Comments about ‘Utah defends marriage law against challenge, saying it promotes better parenting’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Oct. 21 2013 12:59 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
coleman51
Orem, UT

The so-called gay marriage debate is centering around the legality of gay marriage when I believe they entirely miss the mark. I don't believe that any legislative body can define marriage. Marriage is defined by biological factors as well as gender identity factors neither of which is under state control. What I mean is that traditional marriage can produce children which is also a desirable state interest. "Gay" marriage cannot do so and thus has no state interest involved. Traditional marriage can provide appropriate gender identity which is also a desirable state interest. "Gay" marriage does not do this either and again provides no desirable state interest. We, as a people are only fooling ourselves into believing the law made by men should define what constitutes a marriage when in fact marriage is defined by who we are, our very existence as a species, and our identity as male and female. To grant rights to a group of people by defining marriage that violates these basic laws of nature is the height of presumptuousness on our part and beyond foolish.

Jeff
Temple City, CA

I for one am proud of my participation in the fight to help Prop 8 win in California, and I do not regret at all the time, effort, and money I put into it. If Utah needs help defending its right to defend marriage as between a man and a woman, I will be willing to contribute.

Unlike California, Utah is not likely to find itself in a position of having a governor and attorney general who are unwilling to support the voice of the people in the matter.

This is not a small or insignificant issue. This goes to the core of human existence.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution will doom the Utah law.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

@FatherOf4 - Loving v Virginia said that you can't put an interracial married couple in jail. That's true. However, if marriage doesn't fall under State laws, why do marriage certificates attest that the marriage was authorized by the laws of the State?

If a state didn't have the authority to define marriage within its boundaries, then why isn't the ACLU suing states that legalized same sex marriage?

postaledith
Freeland, WA

@The Truth:

That's your opinion, but not everyone feels the way you do. Fathers who cheat on their wives, molest their own children, beat their wives mocks true marriage and family. Mothers who pop pills to cope mock true marriage and family. That is societal decay and the decay of the traditional family. And the truth is that a lot of this is hidden behind closed doors and is brushed under the carpet. Because on the outside, they are a good, traditional family. There are many same-sex families out there that are kind, loving, and loyal and upstanding citizens.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@the truth --

"There is more than enough evidence and studies of societal decay and the decay of the traditional family that bears this out."

Nonsense. Where is your supposed evidence that gay marriage leads to societal decay? Please produce it.

@coleman51 --

"traditional marriage can produce children which is also a desirable state interest. "Gay" marriage cannot do so and thus has no state interest involved."

We allow infertile couples to marry all the time, even when we know they are infertile beforehand.

Any marriage -- whether fertile OR infertile -- serves state interests by created stable social units and by pooling financial resources. Furthermore, gay couples can procreate in exactly the same ways as any other infertile couples, providing stable homes for children to grow up in.

In contrast, nobody has been able to show that gay marriages cause any significant harm to anyone. Thus, the state has no interest in PREVENTING such marriages.

"defining marriage that violates these basic laws of nature"

Here we go with "nature" again.

Many many species of natural animals out in nature practice homosexual behaviors.

It's easy to find out in nature. Therefore it's natural.

Lilly Munster
netherlands, 00

Utah will lose this legal argument. There is NO way to defend such bigotry and misinformation. Remember please, that these biased and baseless arguments were dragged into each and EVERY court case regarding Equality Marriage, adoption, or any facet of Civil Rights. Every argument against Equality was not only struck down, but deemed to have NO basis in Law, Science, or Statistics. LGBT people, in fact, in spite of the persecution they have suffered, are EXEMPLARY citizens. Do you see Gay Gang Bangers on the Streets of every town in California? Have you ever heard of LGBT people physically and verbally bashing children in schools? On Facebook? NO. Who is shooting up teachers, children, and people in shopping centers? The bullies are straight people, acting out their insecurities and fear.

Lilly Munster
netherlands, 00

Equality means 1. My life is none of your business. 2. You do not get to impose your biases on others. 3. We have a Constitution, which says "All." 4. You do not gain anything with Control Issues. 5. You are welcome to your "faith." You are NOT allowed to use it as a club.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The issue here is the purpose of marriage. The traditional purpose of marriage is to encourage parenting of children in an intact household. It is defined with that goal in mind. The state should be allowed to impose any definition that legitimately focuses on that goal.

Robert Johnson
Sunland, CA

This is a ludicrous argument. Parenting has nothing to do with anatomy, having certain bodily organs does not make one a good parent. It has to do with loving, caring and using the right skills to mold a child into a productive and responsible adult.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@John Pack --

"The traditional purpose of marriage..."

That is not the only "traditional" purpose of marriage -- but please remember that gay marriage encourages parenting of children in intact households just as much as any straight infertile marriage does.

Marriage serves several purposes. It encourages stable social units, it pools financial resources, AND it encourages the raising of children in stable families.

Gay couples can fulfill all of these functions just as easily as any other infertile couples can.

Unless you are willing to ban all infertile marriages, you have no logical or legal legs to stand on when you argue against gay marriage on these grounds. This point was specifically brought up by the SCOTUS justices during the DOMA and Prop 8 hearings.

