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
BrettlyBlue
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

How can it be a states rights issue. Say a gay married couple moves here from CA...the minute they cross the state line, per Utah are they now not married? If one gets sick...does the once married spouse no have no say? Waht about the children...who then are their parents.

You see, it CAN't be states right because people have the freedom in the US to move from state to state...and in order for that legal marriage to continue, marriage has to transcend state lines.

Not sure how the SC could rule otherwise.

SoCalChris
Riverside, CA

"The Constitution exists so the majority can't force their will upon the minority. Otherwise slavery would still be a reality and you wouldn't be able to own land, or vote."

Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, which became law after ratification by a super majority of states. The right to vote was guaranteed to women by the 19th Amendment, ratified again not only by a majority but a super majority. These rights weren't magically discovered in the Constitution (the way Judge Shelby discovered SSM).

Where are these rights supposed to come from if not from the People? Or from God?

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

Leaders of this state many years ago have claimed monogamy led to the downfall of civilizations like Rome. Turns out marriage views do evolve.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

The fight against gay marriage is getting awfully desperate. It's come down to stall tactics.

Linus
Bountiful, UT

Utah exists as a state only by agreeing to a narrow and universally popular definition of marriage. There was a tortuously protracted struggle on the part of this territory's citizens to legitimize a more inclusive definition of marriage. Even the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, labeled the expanded definition of marriage as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" polygamy and slavery). Polygamy offended the moral sensitivities of the nation's majority.

Isn't it ironic that Utah is again the focus of the nation. Many are invested in forcing Utah to accept a broader definition of marriage, even though it offends the moral sensitivities of the state's majority. It is now evident that the "relics of barbarism" are not twins, but triplets!

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Hospitality

We have a secular nation, therefore your religious beliefs are completely irrelevant when arguing in the court of law. You are free to believe whatever you want, but you do not get to force others to live by those beliefs.

@ SoCalChris

Judge Shelby and dozens of other judges before him? You act like the 13th and 19th Amendment were easily passed. Both of those events were met with extreme resistance. The Civil War speaks for itself, and Women's Suffrage went on for about 70 years before they finally won out. No those rights weren't discovered, they were fought for. Unfortunately for the "traditional" crowd, freedom and expansion and rights always wins out in the end.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

Yes, the Bible is full of patriarchal "traditional marriage," complete with consorts, incest, slaves, polygamy, and offering your virgin daughters to bands of strangers. Why, some of the Muslim countries still execute rape victims as temptresses, with traditional public stonings.

But, if you want to make "traditional marriage" to mean a monogamous male-female marriage, and to solely reserve the word marriage for that, I offer a compromise.

Adjectives. We have them in English. They modify nouns. You can make nouns mean almost entirely different things by slapping different adjectives in front of them. In this way, you can fully display your contempt for people you disapprove of, or love for those you approve of, with great specificity, and everybody can still get married.

Besides this neologism (neophraseology?) of "traditional marriage," we also have:

Temple marriage.
Church marriage.
Justice-of-the-peace marriage.
Wedding chapel marriage.
Contract marriage.
Arranged marriage.
Civil/City Hall marriage.
Hollywood/Celebrity marriage.
Country-club marriage.
Catering-hall marriage.
Religious marriage (various).
May-December Marriage.
and now,
Gay/Lesbian/Same-Sex/Intersex/Trans Marriage.

Whatever happened to Eloping? Can we use that word for something?

Starry starry night
Palm Springs , CA

Jeff29 says..."my guess is that when this is all said and done, the Court will rule that it is a States' Rights issue."

I disagree. The court has been maneuvering the chess pieces for years now. They are building the case for their ultimate decision which will establish the right for same sex couples to marry everywhere. The fact is that marriage equality exists for nearly 40% of the population now, nationwide. Our system cannot function under a patchwork of laws in which a legally married couple from NY with children are suddenly un-married with questionable parental rights in Pennsylvania or Utah. The courts have consistently ruled in favor of marriage rights not restrictions.The constitution trumps states rights. Precedent has always come down on the side of expanding rights and the same will occur here.

LiberalJimmy
Salt Lake City, UT

@Hospitality...My I ask whose God you are referring too? Do you believe everyone prays and will answer to your God or "Prophet"? Possibly my God is upset (so to say) in regard to the treatment of his gay children because after all EVERY ONE is God's children. Wouldn't you agree with this basic Christian principle and belief?

Peeves
Portland, OR

The LGBT's want everyone to believe this is about hate when in reality it's about believing you have a right to choose who you are and what you do, but you don't have a right to make others be the same as you.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@AZKID ".....the consequences of redefining it" and educate yourself .......those who feel that we must fight, argue, and persuade in favor of the traditional definition of marriage."

Marriage is simply not defined by those who are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon child molesters and spousal abusers to civil marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in the institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry. There are no Interracial marriage licenses. There are no Felon Marriage licenses. There are no infertile marriage licenses. By being allowed to participate and/or strengthen the existing institution, there is only ONE marriage license for all. Nothing has been re-defined.

Even "traditional voting" was NOT re-defined by allowing women the right to vote. Understand better?

The "redefinition argument" is complete nonsense!

