Quantcast
Utah

Attorneys for same-sex couples file argument against stay in Supreme Court

Comments

Return To Article
  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    For the ruling of prop 8, Judge Walker granted stay because opposing counsels requested stay instantly, unlike Utah state attorneys, they didn’t wait AFTER gay marriage resumed in CA and THEN asked the court for a stay. The state attorneys made a big mistake back then. You can not blame their own incompetency on other people.

  • rusty68 Cathedral City, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    Regnerus has been universally condemned and declared false, as well as invalid for reasons of methodology, after rigorous peer review (the standard for any scientific study) by every RESPONSIBLE professional psychological, psychiatric, medical and pediatric association in the US; it was also funded by rabid anti-equality organizations like NOM, FOF, AFA, etc.

    Citing Regerus in their brief to SCOTUS was absolutely the BIGGEST mistake the lawyers for the State of Utah made. Look for the Court (whether Justice Sotomayor or the full court en banc) to DISEMBOWEL Regerus' study.

  • rusty68 Cathedral City, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    Gee, I guess I have to add "able to bring the mighty Mormon church to its knees" to the ever-growing list of my gay super-powers.

    Let's see ... I can

    ... cause hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, floods, droughts, snowstorms, tsunamis, earthquakes, wildfires, total economic and social collapse, force all heterosexuals to divorce and marry members of the same sex, force public schools to teach the finer points of sodomy to first-graders, turn all children of same-sex couples gay, start wars, shred the Constitution,overthrow the government, destroy all religions,spend my time 24/7 "advancing the militant gay agenda" (whatever the heck THAT is) ...

    ... and still have time to work out at the gym and do power brunches with quiches and mimosas.

    Oh, and grass won't grow where we walk.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    @ cjb

    Quit pretending like you care who can and cannot adopt. Single people, regardless of sexual orientation can adopt children. You weren't up in arms about that before. Why is it a problem now?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 4, 2014 11:07 p.m.

    @spring street:
    "And your slippery slope argument has any more validity then when it was used to oppose interracial marriage or the thousands if (sic) other times it has been made during this debate how exactly?"

    Th slippery slope evolves over time. The point, simply stated, is... if one type of marriage under the US Constitution's 'equal protection' clause can be legalized, all other types of marriages that the human mind can conceive should also be allowed. It's a matter of fairness and of following the rules of the Constitution.

    "As has been pinted out thousands of times Unlime (sic) SSM adults marring (sic) children
    etc.. Have a proven harm."

    What?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 4, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    "Besides, we all believe marrying a sheep is a baahhd idea."

    No better or worse than marrying. The idea is

    "If the state were to allow siblings to marry they would be endorsing and legalizing incest by extension just as Baccus suggested."

    And what's so wrong with legalizing incest? Doesn't seem any more that two marrying.

    "I don't think we really know what harm we are inflicting upon children in homosexual homes."

    The harm is not so much about parenting. The harm is ostracizing and shunning by other kids at school and in the neighborhood.

    "How do two men or two women create children?"

    Two Tough assignment. Two Visit certain bank.

    "However, incest is illegal and NOT widely accepted."

    SSM is (well, was) illegal as well. And, for sure is not widely accepted.

    "...but the sibling marriage argument just isn't realistic because the state couldn't enforce incest laws against a sibling 'couple' they gave a marriage license to."

    Well then, let's get those changed to accommodate. Seems only fair if we are going to change the SSM law.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 4, 2014 8:20 p.m.

    @Bob K:
    "Some folks here have conjured up the idea that... (Gay folks) are on a rampaging crusade to destroy the lds church, by somehow (perhaps sorcery) getting laws passed which would remove the church's right to make its own rules."

    Let me help you... If the LDS Church refuses to allow SSM to marry in temples the IRS tax exemption status could be denied. Millions, perhaps billions would flow out of church coffers into IRS coffers.

    "I suggest that more lds people pray for the prophet to receive more clarity from God on the issue of integrating your Gay people fully."

    They did already... it's called 'The Family, a Proclamation to the World.'

    @Cougsndawgs91:
    "In 'sibling marriage' this would make the risk of incest with it's associated biological and psychological harm very high."

    There's nothing in the US Constitution about biological/psychological. It's about equal protection.

    "Look up the harm principle for further clarification."

    Look up the equal protection principle for further clarification.

    @Christopher B:
    "The state has no say in unmarried couples? Not so. Incest is illegal and that relates to unmarried couples."

    ???

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 4, 2014 7:43 p.m.

    @wrz

    And your slippery slope argument has any more validity then when it was used to oppose interracial marriage or the thousands if other times it has been made during this debate how exactly? As has been pinted out thousands of times Unlime SSM adults marring children etc.. Have a proven harm.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 4, 2014 5:48 p.m.

    @Baccus0902:
    "Where is the harm?"

    Opens the gate wide for other marriage combinations (polygamy, polyandry, incest, sibs, parent/child, older men/children, to name a few). And thus, the eventual demise of marriage altogether. If any variance of man/woman is authorized under 'equal protection,' then all other combinations must also be allowed, in the interest of fairness and applying the law equally.

    @skrekk:
    "he state simply has no legitimate interest in the race or gender of your spouse, two categories Utah has historically used to discriminate against the people it wants to treat as 2nd-class citizens."

