Quantcast

Comments about ‘Same-sex couples can't file joint tax returns in Utah’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Oct. 10 2013 7:38 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Tekakaromatagi marriage is not about getting pregnant, it's about love. I feel sorry for folks who are married because of the children or because they got some one pregnant.

So in your world an infertile or aged couple should not be allowed to marry?

Utah's going to be forced to grow up and treat folks as their savior told them.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@Thriller --

"If the only marriage prerequisite is love...."

Fortunately, "love" (love/desire/attraction/commitment) is NOT the only prerequisite.

A type of marriage must pass TWO tests before it is legalized: 1. the love test; and 2. the test of the harm principle.

Just as with any other law, interested parties must show whether the law/right/privilege being proposed causes a significantly increased risk of harm. For instance, drunk driving is illegal because it creates a significantly increased risk of harm compared to sober driving.

In the case of gay marriage, nobody has been able to demonstrate that allowing gay people to marry will cause a significantly increased risk of harm to anyone.

In contrast, polygamy and incest both DO cause significantly increased risks of harm.

Therefore gay marriage should be legalize. Polygamy and incest should not.

And so on.

@WRK --

"gays and lesbians are free to marry in the state of Utah, just so long as it is with someone of the opposite sex."

'Blacks and whites are free to marry, as long as they marry someone of their own race.'

This argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work now either.

dwidenhouse
Pleasant Grove, UT

@ Ranch

Thank you for pointing that out. I do appreciate it. I apologize if my point was not clearly stated previously. The basic point that I am making is this: laws discriminate against certain behaviors. Behavior is different than a characteristic. A schizophrenic may have a certain behavior, but that person is not defined by his or her behavior. A criminal may have a certain behavior, but he or she is not defined by his or her behavior. Homosexuality is not a disease nor a state of being. It does not define a person. It is a behavior. This is why the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day-Saints encouraged a non-discrimination policy in housing, employment, etc. People that have homosexual feelings are still people.

No state can make laws against a state of being (race, gender, etc.). However, a state can prohibit certain behaviors (such as with speed limits and drinking age) if they are not the best for society. As I stated before, the state is merely promoting that form of family and behavior which is best for children and society as a whole.

raybies
Layton, UT

as usual lots of confused comments on this topic from both sides.

this could be solved by legalizing domestic partnerships but because part of the country went forward with their social agendas pushing for extreme social changes, those parts of the country that don't want those changes will now dig in their heels and so these sorts of disparities will occur until one group is forced to capitulate. that's too bad, because it ultimately leads to greater civic distrust when it could've easily been avoided with a more patient and reasoned approach.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@dwidenhouse --

"a state can prohibit certain behaviors (such as with speed limits and drinking age) if they are not the best for society."

And here's an essential point: nobody has been able to demonstrate that gay marriage causes ANY substantial harm to society.

"the state is merely promoting that form of family and behavior which is best for children and society as a whole."

Baloney.

First -- as I mentioned earlier -- every reputable group of child development experts in this country SUPPORTS gay marriage. They recognize that kids grow up just fine in gay-led homes.

Second -- as I also mentioned earlier -- the issue of child-raising is a red herring when applied to gay marriage. Millions of people raise children without the benefit of marriage every day. Denying gays the right to marry therefore wouldn't protect any children from anything. In fact, denying gays the right to marry HARMS children by denying those children ALREADY being raised in gay-led homes the benefits of marriage.

Third -- do you really want to "promote" gay people entering into straight marriages? You'll be promoting unhappy and unstable unions, and an extremely high divorce rate. Does that really benefit society?

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Dwidenhouse
However, the heterosexual family is the best option. The state is simply encouraging the best option.
KJK
If we are wanting to only promote the best options, we should disallow marriage and their tax benefits for sterile/infertile couples, senior couples since they can't produce kids; people who are drug users, felons, child molesters, etc… since they’d be less than ideal parents and raise less that optimum kids. We could also deny/revoke marriage to welfare recipients since they too are less than optimal nor contributing to society. The enemy of the "good" is not the "bad", it’s the "best".

Contrariusier
polygamy and incest both DO cause significantly increased risks of harm.
KJK
Polygamy between consenting adults causes no more increased risk of harm than many other legal marriages. Incest only presents increased harm to possible kids. Couples with Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia or several other inherited diseases should, per your logic, likewise be denied marriage because of increased risks to potential children. Women over 40 are also much more likely to have Down Syndrome kids. Should pre-menopausal women over 40 be banned from marrying due to "significantly increased risks of harm"?

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@Kevin J. Kirkham --

"Polygamy between consenting adults..."

Sure it does. Many many scientific studies, court decisions, UN documents, etc., all document myriad harms from the practice of polygamy.

