Comments about ‘Court to allow Utah lengthier 'brief' in same-sex marriage appeal’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 30 2014 1:00 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
truth in all its forms
henderson, NV

How do you write its against my religion in 24000 words?

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Its nice to know that Mormon Prophet Monson(who speaks for God according to Mormons) and Pope Francis(who speaks for God in my religion) both agree with me that God only wants a man and woman to be able to marry

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Brevity is the soul of wit...

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

Will Schaerr and his team be citing Regnerus?

One of a Few
Layton, UT

Paid by the word.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

"one of the most important and debated legal and policy questions of our time"...only inasmuch as you feel entitled to an outcome in your favour. Besides, how many words does it take to say you feel it is an affront? There's going to have to be a lot of obfuscation around a bare bones argument.

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

The brief needs to be long because 1) there is the religious issue, 2) there is the states rights issue, 3) there is the economic issue, 4) there is how do you define marriage now issue, 5) the what is best for families issue, 6) the what is best for children issue, 7) why should a state be forced to support homosexuality issue, 8) is marriage a civil right issue, 9) is homosexuality a protected group via the constitution, 10) does the 14th amendment refer to homosexuality? 11) when did equal protection refer to homosexuality, 12) does civil unions give the same protection?

Imagine having to put that all in 30 pages.

koseighty
Logan, UT

@truth in all its forms
"How do you write its against my religion in 24000 words?"

Quote large swaths of Isaiah?

Vanceone
Provo, UT

In other news, the 9th Circuit just okayed punishing psychologists who disagree with SSM; putting a gag order on them. They stated that speech against homosexuality is really conduct, not speech, and therefore the state can criminalize such conduct.

All that's left is to shove ministers into mental health professional category and boom--religious leaders in jail.

Add this to the ever growing list of "how could SSM possibly hurt you?" lists.

desert
Potsdam, 00

My 24 000 would read like this :

Neither evolution, science nor religion can define what marriage is all about.
A daughter that loves her mother or a son loving his father can be measured in neither words nor in any family proclamation, but in the very lasting bond for a life long secure and loving attitude toward others. End of Case.

(You want a stable society trust in a thousand years first, any other union must be on a scientific test run for some years before being approved)

AZKID
Mapleton, UT

I was appalled when I recently saw a graphic showing where gay "marriage" was fully legal. There was Utah in blue, along with the liberal states in the Northeast and a few others. Utah was, plainly and simply, targeted by the gay activists in an effort to punish the state for the predominant view of its population and dominant religious group. I find this to be reprehensible behavior on the part of those activists. Therefore, I applaud the court in giving this matter a full and complete hearing in the light of all legal and societal considerations. May truth, right and morality (and state's rights) prevail!

And for those who may not understand the grave societal implications this issue and think it is merely a matter of bigotry, or some small group's rights etc., go Google "marriage what it is why it matters and the consequences of redefining it" and educate yourself with some scholarly research on the matter. It may not change your mind, but you might at least be a little bit more tolerant (oh, the irony!) of those who feel that we must fight, argue, and persuade in favor of the traditional definition of marriage.

yarrlydarb
Ogden, UT

The primary and basic belief in all of Christianity supports mankind's agency to make personal choices. As soon as mankind begins to exercise control of personal choice (not including illegal acts that cause harm to one's fellow man), then mankind, in all effect, endeavors to dictate and make legal the fallacy that, "All personal choice shall be allowed and protected except for this, that, and the other, ad infinitum."

At that point mankind eliminates agency to choose altogether as it would be effectively destroyed.

The state of Utah can decide to pursue it's ridiculous stance, spending countless millions, which will surely end in a futile battle.

How about using the countless millions for public education where, historically, the state "stacks 'em deep, and teaches them cheap?"

