Quantcast
Utah

Same-sex couples flock to S.L. County offices in wake of Amendment 3 decision

Comments

Return To Article
  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:03 p.m.

    @cougararesstill1 --

    "Actually, no, it is up to you to prove that it is the same. "

    Nope, sorry.

    When the Utah attorneys go to court to defend the amendment to the Utah amendment, they must attempt to prove that gay marriage does harm. Gay marriage is innocent until proven guilty.

    They have, of course, completely failed to do so.

    "And government has to pick what it supports by science."

    Yup.

    And every court that has ruled on gay marriage so far has made note of the continued failures of attorneys to prove any harm done by gay marriage.

    "science shows that a male and a female are required to create children. "

    Yup. And as multiple judges have already noted, procreation is not a requirement for marriage.

    "After that, a two-parent - male and female - household"

    Nope. Science has NEVER shown that a male-female household is better for children than a same-sex household.

    If you want to deny a right to someone, then you have to prove harm. And nobody has been able to prove any harm from same-sex marriages.

  • cougararesstill1 Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 24, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    Actually, no, it is up to you to prove that it is the same. Years of studies and preponderance of the evidence is on the side of a heterosexual marriage.

    It's a nice game - "prove it's not" - but it doesn't fly.

    And government has to pick what it supports by science. What government knows is science shows that a male and a female are required to create children. It can rank how they are best cared for financially and emotionally, too. Science says a man and a woman in a legal marriage. After that, a two-parent - male and female - household, then probably same-sex couples and single parents. Adoption should not be denied to any of these others because it is always better than foster care, orphanages and the streets.

    Government supports what science shows provides the best result for the children. Government doesn't - or shouldn't - care about "love." Government isn't in the "love" business. It is, however, in the business of protesting children and ensuring that it does not have to be burden with the financial care of children - hence a primary basis of marital law. Another is disposition of assets.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    @cougarsare1 --

    "But now you deny the science of those studies?"

    Of course not.

    "They studied relationships between man and woman. There is no evidence that the same strength and effect would be there with same-sex couples."

    Sure there is.

    Those benefits have to do with stability and commitment and shared resources. None of those factors are exclusive to male-female pairings.

    If you wish to claim that same-sex pairings would be fundamentally different in their effects, then it is up to you to supply the evidence.

    "Further, what was a stabilizing factor in those marriages? Children. Where do these children come from and in what setting are they best provided? All of your studies point to the same thing: marriage between a man and a woman."

    Many many gay couples are already raising children, with or without marriage.

    And no study has ever shown that children do worse in stable gay households than in stable straight households.

    Again -- if you wish to claim otherwise, it's up to you to provide the evidence.

    So far, nobody has been able to do so. Guess why.

  • cougarsare1 Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 24, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    But now you deny the science of those studies? They studied relationships between man and woman. There is no evidence that the same strength and effect would be there with same-sex couples.

    Further, what was a stabilizing factor in those marriages? Children. Where do these children come from and in what setting are they best provided? All of your studies point to the same thing: marriage between a man and a woman.

    The government should seek to shelter that which is proven over decades of research and hundreds of studies to be best for society. The evidence simply is not in favor of same-sex marriage.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    @cougarsare1 --

    "And in those studies, what types of marriages were examined? What was the relationship between those couples?"

    You said "marriage", I gave ya marriage. If you still wish to deny societal benefits of marriage, present some evidence.

  • cougarsare1 Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 24, 2013 5:25 a.m.

    And in those studies, what types of marriages were examined? What was the relationship between those couples?

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:13 p.m.

    I only get 200 words, but here's just a few --

    children do better on several measures, including poverty and behavioral problems, in homes with married parents compared to cohabiting parents -- Acs and Nelson 2002, 2003; Nelson, Clark, and Acs 2001; Manning and Brown 2003; Manning and Lichter 1996

    Married couples have better emotional health than cohabiting couples -- Waite and Gallagher (2000)

    Marriages are more stable than cohabiting unions, making long-term investments easier, and improving long-term support from extended family -- Lerman (2002)

    From the 2002 round of the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF):

    -- Cohabiting fathers and mothers are both less likely to be working than married fathers, and are more likely to be high school dropouts
    -- children in cohabiting families: 19.5% poverty; in married families: 7.7%
    -- children in cohabiting families: 46.3% food insecurity; in married families: 21.3%

    From a discussion paper called "What do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?"

