Tekakaromatagi"If we are going to let two people of the same gender
file joint tax returns because they say that they 'love' one another
why can't someone who loves his mother get the same benefits?"They will... that's next once (if) same-sex is approved. Then, to be
fair, all other people who love each other, such as polygamists, incest folks,
sibs, close relatives, etc., should also get the same benefit accorded those who
are married. For example, a 95 year old geezer ready to pass to the next life
could marry a ten year old girl (or boy) so that his SS benefits can be passed
on to her/him. "Why is the love between two men who are gay so
special that it has more importance in our tax code than a child who loves his
mother, or a nephew who loves his aunt, or a brother who loves his
sister?"Right on!! There's alotta benefits that this same
sex issue is bringing to the fore. So, thanks to all who are pushing for it.
Re: "I know a lady who could very much benefit from her bachelor
brother's retirement benefits. And a mentally disabled man who could
really use his wealthy aunt's." They can avail themselves
of a right that is considered to be of fundamental import that comes with a
choice to marry the one they love, and in some states and countries, that can
even be their sexual partner of the same-sex. Sexual orientation, unlike
religious belief is considered for the most to be immutable and natural.
Therefore, this kind of relationship is called a marriage. Whereas, loving
relationships with aunts mothers and siblings are a different kind of
non-initmate relationship, that for the most do not involve sexual intimacy.
@Russell Spencer;The supreme court didn't "bench-slap"
Justice Shelby. They issued the stay simply to let the issue percolate through
the lower courts. Had they issued a "bench-slap", then they would have
completely overturned his ruling. They haven't. They won't.@Yorkshire;Your lady-friend and her brother, your disabled man and
his wealthy aunt already have a legal relationship. Marriage creates a legal
relationship where none previously existed.
Bigotry is strong in Utah. Just read these comments.
Thank the Constitution of the United States of America for the ACLU! Bravo!
Tekakaromatagi said "If we are going to let two people of the same gender
file joint tax returns because they say that they 'love' one another
why can't someone who loves his mother get the same benefits? Joint tax
returns, collect his mother's social security benefits when she dies,
etc.Why is the love between two men who are gay so special that it has
more importance in our tax code than a child who loves his mother, or a nephew
who loves his aunt, or a brother who loves his sister?"You know,
that is a very good question. I know a lady who could very much
benefit from her bachelor brother's retirement benefits. And a
mentally disabled man who could really use his wealthy aunt's.
@ Fred, was Barack Obama talking about child outcomes of children raised in
same-sex households? Nope, he was talking about opposite sex families. @Thom, "Now that the ACLU is supporting SSM, it won't be long
before they support polygamy as well, right?" Not if the state can shown
harm and abuse often goes under-reported in closed FLDS like communities,
justifying the need for anti-polgamy laws. No such claims of harm and abuse
with Same-Sex couples. @T..magi "Why then does one kind of
obviously non-procreative relationship get benefits that are not given to other
non-procreational relationships." Which couples are those? A quick
internet search shows that same-sex couples can and do procreate, some even use
the same assisted reproductive technologies that opposite sex couples avail
themselves. Do you need more proof that same-sex couples have families? These
"benefits" help children of same-sex couples as well as opposite
couples. Children of same-sex couples really do exist and they are considered
by most to be actual human beings, just as deserving as children of opposite sex
Many gay couples are raising kids now, without the benefits and the stability
that civil marriage provides.That's really a shame. Kids need
stability and support and love. It helps no one to deny one of the two people
raising a kid the legal protections of marriage.There are countless
variables involved in raising kids, some positive, some negative. We
don't screen couples to determine how fit they are to be parents. The
same-sex couples raising kids that I know first hand provide stable, loving and
healthy environments for their kids. I see no evidence-- none-- that the
children would be better off anywhere else, and lots of evidence that the kids
are thriving. Isn't that, in the end, what we need to care about?
@DRay: Fred Vader's Barrack Obama quote is interesting. What he was really
addressing was single parent households, not gay marriage, so isn't using
this quote against gay marriage fundamentally dishonest. Yes, I realize that
Obama was considering families in the context of man and women being married to
each other, but this only shows that lots of people haven't been able to
think differently.At any rate, if we take the quote seriously, it
means having two fathers is even better!At any rate, the issue as
been studied quote thoroughly, and there is no evidence whatsoever that gay
marriage has a negative impact on children. It's a religious belief for
which there is no evidence.
California and Gavin Newsome handed out marriage licenses to gays and then
declared them invalid in 2004 because of the law. Utah does that and the ACLU
goes trolling for plaintiffs. This is political.The ACLU should start
caring about families and democracy.
Bring on the lawsuits--hundreds of them. This is going to be expensive.
Personally, I'd prefer the state picked my wallet for educating kids rather
than denying people their rights.