Mom of Six
Northern Utah, UT

@Hugh1

Come on...come on....that is not what this is about. Please, you must come up with a little bit more precise argument than that. This is not about hate. This is about a minority group trying to redefine what has been marriage for thousands of years. This has never been a right of this minority group, yet somehow the majority must conform or we will be labeled as bigoted and silenced because we do not agree with what the minority wants to label as a new definition of marriage. I think the vast majority of people here in Utah would be fine with civil unions as long as it is not equated to marriage. Paint it any way you choose but an apple and an orange are not the same, neither will gay marriage ever be.

dalefarr
South Jordan, Utah

This is an important case. The Court made the correct decision in allowing the State to say what it wants to say and present its side of the case.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Mom of six:

I would make the argument like this: (leaving out the hate, btw)

We have been taught since we were young that homosexuality is wrong. We have been taught that you need to repent when you have sinned. To allow gays to marry (with all the same connotations that temple marriage has in the law) would not allow gays to repent without breaking up a family. Also, my prophet has told me to fight against it and I will obey. It is something that sounds so different to my idea of what life should be like that it cannot be right nor should it be allowed by law.

------------

Does that sound better?

Now, go read the constitution. Go read the Iowa Supreme court ruling on gay marriage, go read Prop8 arguments before the district judge. Think about walking a mile in the shoes of those two young men in the picture accompanying this article, especially since they are raising a child.

Here are a few questions:
What does the constitution say about equal treatment under the law? Why would you deny that child_the_most stable environment possible to grow up in - which is having his parents married?

speed66
Heber City, UT

Extra long brief....the courts must be familiar with Utah's customs.

Gay marriage is coming and its fun to watch everyone fall all over themselves trying to rationalize their arcane beliefs. Your religion nor any other can dictate what others can do.

No one is demanding that mormons have to participate but, they also don't get to dictate to others what they can do. Individual liberty is a central tenet of our history and our rights, popular vote is secondary...as it should be or there would be no mormon church.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

AZKID,gay marriage (not "marriage") has been legal in Massachusetts for ten years. Please tell us how the state has gone to the dogs since all adults in MA have been able to marry the person they loved.

And neither Iowa nor Minnesota (who sent Michelle Bachmann to Congress--albeit with 51% of the vote) are hotbeds of liberalism. But please tell me, how are marriage equality laws "punishing" the people of Utah? If you don't agree with gay marriage, then marry someone of the opposite sex. End of problem!

1978
Salt Lake City, UT

"No one is demanding that mormons have to participate"

Tell that to the bakery shop owner in New Mexico.

Jeff29
Draper, UT

Those of you citing the 14th Amendment and equal protection clause need to stop repeating things you hear on TV and read on the internet and go study the history and intent of the Amendment. I'll give you three little tidbits: 1) It was passed only because all States in the South were required to ratify it after the Civil War. 2) It is widely recognized as the most poorly written Amendment to the Constitution. 3) Equal protection under the law referred primarily to punishments given after people broke the law (if it meant equal rights, there would have been no need for the 19th Amendment).

I think there is little question that this will eventually reach the Supreme Court as neither side will accept an adverse ruling from a lower court. I suppose the Court could refuse to rule on it, but my guess is that when this is all said and done, the Court will rule that it is a States' Rights issue.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Lovely Deseret, you don’t need 30 pages to say 1)religious issue--this isn’t a theocracy. 2) states’ rights--you don’t get to discriminate against anybody without presenting compelling evidence that this is necessary (we’ve always done it this way” is not evidence). 3) Economic issue--huh? 4) how do you define it? A union of two consenting unrelated adults. 5) what is best for families? To have two parents who love and are committed to their kids. 8. Forced to support homosexuality--huh? Nobody’s forcing YOU to do anything. 8. Loving vs Virginia ruled that marriage to the person you chose could not be abridged because they were of a different race. 9&10&11-Look, you can’t legally discriminate--that isn’t rocket science. And if you read the DOMA arguments, you already know that civil unions aren’t equal.

to comment

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