Quantcast
Utah

Utah judge could be first to rule on state marriage law since DOMA

Comments

Return To Article
  • Contrariusiests mid-state, TN
    Dec. 20, 2013 7:03 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    These are very clear and straightforward statements, Red:

    1. "lesbian couples experience less intimate partner violence than do heterosexual couples" (p.iv) and

    2. "lesbian couples are less violent than heterosexual couples" (p. 56)

    Directly from the authors of the study: lesbian couples are less violent than heterosexual couples.

    Period.

    You keep trying to redefine the terms the researchers used in their study. Those terms simply don't mean what you want them to mean.

    Period.

    The study NEVER said that lesbian couples are more violent than heterosexual couples -- NEVER.
    The study NEVER said that gay couples are more violent than heterosexual couples -- NEVER.

    You said: "On page 30 of the same study it states "The survey found that same-sex cohabitants
    reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants."

    YES!!

    And as I've explained to you several times already -- "same-sex cohabitant" meant anyone who had EVER lived in a same-sex pair. And "intimate partner violence" meant violence from BOTH same AND opposite sex partners.

    Please, PLEASE stop saying things that aren't true, Red. I've already quoted the truth to you -- many many times.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 19, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    To "Contrariusiests" I just want to leave a few quotes for those that may read this in the future.

    In the study titled "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence" by the US DOJ on page 29, under the portion titled "Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence
    Among Same-Sex Cohabitants" they find that lesbians that cohabitate with an intimate partner are victimized 39.2% of the time compared to hetersexual women who cohabitate with an intimate are victimized 21.7% of the time. For gay men, it is 23.1% and for straight men, they are victimized 7.4% of the time.

    On page 30 of the same study it states "The survey found that same-sex cohabitants
    reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2 percent of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 percent of the oppositesex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime."

    Since the issue is potential harm (regardless of source) according to liberals gays should not be married because when gays co-habitate their risk of harm increases significantly.

  • Contrariusiests mid-state, TN
    Dec. 18, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "I guve up"

    Good!

    Because, in this study, "same-sex cohabitants" and "intimate partner violence" simply don't mean what you want them to mean.

    "you keep ignoring that"

    I'm not ignoring anything, Red.

    Yet again, quoting directly from the study: the same-sex cohabitant group "consists of respondents who have ever lived with a same-sex intimate partner." EVER lived, Red. NOT during the study.

    Next time, READ the study before you make false claims about it.

    "They state that homosexuals report more violence than hetersexuals. "

    Yet again -- No, they don't.

    Yet again -- quoting directly from the study:

    1. "lesbian couples experience less intimate partner violence than do heterosexual couples"

    2. "lesbian couples are less violent than heterosexual couples. "

    3. "same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than by a female partner."

    Try READING the study, Red. Stop making things up. Everyone who reads these posts can see who is quoting the study and who isn't -- and they can figure out why.

    As clearly demonstrated by the study, violence is NOT increased in same-sex pairs.

    Please stop making claims that aren't true, Red.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 18, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    To "Contrariusiests" I guve up, when the study states " that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants" and you keep ignoring that. What can I do.

    What part of same-sex cohabitants reporting more intimate partner violence is not clear.

    Let me put it this way. They state that homosexuals report more violence than hetersexuals. They included the data. I have included the data, yet you are stuck in the summary.

    When you read ALL of the study let me know. Until then I will wait, knowing that you probably won't read all of the study because it will prove you wrong. Even when you realize that homosexuals are more likely to be harmed, as the study states, you will not admit it because it would show that you are fallable and that you arguments lack substance.

  • Contrariusiests mid-state, TN
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "You don't want to accept..."

    Sigh.

    You keep trying to change the definitions that the researchers used in this study.

    One More Time:

    "Same-sex cohabitants" did NOT mean people who had ONLY lived in same-sex pairs. It meant anyone who had EVER lived in same-sex pairs.

    The violence experienced by the "same-sex cohabitants" group was NOT same-sex violence. It included violence by previous intimate partners of BOTH sexes.

    As clearly stated in the study, "same-sex cohabiting" women experienced nearly THREE TIMES as much violence from men as from women.

    The only violence that matters in terms of judging gay marriages is SAME-SEX VIOLENCE. And, as the study clearly points out:

    1. "...11 percent of the women who had lived with a woman as part of a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a female cohabitant"

    2. "30.4 percent of the women who had married or lived with a man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male cohabitant."

    Yet again -- the study simply doesn't say what you keep claiming it does.

    Violence is NOT increased in same-sex pairs, which this study clearly demonstrates.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "You don't want to accept the controlled study..."

    Sigh.

    Red, you keep trying to change the definitions that the researchers used in their study.

    One More Time:

    "Same-sex cohabitants" did NOT mean people who had ONLY lived in same-sex pairs. It meant anyone who had EVER lived in same-sex pairs.

    The violence experienced by the "same-sex cohabitants" group did NOT mean same-sex violence. It included violence by previous intimate partners of BOTH sexes.

    As clearly stated in the study, "same-sex cohabiting" women experienced nearly THREE TIMES as much violence from men as from women.

    The only violence that matters in terms of judging gay marriages is SAME-SEX VIOLENCE. And, as the study clearly points out:

    1. "...11 percent of the women who had lived with a woman as part of a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a female cohabitant"

    2. "30.4 percent of the women who had married or lived with a man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male cohabitant."

    Yet again -- the study simply doesn't say what you keep claiming it does.

    Yet again -- please stop lying about it.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 18, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    To "Contrariusier" lets get this straight. Even though the study found " that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants." You don't want to accept the controlled study that found that homosexual cohabitation represents a significantly higher risk of harm than for hetersexual people.

    Since "The Harm Principal" is your justification for prohibition on certain groups from having legally recognized marriages, why do you still support gay marriage? According to you and to this study, gays that co-habitate are at a higher risk for harm.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 13, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    You said: "To quote the study they "found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. ..."

    Great! You're finally making a little progress! Now -- THINK about what that paragraph actually says.

    1. "same-sex cohabitants" -- as I already showed you, this means people who have EVER lived with a same-sex partner. NOT people who are living in a same-sex pair at the time of the study.

    2. "more intimate partner violence" -- again -- intimate partner violence does NOT mean same-sex violence. The "same-sex cohabitants" group lived with BOTH women AND men at various points in their lives.

    I've already posted several quotes which prove these points, but this one is very clear:

    "30.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting women reported being victimized by a male partner, whereas 11.4 percent reported being victimized by a female partner."

    See how it specifically says "same-sex cohabiting women" being "victimized by a male partner"??

    That's because the group of "same-sex cohabiting women" INCLUDED women who were living with men. And INCLUDED women who were attacked by men.

    Got it now?

    Your stats don't actually say what you keep claiming they do.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 13, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" it is so sad that you won't actually read the study. The study shows that yes, 30.4 of lesbians are victimized, but you missed the fact that that is in comparison to the 20.3 of hetersexual women that are victimized in the same manner.

    Again, the study shows that same sex couples are at greater risk for harm. Therefore, using your logic, gays should not be allowed to marry or cohabitate. It is called the "Harm Principal", learn it, use it. Tell me, in which category is there less risk of harm for homosexuals?

    To quote the study they "found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2 percent of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 percent of the oppositesex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime." Or did you miss that paragraph?

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 13, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "FYI, I am the one who is quoting the study"

    Nope. See all those quotation marks around the statements I've quoted from that study? They are very conspicuously absent from your claims about it -- because you're not actually quoting it.

    "The fact still remains that the rate of harm and violence within homosexual couples is greater than for hetersexuals."

    Nope.

    Quoting the study yet again -- which you are STILL not doing -- and yes, it's quite obvious to everyone why you aren't --

    1. "...11 percent of the women who had lived with a woman as part of a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a female cohabitant"

    2. "Approximately 15 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant"

    3. "30.4 percent of the women who had married or lived with a man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male cohabitant."

    4. "30.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting women reported being victimized by a male partner, whereas 11.4 percent reported being victimized by a female partner."

    Reality, Red. Give it a try.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 13, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    To "Contrariusiest" sad that you won't go and actually look at the study. You are right, it is obvious who is quoting and who isn't. Just FYI, I am the one who is quoting the study, and it is very obvious that you not only are not quoting the study, but you have not read the study beyond the summary.

    The fact still remains that the rate of harm and violence within homosexual couples is greater than for hetersexuals.

    You still are not looking at harm alone. You are lumping harm and annoyance together.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 13, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    @Redshirt --

    You said: "...a study that, when you look at actual harm being done, shows that Gays that cohabitate are more prone to harm."

    That obviously isn't what the study actually found -- as I've already proven.

    Reality:

    1. "...11 percent of the women who had lived with a woman as part of a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a female cohabitant"

    2. "Approximately 15 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant"

    3. "30.4 percent of the women who had married or lived with a man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male cohabitant."

    You said: "the harm statistics that clearly state that lesbians that co-habitate experience abuse at a rate of 39.2"

    That obviously isn't what the study statistics actually show -- as I've already proven.

    Reality: "30.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting women reported being victimized by a male partner, whereas 11.4 percent reported being victimized by a female partner."

    Everyone who reads these posts can easily see who is quoting the study and who isn't, Red.

    Reality. It's a Good Thing.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 12, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" keep dreaming. How can a study that, when you look at actual harm being done, shows that Gays that cohabitate are more prone to harm. Since stalking is not harm but is an annoyance, you really should look at the harm statistics that clearly state that lesbians that co-habitate experience abuse at a rate of 39.2 while women who cohabitate with men experience it at a rate of 21.7. As for gay men, they are abused at a rate of 23.1 while hetersexual men are abused at a rate of 7.4.