    -- Numerous studies have found that marriage is positively associated with men’s earnings.
    -- Studies have consistently found that being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated
    with mortality.

    And I'm out of words!

  • cougarsare1 Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 23, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    And on what scientific rationale do we base the understanding that marriage is a stabilizing force on society?

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 4:00 p.m.

    @cougarsare1 --

    "Harm? No harm is done by not allowing same-sex marriages, either."

    Seriously??

    Denying same-sex marriage deprives millions of US citizens of the rights and privileges of citizenship. That's what the Equal Protection Clause is all about.

    "Why does government care about marriage in the first place?"

    Because it's a stabilizing force on society, of course. Creating stable, committed, long-lasting relationships is great for the economy and the society at large. Do you really wish to deny such an obvious fact?

  • cougarsare1 Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 23, 2013 2:51 p.m.

    Bob and others should stop fooling themselves into believing that there will not be an attempt to force churches to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. It is very clear it will happen.

    The only reason it hasn't, yet, is because it is too early in them movement. If it were to happen now, the backlash would be so large, even states that now recognize same-sex marriages by choice would reverse and no court could stop it.

    Harm? No harm is done by not allowing same-sex marriages, either. Why does government care about marriage in the first place? On what did government base the decision to follow marriage as a "stabilizing force" in society? How are those "stabilizing forces" created?

    Be honest with the answers.

  • rusty68 Cathedral City, CA
    Dec. 22, 2013 6:46 p.m.

    Karma gets the Mormon Church in the end, after the bazillions they spent to pass Prop HATE in California.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 2:00 a.m.

    @ wrz

    You understand that you still have to be a consenting adult to sign a marriage license, right? Nobody is going to start marrying children, animals, or inanimate objects.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 21, 2013 11:47 p.m.

    btw, take another look at the 14th Amendment.

    The clause in question reads:

    "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."

    It says "abridge the privileges or immunities". Nobody has a privilege or immunity to harm others.

    Now, look at the part that says "without due process of law". Due process entails determining, in a legal manner, whether you have actually done harm.

    Now, look at the "equal protection of the laws" part. This means, of course, that all citizens are equally protected. It doesn't mean that one group is allowed to do harm while another group isn't.

    Now, the harm principle:

    In one of its original formulations, it goes like this: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

    Gay marriage does no harm.

    Polygamy and incest do.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 21, 2013 11:24 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "I suggest you stop posting nonsense."

    I haven't started posting any nonsense, so it unnecessary to stop.

    Take a look at court decisions on this issue. For instance, take a look at Shelby's decision.

    "The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts."

    He's talking about harm here. Specifically, he's saying that gay marriage will not harm straight marriages.

    Now take a look at a recent court ruling on incest:

    "....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. ..."

    Again, the judge is talking about harm. He's saying that polygamy and incest do harm -- they have a detrimental effect.

    Look up the harm principle, wrz. It affects these laws just as much as it affects our drunk driving laws.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 21, 2013 10:58 p.m.

    @Pavalova --

    "Where in any scripture is gay marriage condoned and mentioned in positive light?"

    Well, for example, in Hindu teachings some of their gods engaged in same-sex unions -- and one or two of their gods were even born from such unions. Some Hindu temples also have graphic depictions of same-sex couples prominently displayed on their temple walls.

    Oh wait. You meant Christian scriptures?

    Well, guess what -- this isn't a theocracy. And it certainly isn't a Christian hegemony.

    But, since you asked, Jesus specifically mentioned three classes of men who shouldn't marry women. They were born eunuchs (a group which included homosexuals in ancient texts), made eunuchs (castrati), and chosen eunuchs (men who chose celibacy for religious reasons).

    So, you see, even Jesus acknowledged that not all men should marry women.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2013 10:56 p.m.

    "There are at least two criteria for the legal recognition of any individual right."

    Sorry, but that's not what the US Constitution says... And the US Constitution trumps all other sources that define rights.

    If the 14th Amendment says gays can marry it also says other combinations, such as polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc., can also marry. Doesn't matter what excuses you can come up with, such as 'detrimental effects,' which, by the way, is found nowhere in the US Constitution. Even if there is case or state law, etc... the US Constitution trumps them all.

    I suggest you stop posting nonsense.