    There's way more marriage arrangements than the two you reference. Where's your support for the myriads of other combinations (polygamy, polyandry, incest, sibs, parent/child, older men/children, to name a few)?

  • windsor City, Ut
    Jan. 4, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Stopping gay marriages harms the children in those circumstances no more than how it was before.

    Like it or not, willing to admit it or not, children with 2 moms or 2 dads are going to have issues.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 4, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    @desert

    So let's see on one side we have your antidotal story of what you think you may have done if raised by gay parents as evidance to support your claims of harm and on the other side we have the leading professional fields on children and human behavior as well as a mountain of research reaching back more then 25 years that says there is no harm. I wonder which one we should believe?

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Jan. 4, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    I love the slipper slope arguments when it comes to SSM. If a marriage is a contract, then how could someone marry an unintelligent being? Point is moot. Next, if consenting adults want to live w/each other does the government step in and insist they do not? Of course not. If three gals and a guy, or three guy's and a gal want to marry and share the spouse, then why hot? Just because you don't like it? The problem with polygamy is that it often involves child brides and forced marriages, thus society's intolerance to it. Children are not consenting adults. I'm fine with raising the age a couple can get married, why not make it 18? Its a contract, you should be an adult before you get to enter into a legally binding contact like that. What's the age of marriage in Utah (with the parents consent)? 13? Now that is sick. You want to lobby your lawmakers to do away with a law, that is the one to target!

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 4, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    Tell you what, put me back to be a 6 year old with two fathers and no mother, ok.
    For certain I would have run away or caused a very very big social mess.

    Does this tell you something about harm ? Many children are like I was. Period.
    The discussion on this article is just another day to move forward for claiming irresponsible leadership to those who cannot help it.

    We are all getting into a mess of confusion about children.
    Once you got above the average emotional demands of children, you are lost for knowing better, you will not listen and will not help.
    Children need help in any emotional stress, which they cannot express to the outside world,
    because they are supposed to be shy.

    What you have done unto one of the least of mine, you have done unto.....?

  • Julianne North Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 4, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    They should have thought of that before they went out and got married because in the eyes of the Lord they are still single. If they don't believe that, then they will have to wait and will have to repent which will be harder in the next life than in this.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 4, 2014 1:32 a.m.

    higv
    Dietrich, ID
    "@bobk LDS members do not pray that the prophet will agree with them but that he will be able to declare the mind and will of the Lord who only does what is in the best interest of his children."

    You misquote me --- I suggested you pray that the prophet will receive an answer from God that will make the situation better and more fair to all.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Jan. 4, 2014 1:01 a.m.

    What we really need is a test for best interests of children as defined by the prerogative of the state of Utah
    1. Based on income
    2. Religious Belief
    3. Sexual Orientation
    4. Single or Married
    5. Prior Criminal Record
    6. Disabilities
    7. IQ
    8. Age

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 4, 2014 12:58 a.m.

    re: "Has Monte Stewart ever won a same sex marriage case? I believe his record is 0-5. If he were honest, he'd tell Utah that they have no chance on overturning this ruling & stop taking our tax dollars. This is a legal issue, not an emotional issue that the court is hearing."

    Why on earth would he want to do that? $2 million buys a lot of nice toys.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:59 p.m.

    @sammyb

    When you say those "militant gays" are you referring to the lgbt people that in the past 100years have been subjected to forced shock therapy, forced lobotomies, forced castration, incarcaration, forced hospitalization by those that hide behind religion to justify Thierr actions or just those that were rounded up by the thousands and killed by the Germans?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:33 p.m.

    I wish people would recognize that fear-mongering against a class of people, in this case homosexuals, is little more than incitement to hate. And, it's unwarranted.

    There is no evidence that "they" could or would take over your churches/temples and force you to do things you don't want to do. Every house of worship is protected by the First Amendment, and any judge that didn't understand that would be reversed faster than you could say "disciplinary action."

    "They" and their supporters are doing nothing more than trying to get justice for the status quo. "Those people" are already living in households that resemble marriages, and caring for each other in ways that benefit the State, in sickness and in health. I mean literally caring for each other, looking after their partner when they become infirm, supporting them when they're unemployed, all things that would fall to the State to do if "those people" didn't have loving spouses. The only thing they lack is legal recognition that conveys next-of-kin status and all that goes with that.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:12 p.m.

    JSB
    7 years of gay marriage in Canada is not nearly enough time to gauge the long term, multi-generational effects of this significant social change. It's like someone saying that they've been smoking for a week and they can't feel any difference.

    KJK
    The same thing could have been said regarding plural marriage, mixed race marriage, and giving Blacks and women the vote. Should new rights be given when the "multi-generational effects of this significant social change" are impossible to know?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:07 p.m.

    JNA
    Mark my words, they will go after all religions and force them to marry gay and lesbian couples or face very stiff legal and tax penalties which will cost these religious organizations millions and millions of dollars that could be used in helping the poor and other worthwhile objectives.
    KJK
    Senator Lee has already sponsored legislation making it illegal for the IRS to penalize churches who don't perform SSM. Church goers of all stripes would push through a constitutional amendment at lightning speed protecting churches if needed.

