulness and enduring quality. Indeed, it is the only form of family that can help the human family. All other attempts are futile,including the inferior sham of SSM. Whether the courts decide in its favor or not, marriage between a man and a women is the highest threshold for human rights, responsibilities, and possibilities.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    Well Greatbam22,

    The Supreme Courts already allowed/defined the term "Marriage" to include same-sex couples when it ruled Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional.

    And it doesn't matter if "a large majority in many states" don't agree - it's unconstitutional! All, yes all, major polls conclude that the majority of US Citizens support marriage equality for gay couples. Additionally, over 44% of US citizens live in states that allow gay marriage.

    ps: I was legally Married to my same-sex husband prior to Prop 8 in CA in 2008. I've been with the same man for 19 years. Just how has our legal Marriage negatively affected you in any way, is been over six years now? Oh, I was also raised in a dedicated Mormon family in Idaho.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    re greatbam22
    andrews afb, MD

    God established marriage? Okay, I can agree.

    Given that you insist that opposition to gay marriage is somehow a defense of traditional marriage, please explain how calling gay relationships marriage will affect your marriage negatively.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    People who claim that marriage was institued by God, usually refer to Genesis. A book that was written about 1,400 B.C.

    However, the Code of Hammurabi's that was written about 1,800 BC talks about "marriage" in terms of a "transaction". "128. If a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage contract, that woman is not a wife." (Code of Hammurabi )

    it is interesting that the same code also talks about concubines having children. Therefore marriage and progeny are not mutually inclusive. We can see that in the book of Genesis in the story of Abraham and Hagar and many others e.g. David, Solomon.
    Interestingly enough, we can find evidence of marriage as back as 2,350 B.C. again as a business transaction by which a man "owned" a woman.

    Children in marriage was secondary, and we can see several examples in the Bible, Abraham, Jacob, Joshua. Their wives wanted to have children but these men were happy with them for what they were.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    @greatbam22 10:03 a.m. Sept. 4, 2014

    Prior to 1967, marriage had already been defined and that definition was defined as people of the same race. A large majority people in many states held to the definition that a Marriage is between two people of the same race because that was what the word had been defined as to constitute. Anything else was considered both illegal and contrary to the will of God. That argument didn't hold Constitutional muster, and same-race laws were struck down.

    Your argument. which uses the same reasoning, is neither persuasive or valid.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    @ Ranchhand

    You totally ignore the argument that marriage has already been defined and that definition is defined as a 1 man and 1 woman.

    It is up to the Supreme Court to decide to allow for the redefinition of marriage as you would like to occur.

    A large majority people in many states hold to the definition that a Marriage is between 1 woman and 1 man because that is what the word has been defined as to constitute.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    @greatbam22;

    The only "mockery" to marriage is those who violate your marriage vows.

    Your "god" didn't define anything (it doesn't exist). The US is not a theocracy and the definitions of your "god" are irrelevant. Don't you get it? You do NOT get to use your beliefs in your "god" to violate the rights of other citizens. The only "mockery" here is your mockery of the US Constitution.

    @Light and Liberty;

    Would we still be "unchaste" if we were allowed to marry? Ironically you don't see the hypocrisy of your position.

    Again, your god is irrelevant.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Sept. 4, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    As others have already pointed out, Judge Feldman skipped a critical step.

    Feldman explains rational basis review: the "classification drawn by the statute [must be] rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

    Louisiana asserts two interests: "linking children with intact families formed by their biological parents, and...ensuring that fundamental social change occurs by social consensus through democratic processes." These meet the low threshold of 'legitimate state interest'. And in the abstract, these are not irrational aspirations for society.

    But that is not enough.

    The 'rational' in rational basis review applies to the connection between the type of people the state singles out for disparate treatment and the achievement of these goals -- not merely the goals themselves.

    In Romer, SCOTUS clarifies: "By requiring that the classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law."

    Feldman provides no analysis or explanation for concluding there is a rational relationship between excluding same-sex couples from marriage and Louisiana's stated interests.

    On appeal, this will be be remanded with instructions to Feldman akin to a math teacher: "show your work".