    Try again, tell me if you ever bother to read and comprehend all of it, or if you are just stuck on the summary.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 12, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "how many people do you know that are straight would say that they lived with another man as a couple? "

    HAD lived, Red. As in past tense.

    Lots of people experiment in both directions. And neither I nor the study ever claimed that these people were "straight" -- they were straight, gay, OR bisexual.

    "You still don't understand that "victimized" is a bad measure"

    You still don't understand that the study directly contradicts your claims, Red.

    "look at behaviors that cause harm, such as rape, physical abuse, and mental abuse."

    Exactly right.

    Again, directly quoting from the study -- again, unlike you:

    1. "Slightly more than 11 percent of the women who had lived with a woman as part of a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a female cohabitant"

    2. "Approximately 15 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant"

    3. "30.4 percent of the women who had married or lived with a man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male cohabitant."

    The study directly contradicts your claims, Red. Please stop lying about it.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" how many people do you know that are straight would say that they lived with another man as a couple? The fact that they call themselves a couple signifies that they have some sort of romantic relationship that is beyond just roommates.

    You still don't understand that "victimized" is a bad measure because it includes things that don't cause harm. Since you want to prevent people from being married because of harm, we have to look at behaviors that cause harm, such as rape, physical abuse, and mental abuse. When you look at those 3 factors, the study is quite clear that within the gay community you are more likely to receive actual harm than the general population.

    Those are not my claims, that is the data from the study. Data that is located somewhere past the summary. Try reading it.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 12, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "You did nothing more than say that you don't like the sources..."

    If you think you can rebut my earlier comments, then do so. Please be specific. Vague pronouncements mean nothing.

    "...they "did ask them whether they had ever lived with a samesex partner as part of a couple.""

    Read those words again, Red. Pay special attention to the word "EVER".

    "They found that lesbians "

    No. The study authors very specifically did NOT ask ANY of the study participants whether they were lesbian.

    "that co-habitate"

    No. As specifically quoted, these are people that have EVER cohabitated in same-sex pairs -- NOT necessarily people who were cohabitating in same-sex pairs at the time of the study.

    Keep rereading this direct quote from the study, Red. Keep remembering that it IS a direct quote -- unlike your claims about the study:

    "30.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting women reported being victimized by a male partner, whereas 11.4 percent reported being victimized by a female partner."

    In the group of women who had ever cohabitated with other women, these women had been attacked by male partners nearly THREE TIMES as often as by female partners.

    That directly contradicts your claims, Red.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" i know you think you did something to them, but the truth is you did nothing more than say that you don't like the sources and went off onto your next rant.

    As I stated before, in the section where they describe the violence within the same sex relationships, they "did ask them whether they had ever lived with a samesex partner as part of a couple." They found that lesbians that co-habitate experience abuse at a rate of 39.2 while women who cohabitate with men experience it at a rate of 21.7. As for gay men, they are abused at a rate of 23.1 while hetersexual men are abused at a rate of 7.4.

    What that means is that while they didn't ask specifically for orientation, that information was answered by asking who they lived with as acouple.

    You are good at warping words to meet your needs, but in the end, you are still wrong.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 11, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    Oh, also --

    I forgot to include this very telling quote -- yet again, quoting directly from the study (which you still have never done):

    "30.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting women reported being victimized by a male partner, whereas 11.4 percent reported being victimized by a female partner."

    Read that several times, Red, until you really understand what it's saying.

    People in their category of "same-sex cohabitants" were attacked by male partners almost THREE TIMES MORE OFTEN than by female partners.

    So please, Red -- please stop lying about this study. It very clearly does NOT support your claim that violence is more common in same-sex couples than in opposite-sex couples. In fact, it very clearly says the very OPPOSITE.

    As for your other two studies -- I ripped them to shreds back on December 9. Look for the post dated "9:26 a.m. Dec. 9, 2013".

    You still haven't found a single study which actually supports your claim that there is an increased risk of harm in same-sex marriages compared to opposite-sex marriages. Gee, I wonder why?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" now you are a comedian. Wow, you are really grasping at straws.

    You realize that you only confirm that the study is valid, and that within homosexual relationships there are studies that show that the risk of harm only goes up when they co-habitate.

    As for the other studies, you didn't do anything to them. You didn't read them, you only attacked them based on the source.

    Sad, you claim to know so much, yet only prove that you don't understand the studies that you read.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 11, 2013 6:52 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "There we find that lesbians..."

    No, Red.

    You're still not quoting the study. Gee, I wonder why.

    Once again, I **am** quoting directly from the study --

    Emphases mine:

    "the NVAW Survey DID NOT ASK respondents about their sexual orientation, it did ask them whether they had EVER lived with a same-sex partner... "

    "it is possible to compare intimate partner victimization rates among women and men who have a HISTORY of same-sex cohabitation...."

    "The survey found that 1 percent of surveyed women (n = 79) and 0.8 percent of surveyed men (n = 65) reported living with a same-sex intimate partner AT LEAST ONCE in their lifetime"

    "For BREVITY'S SAKE, the former will be referred to as same-sex cohabitants"

    "It is UNKNOWN how many same-sex or opposite-sex cohabitants identified themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual at the time of the interview."

    Did you catch it this time?? Their category of "same-sex cohabitants" does NOT mean the people were in same-sex relationships at the time of the study, ONLY that they had been in one IN THE PAST.

    "I presented you with 3 articles"

    I demolished them days ago, Red.

    READ the studies.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    To "Contrariuser" lets recap what was said in the actual body of the document in question, and not just the summary. There we find that lesbians that co-habitate experience abuse at a rate of 39.2 while women who cohabitate with men experience it at a rate of 21.7. As for gay men, they are abused at a rate of 23.1 while hetersexual men are abused at a rate of 7.4.

    The most ironic thing is that you are stuck on the one article. I presented you with 3 articles, and you are so biased that you cannot accept the first, didn't read the second one that is a summary of the Journal article "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study"

    Again, 3 separate articles show that there is a significant risk of harm in homosexual relationships, yet you fail to recognize that simple fact.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 10, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    @RedShirtMIT --

    "You are confusing victimization...."

    No, hon.

    I'm the one who keeps quoting directly from the study.

    You haven't directly quoted it even once.

    That should give you a big clue about who is accurately reporting its contents.

    Again, direct quotes:

    1. "Slightly more than 11 percent of the women who had lived with a woman as part of a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a female cohabitant"

    2. "Approximately 15 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant"

    3. "30.4 percent of the women who had married or lived with a man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male cohabitant."

    What we care about here is violence WITHIN same-sex pairs -- that means women-women or men-men. And that's exactly what the numbers above reflect.

    Again, the numbers you are attempting to use do NOT reflect ff OR mm violence -- rather, they reflect often **opposite-sex** violence experienced by people who have IN THE PAST lived in same-sex pairs. That's entirely different -- and entirely irrelevant to the question of gay marriage.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 10, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    To "Contrariuser" I see where you are getting lost. You are confusing victimization rates with actual rates of harm. Since you want to ban certain types of marriage because of HARM, you must look at HARM, not victimization. The statistic you are looking at includes non-harmful things such as stalking.

    Again, look at the study and look for HARM, meaning abuse either physical or emotional. Stalking does not harm anybody.

    Sad, and I thought you actually read the study, and not the summary.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 9, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    @RedShirtMIT --

    Red, Red, RED. REEEEEEEEAD the study!

    "which shows that lesbians that co-habitate experience abuse at a rate of 39.2 while women who cohabitate with men experience it at a rate of 21.7. "

    Sigh. No.

    The numbers you are quoting are for people who have lived with same-sex partners AT ANY TIME. Those numbers do NOT reflect violence FROM same-sex partners.

    Again, quoting directly from the study:

    "At first glance, these findings suggest that both male and female same-sex couples experience more intimate partner violence than do opposite-sex couples. However, a comparison of intimate partner victimization rates among same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants by perpetrator gender produced some interesting findings...Thus, same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than by a female partner. Moreover, opposite-sex cohabiting women were nearly twice as likely to report being victimized by a male partner than were same-sex cohabiting women by a female partner." and "15.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting men reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male partner"

    Seriously, Red, READ studies before you falsely claim that they support your point of view.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 9, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    To "Contrariuser" you should read more than just the summaries at the beginning. If you had, you would have found the table "Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim Gender, Type of Victimization, and History of Same-Sex/Opposite-Sex Cohabitation" which shows that lesbians that co-habitate experience abuse at a rate of 39.2 while women who cohabitate with men experience it at a rate of 21.7. As for gay men, they are abused at a rate of 23.1 while hetersexual men are abused at a rate of 7.4.

    Try again. You are still wrong.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 9, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    ""Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: "

    I've got the complete study right here.

    What it actually says is this -- and yes, these are direct quotes from the study:

    1. "Women living with female intimate partners experience less intimate partner violence than women living with male intimate partners. "
    2. "Approximately 15 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, " while "30.4 percent of the women who had married or lived with a man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male cohabitant."
    3. "intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female intimates".

    Again, Red -- trying READING your sources before you falsely claim that they support your point of view.

    You said: "There are many more studies out there that shows that when 2 gays become a couple that the risk of harm towards one of the partners jumps up exponentially."

    Really? You haven't showed us any yet.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 9, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    @RedShirtMIT --

    "Read "Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals..." in LifeSiteNews."

    Apples to oranges, Red. They compared UNmarried gay couples to MARRIED straight ones. They didn't even TRY comparing apples to apples -- married to married, or unmarried to unmarried.

    As the article clearly states: "The professor who led the newest health-related research, Dr. Hui Liu of Michigan State University, chalked up the discrepancy to the fact that homosexuals cannot marry, as well as the burden of stress and discrimination."