"The state should be allowed to impose any definition that legitimately focuses on that goal."

The state should NEVER be allowed to violate the US Constitution, no matter what its supposed goal is.

The Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and Full Faith and Credit Clause all lead to the inevitable conclusion that same-sex marriage will eventually be recognized nationwide.

Get used to the idea.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ gmlewis: You are partially right - marriage falls under state law. This allows states to pass laws allowing same-sex marriage. It does not, however, give states the right to pass laws that discriminate against some of their citizens.

Utah is arguing that there is a reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage - that allowing it would create a harm. Their argument has been used before and has been found to be without merit. With no valid reason to prohibit same-sex marriage, any laws prohibiting it are discriminatory.

There are many different things states can pass laws about - but those laws must be based on reason and cannot be discriminatory. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are not supported by reason and are therefore discriminatory and as such are unconstitutional.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Laura Ann: You mention that you were adopted by your step-dad after he married your mom. You were raised by heterosexual parents and still felt a need to find your biological father. Your argument, as stated, is against adoption in and of itself - nothing you have stated pertains specifically to adoption by same-sex couples or singles.

The anecdotal evidence you present does not support your hypothesis - and it does nothing to support any argument against same-sedx marriage or adoption by same-sex couples or single parents. In fact, it can be construed as arguing that since there is no difference, there is no reason for a prohibition.

@ John Pack: The "traditional" purpose of marriage was property transfer and inheritance. It had nothing to do with raising children.

If marriage were about raising children, there would be no daycare centers, nannies, wet nurses, or boarding schools.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
The issue here is the purpose of marriage. The traditional purpose of marriage is to encourage parenting of children in an intact household. It is defined with that goal in mind. The state should be allowed to impose any definition that legitimately focuses on that goal.

KJK
As has been stated, if we link producing kids with marriage, then women over 50 will be banned from marrying as well as any person who has been neutered/sterilized or can't reproduce for any other reason. Fertile couples' marriage licenses could be revoked if they don't produce/adopt a child within 5 years of marriage. This would be in the state's interest.

That sounds fair. Perhaps we could be compassionate by allowing infertile couples to adopt children as a condition of getting/remaining married. That would be in the state's interest too.

The above would still not logically prevent same-sex marriage. It would simply require same-sex couples, like other sterile/infertile couples, to adopt kids.

Where's the problem? The above objectively advances the interests of the state.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

I agree that the "full faith and credit" clause opens the Utah law to a challenge that it must accept same-sex marriages from other states where they are legal. However, the U. S. Constitution leaves all other marriage issues to the states, which can define marriage however they like.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

The bottom line is this... do states and the majority of people who live in those states have the right anymore to decide what sort of culture they want to raise their kids in? Do the families along the Wasatch Front have the right to decide what kind of family unit they want for their kids to grow up in? The very heart of any culture is the family unit and the progressive left DON'T want parents to have ANY say as to make up of that family unit. The progressive left want the Federal Govt to FORCE states to comply with the godless immoral culture that is socialism. Make no mistake - there is a WAR going on in America and there is no room for compromise. I firmly believe it is the goal of the progressive left to eventually dissolve marriage as well as freedom of religion especially pertaining to Christianity. So parents and young people who will one day be parents - either stand and fight or watch your bill of rights get destroyed. Trying to reason with the progressive left is like striking a deal with the devil - the outcome will always be bad.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

patriot
The bottom line is this... do states and the majority of people who live in those states have the right anymore to decide what sort of culture they want to raise their kids in?

KJK
That's exactly what the Whites in the South said 50 years ago regarding segregation and deed restrictions. They too wanted "states [to] have the right..to decide what sort of culture they want to raise their kids in."

Is discrimination based on subjective morality/repulsion a legitimate basis to deny others equal rights? Really?

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ patriot: Allowing same-sex marriage in no way impacts the relationship in which you choose to raise your children - it merely gives others the same opportunity to make that choice for themselves.

@ gmlewis: States can define marriage however they like as long as that definition is not a violation of the US Constitution - meaning it is based on reality and not animus. States cannot pass laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

@Kalinda - The stipulations that the state law has to be based on reality with no animus are not in the U. S. Constitution. They could be added by an amendment, but they do not presently reside in the document. Rights and powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are held by the States or individual citizens. Marriage is a legal contract under the laws of each state, and states can define marriage according to the will of the people within that state.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

There are a couple of points that pro SSM people have made that anti SSM people can agree on.

My life is none of your business.

and

You do not gain anything with Control Issues.

How you ask?

My life is none of your business.
Yes! Please quit flaunting your sexuality to the world. We don't want to know what you are doing behind closed doors. I don't flaunt what I do in private. Just keep it to yourself and we will get along fine.

You do not gain anything with Control Issues
Yes again! You will gain nothing by forcing that people endorse your sexual behavior. If you are okay with what you do, fine, and you shouldn't need endorsing. I can do what I feel is right, and feel just fine about it, even when no one else gives me a thumbs up.

Could this be the common ground on which we can get along?

to comment

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