    SammyB
    ...(I)t is only a matter of time until the government forces LDS temples to close because the Church will never permit gay marriages.
    KJK
    No Same-sex couple in any state or country allowing SSM has asked to marry in a temple. If one does and the courts refuse help, the Church will simply pull the clergy licenses of all sealers, stake presidents and bishops thereby stripping them of the LEGAL right to perform legally binding marriages. This would force couples to marry at city hall and then have a non-legally recognized sealing in the temple. This is done in a number of countries.

  • Cougsndawgs91 West Point, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    "The state has no say in unmarried couples? Not so. Incest is illegal and that relates to unmarried couples. Did you forget you yourself have stated this?"

    C'mon now Chris. You're just playing around now. The fact I said unmarried couples insinuates couples that COULD be legally married if they chose to. As the new and old laws stand now that's homosexual partners and heterosexual partners. It would be redundant of me to be referring to siblings as unmarried couples because they can't be married in the first place, and I'm pretty sure you knew that's what I meant...you're a smart guy (I mean that seriously). And yes, incest is illegal which is why states would never allow a marriage contract that would enable it to take place legally. Now can we drop this hypothetical and talk about a more realistic case that will be brought...that of polygamy. Again if they can navigate the harm principle they may have a case for being legally wed to more than one spouse.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 10:17 p.m.

    re:Schnee

    Not sure what your point is?? A single parent raising a child has nothing to do with a child being subject to homosexuality. A single mother or father can raise a child - not ideal but with hard work and sacrifice lots of single parents succeed. On the other hand homosexuality is NOT normal - it is NOT healthy and from the creation of Adam and Eve the family unit has always been comprised of a father and mother and for good reason. God knows what is best for his children. Man doesn't.

  • Cougsndawgs91 West Point, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    Tekakaromatagi:
    I apologize. I am familiar with Regnerus' study and the amount of heat it has taken. Having been involved in both education and social science research myself (currently I'm a research director in the college of education at a local university) it was a difficult study to take seriously with the selection of subjects being so profoundly biased. I thought his research was interesting because it brought to light other ideas and approaches to gay and lesbian relationships and the effects on children. I wish his research could have been better controlled but it's a difficult study to control from the start just because of the lack of subjects who are truly representative of this population (children raised by same sex couples). There remains a lot of research to be done, and there are sure to be surprises and interesting findings along the way, but there just isn't any real evidence at this point that same sex parents are harmful for child dependents. That said, I think Regnerus took far more criticism and chastisement than was warranted. I applaud him for trying to take on a difficult subject and approach it from an unpopular hypothesis.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:52 p.m.

    Cougsndawgs,

    The state has no say in unmarried couples? Not so. Incest is illegal and that relates to unmarried couples. Did you forget you yourself have stated this?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:42 p.m.

    @Cougsndawgs :
    "Not one single study has shown the harmful effects you speak of."

    That is incorrect. There was a study done by Regenerus that showed negative outcomes for children raised by gay parents. Teh study showed that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family of their married, biological mother and father.

    Now, supporters of same sex marriage will say that the reason for the poor outcomes for children raised by gay parents in the Regenerus study is not because the two adults raising them were of the same gender but because the children had come from broken homes. Even if that criticism is correct, the study still showed negative outcomes so your point is incorrect.

    (With regards to criticism of the Regerus study, children being raised by two people of the same gender, by definition, will not be raised by their biological parents, they will always suffer the separation from one parent.)

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    @bobk LDS members do not pray that the prophet will agree with them but that he will be able to declare the mind and will of the Lord who only does what is in the best interest of his children. As for families the Devil does not care about families just our misery and won't support his followers at the last days.

  • Cougsndawgs91 West Point, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    Chris B
    "Do most marriages include sex? Yes. And guess what else does? Most relationships of couples that are unmarried...The vast majority of adults involved in a relationship are sexually active. "

    Not the point. The state has no say in unmarried couples, but complete say in what couples they will allow to be lawfully wed (they issue the license). The state would not hold that incest is illegal (which will never change because of the harm it causes) and at the same time allow siblings to marry wherein the state would no longer be able to enforce their laws against incest on a couple they authorized to get married. It's a contradiction to maintain something to be harmful but allow circumstances where it can be legally practiced...that is why states will NEVER allow sibling marriage. That doesn't mean incest would always occur, but the harm principle will always raise the fact that in most cases (at least more than half) it would occur and thus raise the risk for harm. It will NEVER happen and I've given the reasons why, so that's the last I'll say about it.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:13 p.m.

    Jason,
    7 years of gay marriage in Canada is not nearly enough time to gauge the long term, multi-generational effects of this significant social change. It's like someone saying that they've been smoking for a week and they can't feel any difference.

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 3, 2014 7:33 p.m.

    Baccus0902~ this battle actually has less to do with gay coupling than you think. Though the scriptures support how most religions feel about the 'act' of homosexuality, this is more about protecting from the onslaught of gays suing professionals in certain professions. For example Dr.'s that perform in vitro services, or suing priests, pastors and other religious representatives that do not wish to perform gay marriages, from being 'forced' to do so. Though many do NOT believe the gay life style is a correct way to live, most believe they have the free agency to do so. But religion itself is under attack and individual freedom to practice and live by those beliefs are being denied when one is forced to perform services that are against their belief system. It’s all quite hypocritical. The Constitution should in fact protect against it, but there are liberals redefining those protections. Just as gays have a right to couple, the religious should be protected against being compelled to go against their beliefs.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 6:53 p.m.

