Comments about ‘In our opinion: Supreme Court stay a promising sign for democracy, federalism, families’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 7 2014 10:10 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Under our system of federal constitutional government, the role and duty of the federal judiciary is to say what the law is, not what it thinks it should be.' - From the article

'Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act Is Unconstitutional..' - ABC News - By Jake Tapper - 01/08/10

'Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News 02/07/12

"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

'Federal judge OVERTURNS Utah Same-sex marriage Ban' - By Emiley Morgan and Marjorie Cortez KSL - 12/22/13

How many examples of law are we going to ignore, until we stop wasting Utah tax dollars in attempts to get a different result some think we should have, instead of what is...?

McMurphy
St George, Utah

It may well be that "... children have greater opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a father". It is not at all obvious to me that gay marriage will result in more children being raised in same sex households other than those where one of the partners already has custody of a child.

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

This makes me happy.

Good to see families, and most importantly children, being protected.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

"... definitional choice by the state's electorate and Legislature provides our society with the aspirational goal, reinforced by moral teaching, by social scientists and by family scholars, that children have greater opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a father." Since marriages can cross state lines, this needs to be a federal issue. Someone married in Vermont should also be married when they're here. That right needs to accrue to everybody; it's not a popularity contest. Of course, limitations can be applied. The federal state can easily show harm if people are allowed to marry their cousin or refrigerator or pet. However, being affronted, or supposed wellbeing of children which are not mandatory in marriage, don't really measure up as arguments. This is about rights for people; it's not whether it's good for democracy as much as it's good for the republic.

Ronnie W.
Layton, UT

@Pagan

I think if the judges had intentions of ruling Utah's ban unconstitutional they wouldn't have allowed the stay.

Just my prediction, it will be left to the states. A California marriage will still need to be recognized in Utah but Utah will not be forced to officiate same sex marriages.

Kaotic
USA, UT

The LDS church is pro-family. Much of their doctrine and beliefs revolve around families, which is great and admirable. But I get the feeling from being around church members and reading comments from church members that unless you're LDS then a person or couple doesn't or can't have the same pro-family beliefs. Not everybody in Utah belongs to the LDS Church, but have wonderful family values, including same-sex couples. Even Non-LDS heterosexual people are wondering what the fuss is all about giving these Americans their constitutional right to marry whoever they want. The LDS Church absolutely runs things in Utah because of their WEALTH and INFLUENCE, but they don't have the right to discriminate against people and force their beliefs on people who have chosen not to be part of their church.

YBH
Sugarland, TX

@Roonie W.

A stay does show that SCOTUS justices prefer slower pace on this issue, it does not, however, indicate how justices would rule on this issue.

"A California marriage will still need to be recognized in Utah but Utah will not be forced to officiate same sex marriages."

That is actually a good compromise.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

"Under our system of federal constitutional government, the role and duty of the federal judiciary is to say what the law is, not what it thinks it should be"

Yes, but that is what Judge Shelby was doing, you just disagree with him as to what the law is.

"without the benefit of a trial"

Utah's team pushed for the style of trial they had.

"without direct precedent on the issue."

No district court ever ruled against interracial marriage bans before the Supreme Court did?

"that there is no discrimination in a state's rational decision to favor the benefits of gender complementarity in enacting marriage laws."

Still have to prove that... in a state that doesn't limit marriage to other categories based on statistical averages (and the notion that same-sex couples do worse on average is highly dubious), and a state that lets single people adopt children.

"children have greater opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a father."

What kind of logic says that single gay people can adopt but a same-sex couple shouldn't which is what this state currently has for adoption policy?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

"... children have greater opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a father"

Glad this is an opinion piece. Because…

"In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are NOT markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
- 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

*'Children of same-sex parents are healthier, families closer than straight-parents: Study' – By Tracy Miller – NY Daily News – 06-07-13

'A new study from Australia's Melbourne University found kids of gay parents are growing up healthy and well-adjusted, despite continued discrimination against their families.'

*New Study confirms, Same-sex couples make great parents' – By Zack Ford – Think Progress – 07-10-13

*'Report details INEQUITIES for kids of gay parents' - By David Crary - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/25/11

'Carrigan is among a growing multitude of American children possibly more than 1.2 million of them being raised by gay and lesbian parents, often WITHOUT all the LEGAL PROTECTIONS afforded to mom-and-dad households.'

Ronnie W.
Layton, UT

@YBH

"A stay does show that SCOTUS justices prefer slower pace on this issue, it does not, however, indicate how justices would rule on this issue."

Perhaps your are right. I was surprised by the stay though. It seems that the supreme court is avoiding the issue. Sooner or later they will have to decide if a state has the right to make same sex marriages.

mcdugall
Murray, UT

@Pagan - The State and many opinion pieces in this paper are only selecting a small sample of research available to push their agenda. The majority of research from leading academic research universities has proved that their is no significant change in outcomes of children who are raised in same sex households vs heterosexual households. The only thing that truly matters for improvising outcomes is living in loving and stable households.