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 4, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    I don't see this decision standing up to any challenges. It was based on pretty faulty reasoning. Dismissing Loving as a precedent and allowing the majority to decide what rights a minority should have are both just specious. I suspect this decision will be a minor glitch.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    Some say that marriage is about having kids and since gays can’t reproduce together, they don’t have a right to marry. Should women over 50 have a right to (re)marry? Should those with vasectomies or hysterectomies? Would you support laws denying marriage to such? Should couples be required to reproduce within 5 years of marriage or have their marriage license revoked? Why should such be allowed marriage when they are no different than gay couples regarding reproduction?

    Marriage, whether gay or straight, strengthens society by having people depend on each other rather than government. Marriage offers children rights and protections. Gays will always have kids through adoption or IVF, whether or not SSM is allowed. Denying the kids of gays those rights and protections objectively harms those kids. It harms adults and society as well. Religion and animus are the only rationalization for denying SSM.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    It is interesting that SSM advocates talk about the "dehumanizing" affect of this ruling, but will not even allow someone to talk about, let alone outlaw, the "dehumanizing" affects of an unchaste life. What was once considered by society as an extreme violation of God's laws is now accepted, even by those who consider themselves Christians,by them as normal and healthy. There is none so blind as those who will not see.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Sept. 4, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    @ cbj

    "It is wrong to believe that opposition to gay marriage is in any way a defense of traditional marriage. How someone could believe this is a testament to the ability of someone to say something out of left field and others will blindly believe and follow because they don't bother to think the issue out."

    It is not. Gay marriage is a mockery of marriage because it is God who established it the way it to be. It is taking something that has been defined for thousands of years.

    Also just because some treat marriage as just another relationship doesn't mean we need to just redefine it to include LGBT persons.

    To many marriage has and is been ordained of God and therefore how it is defined should be kept as it is.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    @toosmartforyou Shelby did not issue the stay due to the AG's office not being properly prepared and providing an extremely weak legal argument to support their position. Let's also not forget that the 10th Circuit did not issue a stay again to the weakness of the states case. It wasn't until the AGs office petitioned SCOTUS did the state receive a stay.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    @technos 12:35 a.m. Sept. 4, 2014

    One's sexuality is not a behavior, although one's sexual behavior relates back to one's sexuality. I have been straight all my life, even as a child before I knew what my reactions meant. I was straight as a teenager even though I was celebate prior to marriage. I have been straight throughout my married life. If my husband were to die and I didn't remarry, I would be celebate AND I would still be straight.

    Sexuality address the gender to which a person has a sexual and affectional affinity. Behavior addresses the actions a person takes as a result of that affinity. They are two separate things.

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

    the arguments behind gay marriage need to be half way honest.

    ----------

    The arguments are totally and completely honest. Only a lack of true understanding of the subject would cause a person to reach a contrary belief.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    Riverton Cougar says:

    "It's nice to finally see the right decision being made,..."

    --- Bigotry and discrimination are never the "right decision".

    "...(as God has defined it)...be intolerant of my beliefs"

    --- The US is not a theocracy, your god and beliefs have no standing or relevance. They apply to you and you alone, no other citizen has to adhere to your "beliefs" or your "god".

    PJB says:

    "...marriage...is essential to our existence ..."

    --- Uhm, no. SEX is essential to our survival, marriage is not. Marriage has nothing to do with sex.

    technos says:

    "...addresses concerns of those who do not approve of gay marriage. "

    If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't have one. Simple. BTW, religion is also a "behavior" (and it's protected).

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    @ mcdugall, I didn't say I agreed with either Feldman or Shelby or what I think will eventually happen or what I think should happen. I only said that Shelby is the only magistrate in the country that refused to grant a stay pending appeal and that he created a real mess for those caught in the transition from legal, to being stayed, to being in question should it be over-turned. Why were all the others judges in the country that have ruled upon it then stayed their ruling but Shelby didn't? I happen to know people that fit into that problem and I don't feel they deserved such treatment. Shelby blew it, plain and simple, by refusing to grant a stay. That's all I'm saying.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Sept. 4, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    Seems to me many people equate biology with religion with civil rights.