Any individual can bring a lawsuit, at anytime, for practically any grievance
against the State. That people are suing the State does not give them any
"points" on the board.On the merits of the ACLU's case,
there frankly are no merits. I doubt any inferior judge will be racing to rule
in favor of recognition of the same-sex "marriages" after the 9-0
bench-slap the Supreme Court gave Shelby for refusing to issue a stay in a case
that was being appealed. The State has the law correct. Until this case is
resolved on appeal, those "marriages" are in limbo. Putting
"on-hold" recognition of marriages which may in fact be void under the
law is immensely reasonable and a proper response by State officials.
I hope what the Governor meant was to say there would not be any "new
recognition" of same-sex marriages during the "stay." The State
never asked for an invalidation of the gay marriages already performed and no
such order was given. Everyone went through all this during the battle over
@Fred VaderAnd yet...1. Utah lets single people adopt and I
don't see much complaining about that.2. The studies show two parent
families have better results like that on average... but your side is trying to
stop two parent families.3. We don't use this "average"
argument to limit marriage anywhere else, should we pick whichevera.
raceb. religionc. state has the worst rates of various things
(on average) and ban them from marrying? No, of course we wouldn't and
shouldn't. So why is sexual orientation the only one that argument is used
Great news ,equality for all.I ask you fellow Americans do we have a wonderful
country or not?
I think that it is wrong for the ACLU to interfere with this process. Perhaps
their cause would be better suited to suing judges who overturn the voice of the
majority when they have spoken on these subjects. That is to say, the voice of
the majority who opposes SSM's. The question arises, what about their
rights, what about respecting the voice of the majority. Then again that
wouldn't be popular.
How wonderful that our schools, parks, forests, roads, libraries, bridges, water
systems, air quality, healthcare, police, fire fighters, paramedics, etc. are
all adequately funded and our legislators and governor feel like they have money
to burn fighting court battles that they are clearly destined to lose all so
they can attempt and fail to invalidate the weeks-old marriage of my sweet
neighbors who've been together as a loving, committed couple for over a
decade! What an accomplishment!
"Since when is the ability to have children a prerequisite to
marriage?"It isn't because that requirement is not
enforceable. The county clerk can't tell that a man and a woman applying
for marriage are fertile, indeed, the couple probably does not know themselves
either. Marriage is meant to be permanent for the duration of life so it does
not change the nature of the institution if an old man and an old woman are
married or get married.On the other hand, if two people of the same
gender show up it is obviously apparent that their union will never result in
children so at that point extending marriage to them will change the nature of
the union.But then if marriage is about affirming love (which is
unenforceable), then only extending marriage to some groups of non-procreational
unions and not others is discrimination.
"The U.S. Supreme Court had issued a stay" would be the reason the law
reverts back as established in Utah's Constitution...is that too hard to
understand? Why then would there be a basis for an ACLU lawsuit?
Tekakaromatagi has it right. Fact is that same-sex marriage is but an
imitation of real marriage, which is between a man and a woman; one purpose for
proponents of same-sex marriage seems to be getting financial benefits not
originally intended for same-sex couples. The ill-effects for
children listed above by Fred Vader, as stated by Barak Obama, are huge, and
must be considered by each member of society, and certainly by the Supreme
Court. How can we preach Christian love and not consider what is being done to
children as the LBGT community recklessly pursues their agenda?
"Why then does one kind of obviously non-procreative relationship get
benefits that are not given to other non-procreational relationships? We are
creating a new class of second class citizens which violates the 14th
amendment." so tekakaromatagai would you have couples that are seniors that
are not married not have tax benifits? or what about a couple that is unable to
have children? Since when is the ability to have children a prerequisite to
If we are going to let two people of the same gender file joint tax returns
because they say that they 'love' one another why can't someone
who loves his mother get the same benefits? Joint tax returns, collect his
mother's social security benefits when she dies, etc.Why is the
love between two men who are gay so special that it has more importance in our
tax code than a child who loves his mother, or a nephew who loves his aunt, or a
brother who loves his sister?Society gives benefits to men and women
when they get married because it is likely that they will have children. The
wife will sacrifice her career to care for the children. It doesn't happen
in all cases like this, but we are not some uber-law-and-order society where we
are going to put up cameras everywhere and have secret police spying on everyone
all the time.Why then does one kind of obviously non-procreative
relationship get benefits that are not given to other non-procreational
relationships? We are creating a new class of second class citizens which
violates the 14th amendment.
2 dollars a person is not that much. The people that brought the suit to the
court why can't they pay the court costs? The will of the people will
Now that the ACLU is supporting SSM, it won't be long before they support
polygamy as well, right?
"We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father
are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more
likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison.
They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or
become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are
weaker because of it."Probably a quote from a mean spirited,
religious person, just making things up to persecute GLBTs? Well, that's
partially correct. It's a direct quote from Pres. Barrack Obama.How do we later hold absentee fathers accountable for their children and
families, when the GLBTs and federal courts are now pronouncing them to be
optional, rather than necessary?
This is now Same Sex marriage Supporters 4.Utah Zip.Give it up Utah and stop
wasting our tax dollars.
Told you so. Utah state's denying legally married same sex
couples' right is an invitation of flood of lawsuits against state
government. May I ask, not only must Utah taxpayers pay appeal cost
of amendment 3, hardly a winning case, but they have to pay these losing legal