Comments about ‘U.S. Supreme Court puts same-sex marriage in Utah on hold’

Return to article »

New A.G. says Utah gay couples who recently married are in 'legal limbo'

Published: Monday, Jan. 6 2014 10:10 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
J. S.
Houston, TX

@Meckofahess

sid 6.7 asked about example of the harm caused by same-sex marriage laws, and you replied by bringing up a different issue, transgender students, what is your point?

@dwayne, thank you for clearing up the fact that David Parker was arrested because of committing a crime of trespassing.

@John Locke

Please read the posts in Page 3 by Mcbillary 1:26 pm and J.S. 2:19 pm.

Summary: Utah state did not get stay because AG legal team made unbelievable mistakes that only first year law student would make. They did not follow the procedural rule to request stay BEFORE the ruling came down. And later they did not follow the procedural rule to request stay from Judge Shelby first, but instead surpassed him and directly asked the 10th circuit.

Even attorneys from conservative corner think AG's team did a terrible job. If you want to blame anyone, blame those state attorneys who collected paychecks from taxpayers but failed to perform.

Crow
Sandy , UT

@ Ranch It isn't for you to decide who marries whom. We are NOT a theocracy; god's will isn't relevant to civil law (you never know who's god is going to take precedence). Your church doesn't have to change it's INTERNAL policy. It has no business interfering in the lives of non-members.

You are right but a civilization can determine what are the standards and norms that they will follow. The citizens in the State of Utah through a legal election the good people of the State of Utah determined the stadard that they want for their society. Those who wanted SSM had their chance to vote.

Crow
Sandy , UT

@ nycut that is right be a good neighbor and concern yourself with your own neighborhood. The good neighbors in Utah have already spoken by 64% and do not want this in their neighborhoods

tellitstraight
Hurricane, UT

One of the many arguments offered in the debate over same-sex marriage relates to child-rearing. Some say the population will decline so dramatically that we'll suffer as a species. Some argue that children prosper better when parented by both a mother and a father. Just for argument's sake, let's assume that the latter argument has merit and that I'm a citizen of Utah who wants to maintain the ban against same-sex marriage, for whatever reasons. Because the research is still inconclusive on the question of what parental (homo, hetero) arrangements best benefit a child, I might instead just focus on the advantages of a mother/father arrangement and then press the other side to show how a mother/mother or father/father situation outdoes mine.

One place to start might be the state laws related to child custody and contact when heterosexual couples divorce. I would need to show how the laws reflect a genuine interest in children having strong and abiding relationships with both mom and dad throughout and after the separation.

tellitstraight
Hurricane, UT

(cont'd) I might reference laws that seek to maintain equitable contact for both parents and that do not imply a preference for one or the other parent. I might also give evidence of court practices that frown upon preferences based on gender, and I would provide examples of cases in which evidence of alienating behavior on the part of one parent (moving children away without court notice, repeated protective orders that are dismissed, violating temporary parent-time orders, introducing a new “mother” or “father” into the children’s lives, etc.) was met with strong disapproval by the courts. I might even construct an equivalent term for mothers whose actions mirror those of a “deadbeat dad.” You get the gist. Then I’d focus research on how this approach produces better outcomes for children than those of other states…like Utah…

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

Of course, because it's not the high divorce rate among heterosexuals that is the problem, it that more people want to get married that is the problem.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Tellitstraight
Some argue that children prosper better when parented by both a mother and a father.

KJK
I think that it might be more important to have parents with diverse personalities/communication styles. I attended a class that discussed the 4 basic personality/communication styles – Talkers (fun/outgoing), Doers (direct, results oriented), Controllers (deliberate, detailed oriented), and Supporters (relationship oriented, consensus builders). Everybody has some of each and will change styles to some extent under differing circumstances, but they usually have a dominant style.

If both parents have the same style vs. opposite styles (Talkers/Controllers or Doers/Supporters), then the kids might be harmed (less well-rounded) more than if they had parents of the same sex but opposite styles. Many people believe that all men are type A disciplinarians while women are soft nurturers. That's not always the case. Sometimes, the dad is the softy.