    Cougsndawgs,

    Do most marriages include sex? Yes. And guess what else does? Most relationships of couples that are unmarried. This is a fact you would like to pretend isn't true as it would support your argument. The vast majority of adults involved in a relationship are sexually active.

    Marriage does not equal sex.

  • Go West Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 6:47 p.m.

    I would be very surprised if Justice Sotomayor votes in favor of a stay. She did vote to strike down DOMA and against Prop 8. It sounds like the 40 page argument against Utah is full of emotion. Martin's argument is logical. And we know what that means: a liberal judge will choose the emotional argument above logic, most every time.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 3, 2014 6:31 p.m.

    Avenue
    Vernal, UT
    The family is the basic unit of society. To redefine marriage is to redefine the family. To redefine something is to attack it's fundamental definition. Same sex marriage is attacking the society, therefore becoming a factor in the now possible future destruction of our country and western civilization as we know it.

    --- I think that lds members ought to ask if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young "redefined the family". At that time, I assure you that most Americans felt far stronger than you do that a group was "attacking the society, therefore becoming a factor in the now possible future destruction of our country and western civilization as we know it."

    Sometimes, I get a whiff of "We did not get ours, so you can't have yours", which does not sound like Jesus talking, to me.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 3, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    I support SSM, and I support the stay. Here's why. The Utah case is about a year behind the Nevada case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, which the proponents of SSM lost and have appealed to the Ninth Circuit. (The District Court judge in that case was Robert C. Jones (appointed by George W. Bush) a Mormon who earned his undergraduate degree at BYU.)

    The likeliest Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down SSM prohibitions in state constitutions is the Ninth. After all, they have experience already, in the Prop 8 case. Its precedent will not be binding on the Tenth Circuit, but it will be persuasive. If two Circuits agree on the result, there is less reason for the Supreme Court to take the case. The Supreme Court's role is to resolve conflicts between circuits, not to rubber stamp their decisions when they agree.

    Granting the stay is not the same as agreeing with those who ask for it. There are many dead prisoners who received a stay of execution before the death penalty was upheld. This case is not going to be decided in weeks or months.

  • Jason Williams Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 3, 2014 6:13 p.m.

    Here seems to be a little known fact - the nation of Canada legalized same-sex marriage way back in 2007. And Canada is still strong and marriage intact six years later. All the appeals to fear by the opponents of marriage equality are wearing pretty thin. Instead of attempting "hail mary appeals," Utah legal appellants should end their appeals and hail the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I assume the legal minds appealing studied constitutional law in their respective law schools, but maybe I am assuming too much.

  • Cougsndawgs91 West Point, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 5:59 p.m.

    Chris B:
    Yes the analogy helped me better understand where you're coming from but doesn't do much to help your case for "sibling marriage". It does, however, provide a perfect platform for understanding how the harm principle is used when considering an individual's constitutional rights.

    Let me use an analogy that has been used before in these discussions. Some people will drink and drive and arrive home safe and sound having harmed no one (just as some will walk by drug infested street corners never having partaken). Does this mean we should allow drinking and driving? No because it presents a high risk. Because MOST marriages involve sexual relations the likelihood of those relations existing in any marriage is high. In "sibling marriage" this would make the risk of incest with it's associated biological and psychological harm very high. Thus because of the likelihood of harm, sibling marriage will never be allowed. This will be the difficulty with polygamists' rights as well because there is an abundance of evidence that the risk of physical and psychological harm is high amongst polygamists (which is why it's illegal). Look up the harm principle for further clarification.

  • Hank Jr Draper, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    Stopping homosexual marriage would strengthen the family and community.

  • kaysvillecougar KAYSVILLE, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 5:41 p.m.

    What a laughable argument. Something that has never been legal or preferred in our state, if halted to go through a thoughtful appeal process would suddenly damage people who have been "married" in the last week.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 3, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    This is just Biology 101, folks. The purpose for sex is reproduction: 1) to unite the sperm and egg; and 2) to help the zygote to develop into a mature individual. In the human species permanent heterosexual pair bonds have evolved because because it such takes such a long time, training and nurturing human individuals to mature into responsible, productive adults. Heterosexual pair bonding is is complex in human societies because the pair bond is often expanded to include parents and other close relatives. Humans who grow up in a home where there is a strong heterosexual pair bond are more likely to grow up into well-adjusted and productive adults than if the heterosexual pair bond is damaged, corrupted or missing. In the past this heterosexual pair-bonding has been called marriage. Is it wise to try to force this non-biological relationship on our society? What will the long term social effects be? If marriage now includes aberrations such as homosexual relationships (which is not biological sex or biological human pair bonding), then what term should be used in place of marriage to indicate a biologically healthy, heterosexual pair bond?

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 5:34 p.m.

    Hail Mary is not even close. A 100 yard field goal is more like it. Not much of a chance to stop civil rights. Appeal a total waste of time and money.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 3, 2014 5:32 p.m.