    So -- allow the gay couples to marry, and stop discriminating against them, and the health differences will disappear.

    Also see "Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but draws fire from experts" at CBSNews.

    Oh Red, Red. This one is the very very discredited Regnerus study. Yet again -- he compared UNmarried, SINGLE lesbian parents to MARRIED straight couples. Apples to oranges.

    Again, as the article specifically states: "All he found is that family instability is bad for children and that's hardly groundbreaking or new," -- Gary Gates (from the Williams Institute of UCLA).

    Red, won't you ever learn to READ your sources before you try to lean on them??

    I'm out of words -- more coming up!

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 9, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    To "Contrariuser" you constantly complain that polygamy should not be allowed because of harm. You have yet to know what the source is of that harm (hint, it is culture of the Muslims and FLDS).

    Since harm is the only justification you need to ban or prevent legalizing polygamy, lets take a closer look at Gay Marriage, which you defend.

    Read "Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals, study finds" in LifeSiteNews. There we find that just being a gay couple harms your health.

    Also see "Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but draws fire from experts" at CBSNews. There we find that kids raised in gay households had more emotional problems.

    From "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs we find that in comparison to hetersexuals, gays have about well over 10 times the risk of violence towards one of the partners.

    There are many more studies out there that shows that when 2 gays become a couple that the risk of harm towards one of the partners jumps up exponentially.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 8:29 p.m.

    didn't voters already reject gay marriage?? So, 2 people can undo an election??

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 8, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    @Charles S --

    "Homosexuality is not, nor will it ever be marriage. "

    Why?

    "No one should ever support homosexuality as marriage."

    Why not?

  • Charles S Freedomville, AZ
    Dec. 8, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    oh Contrary - if you can't figure out the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality then you are further gone than we all thought.

    It's always comical to see how homosexual supporters try to frame their acceptance. Fertility has NOTHING to do with it. Zero! Nada! Can you say strawman?

    Homosexuality is not, nor will it ever be marriage.

    And let's be crystal clear --- it's not gay or lesbian, it is HOMOSEXUALITY.

    "Many gay couples are already raising children, with or without the benefits of marriage. Gay marriage will HELP those kids.

    If you truly care about kids, then you should support gay marriage."

    Homosexuality does not, nor will it ever help children. No one should ever support homosexuality as marriage.

  • Jake2010 bountiful, ut
    Dec. 8, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    And, the circle of insanity continues. Neither side of this argument will ever budge... The arguments aren't changing... the feelings of discrimination aren't changing... the lack of true conviction of how crass the movement is and how it doesn't eliminate marital discrimination but only redefines it to one more line of 'love' remains deeply hypocritically in place.

  • Coontrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 7, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    @Charles S --

    "Homosexuality is not marriage. It is pretend. Nothing more, nothing less."

    How do gay couples act any differently than any other infertile couples?

    Are all infertile couples just "pretending"?

  • Charles S Freedomville, AZ
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    Homosexuality is not marriage. It is pretend. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • Coontrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 7, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    @rmads --

    "Same sex marriage, sanctioned by the state, offers no preference for children to be adopted or raised by a mother and father as compared to two mothers or two fathers."

    Gay people can already adopt, even in Utah.

    In fact, Utah allows single people of any orientation -- gay or straight -- to adopt. They obviously are not all that concerned about that "mother-father" family you're talking about.

    " But a same sex "relationship" IS a choice"

    Would you really prefer that gay people enter into fake straight marriages?? Lots of them have tried that, you know -- and it mostly leads to unhappiness and divorce. Then what message are you sending to the kids?

    "children are better off raised in a family with a mother and a father."

    No studies have ever shown that children grow up better in stable straight homes than in stable gay homes. If you believe otherwise, please present your evidence. Be specific.

    Many gay couples are already raising children, with or without the benefits of marriage. Gay marriage will HELP those kids.

    If you truly care about kids, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    rmads says:

    "The "fight" is very much about children. Same sex marriage, sanctioned by the state, offers no preference for children to be adopted or raised by a mother and father ..."

    -- Why should there be a "preference" for hetero couples? That's called discrimination.

    "...same sex marriage won't affect me or my marriage. Maybe that's true. "

    -- It is.

    "... think about the future and children that it could affect. "

    -- Gays have children too; what about them?

    "... would see same sex relationships as valuable as hetero relationships."

    -- Again, they are.

    "But a same sex "relationship" IS a choice, ..."

    -- Are you willing to give up your relationship? No? Then don't ask it of anybody else; that is hypocrisy.

  • rmads Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    Added Kitchen, "We're not fighting about children. It's about getting married."

    The "fight" is very much about children. Same sex marriage, sanctioned by the state, offers no preference for children to be adopted or raised by a mother and father as compared to two mothers or two fathers. Many people shrug and say same sex marriage won't affect me or my marriage. Maybe that's true. But don't be so self-centered and think that you are all matters. Broaden your imagination and think about the future and children that it could affect. Both those that would be raised by same sex parents, and those that would see same sex relationships as valuable as hetero relationships.

    People argue that same sex attraction is not a choice, and I can stipulate that for many it does not seem like a choice. But a same sex "relationship" IS a choice, and even apart from religious values, it is a choice that less valuable to society because children are better off raised in a family with a mother and a father.

  • Contrariusesterer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 6, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    @Coach Biff --

    "...facts surrounding the gay lifestyle. "

    Nope. You are confusing monogamy with promiscuity.

    Promiscuity increases disease transmission. Monogamy -- which is encouraged by marriage -- DECREASES disease transmission.

    "abuse studies within the gay community."

    Several abuse studies actually prove that intimate partner abuse amongst gays and lesbians is roughly the same as amongst straight couples. If you believe otherwise, please provide some evidence. Be specific.

    Article: "A Same-Sex Domestic Violence Epidemic Is Silent"

    This article specifically states: 46% of lesbian women, 43% of straight women, 40% of gay men, and 21% of straight men had been with violent partners.

    The only difference here is that straight women don't beat up on straight men.

    Also from the article: "Valentine, from The Network/La Red, said that in his experience, the rates of violence in the LGBTQ community seem comparable to those in the straight community."

    CDC study: "An Overview of 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation"by the CDC."

    This again specifically says that 44% of lesbian women, 35% of straight women, 26% of gay men, and 29% of straight men experience rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner at some point.

    Where's your evidence, Biff?

  • Aephelps14 San Luis Obispo, CA
    Dec. 6, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    Maybe everyone should just get civil unions with the same rights attached to that union. Then, if you want enter into a covenant with God between a man & a woman, you get married within a church or temple in a separate ceremony. Marriage should probably not have been part of the government to begin with.....

  • Contrariusesterer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 6, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    @Cougsndawgs --

    "polygamists shouldn't be allowed to live their chosen lifestyle because of what might happen? "

    Drunk driving is illegal because of what "might" happen, too. So is reckless driving. So is driving without a safety belt. So is driving while texting.

    So is incest.

    We have lots of laws like that.

    "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..."

    In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.

    "If studies showed that same sex marriages created abusive situations would you then be against same sex marriage? "

    It would strengthen the argument against same-sex marriage greatly, if evidence showed that gay marriages were more risky than other types of marriage. But no such evidence has been found.

    "there isn't enough longitudinal evidence...."

    We've got 20 years of data and more on civil partnerships in Scandinavian countries already.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 6, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    wrz
    you wrote:
    "Marriage is for the protection of families... so that the guy doesn't sire a bunch of children then leave without some claim of support for the mother/kids from the father. It's hard to determine if the need will arise when the marriage takes place. But it there in case.

    So, in your words, you think Marriage protect the material welfare of the mother and children of that irresponsible heterosexual guy who likes to spread his seed around. Somewhat crude but that is what I get from your words. Am I wrong?

    I agree with you that families need legal protection and that marriage provides that protection.

    The questions is, are there families other than nuclear families without a mother or a father?
    The answers is obviously , Yes! and they need legal protection as well.

    If you like it or not, will not change the fact that gay couples are creating families, are raising children, creating wealth, caring for each other, and they need the same legal protection that heterosexuals have. That protection in order to be equal has to be called marriage.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 6:36 a.m.

    @New to Utah;

    Equal treatment isn't "special" rights. Civil Unions aren 't equal; separate is not equal.

    wrz says:

    "Marriage is for the protection of families."

    And guess what, wrz, LGBT couples are families too.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 4:23 a.m.

    There is really nothing to worry about the decision is a forgone conclusion. Almost all of these judges in Utah are temple endowed, and according to sacred Temple Oaths and Covenants, they must obey their church laws and doctrine first and foremost over any civil or made made constitutional law.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2013 10:19 p.m.

    @Kalindra: "Just because a right is not listed by name in the US Constitution does not mean it is not an existing right."

    That's true... as we can see by Obamacare. He and his cohorts believe health insurance to be a unlisted 'right' paid for by others.

    @LDS Liberal:

    "People get married for 'love' not for 'sex.'

    I've said that all along. I love my nephew... but, alas, he's young.

    "Love and Marriage, go together like a horse and carriage."

    Whoa! Are you saying horses and carriages should be allowed to marry? Makes as much sense as two guys.

    @Walt Nicholes: "Marriage cannot be about procreation, because too many couples are allowed to marry who can't procreate..."

    Marriage is for the protection of families... so that the guy doesn't sire a bunch of children then leave without some claim of support for the mother/kids from the father. It's hard to determine if the need will arise when the marriage takes place. But it there in case.

    "But more and more those benefits are available to single parents..."

    Right, it's called 'federal aid to dependent children' paid for by the taxpayer.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:06 p.m.

