Quantcast
Utah

ACLU set to announce lawsuit over state not recognizing same-sex marriages

Comments

Return To Article
  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 21, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    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.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    @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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 8:52 p.m.

    Bigotry is strong in Utah. Just read these comments.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:10 p.m.

    Thank the Constitution of the United States of America for the ACLU! Bravo!

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 18, 2014 4:42 p.m.

    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.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    @ 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 couples.

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    Jan. 18, 2014 2:40 p.m.

    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?

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    @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.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 18, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Russell Spencer Boise, ID
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    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.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    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 interracial marriage.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    @Fred Vader
    And 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 whichever
    a. race
    b. religion
    c. 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 for?

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    Great news ,equality for all.I ask you fellow Americans do we have a wonderful country or not?

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    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!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 18, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    "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.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    "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?

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Jan. 18, 2014 12:20 a.m.

    "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 marriage?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 17, 2014 10:54 p.m.

    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.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 17, 2014 10:33 p.m.

    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 prevail.

  • Dr. Thom Long Beach, CA
    Jan. 17, 2014 10:12 p.m.

    Now that the ACLU is supporting SSM, it won't be long before they support polygamy as well, right?

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    Jan. 17, 2014 9:30 p.m.

    "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?

  • lahaldo South Jordan Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 7:10 p.m.

    This is now Same Sex marriage Supporters 4.Utah Zip.Give it up Utah and stop wasting our tax dollars.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 17, 2014 5:58 p.m.

    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 battles too?