Quantcast

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
Constitution Is King
Brigham, UT

For those of you in favor of banning same-sex marriage, consider this case:

One of Utah's large corporations has strong connections with the state of Iowa where same-sex marriage is fully legal. A legally married same-sex couple and their two children in Iowa are being transferred to Utah by the employer of the family's primary breadwinner. If they refuse the transfer, they will be unemployed. If the couple moves to Utah, Utah officials will greet them at the border and demand that they hand over their marriage certificate and become "unmarried". Utah officials will strip the adoption papers from the hands of the parents, and the children will be no longer considered to have two parents. This NIGHTMARISH example is what you are supporting when you support Amendment 3, banning same sex marriage in Utah. The ban against same-sex marriage is nightmarishly anti-family and DISMANTLES existing families moving in from other states.

J. S.
Houston, TX

@Vanceone
"In other news, the 9th Circuit just okayed punishing psychologists who disagree with SSM; putting a gag order on them."

-------

California passed the law to ban conversion therapy because it is harmful. but that is only for minors, an adult who wants to change his sexual orientation can still seek for such "treatment", if he believes it will work (well, good luck with that). And that law only applies to California.

California has a system of direct democracy. voters can put referendum on ballot and vote down such law if them don’t like it. But this law's opponents could not even get enough signatures. Didn't that failure tell you something?

Objectified
Tooele, UT

@ Hutterite:

I've been following arguments on both sides of this issue. I'm objectively convinced there is more "obfuscation" coming from the pro-SSM left side than from the pro-traditional side. Open-mindedness will almost certainly verify that... though both sides participate.

@ yarrlydarb:

Having lived in Utah and associated with a vast array of it's citizens in different regions, I can assure you there are more people in Utah who feel your very liberal stance is considered more "ridiculous" than those who might agree with what you contrarily feel is ridiculous in this matter.

It was a two-thirds majority who approved the state's current definition of marriage defined as being between a man and a woman. Polls since that time vary widely, depending on the wording of any particular poll, making most somewhat questionable.

Though your non-tolerant approach apparently keeps you from understanding it, there are definitely social and societal implications with this issue that need to be thoroughly addressed... much further than your single-purpose opinion is apparently capable of considering. As such, Utah's money will be well spent, regardless of the court outcome.

J.Chang
duval, FL

The Family
A Proclamation to the World

...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Objectified
Tooele, UT

@ Constitution is King:

Your example is full of fallacies. Utah has never taken away anyone's adoption papers who were received in another state... especially because of the same-sex marriage issue being different between states. I would like for you to name even one example when that has happened. You can't, because it hasn't.

Another made-up scare tactic scenario by ultra-left wing ideologists who can't make there case with pragmatism.

Non-married individuals have been able to adopt in Utah for many years. Please do a bit more research before making such contentions again.

J. S.
Houston, TX

@Razzle2
Same Sex Marriage is illegal in Oregon

---
Oregon state government recognized out of state SSM.

====
@SoCal
"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"

----

and yet, Mississippi did not ratify 13th amendment by 1995, 19th amendment by 1984. if slaves and women have to wait for a popular support in their own state, not from federal intervene, they have to wait long long time.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Objectified;

"It was a two-thirds majority who approved the state's current definition of marriage defined as being between a man and a woman."

It doesn't matter how many people "approve" of a violation of the Constitution, it is still a violation of the Constitution. You do NOT get to vote on other people's rights.

@J.Chang;

I don't believe in your prophets. I don't believe in your "proclamation". I don't have to follow it, as I also have the freedom to choose which religious beliefs I'll follow. Stop trying to force us to live by your beliefs.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@iron&clay: Can we please dispense with the ignorant fear-mongering?

The "H" in HIV is "Human." It's a disease that anyone can get, not just from sex, gay or straight, but from improper medical practices or accidental exposure to someone else's blood. Worldwide, over 95% of all cases, and all deaths have been heterosexuals, which makes it a "straight" disease. It's epidemic in entire countries.

Monogamous gay couples, just like monogamous straight couples, have little risk of HIV/AIDS, and lesbian couples have less risk than straight couples. If you're concerned about lowering the incidence of HIV, one of the best ways of promoting monogamy is to encourage marriage. Right now, the fastest growing segment of the American population with HIV is heterosexual senior citizens, who are apparently having a lot more unprotected casual sex than we thought.

As for "the innocent children," why don't you worry a bit more about the innocent children currently rotting in orphanages, unwanted, with no one to even foster them? Or the 41% (1.6 million) of all American births annually out-of-wedlock?