    Just because its usually takes one male and one female to make a baby, does not make such a scientific fact an element of religion. It is fact, and religion is belief. And just because a religious belief comes from the elders or books of the religion does not make that belief a basis for law in secular society. We are not a theocracy yet, so that one's particular religious practices and outlooks do not dictate what civil law could or should be. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, and some views are just plain ignorant regarding secular government and, indeed, science.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    It looks like the Supreme Court will decide this eventually.

    It is wrong to believe that opposition to gay marriage is in any way a defense of traditional marriage. How someone could believe this is a testament to the ability of someone to say something out of left field and others will blindly believe and follow because they don't bother to think the issue out.

    However, unfortunately gay marriage and gays being able to adopt children who could otherwise have had a mother and a father seem to be tied together. Adoption somewhat allowed even without gay marriage, but it will only get worse. How people could get so uptight about what gay relationships are called and not care about gay adoption is evidence to me how illogical and unthinking people can be sometimes.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Sept. 4, 2014 5:32 a.m.

    >>Judge Feldman's notion of a rational basis is completely irrational. It is doomed to fail on appeal.

    Perhaps, but for that to happen, the higher courts now will have to do something they've skirted to date -- explain *on legal grounds* why a state's claim of "legitimate interest in limiting marriage to couples who could biologically have a child" is irrational. Arguments about unequal tax breaks, etc. are a weak foundation because such thing are often justifiable *if* there's a rational, defensible, overriding state interest. So Feldman's ruling will drive the higher courts to focus heavily on the law and logic to make sure that judgements in favor of same-sex marriage aren't just “a pageant of empathy; decisions impelled by a response of innate pathos.”

    That's what Feldman essentially admits he's trying to do, and it's as it should be. Making sure the focus stays on logic and the law will ensure that any final ruling, whatever it may be, will be on very strong legal ground.

  • technos Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 12:35 a.m.

    This really needs to be the decision that makes it to the supreme court for deciding gay marriage, because it logically addresses concerns of those who do not approve of gay marriage. All we have seen up to this point is a bunch of judges rubber-stamping the pro-gay marriage decisions.

    Somebody needs to call up Utah's attorney general and tell them this is how the case needs to be approached. Sorry gays, but when the day is done, sexuality is a behavior, and the courts will have to come to terms with that fact. There is no 'gay gene' and the shallow arguments for it don't address the other initials in your movement - the B's T's and Q's. I know it's hard to believe, but I'm not anti-gay. Just that the arguments behind gay marriage need to be half way honest.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 12:20 a.m.

    Are people really going to side with the South when it comes to a civil rights issue? Good luck explaining that to your grandchildren

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Sept. 3, 2014 11:26 p.m.

    There's clearly a reason "no other federal judge has ruled that way at the trial level." Judge Feldman conducted a "Rational Basis Review" of the State's supposed justification for the ban, but left out the rational analysis part.

    Louisiana argued successfully in court that marriage is the institution that can make a family. And yet, Louisiana has legal same-sex co-parent adoption. So, clearly, the State claiming it needs to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples for [mumble, mumble, think of the children, mumble] reason, is being completely dishonest. They have no interest at all in preventing children from being adopted by unmarried same-sex couples. They already allow that, as long as the couple files two separate sets of adoption papers. That fact alone blows the State's supposedly "rational" reason completely out of the water, or in this case, into the swamp.

    The judge erred in ignoring pertinent facts, accepting an irrational argument under Rational Basis review. He also erred in basing his order primarily on the dissenting opinions (losing side) of four higher-court cases. Read the opinion. It's comedy gold.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    Glad to see at least one judge recognizes biological facts

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Sept. 3, 2014 10:35 p.m.

    @ PJB Newsgram

    While the concept of marriage may be a fundamental part of our form of society, it certainly isn't required for the human species to survive. Also, the suggestion that allowing 3-5% of the population to marry would threaten the capacity of the remaining 95-97% to procreate at a sustainable level is just plain silly.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Sept. 3, 2014 9:31 p.m.

    I am disappointed to learn that this judge put forth such weak and irrational arguments, but then I don't know what I'm expecting - there are no strong or rational ones. Most disappointing, though, was to learn that he equated gay marriage with incest. I expect more objective thinking from a federal judge, but this just goes to show how a deeply ingrained bias can derail even the most analytical of minds.