As one judge put it:
-- "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial,"
-- "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."
-- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

"Incest only presents increased harm to possible kids."

Nope.

You have both the issue of kids, AND the issue of harm/coercion/undue influence with one of the spouses (especially offspring).

"Should pre-menopausal women over 40 be banned from marrying ..."

Older women have at MOST a 3% chance of producing Downs babies. In contrast, sibling marriages have roughly a FORTY percent chance of producing defective offspring. That's a whole different ballgame.

Out of space, but other diseases are similar.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Tekakaromatagi;

That was rude of you.

@dwidenhouse;

If you're so interested in what's best for children, you should prevent drug users, murderers, molesters, abusers, etc. from marrying; but you don't, which makes your position hypocritical.

@ace;
Is your marriage valid when you cross state lines, or are you suddenly single when you travel around the country? Gambling doesn't affect one's status. States need a valid reason to deny similarly situated citizens the rights they afford other citizens.

dwidenhouse
Pleasant Grove, UT

@ Contrariusier

Thank you for your comments. I understand entirely that an argument against same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior in general may sound unfounded. There may be no professional evidence to support those claims of mine. The majority of people may believe that same-sex relationships or marriage is perfectly acceptable. You bring up many valid points.

However, there are studies that say just the opposite of those studies which you have used. You can find a study to prove or disprove almost anything. People that agree with same-sex relationships will quote studies that support them. People that disagree with those relationships will quote studies that support the negative effects. Referring to what professionals have said can be a never-ending battle of one study vs. another. Then what is true? As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, I know that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This truth is being challenged by these professionals and childhood development experts. Each person has the agency to believe what they want to believe. When the majority of the people believe in same-sex relationships, I'm sure the laws will change.

Inis Magrath
Fort Kent Mills, ME

So... the only time right wing conservatives love complicated tax codes is when it hurts gay people? Got it.

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@dwidenhouse --

I just want to say -- I disagree with your viewpoints, but I love your attitude. Good job. :-)

"there are studies that say just the opposite of those studies which you have used. "

Where? Please name them.

"You can find a study to prove or disprove almost anything."

Not really.

And the experts -- the people who are familiar with allllll the studies, and who make it their life's work to study and help children -- those people agree that children grow up just fine in gay-led homes.

"Referring to what professionals have said can be a never-ending battle of one study vs. another. "

Not when all the professionals agree. :-)

"As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, I know that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. "

You mean that your religion TELLS you that.

And guess what -- this isn't a theocracy. Your religion doesn't get to dictate the laws of the country.

"When the majority of the people believe in same-sex relationships, I'm sure the laws will change."

The majority of the US population **already** supports same-sex marriage. And yes, the laws are changing.

Ranch
Here, UT

dwidenhouse says:

"As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, I know that marriage should only be between a man and a woman."

---

Sorry, you don't "know" that, it's simply your belief. You can believe whatever you desire, what you can't do, is force others, not of your faith, to adhere to your belief system. If you believe marriage is between a man and woman, that is how YOU should live. You don't the right to deny gay couples the legal benefits that you receive.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"Let us assume, for sake of this argument, that homosexuality on any level is a sin. Making gay marriage illegal does not un-gay people, so it saves no one. Jesus said that thinking an action is the same as acting upon it, so even if a gay person does not ever engage in homosexual sex, it would not matter. So this anti-gay position, which perceives homosexuality as an unforgivable sin, changes nothing.

The Bible is very clear that there is only one unforgivable sin, and it's not homosexuality. The fact is that we are all born incapable of living a sin-free existence...

Jesus, never said anything about homosexuality, was adamantly clear on divorce. He said that if a man divorces his wife for a reason other than adultery or fornication, the divorce itself causes her to commit adultery, and any man who marries her after that commits adultery also. Yet how many times have you heard of people petitioning the government to outlaw divorce?"
(Neal Wooten)

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Contrariusier
Many scientific studies, court decisions, UN documents, etc., all document myriad harms from the practice of polygamy.
KJK
The Canadian judge looked at the polygamists in question. They are an insular group that are secretive and use intimidation to protect the group. They treat women as 2nd class and attract men with similar views. The other big polygamist group, Muslims, view women similarly.

If polygamy were legal and the LDS church asked me to take a 2nd wife (a widow with kids perhaps), would marrying her cast a voodoo spell over me causing me to become abusive to women and children? If not, how is polygamy INHERENTLY harmful?

Contrariusier
...the issue of harm/coercion/undue influence with one of the spouses (especially offspring).
KJK
isn't that also true if the husband is much older or much wealthier? Should those marriage be outlawed?

