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
Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

From the American Medical Association "Our American Medical Association: (1) recognizes that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory and imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and couples and their families; (2) recognizes that exclusion from civil marriage contributes to health care disparities affecting same-sex households; (3) will work to reduce health care disparities among members of same-sex households including minor children; and (4) will support measures providing same-sex households with the same rights and privileges to health care, health insurance, and survivor benefits, as afforded opposite-sex households."

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

I sure am glad they weighed in. I was beginning to wonder what their thoughts were.
I'm also angry judges never follow the constitution. Cause I'm the expert, not them.

play by the rules
SOUTH JORDAN, UT

Gay Marriage = Oxymoron.

Marco Luxe
Los Angeles, CA

The brief posits the question --what is marriage, [just like the casuistic book by Robbie George] but this is a tactic to confuse the historical view of what marriage has been with the essential question: what is the government's purpose in acknowledging a marriage? The first purpose in civil family law is to reflect the way that committed couples actually organize their personal, financial and familial lives. Based in reality, the law makes presumptions regarding affinity, family and fisc. [Historically, it reflected rich white men's desires.] It is not an abstract concept, as the FRC would like us to believe, but the way real couples exist in the real world. Straight and gay couples order their lives the same way in making real world decisions, and thus the government should and must recognize reality.

Constitution Is King
Brigham, UT

Marriage laws allow a person the right to make a legal commitment to the love of their life. Utah gives incentives to both fertile and infertile straight people to do this, but bans gay people from doing this same thing. Utah tells a gay person "Dump the love of your life and marry some other opposite-sex person that you don't love"... That's unequal treatment and is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment... Further, it's downright cruel and immoral to try to split-up a loving couple.

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

I wonder if gay marriage is not punishment for not valuing and protecting marriage enough.If you don't cherish it, you lose it.

Like a thief on a Friday night before Christmas it snuck in and stole marriage.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@DanO:

“You're known by the company you keep. Family Research Council (FRC) 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.”

Where did you get that information? Recognized by whom?

Question what you are told. Think for yourself. PC accepts. Liberal thinks.

TriSam
North Carolian, AP

I defend Admendment 3. Come on people get behind this in droves. I know your out there. We must potect the sanctity of marriage.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@Heilig 7:28 p.m. Feb. 6, 2014

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.

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

I read and analyzed the entire brief. There is nothing powerful or compelling in it. It's just saying the same old thing in a lot of ponderous words. It is in no way legally persuasive. Utah really wasted its money for that one.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

The Family Research Council want to help and weigh in - my advice - run the other way as fast as you can. No one needs help like that.

Joemamma
W Jordan, UT

Why is it that gay people continue to try to make the argument that marriage as sanctioned by the state is about love??
It is not!!!!
The state's only interest in marriage is the benefits of social structure and moral control.

Since what's best for society is no longer a consideration by the state but getting more votes is they have changed their position on the issue.
The "LOVE" thing is only a requirement in the religion sanctioning of marriage, which gay people totally oppose religious views but want to use it to make their case that love supersedes nature, God and common sense.

HeresAThought
Queen Creek, AZ

Marriage is and has been (as far as recordable history can determine) a union between one man and one woman, providing the biological emotional and phsychological basis for which a family is based. Man and woman can, in principle create children within the bonds of matrimony, which is acceptable before our Creator. It is the fundamental basis for our society.

I think it perhaps ironic that one of the biggest arguments for same-sex marriage is that it denies the rights of same-sex couples to experience the same joy and happiness that hetero couples enjoy, as if to imply that happiness can't exist without the bonds of legal marriage. Yet, in the same breath, I also hear how fractured and fallible hetero marriages are (over 50% divorce rate) from the same people. If it's so broken, why would you want a part of it? And are you saying that love can't exist without marriage? Strange.

Stephen Daedalus
Arvada, CO

Family Research Council's amicus brief and the one filed by Utah is a night and day contrast. FRC's is the brief that I think Utah's citizens will wish their state filed.

While much more focused, analytic and supported (and thus persuasive) in terms of the legal argument as to why Shelby's opinion should be overruled, since FRC is not a party to the case, there is no requirement that the 10th Cir. judges should give FRC's brief any formal regard in their own analysis, nor will FRC's attorneys be part of the oral argument.