Sure, 2 gay men may have a problem helping a daughter through the issues of puberty, but good same-sex parents will make sure that their kids have trusted adults of both sexes in their lives that the kids can turn to for such occasions.

ExecutorIoh
West Jordan, UT

What happen when the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment contradict each other? You get a stay from the US Supreme Court, so plenty of discovery can be made for a precedent-setting decision.

The argument that a federal court violated the 10th Amendment by getting involved in a state right is stronger than the argument that a clause in a state constitution defining marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Considering the national impact of the USSC's upcoming decision (33 similar states), I see this going in favor of the state and it's voters in the end.

Lovedums
Franklin, IN

Lagomorph:

Will you please stop perpetuating the tired old distortion that Blue states are the givers and Red states are the blood suckers of Federal money simply because they are blue states. First of all, look at the level of affluence in NY, CT, NJ, and so forth. They have a LOT of weath in those states and a LOT of single or child-less, rich people who pay a lot in taxes. Many of them are Republicans, too. They are not all Democrats. Furthermore, MOST of the Red States that take more federal money than they send in have a LOT of federal land, roads, bridges and not a lot of people (western states). The other states are the Southern Red States who all have large percentages of poorer minorities and poor people in general. Bottom line: more rich people and not a diporportionate amount of land and roads to people means a surplus of tax dollars. It's not a virtue of Red State inhabitants being diliberately taking federal money.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ ExecutorIoh

The 10th Amendment in this case is irrelevant because state laws can stand so long as they don't clash with the United States Constitution. Amendment 3 violates the 14th Amendment, and therefor is getting shredded in court. A large part of the voters in Utah are about to discover that they can't force everybody to live by their standards just because they are the big fish in the world's smallest pond.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Two For Flinching" you are wrong. The Utah Ammendment 3 was enacted in accordance with the 10th ammendment, and met the requirements set by the Supreme Court in the recent DOMA case. The 10th ammendment says that if the constitution does not give the Federal government power to do something, that it is left up to the states. According to the Supreme Court, the Federal Government has no authority to define marriage and that it is up to the individual states to determine that.

Now, we have a judge that wants to use the 14th ammendment to violate the 10th ammendment and a law that meets the requirements of a recent SCOTUS ruling.

TriSam
North Carolian, AP

Excellent, this is good. It would be great if this sticks, and the people of Utah who voted for the sanctity of marriage win out. But alas, I think we we know how it will eventually play out. But we also know how it will in the end eventually play out, and that gives me hope, be it likely a long time down the road.

TriSam
North Carolian, AP

But you know what really confounds me, and i just can not figure it out? Its my fellow "card carrying" Mormons who are for same sex marriage, and are supporting this cause. My question is this? If Christ came to America today to rule.....would he support same sex marriage and allow it to stand under his rule? This question was only for my fellow Mormons who should know the answer but seek to justify it against what they have been taught and what the Lord teaches. Me thinks there are some testimonies in real trouble out there.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Redshirt

2013, section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. "...the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Not only does Amendment 3 violate this, but it also denies benefits for same-sex civil unions, which was the downfall of Prop 8. Amendment 3 is doomed. Federal > State

@ TriSam

Christ isn't ruling, and this country is not a Theocracy. There is not a single reason SSM should not be legal in this country.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

TriSam
..i just can not figure it out? Its my fellow "card carrying" Mormons who are for same sex marriage, and are supporting this cause.
KJK
The D&C says that the Constitution was established to maximize individual freedom and agency. The brethren have stated that laws that punish acts that don't objectively harm others harm agency. If we didn't want people to sin, we should have sided with someone else in the Pre-Existance. Will allowing SSM result in more or less promiscuity in the gay community? Will it promote or dissuade gays from forming stable families/relationships? Will it promote or hinder the spread of STDs? Will it result in more or fewer people relying on government for insurance and other benefits?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Two For Flinching" read the courts ruling. They state specifically that the definition of marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue. They mention the fact that it is a State's rights issue to determint the definition several times in their ruling.

Please read it before you comment again.

to comment

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