    "Here are four of the arguments used against inter-racial marriage (miscegenation):

    1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

    2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

    3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

    4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

    The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years."
    (History News Network)

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    re: "I have but one question. Where in the Constitution of the United States does it state that same-sex marriage is a right. Where? I don't want generalities. Where does it state GAY MARRIAGE is a constitutional right? I don't see it. I don't buy it. I just want someone to tell me where."

    Where in the constitution does it say OPPOSITE SEX MARRIAGE is a right? I don't see it, I don't buy it. I just want someone to tell me where. Perhaps the answer can be found in the 14 SCOTUS decisions that have determined marriage is a fundamental right.

  • SamSmith Bronx, NY
    Dec. 5, 2013 6:05 p.m.

    @snowman

    "If they want to get married they can go to a state that allows it."

    "Karen Archer and Kate Call, who were legally married in Iowa" So are they still married in Utah? That's part of what the lawsuit is about.

    Consider: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof," US Const. Art IV Sec. 1. and

    "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14th Amend. US Const. Art. 1

    To repeat, are they married in UT?

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    I listen to people talk about traditional and what has been for thousands of years and it is bull. Yes, discrimination has been around for thousands of years. There are places in the World, right now, that would kill me for being gay. So, because these horrible things have existed for thousands of years, does it make it right? NO WAY! Gay people have always ALWAYS been a part of families. So tell me,is it a family value to degrade and throw us away like you would garbage?
    I know who I am and it doesn't matter how you people degrade me or what your excuse is, because I will not be ashamed of who I am. I think it is fair to believe that God gave us enough knowledge about ourselves to be able to know that we are ok! There will be a day we face God. There will be a day! Any prophet or apostle or member can stand with me when it is time for God to judge because I have a hell of a lot I want to say!

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    Contrairius,

    You cite the harm principle. You are completely ignoring facts surrounding the gay lifestyle. And don't give me any baloney about gay marriage negating these unfortunate facts documented by the CDC and several abuse studies within the gay community. You can't have it both ways. Homosexuality is an unhealthy practice physically and psychologically, whether you want to admit it or not.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    @berreygene
    And the LAWS are reviewed by courts to make sure they are constitutional.

  • BeagleDancer Wausau, WI
    Dec. 5, 2013 4:26 p.m.

    So if the state decides on one man/one woman, how will they address the Foundamentalist Latter Day Saints cults.

  • insurance Murray, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 4:26 p.m.

    So if the State uses "procreation" as a reason to prohibit gay marriage, what about this:
    I was in a hetro-sexual marriage and have three very wonderful children (the "procreation" that the State talks about has already happened).
    Are you saying my three children are better living with two divorced parents, neither of which will again marry (she won't remarry and I won't marry someone of the opposite sex), than to be raised by parents where one wishes to marry someone of the opposite sex? I've fulfilled the State's requirement of "procreation" - so why can't I marry someone of the opposite sex?
    In case anyone wonders, there are MANY gay people in Utah who have had children but now wish to live in a same-sex relationship / marriage.
    I can guarantee you my children would be a lot better off being raised in a same-sex married parent than how they are now.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    @SCfan --

    "...the numbers are far too skewed. "

    That's ridiculous. Using your logic, we can't say that child rape is harmful -- because it is relatively rare.

    "...psychology, sociology, is that they are not true sciences... "

    Fortunately, your personal view on the social sciences has absolutely nothing to do with either gay marriage or polygamy.

    If you have any actual evidence that gay marriage is harmful, or that polygamy is not, please present it. Be specific.

    @Live From the Swamp --

    "Where are you drawing boundaries, if any? "

    The boundaries are drawn at harm. Look up the harm principle.

    "Societies that survive make laws for the common good"

    Nobody has yet produced any factual evidence indicating that gay marriage would harm the common good.

    Feel free to give it a try. Let's see some evidence. Please be specific.

    @Alfred --

    "a Canadian judge has no jurisdiction in our society. "

    Facts don't change just because Justice Bauman is on the wrong side of the border.

    " AIDS is a disease of mostly homosexuality."

    Nope. It's a disease of promiscuity. Remember, gay marriage encourages monogamy -- and therefore DECREASES disease transmission.

    "the studies you site are likely prejudice..."

    LOL! Riiiiiiiiiight.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    @Berrygene

    It will be YOU that moves. It's coming. Nothing you can do about it. Get your pitchfork out!

  • cougarsare1 Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    @Contrariusest --

    The studies on the stability of children from two-parent families are almost completely from families with a man and woman as parents. Very little has been done to include same-sex couples. Not only that, there is simply not enough history for it. Hence, my sentence immediately following what you quoted from me: "There is simply not enough evidence to support the same for same-sex couples."

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:51 p.m.

    Contrariuster:
    So your saying polygamists shouldn't be allowed to live their chosen lifestyle because of what might happen? Ever seen minority report? Are we supposed to start creating preemptive laws that we enforce because of what COULD happen and not what already has occurred? There are many good people that are polygamists that may take exception to your characterizations (even if there's "research" to suggest these traits are true). My expertise is in psychology (educational and social), and many of the studies done, especially if they have lawful and political ramifications, are quasi experimental at best and don't always truly contain a representative sample. Also because polygamists are such a small sample, errors and selection threats in study make for many wrong inferences and implications.

    How about we allow people to choose who they want to marry and enforce and punish them for laws they may break because of it, not laws that "research" shows they might break. If studies showed that same sex marriages created abusive situations would you then be against same sex marriage? I didn't think so...btw there isn't enough longitudinal evidence to say same sex marriage isn't detrimental.

  • berreygene Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    Marriage must be defined, and it will have to be defined by law. If it were not defined by law it could be said that a man could get married to his best friend, the dog! Or that a woman could get married to her beloved cat!

    Laws are passed by the legislature.

    In Utah the LAW defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

    That is the LAW.

    If you don't like our laws move!

  • ray vaughn Ogden, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    i find it interesting that the Deseret News lists this story under politics. it is not a political issue. it is a legal challenge to a law. The outcome should be based on equal treatment, responsibilities and rights under law. It is not just a political issue

  • Itsme2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    So if we legalize it, then that must make it moral and good (Not really). You can force man's laws to change to accommodate your sins, but you'll never force God's.

  • college sports fan Alpine, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    Tomsic said,
    "Procreation has never, ever, ever been a condition for a marriage license,"

    However, the natural truth is, marriage was designed to advance a state's interest in "responsible procreation." Since men can remain fertile throughout life, marriage served state interests by imposing "obligations of fidelity and monogamy" to deter husbands from extramarital relations with younger women that could produce unintended offspring.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    @Ranch: "...that does not change the fact that Amendment 3, just like Prop-8 is UnConstitutional."

    As is polygamy, using the same reasoning.

    @Kalindra:
    "... Cheese and wine marry, spices marry, flavors marry. 'Marry' is about joining, blending - there is nothing specific to gender about it."

    Yeah, but ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) and fuel oil don't go so well together. Try it, but stand back.

    @Contrariusester:
    "As Justice Bauman of the Supreme Court of British Columbia noted in a recent Canadian decision reaffirming their polygamy ban..."

    Sorry but your argument holds no water... Firstly, a Canadian judge has no jurisdiction in our society. Secondly, AIDS is a disease of mostly homosexuality. Third, if children of polygamist marriages are harmed it likely comes via prejudices from outsiders, fourth, the studies you site are likely prejudice... like a study about rape by a rapist.

    @Inis Magrath:
    "Being a civil right, can the states deny marriage to certain people?"

    Yes, polygamists, children to name two.

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

    I don't see what the fuss is all about. The judge's task is a piece-a cake. Everyone has the right to marry, provided they marry someone of the opposite sex. That includes everyone... gay/straight.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "Denying polygamist, adult/child, brother/sister, brother/brother, mother/son, and numerous other marriage combinations can fall under the same argument."

    Look up the harm principle. Harm always limits personal rights.

    Polygamy etc. all convey significantly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage doesn't.

    "all other combinations dreamed up by humankind would need to be accepted as marriages"

    No they wouldn't. Look up the harm principle.

    "Adult/child sex (child rapist) is not a choice either"

    Baloney.

    And, again -- look up the harm principle.

    "Sometimes people have to shun and put behind them what they are driven to do, for the good of society."

    You haven't shown any evidence that "shunning" gay marriage would help society in the slightest.

    @BYUCPA --

    "Children are more educated, better-off financially, emotionally, etc., when raised by a man and a woman in a traditional family setting. "

    Children do best when raised in stable, two-parent families. There has never been any evidence that the genders of the parents harms the children.

  • Live From the Swamp Holladay, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    "You anti-marriage folks (yes, same-sex marriage is nothing more than marriage) are the ones "changing the definition" of marriage. It has never, ever, ever been "one-man/one-woman". In fact, historically (ancient cultures) had same-sex marriage."

    Ancient cultures also allowed slavery, bestiality, prostitution, and pedophilia. Where are you drawing boundaries, if any? Be specific - tell us where YOU would draw the line or should our society adopt an "anything goes" mentality?

    Societies that survive make laws for the common good, usually based on majority rule. In our society, the minority seems to rule, thanks to unelected judicial activists.

  • Philosopher Goose Creek, SC
    Dec. 5, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    If this becomes a law, do I have to agree with it? If I don't agree with it, am I now "breaking" the law? Will you force me to accept a law I don't conscientiously agree with? Will it be wrong for me to work the rest of my life to legally fight against this new law? Can you force a person to agree with your beliefs by making it law? What is the purpose of law?