Maudine
SLC, UT

"We believe that there are ways to ensure equality under the law for all men and for all women,..."

Perhaps - if Amendment 3 had not clearly stated, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Amendment 3 clearly prohibits any form of recognition for same-sex relationships. The only way for same-sex couples in Utah to have any access to equality is to declare the entirety of Amendment 3 unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution - and once that is done, same-sex marriage is on the table. There is no way to now go back and allow civil unions or domestic partnerships. (Amendment 3 has no severability clause allowing part of it to be unconstitutional and dropped while keeping the rest intact.)

"[R]efer to core constitutional principles..." such as equality under the law and due process which requires states to prove that their laws are narrowly tailored to address a purpose to which the laws are rationally connected.

What is "gender complementarity" and what social benefits does it offer? How does it apply to marriage and child rearing? How does prohibiting same-sex marriage further this goal?

Esquire
Springville, UT

Regardless of how you feel about SSM, this editorial is rhetoric. The court's action was about giving the issue a hearing. What will you say if the 10th Circuit upholds the decision? Will it still be a promising sign for democracy, federalism, families? It's a judicial procedural process, nothing more.

Also, you say "there are ways to ensure equality under the law for all men and for all women, even as Utah appropriately insists that marriage consist of a husband and a wife." So what are those ways? Instead of vague platitudes intended to placate and mislead, put some specifics on the table. Otherwise, what you write is emptiness, the equivalent of a sugar high that is soon gone.

Spangs
Salt Lake City, UT

In reading this editorial, one would think that the fate of the world hangs in the balance on both sides. In truth, the stakes are only high for those gay people waiting for equality under the law. For those who are not gay and can marry anyone of the opposite sex without regard for quality, the only thing we risk is a greater degree of moral outrage.

Your gay married neighbors aren't going to denigrate your 'traditional' marriage any more than a mixed-race marriage or the pairing of Josh Hutchinson and Courtney Stodden. One may look disgustingly in their direction, but they will neither hurt you, your family, or your faith. There is no need to "hide your kids" from the nefarious loins of those that are different.

What this article fails to address is how child-rearing in a gay household measures up to child-rearing in the household of those that are not married; gay or otherwise. This is the real comparison. These kids won't be shipped off to a straight family. No. They will simply continue to live in a limbo of intolerance and ridicule.

YBH
Sugarland, TX

@Ronnie W
I was surprised by the stay though.

Just think this way: if SCOTUS decline stay request, then when other judges dealing with this issue, they probably have little hesitation to rule in gay marriage's favor. and the whole process may soon move too fast than those justices can handle.

@Esquire

I have the same question. what are those ways to ensure equality under the law for all men and for all women? civil union for gay couples? even we can put "separation is not equal" aside, that civil union route is already blocked by amendment 3. and DN editorial still hope appeal court will rule amendment 3 constitutional?

FT
salt lake city, UT

"Protecting families"? How does opposition to gay marriage protect families? I have yet to hear one sound argument supporting this claim. Outside of a religous argument there is no facts supporting that a Gay marriage is detrimental to society. Do opponents not understand how bigoted and prejudical they appear to the majority of Americans?

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

The only thing the stay from the Supreme Court shows is that the court wants the issue fully briefed and argued before it makes any type of decision. Business as usual for the Supreme Court -- it is an incredibly slow-moving entity.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The Supreme Court spoke and yet there are those who believe that Judge Shelby's "ruling" is more important than the voice of the entire Court. Why would they not want the full Court to carefully consider whether the Federal Government has been delegated authority by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses? That is a simple question. Surely at least one of the Justices knows where to find that enumerated duty in the Constitution. Could it be that those who want Judge Shelby's "ruling" to stand don't want the entire Court to ask him why he chose a dissenting opinion as the basis for his "ruling"? If Judge Shelby were ruled to be correct for using the dissent instead of the majority ruling, what will then happen to Roe v Wade or ObamaCare?

The Supreme Court did what it had to do to keep society from completely falling apart. Hopefully judges like Judge Shelby have been put on notice.

ParkCityAggie
Park City, Ut

Woa hold on there State of Utah, the ruling is only to allow a stay until the 10th Circuit court hears the appeal. There is no telling if the SCOTUS will even take that appeal (depending upon what it is). Don't go running victory laps around the capitol just yet. And Justice Kennedy doesn't seem to keen on toing the conservative line when it comes to social issues.

Mukkake
Montreal, QC, 00

Ronnie W.:
[Just my prediction, it will be left to the states. A California marriage will still need to be recognized in Utah but Utah will not be forced to officiate same sex marriages.]

But this is still inadequate for equal protection. As mentioned in another Deseret News article, even though gay marriages from other states are recognized here, divorce proceedings for these marriages cannot be commenced here. Because of this situation, and more, this issue cannot be left up to the States for long.

to comment

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