  • Pavalova Surfers Paradise, AU
    Dec. 21, 2013 9:45 p.m.

    Where in any scripture is gay marriage condoned and mentioned in positive light. We want to use the name of Jesus as a foundation on how to treat everyone, yet in every example of marriage the Jesus gave, it's always between a man and a woman. Why is that?

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 21, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    @wrz/etc. --

    "... they marry someone of the opposite sex. "

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

    "...the same can be said of polygamists, and a host of other possible marriage combinations."

    Here we go again.

    There are at least two criteria for the legal recognition of any individual right.

    First, there must actually be a substantial number of citizens who want to do it;

    Second, legally allowing them to do it must not significantly increase the risk of harm to other citizens.

    Look up the harm principle.

    Gay marriage does not significantly increase risk to anyone, compared to other forms of marriage.

    Polygamy, incest, and so on do significantly increase risk.

    Therefore gay marriage is becoming legal, and those other forms are not.

    "...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. ..."

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2013 5:15 p.m.

    @T.Jefferson:
    "If you are going to have laws giving special privileges like tax breaks to married couples you cannot restrict marriage based on sex."

    If you want the tax break, get married... and do it with someone of the opposite sex.

    "Equal Protection Under the Law."

    Homosexuals have equal protection under the law. Like anyone else, they can marry provided they marry someone of the opposite sex. This applies to all human beings. It's not rocket science.

    If homosexuals feel they don't have equal protection regarding who they choose to marry, the same can be said of polygamists, and a host of other possible marriage combinations. And to be fair, all these other marriage combinations should have the right to marry same as gay people. It's a matter fairness and equal protection under the law.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 21, 2013 4:59 p.m.

    Pavalova
    Surfers Paradise, AU
    "Just a matter of time before a judge compels the church to open the temple doors for gay marriages too. whoo hoo, party on folks!"

    .....addressed to all who bring up this idea:

    Hey, folks! It is not 1890, there are no troops threatening your cities.

    The threat is that wrong thinking may cause some folks to go overboard with unfounded fear.

    No church has EVER been forced by a court to marry outsiders, it will never happen, ever!

    However, your energy ought better be going toward:

    "How can we, as mormon parents, work with the church so that our sons and daughters who are born Gay can have equal lives to their siblings who are born straight?"
    ...after millions of people have sworn that they were born Gay, and typically felt it by 5, but almost always by 11 or so, please do not tell them you know them better than they know themselves!

    Jesus told us to treat everyone the same. The lds church has acknowledged that many people are intrinsically Gay, and should be treated well.

    How can you place some of your children in 2nd class status?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 4:11 p.m.

    32 years ago, I got married for love, not for sex.

    These couples are already having sex,
    Glad to see they can finally get married and show their commitment of love now.

    Congrats...

  • T.Jefferson Concord, MA
    Dec. 21, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    If you are going to have laws giving special privileges like tax breaks to married couples you cannot restrict marriage based on sex.

    Equal Protection Under the Law.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 21, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    @wrz/Miss Piggie/Neanderthal/Mr. Bean --

    "Polygamy"

    Here we go again.

    There are at least two criteria for the legal recognition of any individual right.

    1. There are actually a substantial number of citizens who want to do it;

    and

    2. Legally allowing them to do it won't significantly increase the risk of harm to other citizens.

    Look up the harm principle.

    Gay marriage does not significantly increase risk to anyone, compared to other forms of marriage.

    Polygamy, incest, and so on DO significantly increase risk.

    Therefore gay marriage is becoming legal -- and those other forms are not.

    "...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.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 21, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    These actions are irregular and highly suspect. This attempt to force the change almost by mob rule is disturbing. The decision will be appealed and to act as if one person can make a final decision is nonsense.

  • Pavalova Surfers Paradise, AU
    Dec. 21, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    Just a matter of time before a judge compels the church to open the temple doors for gay marriages too. whoo hoo, party on folks!

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    @ iron&clay: How many heterosexual couples that marry are serious about fidelity to their spouse? Approximately 17% of divorces are caused by infidelity - and many couples stay together after infidelity and try to work it out.

    Why should there be a different standard for same-sex couples than for heterosexual couples?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    "Utah will be brought into the 21st century, kicking and screaming."

    As will the rest of our country, the way things are going.