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    AZKID and Happymomto9 thankyou for your courage. Gay and lesbian activists want carved out special rights. They are not satisfied with civil unions and equality. The current generation has been bombarded with hundreds of millions of dollars spent by Hollywood,mainstream colleges and universities indoctrinating our children to support the cause of gays and lesbians. The relentless efforts by the Obama administration and misguided supreme court activists have upset the balance of any degree of fairness in presenting an opposing view of why marriage is critical for the survival of our nation. My college educated children have been presented only one side of the argument and with emotion and certitude Hollywood and the education establishment and the current administration blast away as racist or homophobic anyone who challenges this propaganda. There needs to be a push back against this intrusive over reach.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    Contaraiuester

    The trouble with comparing marriage in this case is that the numbers are far too skewed. There are hundreds of millions of opposite sex marriages, vs same sex and multi partner marriages. It is like trying to determine what church has the happiest people when one church has 100 members and the other has 100 million members. Plus, my view on the social sciences like psychology, sociology, is that they are not true sciences with value. Most people who come out of college majoring in those areas are already agenda driven and that agenda most always comes from the secularist left. So, I don't give much credibility to so called studies and research that obviously began with a political or social agenda in the first place. Guess we will just have to disagree on this one. Probably my last post allowed. Thanks.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    As a 60-yr-old lesbian, I'm no more likely to destroy society than you are. I respect law, love America, kiss babies, mow my lawn, decry violence, and have a garage packed a little too full. I get migraines, love the outdoors, have polygamous ancestors, and taught in Relief Society for a good many years. As far as I can remember, I've never tried to destroy the institution of marriage as we know it. I would, however, like to add to it.

    My partner is terminally ill, and we would like to have the legal familial relationship that marriage confers. We would like to have less uncertainty about what inheritance will be left to our partner when one of us dies. We would like the stability and peace of one of the most popular and enduring contracts known to all human beings.

    Please, we are not farm animals, demigogues, anti-Christs, anarchists, or rebels. We are two older Utah women who would like the security and dignity the rest of you enjoy.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "Denying polygamist, adult/child, brother/sister, brother/brother, mother/son, and numerous other marriage combinations can fall under the same argument."

    Look up the harm principle. Harm always limits personal rights.

    Polygamy etc. all convey significantly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage doesn't.

    "all other combinations dreamed up by humankind would need to be accepted as marriages"

    No they wouldn't. Look up the harm principle.

    "Adult/child sex (child rapist) is not a choice either"

    Baloney.

    And, again -- look up the harm principle.

    "Sometimes people have to shun and put behind them what they are driven to do, for the good of society."

    You haven't shown any evidence that "shunning" gay marriage would help society in the slightest.

    @BYUCPA --

    "Children are more educated, better-off financially, emotionally, etc., when raised by a man and a woman in a traditional family setting. "

    Children do best when raised in stable, two-parent families. There has never been any evidence that the genders of the parents harms the children.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    As a people we can change laws.
    In history that was done through revolution, war or dictatorship, today in many countries by means of democracy.
    What is wrong with that, nothing. Can we talk about it first, sure.

    This here is not a Mormon thing, it happens elsewhere.
    Time moves on, people have style here and then.

    My question is, what type of people will more likely tolerate my life style.
    And I have found as a Child, as a Young and then Grown up, people that love me and respect me do.
    Mormons are only good if they can respect my way of life, those Mormons that cannot are not so good Mormons. Are Gay/Lesb neighbors going to tolerate my kids that do think differently ? Is this a "civil right" movement to free people or to choke the rest of us ?

    It is not about sex ? It is called sex-orientation ! So it is biological ! Redefine biology ? Well go ahead, evolution theory did. I will still tell my kids, it is bad, you won't like that, well there we are again.

    Respect Religion, they respect you, invade Religion to change the world, you loose all respect !

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    @SCfan --

    "EVERY single problem you claim comes from polygamy... "

    Nope. That's the point. These problems are MORE common in polygamy than in monogamy.

    If you believe otherwise, please present your evidence. Be specific.

    In the meantime, here's just a few resources for you. There are many many more out there.

    1. Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children -- a 280 page tome with tons of multinational details and references.

    2. Polygyny and Canada’s Obligations under International Human Rights Law -- part of a multinational report by the Canadian Department of Justice -- around 300 pages, lots of great references.

    3. A Comparison of Family Functioning, Life and Marital Satisfaction, and Mental Health of Women in Polygamous and Monogamous Marriages -- International Journal of Social Psychiatry

    4. The Effect of Polygamous Marital Structure on Behavioral, Emotional, and Academic Adjustment in Children: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature -- Clinical Child and Family Psychology

    5. The Contribution of Polygamy to Women’s Oppression and Impoverishment: An Argument for Its Prohibition -- Social Science Research Network

    6. Sociodemographic Characteristics of HIV-Positive Mother-Child Pairs in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. -- AIDS CARE (there are many similar studies)

  • DqueenB St. George, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    Wow! Ms. Wood was my high school English teacher. I absolutely loved her, A LOT (see Ms. Wood, I spelled it correctly, not alot :). She had a great impact on my life. I wish her all the happiness, and if that includes marriage, so be it. YOU GO GIRLS!

  • BYUCPA Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    The procreation argument, while it would seems has been made poorly, is correct. Whether one likes it, or not, society is more stable when a family - with a man and a woman married - is created. (Of course, there must be moral, decent teachings in raising any children in that family that would produce good, contributing members of the society). Children are more educated, better-off financially, emotionally, etc., when raised by a man and a woman in a traditional family setting. There is simply not enough evidence to support the same for same-sex couples.

    Government adopts and now controls marriage in the interest of a stable society.

    But the bottom line is that the only way for that to NATURALLY happen is for a man and a woman to create children. Test tubes still require input from a man and a woman. Infertility does not mean that people cannot be married. Their genders do produce children together.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    @Kalindra: "Denying same-sex marriage abridges the privilege of same-sex couples to marry and denies to them and their children the equal protection of the laws."

    Denying polygamist, adult/child, brother/sister, brother/brother, mother/son, and numerous other marriage combinations can fall under the same argument. Are you sure you wanna go there?

    @Ranch: "If your marriage is at risk when a same sex couple can marry, then you're doing it wrong."

    It's not individual marriages at risk... It's the institution of marriage. With legality of same-sex marriages, all other combinations dreamed up by humankind would need to be accepted as marriages thus negating the entire concept of marriage.

    @Contrariusier: "Being gay is not a choice. Even the Mormon church acknowledges this fact."

    Adult/child sex (child rapist) is not a choice either, for some... there are such people. Would that change your argument?

    Sometimes people have to shun and put behind them what they are driven to do, for the good of society.

    @isrred: "Marriage is a contract, children cannot consent nor legally contract."

    Sorry to inform but the US Constitution (equal protection) supersedes consent and contract law.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    Loving v Virginia Unanimous Opinion:

    "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

  • Don Jose St. George, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    I understand the Constitution and the 10th Amendment and the right of the States to democratically vote in a law about marriage, which it has a right to do. I also understand the rights of the minority and the need to be protected, and that the 14th Amendment ensures that no State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Constitution is a living document and many issues have changed for the States over time whether for good or bad, dread scott, plessy, brown v. board, griswald v. Conn., Roe v. Wade, and on and on.

    However, where does it end? Do we allow legal polygamy? Do we allow a person to marry a chimpanzee since apes show high intellectual abilities? Ultimately the SC will decide this issue. Sadly to say for us conservative people we would lose in a nationwide referendum for it. Proof is in the electing for our current President. Would America fall apart if it happened? I think not, but i feel this issue is about standing on moral ground. Those are my two cents.

  • stretchy Salem, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    I have another question or comment in addition to my previous comment. I am learning alot and appreciate the dialogue on this board. I had previously stated: Where in the US Constitution does it state same-sex marriage is a right, but I would like to add to that, for that matter, where does it state that straight marriage is a constitutional right? I think it best to ask, why is the government involved in marriage at all? as I have seen others in the comments ask. Perhaps it would be the best solution of all, to have the United States Government give a Civil-Union permit to all couples seeking to unite, and then leave the marriage vows up to the church. Just a thought. I know it's been said before.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    @snowman;

    Wanna bet?

    @RedShirtMIT;

    Polygamists do legally marry their first wife. They already have marriage.

    @SCfan;

    Same-sex marriages don't create thousands of "lost boys", nor do they create child brides.

    @SoCalChris;

    You anti-marriage folks (yes, same-sex marriage is nothing more than marriage) are the ones "changing the definition" of marriage. It has never, ever, ever been "one-man/one-woman". In fact, historically (ancient cultures) had same-sex marriage.

    I'm still waiting for you anti's out there to come up with VALID reasons to deny same-sex couples the benefits you enjoy.

  • Don Jose St. George, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    I understand the Constitution and the 10th Amendment and the right of the States to democratically vote in a law about marriage, which it has a right to do. I also understand the rights of the minority and the need to be protected, and that the 14th Amendment ensures that no State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    However, where does it end? Do we allow legal polygamy? Do we allow a person to marry a chimpanzee since apes show high intellectual abilities? Ultimately the SC will decide this issue?

    Who should win? Both sides feel they have cause to stand for what they feel is right. Who will win? If the upholding of Obamacare is any indication of the current court's leanings, gay marriage will one day be law. I personally feel the current marriage laws are the gold standard for what is the best for society. That's just me.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    Cont.... and Baccus 0902

    Both of you seem to be hot on some Canadian court ruling. That having been said, do you both realize that EVERY single problem you claim comes from polygamy, is just as common in normal marriage/family? And would be in same-sex marriages too? Justice Bauman, whom you cite, well, he could be just as wrong as I'm sure you guys think Clarance Thomas is, so please, leave one Justice from Canada out of the argument. If you want to cite foreign influence, what about the many Muslim countries that allow polygamy? Stick to America please. Baccus. The point is, marriage used to mean ONE thing in this country, and your cause is trying to change it to mean more than ONE thing. If you achieve that, then it opens the door to people who will claim the same rights of marriage you do. Iam not endorsing allowing polygamy or same sex marriage. I do think the domestic partnership with equal rights to married people would be the best solution. But I believe marriage is in America a unique and singular arrangement meant for one man and one woman.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    Re: happymomto9
    Saratoga Springs, UT
    Utahns have voted and the amendment was passed.
    If you don't like the way we here define marriage, move to another state.