Contrariusier
Older women have at MOST a 3% chance of producing Downs babies. In contrast, sibling marriages have roughly a FORTY percent chance..
KJK
Tay-Sachs & cystic fibrosis can have upto a 25% transmission rate. Sickle Cell, like many others, can be 100%. Should disease carriers be prevented from marrying?

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@Kevin --

"The Canadian judge...."

As Justice Baumann noted, "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."

I've got multiple studies on polygamous unions from a range of countries and religions. I've got NO studies finding that polygamy is benign overall.

"would marrying her cast a voodoo spell..."

No voodoo necessary. ;-)

Polygamy thrives in societies which abuse/neglect/oppress women. In contrast, there are vanishingly few -- approaching zero -- polygamous households in non-opprressive societies and cultures, as opposed to literally millions of such households in oppressive situations.

You, personally, may or may not be capable of carrying on a non-oppressive polygamous marriage. But your personal individual benign plural marriage couldn't come close to outweighing the millions of oppressive ones out there.

Similarly, you might be able to drive drunk and get home safely -- but that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legalized. Remember that the harm principle addresses the RISK of harm, not the CERTAINTY of it.

More on incest later!

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@Kevin --

"isn't that also true if the husband is much older or much wealthier? "

No.

Nothing approaches the influence of a parent who has raised a child. And even with siblings, it is difficult to come close to the influence of an older sibling on a younger one.

In the case of much older or much wealthier spouses, those spouses have met their counterparts **as adults**.

"Tay-Sachs & cystic fibrosis..."

Again, we're talking about different ballparks of risk here.

Roughly only 1 out of every 250 people in the US carry the Tay Sachs gene. There is a very small chance that one carrier will happen to marry another carrier, and the gene is often carried through many generations without ever being expressed. In contrast, ALL sibling marriages have that 40% chance of producing defects.

Similarly, only 1 out of every 30 people in the US carry the cystic fibrosis gene. It's very unlikely that two carriers would happen to marry, and that 25% chance doesn't pop up unless they do. Additionally, they usually don't know that they have until it's too late. In contrast, ALL -- 100% -- of sibling marriages have that 40% chance.

Out of room again!

dwidenhouse
Pleasant Grove, UT

@ Contrariusier

I agree with you that those are my beliefs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints does establish doctrine and we can choose to believe it or not. I have chosen to believe it. Since it has been brought up and I don't want to seem like a cop-out, please visit for your desired study: New Family Structures Study.

However, I do not expect this to convince anyone. People will pick holes in all research. People can disagree with us. We may be the minority. We may be pressured to agree with the rest of the world. However, I can say that I know what is true. If you want to know how members of this Church can say that they know, go ask the missionaries. They will tell you.

merich39
Salt Lake City, UT

I have a sister who in her late teens stated to my parents, my siblings and anyone else who cared to hear that she was adamant she would never bear children. She's now in her mid 50's, has been legally married twice and has never had children. The state of Utah never once questioned her nor anyone else I know about their desire to bear children before granting a heterosexual marriage license.

Making an argument that the state allows only hetero marriages as a benefit for child bearing is a bald-faced lie. There are plenty of hetero couples who are incapable or have no intention of ever bearing children and yet are allowed and even encouraged to marry.

Gay people are going to have gay relationships whether we allow them to marry or not. Society will benefit by encouraging gays to marry in that marriage encourages committed, long-term relationships. We should be encouraging marriage relationships with gay couples for that same reason that we encourage straight marriages among straight couples.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Contrariusier
I've got multiple studies on polygamous unions from a range of countries and religions. I've got NO studies finding that polygamy is benign overall.
KJK
Polygamy currently thrives only in societies that denigrate women. That doesn't mean that polygamy causes men to be abusive. There is no voodoo spell. If it were allowed in the Western countries that value women, then there would be many who would practice it. polyamory is a growing phenomenon that emulates polygamy. Let adults choose.

Contrariusier
...it is difficult to come close to the influence of an older sibling on a younger one.
KJK
What if the woman was older? What about twins? What about adopted kids with no genetic commonalities? What about 1st cousins?

Contrariusier
Roughly only 1 out of every 250 people in the US carry the Tay Sachs gene..Similarly, only 1 of every 30 people in the US carry the cystic fibrosis gene...In contrast, ALL -- 100% -- of sibling marriages have that 40% chance.
KJK
So? Should laws be passed that require medical exams and outlaw known carriers to marry in order to eliminate the risks...100% with Sickle Cell and diseases? 100% is a LOT bigger than 40%.

postaledith
Freeland, WA

@ Contrariusier: I love your posts and I agree with them. I live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal and I am a strong ally of same-sex marriage. I was born and raised in SLC and raised Mormon, but I cannot and will not adopt the attitude of being self-righteous.

to comment

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