Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah among several states with marriage laws under legal challenge’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 26 2013 5:15 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

As noted in the article, states vary in their eligibility requirements for marriage. The treatment of other marriage requirements should guide the treatment of same-sex marriage among the several states. If one state has a minimum marriage age of 16 while another has a minimum age of 14, does the former state recognize the marriage of a 15-year-old in the latter state as valid? Half of the states prohibit first cousin marriage while half allow it. Does the former half recognize first cousin marriages performed in the latter half? Of the 25 states allowing first cousin marriage, six (including Utah) require the couple to be nonreproductive (usually an age requirement). Do those six states recognize younger, reproductive-age cousins married in the states that allow it? If the answer to these questions is "yes," then the same should apply to same-sex marriage. There is no logical difference in the situations, only the stigma and prejudice attached to the qualifying characteristics involved.

VST
Bountiful, UT

Lambda Legal, and others in favor of same-sex marriages, keep referencing the 14th Amendment as a legal arguing point that State laws/amendments not allowing same-sex marriages is discriminatory against sexual orientation, therefore not Constitutional.

Here is the Constitutional problem with that argument. Per that very same Constitution it also states that ANY power not specifically reserved to the Federal Government, is reserved for the States. Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage (under any form) ever discussed, hence, it can be successfully argued those powers of DEFINING marriage is reserved for the States per that same Constitution. As a result, you now have 10 States that have "defined" same-sex marriage as being legal and a whole bunch of other States that have "defined" it to be illegal.

I will not imply that this is fair, but fairness is NOT necessarily a part of the Constitution. Nationwide, same-sex couples do NOT have a civil right to be legally married in 39 other States until the U.S. Supreme Court says that they have that civil right.

That may happen this year, but based upon oral arguments/questioning today in the Court, don't bet the farm on it.

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

So what happens some morning this June in Utah were same sex marriage becomes the Law of the land? I didn't know until this week that inter-racial marriage was illegal in Utah until 1963. Did society then in Utah stop? (no), Did the city trash trucks continue to collect Trash? (Yes). and the Sun still rose (Mostly, I think) over the Wasatch Mountains. Life will go on and babies will continue to be born.

While this ruling only effects about 3% of the population. Us remaining 97% need to work on bettering out own marriages. A 50% divorce rate is a crying shame.

isrred
South Jordan, UT

The nerve of some people! How dare they ask to be treated equally under the law?!

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@BYU Track Star:
"Did the city trash trucks continue to collect Trash? (Yes)."

Did (will) others pursue other forms of marriage arrangements... such as polygamy, group marriages, children marrying adults, children marrying each other, brothers and sisters marrying, brothers marrying, sisters marrying... ad infinitum?

Clarissa
Layton, UT

As our country becomes more and more secular, we will continue to see moral decay. Although it greatly saddens me, I can't stop the downward spirial. I am very concerned about my religious rights, which are protected in the Constitution. I can never see a way where I can condone marriage other than that between a man and woman, regardless of ability to have children. Will the homosexual groups and people respect my beliefs? Sometimes I think people believe they can tell God the rules. Of course, if you don't believe in God (The one in the Bible for someone who is confused.), the matter is moot.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "isrred" how is giving a group of people special rights equal?

For example, there are 2 women that I love and want to marry, but the law does not allow that. Do we need to change the law to allow me equal protection with the gays? The gays want to marry the person that they love. I just happen to love and want to marry 2 people.

If you are ok with that, consider this.

2 bisexual men and 2 bisexual women are in love and desire to be married. Using the same arguments that the gays are using, you must allow that sort of union.

Now, since marriage is no longer the union of a man and woman, how do you legally define marriage since it is a matter of who you love and who wants to be married to you?

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

Wrz, we LDS should be the LAST ones to advocate keeping polygamy between consenting adults illegal. The secular justifications used 150 years ago still apply today. If we LDS want to forbid our members from practicing it, that’s one thing, but to deem it immoral and therefore illegal for others is sheer hypocrisy. We are no better than those who called us immoral 150 years ago.

Your worries about children marrying are strawmen since children cannot sign legal contracts.

As far as adult incest goes, the numbers of those wanting to practice it are infinitesimally small compared to the number of homosexuals. They can currently live together, birth kids, etc… and their kids are no more likely to have problems than other kids whose parents have diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis, AIDS, Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia, etc.. and are still allowed to marry. There is no logical and secular reason to disallow them from marrying if we allow carriers of congenital diseases to marry and have kids.

When we disallow willing adults from marrying we not only hurt them and their innocent kids.

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

@WRZ

The issue at hand before the SCOTUS is whether same sex couples have the Constitutional Right to Legally Marry. Please focus on the issue at hand not some of your fanciful marital permuations. The time for Editorial and Church pronouncements to influence the SCOTUS is past

And Ladies and Gentlemen behind the Zion Curtain, please resist turning your Enchanted Spouses back into Toads. We all need to do better loving one another. Spouses especially.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Redshirt --

"Do we need to change the law to allow me equal protection with the gays? The gays want to marry the person that they love. I just happen to love and want to marry 2 people."