    While I'm in favor of Marriage Equality, I think everyone would be benefited from having a well-argued contest Gay Marriage Law. I've read both briefs before the Supreme Court and unfortunately, it appears that Utah is at a big disadvantage.

    Utah's lawyers frame the legal question primarily as an issue of a State's right to define marriage. Clearly the Court in U. S. v. Windsor and Kitchen v. Herbert concedes a State's right to define marriage. The issue is the constitutionality of their chosen definition. The real debate is the Individual's right to due process and equal protection under the law, something Utah fails to address adequately.

    If the goal, as this article suggests, is to do an "end run" around the tenth circuit court and land this case in the Supreme Court, I can't think of a worse way to go about it.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 5:22 p.m.

    The family is the basic unit of society. To redefine marriage is to redefine the family. To redefine something is to attack it's fundamental definition. Same sex marriage is attacking the society, therefore becoming a factor in the now possible future destruction of our country and western civilization as we know it.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 3, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    I wish I were not still shocked by the blatant ignorance, prejudice, and paranoia of some commenters here. The DN seems to be a place where the "Yosemite Sam" type gets to work out all their thoughts.

    Every minority deserves equal treatment under the law.

    Some folks here have conjured up the idea that one small minority (Gay folks) are on a rampaging crusade to destroy the lds church, by somehow (perhaps sorcery) getting laws passed which would remove the church's right to make its own rules.

    What nonsense! No legislature would pass laws forcing churches to admit people.
    -- Interesting that the persecution myth, left over from the 1800s, is still going on.

    There actually IS a threat to the lds church, concerning Gays: the threat is that more and more members are seeing that their own Gay children, relatives, friends, and neighbors do not deserve to be 2nd class citizens, nor 2nd class church members.

    I suggest that more lds people pray for the prophet to receive more clarity from God on the issue of integrating your Gay people fully.

    Or are you going to stay dug in on the "they need to resist it" malarkey?

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    The tactic of the LGBT community here is very transparent. Establish prior precedent so that harm can be claimed if a different conclusion is reached. That is why within minutes of Shelbys ruling there were folks waiting to get their licenses and get married. Prior precedence is why the lower courts in CA over turned the CA law. The Supreme court did not issue a ruling and let the lower court ruling stand because the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing before the court. CA reneged on its duty to defend its own law.

    Let not the state of Utah do the same. If the state loses it will be a fair loss. Not a manipulation of the legal system.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    Cougndawgs,

    Let me use a simple analogy to help. Imagine there is a street corner somewhere in the United States where drugs are often dealt/consumed. Can the US Government make it illegal(as they do) for people to deal/use drugs?

    Yes

    Can the US Government make it illegal for people to walk by any street corner in the country?

    No.

    There are countless street corners where drugs are not dealt. Also, going to any particular street corner(even one often used by drug dealers) does not make every person who goes by it a drug abuser. Additionally, drugs exist in places outside street corners.

    Just because you may be able to prove that some street corners are often used to deal drugs does mean we have the right to deny anyone the right to walk by a street corner.

    In other words, walking by a street corner does not equal dealing drugs.

    Sex happens in society outside of marriage and marriages happen without sex. The lack of marriage does not prevent sex and marriage does not cause sex.

    That help?

  • Br. Jones North East, MD
    Jan. 3, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    Patriot--

    If your standard is that children should not grow up in a home with anything but two heterosexual parents in a healthy relationship, I respect that--but now we need to enforce it across the board. My mother and father couldn't stand each other and finally got divorced when I was 14. I did not grow up in a home with a healthy example of heterosexual affection. Yet somehow I managed to grow up reasonably sane, marry a woman, and start a family with her.

    Truth be told I probably would've welcomed someone trying to take me away from my parents, but I'm just making the point that there are plenty of families that don't meet the standard "healthy" definition you suggest. Unless you're opposed to children growing up in ALL those types of situations, then you're unfairly singling out families with gay/lesbian parents.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    Ken:
    And absolutely the State can say to unmarried sibling couples (because that's who we're talking about) "you can't have sexual intimacy"...it's called incest and is indeed illegal. Not so ridiculous now is it? You and Chris want to talk about couples outside of marriage having sexual intimacy, and that's all well and good, but you two brought up SIBLING couples and marriage...the two aren't comparable because sexual intimacy in non sibling couples is legal and acceptable. Not so for sibling "couples". The State can and does say "no sex" to siblings, but you would say the state should allow them to marry? Again, I agree with your polygamy argument, and if they can navigate the harm principle they might receive equal marriage rights as well, but the sibling marriage argument just isn't realistic because the state couldn't enforce incest laws against a "sibling couple" they gave a marriage license to.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 1:42 p.m.

    @cjb
    "You are willing to give a child to a gay couple because some 'study' says this is okay? "

    Sure, why not? This state allows single people and even single gay people to adopt despite all the studies that show children in those situations do worse on averages, so why does same-sex couples become the only one discriminated against in this regard?