    Really? That is one of the worst arguments I have ever heard. How about this one: "If you don't like the laws of the United States, move to another conuntry."
    The argument that "If you don't like it, you can leave" adds nothing substantial to the conversation.

    Re: stretchy
    Salem, UT
    I have but one question. Where in the Constitution of the United States does it state that same-sex marriage is a right. Where? I don't want generalities. Where does it state GAY MARRIAGE is a constitutional right? I don't see it. I don't buy it. I just want someone to tell me where.

    I have but one question. Where in the Constitution of the United States does it state that same-sex marriage is a right. Where? I don't want generalities. Where does it state STRAIGHT MARRIAGE is a constitutional right? I don't see it. I don't buy it. I just want someone to tell me where.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    My gay cousin and her wife just adopted a beautiful little boy! What a wonderful blessing. They love that kid more than life itself. This is the reality of the modern (and civilized) world. Just as the nuclear family is a construct of the 20th century, so are we moving into an era much different than that seen before. We will see gay families in every neighborhood. Even in Provo! They will continue to put up with unfriendly, bigoted, mean-spirited, un-Christian, vitriolic and occasionally violent neighbors. This is what they pay for being different.

    For those that are fearful and lament the passage of the 1900's, rage against the machine!

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Dec. 5, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    Where in the Constitution does it require a change in a definition? Do I have a constitutional right to be called a woman and a woman be called a man? Am I discriminated against if the law considers me a man? Clarity itself is a legitimate state interest. Throughout history if someone has said they were married you knew what that meant. It's certainly understandable that a state would want to maintain that clarity, especially for the sake of school children.

    Personally I'm in favor or civil unions which provide legal rights comparable to marriage. That's fair and reasonable.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    "Yes, I said child marriage... to anyone and everyone they wish. Children are people too and thus should be granted the same 'equal rights' protection."

    Marriage is a contract, children cannot consent nor legally contract. Your fear mongering is unfounded.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    The judge has, indeed, his hands full. If he rules for same sex marriage he opens the Pandora's box for any and all other types, sorts, and arrangements of marriage.

    Warren Jeffs must be doing saltations with shear joy in his cell. Polygamy and child marriage would surely follow in order to adhere to the claim of 'equal protection under the law.' Yes, I said child marriage... to anyone and everyone they wish. Children are people too and thus should be granted the same 'equal rights' protection.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    The Supreme Court of the United States has held that marriage is a fundamental civil right -- and not by just some new-fangled activist judges. The court has held marriage is a civil right through a line of over a dozen cases dating back to the 1880s!!! This is not a new idea, and it is long settled law.

    Being a civil right, can the states deny marriage to certain people? For example, can states deny marriage to a couple merely because they aren't the same race? In 1967 in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that, no, states cannot ban mixed-race marriages.

    Through Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and last June's decision in Windsor v. U.S. -- it is plain and clear which direction American legal jurisprudence is heading.

    Marriage equality will be the law in all 50 states, even Utah, within 5 to 8 years tops.

  • ebur Charlotte, NC
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    Mormons are poligamist by definition. A man can have more than one wife in the future life and actually that will help him to become a god.
    Then opposing to the same-sex marrige base on the argument that poligamist are the next, it should not scandalize anybody in the Mormon community.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    SCFan
    You wrote:
    "OK all you supporters. How would you argue (if you would) against polygamy?"
    My question to you is. Why (only in Utah)you bring Polygamy when we are talking about SSM. Is it just a distraction tactic? We are focusing in making SSM legal. If you want to fight for plural marriage, by all means go ahead. But do not attempt to distract us from our cause.

    Besides, you can enlighten yourself about how polygamy would go by studying the Canadian Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    @SCfan --

    "how does that apply to more than 2 people being married?? "

    I can't cover nearly the whole topic in 200-word posts, but here's a small start.

    Polygamy actually correlates with significantly increased risks of several types of harm -- including physical, psychological, societal, and disease transmission.

    As Justice Bauman of the Supreme Court of British Columbia noted in a recent Canadian decision reaffirming their polygamy ban:

    -- "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" .

    -- "Children from those marriages...were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

    -- "Polygamy (also) has negative impacts on society flowing from ... poverty associated with the practice. It generates a class of largely poor, unmarried men who are statistically predisposed to violence and other anti-social behaviour..."

    -- "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."

  • mountainlocal Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    happymomto9:

    We also live in America, which has a fluid legal system. Less than 100 years ago women didn't have the constitutional right to vote. Now such policy would be unthinkable. Society changes. If you don't like the way the legal system is set up, then move to another country. See how the old "leave this state"argument works? These folks are rooted in Utah and want to live near the mountains just as much as you want to remain in the Untied States.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    Hogwash, Redshirt.

    Just because one Lesbian said that, that should not make it a fact that it is the goal of every gay to destroy marriage.

    In fact, most gays revere marriage as a symbol of love and commitment. They expect, as citizens of the United States to gain the same rights and privileges that you gained with your marriage. Legal recognition of their union is not destroying marriage, but adding to it.

    I support marriage, both man and woman and same sex. I support it being recognized by the state that they live in. Love is love and commitment is commitment.

    When you are ready to give up the recognition, benefits, and privileges that you receive by marrying - and your children receive! - let me know. Gays want these just like you do. It is what equal treatment under the law is all about.

    I have never had anyone answer me on why they would want the children of gay couples to be in less than the most stable homes that we can offer. Is there a reason that you want to treat these children so poorly?

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    Dec. 5, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    "In court, Shelby at one point asked Lott the difference between the rights of a same-sex or heterosexual couple to get married.

    "Procreation is the difference," Lott said. "A same-sex couple is not going to reproduce."

    I can't imagine even a law student thinking this is the approach to be taken in court. I will be shocked if same-sex marriage in Utah is not legal come Jan 7.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    Dec. 5, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    "The polygamists are waiting in line, next, to be heard and accommodated."

    Well if they are, the Mormons should be the first ones to back them up because the Mormons fought the the courts for years to have it be legal.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Contraiuester???

    Try that again please. We all know the problems with pedophilia, incest, bestiality, ect. but how does that apply to more than 2 people being married?? Those things you mentioned can be happening with any number of people, married or not. Your point is nonsense. It would be like me saying that two homosexual men should not be married because they spread AIDS more than heterosexual ones do.

    Truthseeker

    Religion has nothing to do with my point. You tried to read something into it that was not there. I'm LDS, but am not in favor of polygamy. My point was that there is no argument against it that couldn't be made against same sex marriage.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 5, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    Again with the gay marriage.

    This isn't about 2 gay people getting married. They can go to any willing preacher or person and be married. What they are asking for is the legal benefits of marriage. Take a look at the polygamists here in Utah. They engage in a form of marriage that is not legally recognized. However, if you ask them, they are married.

    According to some of the more nationally prominent LGBT activists, the gay marriage movement is just a lie being used to destroy marriage.

    The only laws that prohibit any form of marriage are the bigamy laws, and those go largely unenforced. There are no laws that state if two gay people go to their preacher and are married in their church that it is illegal or punishable by any means.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 5, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    re:SCFan
    "How would you argue (if you would) against polygamy?"

    How do you argue against polygamy in the free practice of one's religion? Churches are claiming there is a "war" against religion and even the LDS church has joined with other denominations denouncing policies (such as the contraceptive mandate) even though the LDS church isn't opposed to contraceptive use by its members.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    @SCfan --

    "How would you argue (if you would) against polygamy?"

    Here we go again. This issue has been explained many many many times already.

    Yet again --

    Polygamy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. all convey a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    Look up the harm principle. It's a foundational principle of our legal system.

    Here's a quick illustration: Drunk driving conveys a significantly increased risk of harm compared to sober driving. All driving causes some risk, but that risk is greatly increased when the driver is drunk. Therefore, drunk driving is illegal but sober driving is not. And we don't have to prove that each and every drunk driver is a danger on the road, either -- we know that the vast majority of drivers will be at greater risk when drunk, so we keep drunk driving illegal even if a small majority of drivers may be able to drive safely while they're drunk.

    Gay marriage does not greatly increase risk.

    Polygamy (and the other forms mentioned above) does greatly increase risk.

    Therefore polygamy is illegal.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    States have the right to establish the rules of marriage (or most other things which need licensing, legal clarification or regulation) only to the extent that those rules DO NOT infringe upon what most Americans and Mormons consider to be sacred--the freedoms and rights extended by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Utah's Amendment 3 violates the intent of our founding documents and Supreme Court decisions. Do you choose to follow intransigent and cruel religious dogma or do you choose to follow the Constitution and the loving intent of Jesus, Mohammad and Buddha?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 5, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    @ Prodicus: I suggest you read Loving v. Virginia. States do not have the power to limit marriage without a legally compelling reason.

    For those of you arguing the meaning of marriage: Cheese and wine marry, spices marry, flavors marry. "Marry" is about joining, blending - there is nothing specific to gender about it.

