Comments about ‘Judge declines to issue stay in same-sex marriage ruling’

Return to article »

Governor, state attorneys say decision leaves Utah in 'chaos'

Published: Monday, Dec. 23 2013 11:20 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Draft dumbie
Farmington, UT

Both the U.S. Supreme Court "Windsor" decision and Judge Shelby's decision are absurd, because they attempt to validate the misnomer of "same sex marriage" by attempting to change the intrinsic definition of the word "marriage." Throughout the history of the world, the only definition "marriage" has ever had has been the "legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife." There has never been a right of persons of the same sex to "marry"; therefore, the idea that persons of the same sex have a fundamental constitutional right to "marry" is absurd.

If state or federal legislative bodies wanted to pass laws allowing legal unions between persons of the same sex, they certainly could do that; they could even define the parameters of a same sex legal union to include rights and privileges identical to those available to "marriage" partners. However, the judicial branch cannot legitimately interpret a same sex legal union to be a "marriage," because a "marriage" has always only involved a man and a woman, as husband and wife, as an intrinsic, definitional requirement.

Therefore, both the Windsor and Shelby decisions constitute inexcusably shoddy legal work.

SpaCasinoGirl
SLC, UT

The 10th Circuit denied the emergency stay about an hour ago.

intervention
slc, UT

@draft
Your supposed definition of marriage has not been the case in our own country for much ore then a 100 years and has never been a universal truth at any point in history let alone "throughout the history of the world."

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ wrz

Your rants about being able to marry children/family/multiple people have been struck down dozens of times by now. The fact is, your opinion on this topic is straight up wrong.

"You better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin."

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Contrariusest:
"Many Supreme Court rulings have affirmed and reaffirmed that marriage is a basic civil right, protected by the Constitution."

There's nothing in the US Constitution about marriage. If you think there is, please provide a cite.

Furthermore, SCOTUS ruled in DOMA that the federal government cannot pass laws re marriage. This authority belongs to the States. And Utah passed a marriage law that says marriages have to be between man and woman. This is not discriminatory since it applies to all citizens of the state... all, ALL can marry with the proviso that the marriage is between one man and one woman. It means that polygamists can't marry, incestuous persons can't marry, siblings, first cousins can't marry, etc.

"I haven't started posting nonsense, so there's nothing for me to stop."

I have to say nice things about you in order to get this comment accepted. So, here goes :) :) :). I've tried half dozen times. Let's hope this time it works.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@wrz --

"nothing in the US Constitution about marriage. ..."

Look up the concept of "unenumerated rights".

SCOTUS has affirmed many times that marriage is a basic civil right.

-- 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..."

"SCOTUS ruled in DOMA that the federal government cannot pass laws re marriage."

No it didn't. In fact, part of the court's decision specifically states that "Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy" (p. 2).

"This is not discriminatory since it applies to all citizens of the state... "

Yet again -- this argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work now.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Contrariusier
"Look up the concept of 'unenumerated rights.'"

Marriage is a right but it's not covered in the US Constitution. If you think it is please cite the reference. Marriage is covered in state law and state law only. That's why DOMA got reversed.

Marriage is not a universal right lest homosexuals, polygamists, incestuous couples, juveniles, mixed groups, etc., start marrying. And you can't pick one group, such as polygamists, and give them the right to marry without giving all others who desire to marry, the same right. Such conduct would be discriminatory. And that would include geezer/10 yo marriages.

"... part of the court's decision specifically states that 'Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy.'"

Of course Congress can pass laws re marriage (such as for tax filing purposes) but not who can marry whom.

"... this argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work now."

'Loving' was about racial marriages, not gender.

Now, in order to get this passed the monitors, I have to be nice. By the way, how are you getting around the four comment limit?

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

"Look up the concept of 'unenumerated rights.'"

Marriage is a right but it's not covered in the US Constitution. If you think it is please cite the reference. Marriage is covered in state law and state law only. That's why DOMA got reversed.

Marriage is not a universal right lest homosexuals, polygamists, incestuous couples, juveniles, mixed groups, etc., start marrying. And you can't pick one group, such as polygamists, and give them the right to marry without giving all others who desire to marry, the same privilege. Such conduct would be discriminatory. And that would include geezer/10 yo marriages.

"... part of the court's decision specifically states that 'Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy.'"

Of course Congress can pass laws re marriage (such as for tax filing purposes) but not who can marry whom.

"... this argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work now."

'Loving' was about racial marriages, not gender.

Now, in order to get this passed the monitors, for some reason I have to say nice things about you. :):):).

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

@wrz --

"Marriage is a right but it's not covered in the US Constitution...."

Yet again -- look up the concept of unenumerated rights. I've already cited several SCOTUS precedents.

"Marriage is covered in state law and state law only."

Yet again -- that isn't true. As the DOMA decision specifically stated, "'Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy.'"

"That's why DOMA got reversed."

DOMA section 3 got reversed because it was unconstitutional.

"And you can't pick one group, such as polygamists, and give them the right to marry without giving all others"

Yet again -- Of course you can.

Yet again -- all individual rights are limited by harm.

Yet again -- Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey significantly increased risks of harm.

Yet again -- Gay marriage doesn't.

You can ignore these principles as long as you want -- but the courts are well aware of them.

"'Loving' was about racial marriages, not gender."

The attorneys in Loving argued that nobody was discriminated against because everyone was allowed to marry, as long as they married someone of their own race.

That argument didn't work then, and it won't work now.

to comment

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