    Let's for the moment assume you're right and that there's some metric that conclusively shows children raised by same-sex couples do worse on average. The problem with using averages is that it's stereotyping and prejudiced. Do you want to do a race-based study and ban whichever one scores lowest on average from adopting? How about a religion-based one? Mississippi has the worst obesity, poverty, infant mortality, divorce, and STD rates in the nation, so should we ban Mississippians from adopting?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    @Ken
    "And to correct what you may believe, I do believe polygamists should be able to marry"

    My apologies for incorrectly lumping you in amongst the phony-outrage crowd fake-arguing polygamy. I would just say that I consider there to be a state interest in limiting polygamy but if a church wants to perform them, whatever, and if people want to engage in it, whatever (I support decriminalization, as I noted before). Specifically that state interest is how would we, in the law/tax code/etc, turn a 2 person system into 2+ and then what if a man has 3 wives but one of those wives is engaging in polyandry and has 3 husbands (yes, this is a very technical-based opposition, while I do disagree with it morally that wouldn't be a very sound argument in and of itself)?

    I realize that that issue doesn't apply to the family based marriage example and will concede that I don't have an argument against those based on anything other than moral disgust (at least I can admit it).

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    re atl134
    Salt Lake City, UT

    You are willing to give a child to a gay couple because some 'study' says this is okay? I don't know about you, but I have lived long enough to know that you can find a study that supports almost anything depending on the study. Studies are like the Bible, you can prove anything from the Bible, likewise you can find a study that supports almost any position.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    Ken & Chris B:
    Maybe I wasn't clear. Of course I recognize that sexual intimacy outside of marriage is widely accepted. However, incest is illegal and NOT widely accepted. What the two of you are suggesting is that the State of Utah should allow siblings to marry one another, but at the same time say they can't have sex because it's against the law. If the state authorized them to marry, could it also uphold the law by requiring they not have sex? What if the siblings "love each other romantically" and want to have sex? Can the state say no after it's issued them a marriage license? I think both of you can see how this would play out in making the state at least appear to be endorsing or legitimizing incest. Maybe the state could enforce a no sex policy on married siblings but that's a very large can of worms. I get what you guys are saying, and in terms of polygamy I happen to agree with you that they will have their day in court, which may have success.

    Btw, nice to have a debate with you guys outside of sports! Haha

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 3, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    @ Chris B, Ken, JNA,

    Friends,
    Polygamy, Incest and any other form of marriage are not the point of this discussion.

    As Stinplater wrote: " The other battles are separate and need to be waged on their own merit"

    You are afraid of change. That I can understand, the question for you as mature individuals is to objectively examine the evidence in other countries and states in the Union and then decide if your concerns have any base in reality.

    @ Bill in AF
    I can imagine that being raised by LGBT parents in Utah must be a big challenge for parents and their children. The social pressure must seem unbearable at times.

    My daughter went through some hard time in school as well, mainly during the Middle school years (7th & 8Th) now she is a young lady, well adjusted, in college, she has a number of friends who respect her and her parents and we (two gay men)couldn't be more proud of her.

    My experience with children of gay parents has been different to what you describe. Of course we would have to have more information to reach a conclusion to the reasons behind. Don't you agree?

  • Downtime Saint George, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    Actually, keeping same-sex marriages will harm couples and children. Like studies showing the lasting negative affects of divorce on children-the studies will begin pouring in on the horrific affect these same-sex marriages will have/are having on children; with dramatic negative effects on society. The sky will not fall today, but it will fall on these children. The prophets will be vindicated...as they always are.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    "The discussion here is about same sex marriage/divorce. Not about what it might lead to (plural marriages, marrying your cousin, marrying a sheep).."

    The incessant refrain we hear from supporters of SSM is that SSM won't affect YOUR marriage. Well maybe not. Neither would incestuous marriage or polygamy. The question is what is best for society.

    With SSM it will be necessary to teach school kids about homosexuality at an early age. I don't see how that can be avoided. Supporters of SSM must think that's great. I don't, and apparently neither do the people of Utah.

    I'm all for civil unions and for treating gay people with civility and respect. But I don't see homosexuality as the equivalent of heterosexuality and don't see where society is required to put its stamp of approval on it.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:45 p.m.

    cougsndawgs, So you believe that sex is not a widely accepted act outside of marriage?

    If you think that, someone needs a lesson on reality.

    If you're claiming that allowing sibling marriage would be the same as the government endorsing sexual relations between siblings then you are likewise claiming that without that marriage certificate the government has prohibited sexual relations.

    And you couldn't be more wrong.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    Cougndawgs,

    Wrong. It exists outside of marriage and there are marriages where it does not happen. Or do you seriously believe that that no relationships outside of marriage involve sex and that 100% of all marriages include sex?

    If you really think that...wow. You are very mistaken
    You claim that sexual intimacy is a "recognized and accepted behavior and marriage"

    I have information for you pal, sexual intimacy is a recognized and accepted behavior outside of marriage.

    The state can't tell unmarried couples "you can't have sexual intimacy" You do realize how ridiculous that sounds right?

  • Blue Collar Huntington, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    How do two men or two women create children? We just ignore the obvious don't we? Either there is a God or there is not. Most of us believe there is, but we ignore everything in this day and age that is so obvious about him. However to some of us with just plain old common sense we can figure all this obvious stuff out.