    I don't agree that animus underlies most opposition to SSM, but beliefs like the one revealed by this judge definitely have a corrosive, dehumanizing quality to them. I wouldn't believe him if he sincerely denied viewing homosexuals as inferior beings. It's in this regard that I think the opposition to SSM is no different from that seen to interracial marriage. For many, a homosexual orientation is viewed like black skin was back then - as a marker of intrinsic inferiority.

    I think prejudice can exist without animus and I think one can sincerely fail to recognize it for what it is. But this does not mitigate its harmfulness. And when you're being harmed, it feels indistinguishable from animus.

  • Legal? Saint George, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 9:30 p.m.

    Thank you, Louisiana!!!!

    @PJB Newsgram. Eloquently and succinctly stated. Thank you, too.

  • PJB Newsgram Chicago, IL
    Sept. 3, 2014 8:38 p.m.

    @Jeff Harris You have turned the issue upside down. The reason marriage is "one of the 'basic civil rights of man'" according to Loving v. Virginia is that marriage is "fundamental to our existence and survival." Marriage between a man and woman is one of the most universal institutions that transcends a particular religion and is essential to our existence and survival, while marriage between two people of the same gender is not essential to our existence because of biological realities. If the reasoning for the right no longer exists, then how is it a fundamental right? There is a distinction between race and behavior, since race does not change the basic notion of existence or continuation of mankind. I would say more fully that civilized existence is most likely obtained by children being raised by their biological parents and it is rational for societies to incentivize the maintenance and creation of such a unit. Also under rational basis review the interest only needs to be conceivable, not necessarily proven.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 7:00 p.m.

    I wonder if Louisiana allows single parent adoption like they do in Utah. That'd wreck that whole "children deserve a mother and father" argument...

    Regardless, marriage is not about children. There's no requirement that a couple who gets married must have kids nor is there a requirement that kids can only be born in marriages. So that argument is completely worthless.

    As for the slippery slope argument, he acts as if same-sex marriage would be the precedent but we already have the precedent when the courts imposed interracial marriage on the states. The only reason people against same-sex marriage ignore that detail is because they generally approve of inter-racial marriage and don't want to suggest that Loving vs. Virginia should've gone the other way.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    Sept. 3, 2014 6:28 p.m.

    In his ruling, Judge Feldman tells us that the state has a rational basis for denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law, because the state believes that denying gay couples the freedom marry will somehow provide children with two biological parents. He doesn't tell us how denying marriage to gay couples will or could accomplish this, but he insists that this is a rational basis for denying gay citizens equal protection under the law.

    Utah's Attorney General Sean Reyes and his sidekick, Gene Schaerr, should have been so lucky to find a judge who didn't need to make any rational connection between the so-called objective and the content of the law.

    Judge Feldman's notion of a rational basis is completely irrational. It is doomed to fail on appeal.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 6:15 p.m.

    It'll come to Louisiana; It'll come to Utah.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 5:53 p.m.

    @toosmartforyou You realize Feldman is the only Federal Judge to rule in favor of upholding a states "right" to limit civil rights? The rest have in ruled in against state bans on SSM. Also, it's not Shelby you should find issue with, it's the AG's office who showed clear incompetence with not being prepared.

    @Riverton Cougar You have every right to have those beliefs. The issue is using the institution of Government to limit civil rights. Since Married couples have special tax and property ownership rights that non-married couples do not have, the states are preventing same sex couples from having these same special rights.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    It's nice to finally see the right decision being made, and I hope the Supreme Court makes the right decision when the case gets to them.

    I am not anti-gay or a gay hater, so do not define me that way. I just see marriage as a holy, sacred union of a man and a woman (as God has defined it) and I find that calling two homosexuals who want to get married to each other as a different thing from what a marriage is or should be. Go ahead and hate me and be intolerant of my beliefs, I will not compromise my standards.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 4:44 p.m.

    What a pity that Judge Feldman doesn't sit on the bench in Salt Lake City. Then this interim mess that was created when Judge Shelby refused to grant a stay, knowing it would be appealed and eventually heard by the US Supreme Court, would have been avoided. No matter how this turns out Judge Shelby isn't going to look very brilliant in legal circles.