You answered your own question, in part.

You said "I just HAPPEN to love". Well, guess what -- just "happening" to do something doesn't make you a member of a protected group. "Protected groups", in legal terms, are groups of people who are **unable** to change themselves -- whether because of gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation -- and also groups of people who belong to organized religions, when a specific belief is an inherent part of that religion.

Oh, wait -- polygamy, LDS, ring any bells?

If you really want to bring polygamy back into the LDS belief system, by all means give it a try. But unless your efforts are successful, you're out of luck. You aren't a member of a protected group, and you aren't being discriminated against. You just "happen" to feel like doing something, and that doesn't count when it comes to the legal system OR the Constitution.

vdubbin'
Ogden, UT

You cannot compare interracial marriage to gay marriage. They are not the same thing. Marriage is a union in which children would be produced and thus would the survival of the human race be secured.
The gay community wants validation for their sexual preferences. It isn't government's job to validate sexual activity. And without any progeny, that's all a gay "marriage" is; a sexual relationship.
Members of the gay community? Don't flatter yourselves by comparing your "struggle" to that experienced by people of color in American history, and don't demean our struggle by speaking of it with yours. The choices you make have nothing to do with what we went through. It's absurd!

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@vdubbin --

"You cannot compare interracial marriage to gay marriage. "

The Supreme Court disagrees.

"It isn't government's job to validate sexual activity. "

But it IS government's job to provide equal protection under law.

"And without any progeny, that's all a gay "marriage" is; a sexual relationship. "

Gay couples raise children. And marriage even without children is more than sex -- it's commitment and social stability and legal rights.

As for comparing race to orientation -- Lane Myer posted some great quotes:

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," Coretta Scott King. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.

The Rev. Sharpton wrote, “I believe in equal human rights, before the law, for all human beings, and race, gender, disability, class or sexual orientation should not be a factor under the law. "

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

Contrarius
"Protected groups", in legal terms, are groups of people who are **unable** to change themselves -- whether because of gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation -- and also groups of people who belong to organized religions, when a specific belief is an inherent part of that religion.
LDS4
People belonging to a given political party don’t constitute a “protected group”. Would it therefore be legal to disallow Republicans or Libertarians from marrying? If GOPers want to marry, than can simply marry a Democrat…whether or not they are attracted to them.

vdubbin'
The gay community wants validation for their sexual preferences. It isn't government's job to validate sexual activity. And without any progeny, that's all a gay "marriage" is; a sexual relationship.
LDS4
The senior citizen community wants validation for their sexual preferences. It isn't government's job to validate sexual activity. And without any progeny, that's all a senior citizen "marriage" is; a sexual relationship.

Do both of you REALLY want to liken the logic of your posts to all or do you want "special rights" only for those groups you favor?

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@LDS4 --

"People belonging to a given political party don’t constitute a “protected group”. Would it therefore be legal to disallow Republicans or Libertarians from marrying? If GOPers want to marry, than can simply marry a Democrat…whether or not they are attracted to them. "

Nope -- because you can't take equal protection rights away from people who already have them.

In fact, that's one part of the argument against Prop 8 that was presented to the Supreme Court this week -- specifically, that Prop 8 took marriage rights away from gay couples who had already been married under California state law before Prop 8 took effect. And it's unconstitutional to do that.

Sqweebie
Salt Lake City, UT

To the couples suing the state for not recognizing their "marriage" The state of Utah doesn't recognize common law marriage either. You you need to petition the court to recognize your relationship even though you never had a marriage ceremony. There is more info about this. So stop feeling discriminated against as you're not.

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

Contrarius
Nope -- because you can't take equal protection rights away from people who already have them.

LDS4
You are dodging the issue. Denying gays marriage based on personal animus makes no more sense than denying it to political opponents. No legitimate government interest is advanced. You mentioned that, "one part of the argument against Prop 8 that was presented to the Supreme Court this week -- specifically, that Prop 8 took marriage rights away from gay couples who had already been married under California state law before Prop 8 took effect." That was the issue in the Romer case where the state of Colorado rescinded some rights that gays had. Colorado lost. In the Lawrence case, the Supremes stated, referring to Romer, "We concluded that the provision was "born of animosity toward the class of persons affected' and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose" The same is equally true regarding Prop. 8. Since gays had all of the same rights regarding adopting/raising kids as straights have, all of the talk about whether kids do well being raised by gays is moot. 8 is simply about animus.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@LDS4 --

"You are dodging the issue. "

Nope, I was telling you why the answer to your question was "no".

"Since gays had all of the same rights regarding adopting/raising kids as straights have, all of the talk about whether kids do well being raised by gays is moot. 8 is simply about animus."

Right. I absolutely agree with you here.

to comment

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