  • bill in af American Fork, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    I don't think we really know what harm we are inflicting upon children in homosexual homes. I realize there are plenty of problems in heterosexual home environments, but as an educator, I have personally had to deal with problems in two situations where children came from openly gay parents and both kids were a real mess. (Both boys raised by lesbian mothers). It is hard to say whether these children would have turned out any different in a heterosexual environment, but I seriously feel the home in which they were raised had a major impact on their behavior. To say that children will be fine when raised in a homosexual environment just isn't true.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    Ken:
    Nice try at spinning things but when the state allows two people to marry it is legally endorsing all acts and contracts that exist within marriage, and yes sexual intimacy is one of those things. Just because two married people might not enjoy sexual intimacy does not mean they can't or that it isn't justified in the bonds of marriage. By allowing siblings to marry the state would be endorsing incest and allowing it to be legally acceptable because sexual intimacy is a recognized and accepted behavior in marriage (whether it actually exists in the relationship or not isn't the point). The state couldn't say "yes we will allow you to marry but you can't have sex" to siblings wanting to get married anymore than it could impose that requirement on same sex or heterosexual marriages...you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

    If the state were to allow siblings to marry they would be endorsing and legalizing incest by extension just as Baccus suggested.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    @cjb
    "If same sex marriage allows gay people to adopt children who otherwise could have had a mother and a father, same sex marriage would hurt those children."

    Absolutely not, studies don't even show that and if they did we don't apply averages like that (imagine the scandal if we limited adoption to certain races, religions, or states because they did better on average in something like child's SAT scores). The argument definitely won't hold up in court when Utah lets single people adopt so you all clearly didn't actually care about having married heterosexual couples adopting. Just looking for excuses to go after same-sex couples.

    "The optimal resolution is to have civil unions with all the rights of marriage without the right to adopt."

    Discriminatory policy is never optimal.

    @tinplater
    "Not about what it might lead to (plural marriages, marrying your cousin, marrying a sheep).."

    Besides, we all believe marrying a sheep is a baahhd idea.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    tinplater, While I agree to an extent the basis for your reasoning, just don't come to the discussion believing you(and other gay marriage supporters) are on some moral higher ground and not guilty of the same discrimination you pretend to be against unless you're willing to truly stop discrimination of all kinds, including polygamy.

    Its' much easier than not address than issue isn't it? Its a little more difficult to claim they shouldn't be able to marry 2 wives while still maintaining any credibility of fighting discrimination isn't it?

    Why are you afraid to address it? What if this article was simply about two men being allowed to marry but not women? Would you be afraid to include the women in the scenario or would you suggest that that argument be debated at a latter date?

    I think we know.

  • SammyB Provo, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    JNA, you are so right. For 30 years I have been telling people that it is only a matter of time until the government forces LDS temples to close because the Church will never permit gay marriages. So many gay activists argue this point even though the small militant agitators have shown their hand in the aggressive campaign to force their ideology on religions who disagree with them. Militant gay activists truly believe we have no right to disagree and our rights are being trampled and will be much more in the future.

    The Constitution is already being trampled as we speak because states rights and the voice of the people are being ignored. Anyone who understands how the Constitution works and how the courts functioned within the parameters of the Constitution before FDR but not after, knows the slippery slope we are on. I wrote a paper years ago on this judiciary power grab and not even my liberal professors could argue and grudgingly conceded the point.

  • tinplater scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    When opponents of a discussion topic start tangential arguments, their position is weak. The discussion here is about same sex marriage/divorce. Not about what it might lead to (plural marriages, marrying your cousin, marrying a sheep).. The issue is should same sex marriages/divorces be legal in Utah? The answer in my opinion, is of course. The other battles are separate and need to be waged on their own merit.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    >>>In U.S. v. Windsor, the high court overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, but the state contends that a majority of the justices maintained that states have the power to define marriage.

    That's true but only insofar as the state doesn't violate the civil rights of a person, as it clearly has done with the bans on same-sex marriage. The state simply has no legitimate interest in the race or gender of your spouse, two categories Utah has historically used to discriminate against the people it wants to treat as 2nd-class citizens.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    If same sex marriage allows gay people to adopt children who otherwise could have had a mother and a father, same sex marriage would hurt those children.

    The optimal resolution is to have civil unions with all the rights of marriage without the right to adopt.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    @Baccus0902
    "The sun still shines over everybod"

    Heh well if you were in Salt Lake you might disagree with that thanks to our nasty inversions.

    @Chris B
    "I just don't buy the "stop discrimination" claims when liberals aren't supporting polygamists right to marry or the rights of two brothers who wish to marry."

    And I don't buy your outrage when you don't apply this standard to interracial marriage advocates too.

    @patriot
    "Innocent children should not be subject to a homosexual home - it isn't right and it isn't healthy."

    Why does Utah allow single people (including single homosexuals) to adopt but shouldn't allow same-sex couples to adopt? I sure don't see any outrage about that.

    "Take these kids OUT of the homosexual homes and place them in the home of a normal"

    Hmm, who's the one out to destroy families now?

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    Patriot:
    There was a time when I would have agreed with you. Unfortunately for your argument, research has shown quite the opposite. Children raised by same sex couples have shown no ill effects in their development, social acumen, or academic achievement. Not one single study has shown the harmful effects you speak of. In fact most research has actually shown positive outcomes for children raised by two loving and nurturing parents who happen to be homosexual.

