Quantcast

Comments about ‘Family Research Council weighs in on Utah gay marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 6 2014 6:06 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
candaceparker
Scottsdale, AZ

Everyone has their opinions on these issues, which is why the political process should decide the outcome, not unelected judges.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

""Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry someone of the opposite sex; neither may marry someone of the same sex."

So, marriage is a sexual contract? Pure biology with the solely purpose of propagation of the species?

Let's forget love, companionship, common interests, just sex!!

Is this the "Traditional -marriage" Utah is defending?

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

"Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry someone of the opposite sex; neither may marry someone of the same sex."

---

The truth is, Amendment 3 treats straight people and gay people unequally. A straight person can marry the one he or she loves; but a gay person can not do so, simply because they are of the same gender. The opponents of marriage equality have failed again and again in court to justify the rationale.

I don't see how the same old argument will magically prevail in the 10th circuit this time.

Stephen Dickey
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA

'[H]istory, legal traditions and practices,' does not legitimize the continued discrimination in laws like Amendment 3. The Supreme Court also noted in the Loving case that the long tradition of anti-miscegenation laws would not save it from constitutional scrutiny, either.

Its amazing how similar the arguments are being pushed in this anti-discrimination case as they were in the 60s.

It looks like the Virginia marriage rights case will be the first to be heard by the Supremes, making the Oklahoma and Utah cases moot.

desert
Potsdam, 00

@ Paul Benjamin Linton, an attorney for the council, argues in the brief that the question isn't who may marry but what marriage is.

I like that. May be we are getting smarter soon.
Whatever is braking lose on this page from here on, I kind of like to get out before it starts.

Good luck on the war on words.

Dobby
Fresno, CA

If Adam can marry Eve then Sally should be able to marry Eve. This is the same nonsense they tried before Loving vs. Virginia. It did not work then, and it will not work now.

Snapdragon
Midlothian, VA

This is completely different then Loving vs. Virginia.

The whole idea of comparing the two are like comparing apples and oranges.

Heilig
St. George, Washington, UT

I would like to recommend reading the entire brief filed by the attorneys for Utah (just google the Utah appeal court brief 1294036). By reading the entire document, one can gain a much better understanding of the powerful and compelling reasons Utah has for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.

candaceparker
Scottsdale, AZ

@USU-Logan "The truth is, Amendment 3 treats straight people and gay people unequally. A straight person can marry the one he or she loves; but a gay person can not do so, simply because they are of the same gender. The opponents of marriage equality have failed again and again in court to justify the rationale."

Opponents (States) have also prevailed in court by showing the disparaging effects that same-sex orientation generates with procreation, parenting, choice-of-law and other judicial efficiencies. Ultimately, courts must decide whether sexual orientation constitutes a suspect class. Until then, rationales on either side are mere banter in terms of true justification.

Utes Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

"Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry someone of the opposite sex"

True.

"neither may marry someone of the same sex."

Technically not true - anybody may marry someone of the same sex - Amendment 3 just makes it so that the government does not recognize it.

Therefore, Amendment 3 should stand.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Meckofahess
"The fact is that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals due to the health risks associated with the lifestyle"

Hmm, well maybe we can reduce the risk of STDs by encouraging committed monogamous relationships. Now if only we had a word that could describe something like that...

By the way... it's discriminatory to argue that same-sex couples can't marry due to HIV (even though many of them don't have it, particularly the case for lesbians) but that a relative of mine who does have HIV can marry because he's straight.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

Loving v Virginia's opinion was that Marriage is a fundamental right BECAUSE it is "fundamental to our very existence and survival.

You can't cite precedent where none exists. The court described marriage between a man and a woman, nothing more, nothing less.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...unprincipled fundamental rights...".

A fundamental right is unprincipled?

"...The Family Research Council's brief is the second of many expected to be filed on both sides before the Denver-based 10th Circuit holds oral arguments April 10...".

DN readers will receive a summary on each brief or just the briefs sympathetic to Utah's position?

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@candaceparker
"Opponents (States) have also prevailed in court by showing the disparaging effects that same-sex orientation generates with procreation, parenting, choice-of-law and other judicial efficiencies. Ultimately, courts must decide whether sexual orientation constitutes a suspect class. Until then, rationales on either side are mere banter in terms of true justification."

---

I am sorry, since last June's SCOTUS ruling, which court did opponents of marriage equality ever prevail? Can you tell me?

The truth is, when district judges in Utah, OK, OH struck down SSM constitutional ban, none of them invoked heighten scrutiny, they all applied rational basis, and the states' argument could not even pass this lowest standard.

Utah spent big bucks to hire outside attorneys to defend Amendment 3, that is fine. However, unless these high priced lawyers can present some new argument, which they haven't, I don’t see how they can prevail in court with the same old tricks that have failed over and over again

Baker Boy
Westminster, CA

Candaceparker said "the political process should decide the outcome, not unelected judges". However unelected judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, not the political process, decided in a 1967 case, Loving vs. Virginia, that persons of different races had the right to marry. If the Supreme Court hadn't done that, it might still be the case that interracial marriage would be outlawed in several states. The U.S. Constitution trumped state laws in that instance, as it should have. Please Google 'Loving vs. Virginia'.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

You're known by the company you keep. Family Research Council is recognized as a hate group. With friends of the court like that like that, who needs enemies. Good luck on trying to show there is no animus behind Amendment 3.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@candaceparker "Everyone has their opinions on these issues, which is why the political process should decide the outcome, not unelected judges."

The outcome of an election is always the best solution. Take the case of 3 starving wolves and a delicious lamb voting though the political process on what to eat for lunch. The majority should always rule.

@Snapdragon "This is completely different then Loving vs. Virginia."

Not really, sexual orientation like race is considered an immutable characteristic for most people. The issue of traditional and historical discrimination does not justify continuation of the practice. African Americans, Convicted Felons, just like Same-sex couples were and are not asking for a new right, but a fundamental right to participate in the existing institution of marriage. There are no interracial, felon, non-procreative or same-sex marriage licenses, there is only one "marriage" license. A right to marry someone for which their is no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply no right at all.

Gearhead
Layton, UT

Consider the position:
"Laws that treat men and women equally, and do not subject them to different restrictions or disabilities, cannot be said to deny either men or women the equal protection of the laws,"

I agree with this completely it makes sense however, the US government gives married people tax breaks doesn't it? If it does, then married people and un-married people are subject to different restrictions gay or straight. Having said that, does a single person have the same protection under the law as a married person? Perhaps tax breaks for married folks should be modified?

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

From the American Psychological Association (with citations) “Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.”

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

From the American Academy of Pediatrics "Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders. If a child has 2 living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interests of their child(ren) that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective of their sexual orientation. If 2 parents are not available to the child, adoption or foster parenting remain acceptable options to provide a loving home for a child and should be available without regard to the sexual orientation of the parent(s)."

to comment

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