Unlike Utah, FRC's brief doesn't simply throw out a passing, and somewhat off-point, citation as to why Shelby erred -- they dig right into the cases Shelby cited and logic he followed. Now, even if the 10th Cir. pays it any mind, they may or may not find FRC's argument convincing enough. But this is how it looks like when a party wants to prevail on the appeal, just a shame for Utah that FRC is not a party.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

We all forget that the whole issue, regardless of what side we take, will be decided by SCOTUS. Constitutionality HAS NOT been decided by SCOTUS at this point. Remember that in California Prop 8 SCOTUS did not rule that SSM is a Constitutional right, but that those bringing the suit did not have standing. Utahs Governor and AG have standing. Will SCOTUS rule in favor of Utah supporting 33 other States? Or, will they rule against Utah and traditional roles of States? Until then all of our opinions are only personal opinions, only 5 SCOTUS opinions will matter.

Really???
Kearns, UT

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

I think I just realized why some people are so against the language arts' common core; the goal is to teach students that the way to present an argument and support it is by providing factual evidence. Because opinions vary, we cannot base our laws on them. We need to establish rules of law based on fact.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

Also weighing in with their own amicus brief are Center for Urban Renewal and Education, The Coalition of African-American Pastors, and The Frederick Douglass Foundation.

From the FRC brief: "Given that same-sex marriage has been allowed only since 2003...it cannot be said that same-sex marriage is firmly rooted in 'the Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices.'"

It CAN be said, however, that discrimination against LGBTs is firmly rooted in the Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices. The fertile ground in which it was planted is a compost of fear, ignorance, and superstition.

But we know too much now, as evidenced by Tolstoy's contributions above and countless others' throughout this debate. When information enables one to shed fear or suspicion of another human being, why would a person instead choose to cling to them even harder? This reflex I do not understand. It seems to go against one's self-interest. Don't you feel better - mentally, emotionally, physically - when you view something positively rather than negatively?

kolob1
sandy, UT

Most stories of sexual abuse of a child reveals that the pedophile hid behind the "sanctity" of "marriage" to have access to his victims.Never heard of one case of sexual perversion by a married gay couple. The sexual perversion statistics that these so called "family" organizarions cite are all statistics taken from their own gene pool.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

@Schnee

In reply to my comment you stated "Hmm, well maybe we can reduce the risk of STDs by encouraging committed monogamous relationships"

To try to compare the rate of STD (HIV/AIDS)in the heterosexual population to the rate in the gay community is counter-factual and disingenuous and you know it. Your assertion does not stand up to statistical analysis or scientific evidence.

According the Centers for Disease control and Prevention "In 2011, in the United States, MSM (men who have sex with men) accounted for 79% of 38,825 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 62% of 49,273 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year".

This is very troubling because HIV research and treatment costs the American tax payer billions of dollars that could be used for other needs such as healthcare for the needy and education.

Another major reason why laws in America should foster committed traditional marriage and family relationships!

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

@Tolstoy

Same-Sex Parenting and Junk Science

“No one should pay any attention to studies that are poorly done. They are just some stories, they really are not science.” Dr. Linda Waite

One the misleading claims commonly made by homosexual activists and their allies is that social
science research proves that there are no significant differences in the social and psychological outcomes for children raised by same-sex “parents” when compared to those raised by heterosexual parents. (The term “parent” will be used for convenience, but with the recognition that no more than one member of a same-sex couple raising a child can be the biological parent.)

However, independent evaluation of the studies commonly used to support these assertions have concluded that all of them fall far short of the minimum standards the social science disciplines require to be met for research findings to have any validity.

koseighty
Logan, UT

@LovelyDeseret who said:
"I wonder if gay marriage is not punishment for not valuing and protecting marriage enough. If you don't cherish it, you lose it. Like a thief on a Friday night before Christmas it snuck in and stole marriage."

And yet, nothing is being taken away from you. Your marriage, and mine of 30 years, will not be lost. The only thing threatened by marriage equality is a sense of privilege some insist on having. My enjoyment of a piece of pie is in no way diminished by someone at the next table also enjoying a slice. To believe otherwise is the height of arrogance and self importance.

to comment

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