    And the fact that you want to reserve the name to your relationships indicates you think anything else is less and therefore not equal. Your argument is false on its face.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    OK all you supporters. How would you argue (if you would) against polygamy? Any argument you might make against two people of choice marrying, would also apply to more than two. Once you change marriage from its traditional man/woman standard, then all other standards are also gone. You can't use the marriage is only between 2 people because it is not stipulated to be that any more than it "apparantly" is stipulated to be between a man and woman only.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    I see a bunch of religious comments being put forth. None of which have any merit whatsoever; we ARE NOT a theocracy, no matter how much you Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals might wish otherwise.

    Equal treatment of ALL citizens IS in the US Constitution. Wail, gnash your teeth all you want, but that does not change the fact that Amendment 3, just like Prop-8 is UnConstitutional.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    Walt: I'm glad you brought up the issue of morality because that is what we're really talking about. The question I ask of my fellow Mormons is, do you want the government to dictate moral principles to it's people? The reason we don't believe in same sex marriage is that it is contrary to the moral values we've established.

    This is where the separation of church and state comes in. The church is protected by the constitution and I am allowed to worship "how, where, or what (I) may". The state and federal laws are created to protect our constitutional rights to embrace whatever moral framework we choose, NOT to create laws that enforce those moral values on others. Imagine the government being allowed to dictate to Mormons what is morally right or wrong...because in the end that's what you're asking them to do by banning same sex marriage. I have the right to follow my own moral values as long as they don't infringe on the rights of another. I ask: what rights of ours are being infringed upon with same sex marriage?

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    @coleman51 --

    "I question the issue that marriage is a federally protected right in the first place. "

    You can argue with the Supreme Court about that one.

    SCOTUS has affirmed many times that marriage is a basic civil right. Here's just a few examples:

    -- Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'..."
    -- Zablocki v. Redhail -- "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"
    -- Skinner v. Oklahoma -- a person, being cut off from "marriage and procreation," would be "forever deprived of a basic liberty."
    -- Turner v. Safley -- invalidated a prohibition on marriages by prison inmates under privacy rights
    -- Meyer v. Nebraska -- the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment "without doubt…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to ... marry, establish a home and bring up children..."

    These decisions have spanned over 100 years, and have involved many different panels of justices.

    Marriage is indeed a basic civil right, protected by the US Constitution.

  • Tom Johnson Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    The Supreme Court's decision this past summer on the California Proposition 8 case made clear that the definition of marriage is a state law matter; that is why you still have states evaluating whether same-sex marriage will be authorized in their state.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    I question the issue that marriage is a federally protected right in the first place. That is what gay activists want foremost. At issue here is the right of states to choose according to community standards what defines marriage. If this judge rules foolishly to allow marriage to fall within the realm of a civil right, then our federalist concept of governance will erode away. States, and only states, have the right to decide who gets married or not. It is not an enumerated right of the federal government to claim that right. Judicial activism has ruined the very foundation of our Constitution and this ruling will make it meaningless.

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    It appears to me that if we are to pursue this in a logical and legal manner we need to go back to the drawing board and get a definition of what marriage actually IS with respect to the law. There is a valid point regarding procreation. Marriage cannot be about procreation, because too many couples are allowed to marry who can't procreate, and no couples are married and required to procreate.

    I can see the state assigning value to the raising of children, and setting up legal and financial benefits that advance that goal. But more and more those benefits are available to single parents, grandparents raising children, and, of course gay couples, whether they are married or not.

    From the perspective of the case as presented in the article, marriage is merely an endorsement of morality, and we need to determine whether that is the real definition before we move on.

  • Dr. Matheson Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    Judge Robert Shelby was pro gay rights and pro gay marriage when he was appointed by Obama in 2012. We should have known that such an outspoken lawyer would be political in his decisions. It's unfortunate that our local leaders, such as Senator Hatch, would so vigorously support Shelby in his nomination. Other Republicans in the Senate, trusting Hatch, voted overwhelmingly to support Obama's liberal nominee. If Utah citizens decide to favor marriage between gay persons, that is one thing, but to allow one, non-elected, non-Utahn (Wisconsinite), who does not share the conservative values or belief in God like most Utah citizens, to determine right and wrong for all of us is misguided at best. The behavior of Shelby and Hatch are to be expected. We should blame ourselves for electing those without our best interest, and not scrutinizing more carefully who determines the major issues of our state. We shoulder the blame.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    Make up a new word for Websters Dictionary call it "Pairage": the definition would be a pair of people getting united. The definition of my uniting was called marriage because the definition says a man and a women. But, the new word Pairage would cover anyone. I don't have a problem with them uniting as I had an opportunity to do, but I have a problem with them changing the definition of what I did. Please someone with common sense use the word "Pairage" and let these people make their own choices in their lives, what they chose to do is their agency and non of my business. They hold as much value in my life as anyone else does. I have neighbors who I have been great friends with that are gay. They should have the same rights to be united. We never heard the word texting or Twitter 25 years ago. So it's time to add Pairage to the list and let these people have their right to be united.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    @Kalindra: I never said the states were not subject to the Constitution; on the contrary, I asserted repeatedly that Constitutional prohibitions limit state power. But as you were forced to admit in your previous post, nothing in the Constitution actually prohibits this power to the state.

    And once again, you have entirely misconstrued the 9th amendment, and you need to go look at the statements of the Founders and at two and a quarter centuries of case law before making absurd stuff up. That other rights exist does not mean that the federal government has the power to make up new rights without constitutional amendments and then enforce those rights against the states. The reason the 9th amendment was written was because some people, many of whom thought the unamended Constitution would have been sufficient because it only gave the federal government enumerated powers, were worried that the enumeration of some rights in the Bill of Rights would cause people to act as though the federal government had power to do whatever it wanted as long as it didn't infringe on the rights listed there.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    The polygamists are waiting in line, next, to be heard and accommodated.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    People get married for "love", not for "sex".
    [at least, that's why they should be getting married].

    Marriage is about L-O-V-E.
    People committing to sharing their lives together.
    Not being alone in this world.
    Hopes, Dreams, Laughs, Cries, etc.

    I know plenty of UN-married people having sex - homo or hetero.

    If you keep obsessing and only equaiting Marriage with Sex and NOT Love,
    then you are not focused and are the one's guilty of re-defining and devaluing "Marriage".

    Love and Marriage,
    go together like a horse and carriage.

    It's not about s-e-x.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    Those who believe that States can deny civil rights to those viewed as "different",
    need to read some history of the Civil War.

    States can not supercede the U.S. Constitution.

  • Twin Sister LINDON, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle and former Utah State Supreme Court Judge correctly stated in the LDS October 2013 General Conference:

    "Man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place."

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 5, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    @ Prodicus: Wrong.

    Article VI, Clause 2: "This Constitution, ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    State Constitutions and laws cannot violate the Federal Constitution.

    Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power ... shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ..."
    Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ..."

    The Supreme Court gets to decide if a law - federal or state - is Constitutional or if it is unconstitutional.

    Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Just because a right is not listed by name in the US Constitution does not mean it is not an existing right.

  • Kelly D Eastvale, CA
    Dec. 5, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    I think that they should make Gay/Lesbian life styles a religion. Because that is indeed what it is. It is a philosophy and a way of thinking not necessarily grounded in God, but like Buddhism it has it's own moral conduct. Then they would NOT be discriminated against as I believe that is wrong. They should be entitled to have health benefits and hospital rights, human rights, they are children of God and have beating hearts like everyone else. But then we should be able to say now "church and state." Do not teach it in school, do not infringe on others' rights or religion. That is where this seems to cross the line for me. I can't teach about God in school, so they should not teach about families who choose to live a gay lifestyle. That is where they cross the line. But if they were a "religion" that line would no longer be blurred and hopefully we could all live together in peace. That is my two cents anyway.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 5, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    The origin of the word seems to have wordings in there like, virgin and man.
    To unite them.

    Can't have children with your closes relatives, can't have kids by your father etc.
    there are bounds of relations recognized by the average society and law.

    Why call it same-sex marriage and not marriage. You see, we are fooling ourselves with terms that do not belong but are made up to belong, since it is a tendency of time.
    A minority that likes to make the majority believe a new biological lie.

    You should respect Mormons that believe in an eternal purpose of man and wife to be together for time and eternity, that have come to earth to renunite and that have married to make children happy ever hereafter by giving them a sweet home of natural parents.

    Mormons are no gay/lesb haters, they just want things the normal way for their kids.
    Respect them, and they will respect you.

  • grj Bountiful, ut
    Dec. 5, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    Ya know, the government can do whatever they do, but there will never come a day when I will think a boy can "marry" a boy or a girl can "marry" a girl. Marriage is between a man and a woman and no State resolution, government decree or gay/lesbian internet rant will ever convince me otherwise. Ever.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    @AZKID --

    "make them more likely to embrace, rather than shun, this lifestyle."

    What is wrong with a lifestyle of monogamy??

    "family life, based on mother and father and children, is fundamental.... "

    So outlaw divorce. Outlaw single parenting. Outlaw adoption by single people -- gay or straight.

    Utah already allows adoption by gays, and by single people, whether they are gay or straight. Obviously, therefore, the state isn't all that concerned about your hypothetical perfect straight two-parent home.

    Furthermore, no studies have EVER shown that kids do worse in married gay homes than in married straight homes. And, very significantly, every professional group of child development experts in this country SUPPORT gay marriage.

    "To have my children embrace the gay lifestyle, would be to limit their happiness. "

    Being gay is not a choice. Even the Mormon church acknowledges this fact.

    "Where does that sort of thing end? "

    With equality and respect for the US Constitution.

    We have heard all of these arguments before -- first in the days of racial segregation, and then in the days of the miscegenation laws. Conservatives got over most of their horror then, and they will now as well. And the world will not end.

  • Daved6 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    The most prominent argument I see against same-sex marriage is people fear that same-sex life will be considered acceptable. Fear of being gay is the sticking point that it seems to almost always come back to.