@Jeff29 "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..."
Windsor (DOMA) was decided from the 5th and 14th Amendments (due process and equal protection). If due process and equal protection are good enough for SCOTUS, then obviously must be good enough for all.

Mont Pugmire
Fairview, UT

The need for civility in the Amendment 3 is made perfectly clear by the angry words of those from the gay and lesbian community as they comment about this and other articles. I get the sense the 'civility' to them means they can say anything they want while those of the overwhelming majority who voted for the amendment are supposed to stay quiet or just say nice things. Abraham Lincoln once said that calling a dog's tail a leg does not change the fact that the dog only has 4 legs. For centuries, both scriptural and will of the people laws, have correctly stated that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Oh, and by the way, the first amendment actually has NOTHING to do with this disagreement nor is it right for a single liberal judge to be able to so cavalierly disregard the voice of the people. Truth be told: The greatest danger in this issue is that such judges can so easily undo the will of large majorities in the general populace.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

To 1978 5:33 p.m. Jan. 30, 2014

"No one is demanding that mormons have to participate"

Tell that to the bakery shop owner in New Mexico.

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

Baking a cake is providing a product It is NOT participating in a wedding.

ThinkAndAnalyze
Taylorsville, UT

24,000 words is a lot of ammunition to give Father's Rights groups who call the State "hypocrite".

Ranch
Here, UT

@LovelyDeseret;

1) What about the religions that think SSM is okay?
2) States may NOT violate the US Consititution
3) Denying us marriage affects OUR economic issue, not yours
4) Marriage definition has change many times
5) What about OUR families?
6) What about OUR children
7) Why should homosexuals be forced to support heterosexuality
8) Yes
9) Probably, given the historic discrimination and opprobium
10) The 14th amendment says ALL citizens of the us (which includes homosexuals)
11) Again, ALL citizens
12) Civil unions are not allowed in Utah either.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

"Tell that to the bakery shop owner in New Mexico."

This sentence represents a confusion some commentators have.

The refusal to bake a cake (or take pictures or do whatever) has nothing to do with the legality of same-sex marriage - as evidenced by the case in Oregon where same-sex marriage isn't legal.

This also doesn't have anything to do with employment and housing non-discrimination laws such as the Utah one currently under debate - the couple was not seeking housing or employment from the baker.

This has to do with public accommodation laws. If you have a business that serves the public, you must serve all your products to all the public on an equal basis. No, this does not mean you must start carrying products you don't already carry or violate the law by serving alcohol to minors. What it means is that if you make wedding cakes anyone has a right to buy a wedding cake from you.

Public accommodation laws do not mean clergy has to marry anyone who asks because clergy don't serve the general public.

peter irons
san diego, CA

There's a saying among lawyers and judges that "the longer the brief, the weaker the argument." I know the 10th circuit judges are trying to be fair to Utah's hired guns, but their prior briefs in this case, including the stay application to the Supreme Court, are unnecessarily prolix and convoluted. That's because the state's lawyers keep ditching tired old justifications for "traditional" marriage and floating new ones. The "responsible procreation" argument didn't fly, because it would deny marriage to infertile, elderly, or couples who choose not to procreate. Besides, lesbians can procreate through various means, so that argument fails. The brand-new argument against SSM is now called "gender complementarity" (anybody heard that term before?). In plain English, it means "it takes a mommy and a daddy to raise a child." The reason the state needs a longer brief to make this claim is that they will pad their brief with dozens of citations to dubious and discredited "studies" that are written by supposed "experts" but which lack scientific rigor, that is, matched samples of sufficient size and over a fairly long period. There just aren't any such studies that meet these criteria.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@MontPugmire: Speaking for myself, as a proponent of marriage equality, you're entitled to be just as opinionated as you like, and say whatever you want. We have free speech in this country.

But, by their words ye shall know them.

If you consistently say bigoted things, you will become known as a bigot. This is not incivility. It's merely descriptive. Meanwhile, you're free to describe yourself as a "religious traditionalist," a "states rights advocate," or whatever makes you happy. But, unless you change your tune, you'll remain a bigot in the eyes, and free speech, of others.

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

Regarding "people of conscience" being prosecuted for illegal discrimination:

Imagine one of the followers of a Christian Identity Movement church, owning a business that only served those he considered ideal Aryans. No Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, Jews, Moslems, First Nations ("Indians"), Gays, Catholics or Mormons. That's his honest, conscience-driven belief, supported by his church. Should he be immune from nondescrimination law because of his religion?

The courts say no.

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

We don't have mob rule in America. Not from pulpits, nor the ballot box. Guaranteed individual rights can't be trumped.

Constitution Is King
Brigham, UT

For those who are arguing "States Rights" to continue the ban against same-sex marriage:

1. States do have a constitutionally protected right to make their own laws... BUT, those laws MUST be consistent with ALL parts of the US Constitution. The ban against same-sex marriage conflicts with amendment 14 of the US Constitution. States do NOT have the right to override the US Constitution.

2. Who speaks for the State of Utah today??? Is it the voters from the distant past? or is it today's voters? A majority of today's voters now support marriage equality and that majority INCREASES weekly.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

It will obviously take a long, long, long, brief to list all the negative impact on innocent children, HIV/AIDS, and 1st Amendment rights that 'same sex marriage will have on society.

to comment

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