    I've watched this first hand with my sister-in-law and her spouse in a lesbian relationship. They are very good with children and very supportive of one another, and their children seem very happy and well adjusted, both emotionally and socially (their son is currently dating "the hottest girl in school" according to him lol). I think when there was less research and evidence your concerns would be justified, but as the positive effects and evidence mount, I think you will find them unfounded and based in fear mongering by anti-gay and anti-SSM advocates. Until proof is provided that children suffer in this environment I will choose to love and admire what I see with my own eyes.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    Baccus, allow me to teach you something gay marriage supporters have been saying for years: Marriage is not about sex. They are not the same thing. One happens without the other and they can exists without each other. Or are you telling us that currently no couple in the entire country is having sexual relations unless they are married? Please stop trying to equate marriage with sex. And even if that were the case, how would two brothers being in love harm you? Please stop discriminating.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    I have said here before that a court (especially just one judge) should not be able to creatively (at best) interpret an amendment of the constitution based on the judge's own biases in such a way that it erases the voice of the people of a state. I will now go on the record that emotionally charged arguments should not be used in court. My view on homosexual marriage has nothing to do with how I feel about the judicial tyranny that is happening here, but has also happened in many other cases. Finally, the governor has the duty to defend the voice of his people against judicial tyranny. Herbert is doing the right thing.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    These "families" were in existence before the legal title of marriage. I am not sure how not being "married" affects the children living in these families. I have no objection to a legal union being made. The term marriage has been with us for thousands of years, but seems not to mean a union between a man and a woman any more. I suggest we coin a new coin for heterosexual unions. A same gender union will never be the same as a heterosexual one. Perhaps plural marriage, polyandry, etc. will become legal now.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    Baccus0902,

    "Are you seriously asking to legalize incest?"

    Are you seriously suggesting that marriage and sex are the same thing? They are not. There are millions of relationships in our country that engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. And, there are millions of marriages that do not include sexual relations for one reason or another. If sexual relations outside of marriage were illegal and by law couples had to get a marriage license to engage in sexual relations you would have a point. But you do not as this is not the case. Sex happens outside of marriage and marriage does not equal sex. Trying to suggest they do is simply not true.

    Besides, what harm does two brothers marrying do? Two brothers marrying in no way harms society more than two non-related men marrying does.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    Chris B
    "I just don't buy the "stop discrimination" claims when liberals aren't supporting polygamists right to marry or the rights of two brothers who wish to marry".

    Are you seriously asking to legalize incest?

  • JNA Layton, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    Baccus0902 states: "The LDS church still have the right not to marry same sex couples"

    What Baccus0902 says is true..........for now.

    Believe me, the gay and lesbian activist community will never let that stay the status quo. Mark my words, they will go after all religions and force them to marry gay and lesbian couples or face very stiff legal and tax penalties which will cost these religious organizations millions and millions of dollars that could be used in helping the poor and other worthwhile objectives.

    The gay and lesbian activists have never been about equality, they could care less about all the love and light and equality... they have always been about the acquisition of power and the indoctrination of the citizenry. Of course it is not going to happen overnight, they don't want it to happen overnight, then the lie is exposed. This is something they want to happen gradually and if we don't pull our heads out of the sand, that is exactly what is going to happen.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    This argument seems at least as plausible as the 'Idaho gambit".

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    Great rhetoric, great scare tactics , but what is the stats based on? What was his sample population? What was the size of his population? Are the studies longitudal or cross sectional? Too often people make outlandish claims, based on emotion, which have the desired effect.....scare the people. The sky is falling chicken little., the sky is falling!

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    I just don't buy the "stop discrimination" claims when liberals aren't supporting polygamists right to marry or the rights of two brothers who wish to marry.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    I am not LDS, but I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson on this issue. He believes only a man and woman should be able to marry. Nice to know I agree with Mormon Prophet Monson, who according to Mormons, speaks for God.

  • stanfunky Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    Interesting argument being made here, that taking away same-sex marriage would do irreperable harm. A different argument was utilized by Judge Shelby's ruling, that it wouldn't harm anyone else to allow gay marriage to begin, or continue, while the appeals were heard. Irony?

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    Has Monte Stewart ever won a same sex marriage case? I believe his record is 0-5. If he were honest, he'd tell Utah that they have no chance on overturning this ruling & stop taking our tax dollars. This is a legal issue, not an emotional issue that the court is hearing.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    Every day more and more LGBT people are getting married in Utah. Every day that passes is another day of proof that no harm is coming to anyone. The more time Judge Sotomayor takes in making a decision about this issue, the more than those against SSM lose ground. Why?
    The sky has nor fallen
    The sun still shines over everybody
    Heterosexual marriages have been unaffected
    No heterosexual couple have had to complain that they were denied a marriage certificate because of the new law.
    The LDS church still have the right not to marry same sex couples
    Children being raised by LGBT parents are more secured
    SS spouses may receive Health benefits
    SSM will receive the Tax Marriage Penalty as everybody else (price of equality)
    and Utah continues being the beautiful State that has always been.

    Where is the harm?

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 3, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    Although I am not LDS, I admire the attitude of one of the church's founders, at a time when his view of marriage was certainly not traditional:

    “I have never altered my feelings towards individuals, as men or as women, whether they believe as I do or not. Can you live as neighbors with me? I can with you; and it is no particular concern of mine whether you believe with me or not.” – Brigham Young