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@J.Chang The Family A Proclamation to the World "...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

The following religions are blessed with very special access to the CORRECT moral truth for which your religion is not privy. They all honor and perform same-sex marriages:

Affirming Pentecostal Church International
Alliance of Christian Churches
Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Community of Christ
Conservative Judaism
Ecumenical Catholic Church
Ecumenical Catholic Communion
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Anglican Church In America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
Inclusive Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Community Church
Old Catholic Church
Progressive Christian Alliance
Reconciling Pentecostals International
Reconstructionist Judaism
Reform Judaism
Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Unitarian Universalist Church
United Church of Christ
Unity Church

@Vanceone
"In other news, the 9th Circuit just okayed punishing (religious) psychologists who disagree with SSM; ....."
Tonight try "Praying YOUR own Sexual Orientation away" then come back in the morning and let us know how its working.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@J.Chang:

While you're citing Mormon teachings, why not look at the Articles of Faith? Your missionaries bring these to our living rooms.

11) "...allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

12) "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

13) "We believe in ... doing good to all men; ... If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

Let's look at these, in reverse order, and what they say to a naive layman like myself on the issue of allowing homosexuals to marry each other:

I see goodness, praiseworthiness and virtue in every couple that makes a loving, lifetime commitment to care for each other. Can't you?

I see the Circuit Court, with its training and judicial acumen, and appointment to the bench by the Executive and Legislature, has ruled on the law of the land. Can't you?

I see how your religious beliefs differ from mine. I'm willing to forego enshrining my religion in the secular law. Can't you?

Ariz
Madison, AL

"Tell that to the bakery shop owner in New Mexico." The law in New Mexico was a state law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. In other words, a states right issue. I find it ironic that many who want to use states right as an avenue to cu off same sex marriage are not willing to allow room for other states to make the laws as they see fit. There is no way the Feds will invalidate these state laws on first amendment grounds. This was already tried with public accommodation laws based on race. The courts rejected the idea of being the arbitrators of what services are considered essential or which business domains could be considered "religious". You can't allow the wedding vendors to use religion as a basis for discrimination but not allow the car mechanic or any other business to do so.

BTW, the NM case dealt with a photographer. The oft cited cases in OR and CO dealt with bakeries.

Stephen Daedalus
Arvada, CO

As @Marco explains, Utah’s basis to appeal is narrow: did Judge Shelby err -- as a matter of law -- in granting summary judgment? The 10th Cir. will look at pleadings Shelby had before him and binding precedent to affirm or reverse.

The lowest standard of review of a law that excludes a class of citizens from exercising a fundamental right (such as marriage, per SCOTUS) is ‘rational basis’ which asks whether the exclusion of that particular class bears a rational relationship to achieving a legitimate state interest.

Utah may have a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation, stable child-rearing, etc. But critically, Utah failed to explain how a law that excludes a single class of citizens (all same sex couples) is rationally related to achieving those desired outcomes, when the law permits all other classes of couples that fail to achieve those same desired outcomes, as much if not worse, as Utah presumes to be case with same-sex couples (ex. opposite sex couples that are infertile, abusive, addicted, mentally ill (untreated), or neglectful).

Singling out a single class from a field of equally disqualified classes is irrational and arbitrary. No amount of pages will help Utah explain otherwise.

Constitution Is King
Brigham, UT

@Objectified(Tooele,UT)...... You said "Non-married individuals have been able to adopt in Utah for many years."

Yes, INDIVIDUALS many be adoptive parents. BUT two unmarried individuals can NOT BOTH be adoptive parents of the same child in the State of Utah. If Utah refuses to honor the legal marriage certificates of same sex married couples who migrate to Utah from another state where Same Sex Marriage is legal, then Utah can also refuse to honor the adoption paperwork showing two married gay people BOTH as parents of the same child. I wonder if Utah plans to post highway patrolmen at the borders to confiscate marriage certificates and adoption papers? Maybe they'll also have to check the gender of all individuals entering Utah to make certain they aren't the same sex. Border crossings into Utah could be painfully slow and awkward.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

"Singling out a single class from a field of equally disqualified classes is irrational and arbitrary. No amount of pages will help Utah explain otherwise."

Excellent point. As it is now, if the paramount concern is stable child-rearing environments, Amendment 3 includes even the MOST reprobate opposite sex-couples, but excludes even the MOST exemplary same-sex couples.

JeffreyRO555
Auburn Hills, MI

Quantity not quality, I guess.

peter irons
san diego, CA

A brief response to those who claim that majorities of voters (even two-thirds of Utahans) have the right to enact any state constitutional amendment they like (such as those banning interracial marriage in many states, which the Supreme Court struck down in Loving v. Virginia in the '70s). The answer is in the Constitution you profess to worship: The 14th amendment provides that "no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws." Article VI provides that "this Constitution, and laws enacted pursuant thereto, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Awkward wording, but the point is clear: provisions or amendments in any state constitution (including Utah) that deny equal protection, which Amendment 3 clearly does) are flatly unconstitutional. Don't like it? Then repeal the 14th amendment. Otherwise, keep religion out of the laws.

Azazael
Salt Lake City, UT

To suggest that those with a different point of view have nothing to say is bigoted.

It is ironic that there is so much close-mindedness when it comes to considering that there may be a case for traditional marriage.

to comment

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