    As I see it, there has never been a decent argument put forth that would suggest same-sex marriage should be against the law. It's all been careless emoting, as far as I can tell. Just read the comments here from those who oppose same sex marriage--not one thoughtful argument presented, as I see it. They have lost. It is completely over. even if they win a small victory here or there because they are so loud, they will eventually be gone.

    See ya.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 6:28 a.m.

    @happymomto9 & Laura Ann;

    You don't have the right to tell other people to move. It reflects poorly on your religion and your committment to freedom and liberty in this country. You also do NOT have the right to vote on whether or not other people get to marry the person of their choice.

    @AZKID;

    Wolf, wolf, wolf.

    @procuradorfiscal;

    This isn't about "more" rights than you have; it's about the SAME rights you have; the right to marry the person of YOUR choice.

    @stretchy;

    Pay attention to Kalindra.

    @Rikitikitavi;

    If your marriage is at risk when a same sex couple can marry, then you're doing it wrong.

    @Bleed Crimson;

    Separate is not equal. Religions don't have a patent on marriage. Google: "CURC-Final-Report-.pdf" and read New Jersey's report on civil unions vs marriage.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 5, 2013 4:23 a.m.

    We are only fooling ourselves, you cannot marry someone outside of what is considered marriage among human beings. I cannot marry my Byce or Car or Donkey. A while ago a woman in Africa married a camel to honor a long standing trusting relationship. You are using the term marriage as a link to relations being legally acknowledged, but that was never so in human history and having children or not has nothing to do with it.

    May be they may have a gay/lesb contract to receive state benefits, but that could be done but can never be called marriage.

    You can't call a car a building, or a marriage a brotherhood !
    You may redefine a word, but that applied to all words would mean a total loss of commitment and understanding.
    The whole thing is a trick to bring in a word change without looking at consequences.
    The consequences for one is that we all go down on levels of intelligence.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:13 a.m.

    @Two For Flinching: it doesn't. If you want to try to pass bills or state constitutional amendments that abolish marriage, you're free to try.

    States aren't meant to be governed by federal judges through the application of a morass of arbitrarily invented purported rights (fundamental right to sodomy! fundamental right to free healthcare! fundamental right to internet access! and other such baloney). Rather, they are meant to be governed by (usually representative) majority rule, with a handful of expressly delineated, narrow exceptions, as seen in the Bill of Rights. (The actual amendments, not the ever-expanding monstrosity that exists only in the minds of activist judges.)

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:01 a.m.

    @Kalindra: The 9th Amendment does not give judges authority to enforce arbitrary purported extraconstitutional rights against the states. They could thus deprive states of all power on a whim. That is a mockery of the entire Constitution and the federalism it embodies. Read what the Founders said about the 9th; it is there to reaffirm that federal powers are limited and enumerated.

    We can't operate this nation by relying on what unelected judges and pundits get to decide counts as "compelling, legally sound reasons" for laws to be passed- that's an oligarchic dictatorship, not a democratic republic.

    Rather, per the Tenth Amendment, states have all powers not prohibited them by the Constitution, and state constitutions decide what are legally sound applications of those powers.

    Your skirting around the subject and twisted logic still can't avoid the admission that the Constitution does not prohibit the state this power. That the state amendment was passed with proper majorities suffices to make it a "legally sound" application of that power, regardless of what reasoning you ascribe to those who passed it and regardless of your opinion of those reasons.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:24 p.m.

    If they want to get married they can go to a state that allows it. It will never happen in Utah

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:15 p.m.

    I think it's time we start messing with the old(er) generations by following the lead of the young who have no problem with the GLBT (Sic) group who want to get married.
    It's about time. Nobody has special insight as to why it shouldn't happen.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:52 p.m.

    @ stretchy

    Where does it say in the Constitution that "straight marriage" is a right?

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:46 p.m.

    I'm in favor of a civil union for gays and lesbians that grants them the same benefits as a married heterosexual couple. But the problem is, that's not good enough for the LGBT community. They want the "title" of marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony that unites a man and woman as husband and wife for the purpose of forming a family and raising children. The government needs to stay out of the marriage business, period!

    If government must be involved then recognize civil unions for all. Let religions define what marriage is since God set the standard.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:46 p.m.

    @ stretchy: Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

    Amendment IX, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Amendment XIV, Section 1, ".... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The right to marry has been determined to be a fundamental unenumerated right retained by the people. Denying same-sex marriage abridges the privilege of same-sex couples to marry and denies to them and their children the equal protection of the laws.

    The Constitution may not come right out and say marriage - same-sex or heterosexual - is a right, but it does make a very clear statement on why same-sex marriage should not be prohibited absent a compelling, legally-sound reason.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:36 p.m.

    It is far and away too early in the national dialogue vis-a-vis same sex marriage to proceed unabated. What is at risk here is not the impact on existing marriages which is the cry we constantly hear from many adults but on the coming young(er) generations. For now I clearly side with the small group of ecclesiastical leaders I regard unquestionably as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. I strongly believe they speak for our Savior is opposing same sex relations and in opposing same sex marriage. Lets NOT run the risk of messing with our young(er) generations by allowing the GLBT group to become mainstream. They already have far too loud a voice in school systems in many states and countries where the minds of impressionable young people are being tampered with.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    @ procurador: What new rights would be created to which you would not have access?

    When same-sex marriage becomes legal, you will have the exact same right to marry someone of your same gender as a homosexual person will have - just as they currently have the same right you have to marry someone of the opposite gender.

    Now, if your argument is that it would not be an equal right because you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, that would mean that your previous argument is fallacious - homosexuals have no more desire to marry someone of the opposite sex than heterosexuals desire to marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, if their desire to marry someone of the same sex is a right you don't have, your desire to marry someone of the opposite sex is a right they don't have. (You and I both know that wants and desires are not the same thing as rights and your argument fails on this point.)

    Either same-sex marriage does not give homosexuals an extra right that you would not have, or current marriage laws have an inequality.

    You cannot logically claim both.

  • stretchy Salem, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:09 p.m.

    I have but one question. Where in the Constitution of the United States does it state that same-sex marriage is a right. Where? I don't want generalities. Where does it state GAY MARRIAGE is a constitutional right? I don't see it. I don't buy it. I just want someone to tell me where.

  • jp3 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    To those who repeat the tired lines of "move to another state if you don't like it here"--those who seek freedom and equality are here to stay whether you like it or not--maybe it's you who should be moving--I hear Russia's views are more in line with your own.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:22 p.m.

    I mean you can not force someone not to love, not to marry someone of same gender, if that person is gay.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:05 p.m.

    Re: "Marriage equality WILL come to Utah eventually."

    Marriage equality HAS come to Utah. In fact, it has always been here.

    I can legally marry anyone that will have me, so long as they meet the law's requirements regarding majority, consanguinity, marital status, and mental responsibility.

    So can any LGBT activist.

    LGBT activists are now pushing legal inequality -- demanding "rights" that apply only to them.

    Nothing in the Constitution, however, guarantees them any more rights than I have.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:59 p.m.

    @AZKID --

    "make them more likely to embrace, rather than shun, this lifestyle."

    What is wrong with a lifestyle of monogamy??

    "family life, based on mother and father and children, is fundamental.... "

    So outlaw divorce. Outlaw single parenting. Outlaw adoption by single people -- gay or straight.

    Utah already allows adoption by gays, and by single people, whether they are gay or straight. Obviously, therefore, the state isn't all that concerned about your hypothetical perfect straight two-parent home.

    Furthermore, no studies have EVER shown that kids do worse in married gay homes than in married straight homes. And, very significantly, every professional group of child development experts in this country SUPPORT gay marriage.

    "To have my children embrace the gay lifestyle, would be to limit their happiness. "

    Being gay is not a choice. Even the Mormon church acknowledges this fact.

    "Where does that sort of thing end? "

    With equality and respect for the US Constitution.

    We have heard all of these arguments before -- first in the days of racial segregation, and then in the days of the miscegenation laws. Conservatives got over most of their horror then, and they will now as well. And the world will not end.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:00 p.m.

    Well said, Mr. Man. The so-called "procreation" argument simply can not pass scrutiny in the court room.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:43 p.m.

    "Utahns have voted and the amendment was passed. If you don't like the way we here define marriage, move to another state."
    A citizens' initiative does not trump the Constitution. Had Utahns voted to restore slavery, it would end up in court as well.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:43 p.m.

    @happymomto9 and AZKID, I couldn't have said it any better. Good job.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    The goal of gay activists is to mainstream their lifestyle more than it is about marriage itself. The result of legalizing so-called "gay marriage" will be to further undermine the moral perspectives of a complete generation of our children and make them more likely to embrace, rather than shun, this lifestyle. This is one of the many reasons I am opposed to "gay marriage". I firmly believe--and thousands of years of human history will back me up--that family life, based on mother and father and children, is fundamental to a happy, prosperous society. To have my children embrace the gay lifestyle, would be to limit their happiness.

    What is occurring is an unprecedented and, I believe, ultimately misguided, social experiment with consequences far beyond what we see today. We are actually starting to see such consequences in the lawsuits stemming from private citizens--such as photographers--refusing to provide services to gay couples. Where does that sort of thing end? When will the courts force me to compromise my core beliefs and religious liberties to accommodate those who pursue "gay marriage"?

    I don't know where this is heading, but the possibilities are extraordinarily alarming...

  • happymomto9 Saratoga Springs, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    Utahns have voted and the amendment was passed.
    If you don't like the way we here define marriage, move to another state.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:13 p.m.

    Marriage equality WILL come to Utah eventually. It is not a question of "if", only 'when"