    Let's see.. the laws against homosexual marriage can't possibly be discriminatory. Anyone, including so-called homosexuals, can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

    If the ban on same-sex marriage is to be lifted under anti discrimination provisions of the federal constitution's 14th, here's some other 'bans&' that should be lifted as well:

    Polygamy [just think, a certain FLDS leader (who has to remain nameless to get this comment past the DNews monitors) can finally go free and join his flock]
    A mom to her son
    A dad to his daughter
    A brother to his sister and vice versa
    An aunt to her 10 year old nephew
    An 59 year old geezer to his neighbor's 12 year old daughter, maybe even both daughters

    Get the picture?

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 21, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    iron&clay
    RIVERTON, UT
    "Are these newlywed couples serious about fidelity to their spouse?

    You know, NO sexual relations except with the person to whom they are legally and lawfully married?"

    ...Are we implying that lesbians who have been together 40+ years are loose women?
    Maybe we are projecting an idea that Gay folks are sinners, or of poor character.

    May I respectfully suggest that such a suggestion seems to prove the case that opposing marriage equality is often about personal disapproval?

    Will you please provide evidence that marriages performed in Utah in the past, including temple marriages, always, 100% of the time, have zero infidelity?

    But, of course, there is the idea that what other people do in their marriage is none of my business. State law requires no restrictions at all on behavior in marriage.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    Are these newlywed couples serious about fidelity to their spouse?

    You know, NO sexual relations except with the person to whom they are legally and lawfully married?

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 21, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    As for the challenges that the Governor and AG MUST put through to try to stop this
    ---- I say "must" because they have no choice but to act as if they can stop it, or lose a majority of Utah voters.

    The Supreme Court upheld the decision by Judge Walker and the Appellate Court, which made it clear that the only objections being given to marriage equality were:
    A-- Trying to mix religious views into law
    B-- Trying to keep a group of taxpaying citizens from having the same rights as everyone else.

    Thus it is quite dubious that an order staying the right of marriage will be granted pending appeal, and there is no legal ground whatever for an appeal to win.

    So sad to see people who say they love Jesus look down on their fellow taxpaying American citizens with rude and cruel public comments!

    Sorry if you do not understand that there is NO Federal right for the people to vote on any issue, let alone the rights of others.
    Sorry if you do not see the fairness.
    Sorry if you do not see the love

  • concretebo Sandy, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    Yeah Governor " you had better get the Attorney General on it "
    I feel better now...

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 6:59 a.m.

    Utah will be brought into the 21st century, kicking and screaming.

    Just like a parent who brings a child to an amusement park, before the child realize they wanted this.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2013 2:32 a.m.

    @Where's Stockton ???:
    "What an embarrassment to the State of Utah..."

    Truly stated. Your state (Utah) is among the first to put the knife to and kill the institution of marriage. Sad day for Utah and the rest of the country.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 21, 2013 12:37 a.m.

    This is fantastic news. I wish I was there to see it.

    Congrats to all the Newlyweds!

  • Zaruski SLC, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 11:56 p.m.

    @TruckerRon

    "Legal isn't always moral or right."

    "Right" is objective. That is, never changes. "Moral" is a subjective compass that changes direction from person to person, place to place, time to time.

    The problem is some people insist that we make laws based on what is "Moral" rather than what is "Right".

    Merry Christmas to the newlyweds and to those intending to wed!

  • Where's Stockton ??? Bowling Green, OH
    Dec. 20, 2013 11:43 p.m.

    What an embarrassment to the State of Utah...

  • TruckerRon Provo, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 10:52 p.m.

    Legal isn't always moral or right.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 10:32 p.m.

    What a great gift to everyone who has waited so long. I hope as many people as possible can take advantage of it before some sort of appeal or stay is applied.

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Dec. 20, 2013 10:32 p.m.

    On no! There goes one of the last institutionalized and church (note the small "c") supported prejudices. Civil rights reforms have taken away sanctioned racial bigotry and equal rights have let women out of the home. What's next studies that show that the "Welfare Queen" is a myth, oh wait that one went down earlier this week.

    Pretty soon we're going to run out of people and groups to feel superior to and we might have to take a good look in the mirror.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 20, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    Congratulations to all the happy couples!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 20, 2013 9:26 p.m.

    Congratulations to all Newly Wed in Utah!!!!