Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Burden of proof

Comments

Return To Article
  • TheRealU HERRIMAN, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    So Mikey, if sex is the only criteria that determines whether one can marry - what shall me do with hermaphrodites? Can they marry? How do we choose which sex they are? Do they get to decide?

    @airnaut
    Yeah, seperate but equal really worked out for society in the past...

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 15, 2014 8:54 p.m.

    Marriage is a mess. States that have redefined marriage have less and less heterosexual marriages in their states and there are now less children with their biological children. No one will be happy with the mess we are creating.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Feb. 14, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    To "Res Novae" if you don't believe me, read what the LDS prophets have said.

    See "A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion" by Ezra Taft Benson. Also see "The Law of Consecration" by Victor Brown.

    If that isn't enough for you, take a look at LDS scripture and compare that to Communism. Communism requires a strong central government and ownership of everything by the state.

    D&C 134:2 states that "We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." You can't have communism or socialism and live that scripture.

    If you do more research and study into the United Order, you find that the it is the opposite of communism. The United Order requires little to no government. Property is still owned by individuals. You sink or swim based on your ability to work, handouts are given to those that actually need help not just those that want help.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Feb. 14, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    @Redshirt,

    No, the LDS attempts at the Law of Consecration involved deeding their property over to the Church, which then doled it out according to need with individuals holding stewardship, not ownership, of the property.

    That you chalk up the failure of this attempt at communal property to some sort of nascent fascism/communism only demonstrates that you're using terms you don't understand.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    Redshirt:

    You are thinking of it as a line...it is a circle. See if that doesn't help you.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 13, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    To "Unreconstructed Reb" I don't think you understand fascism and even what you said. If fascism is the fusion of capitalism and communism, far left and far right, how can fascism be to the right of capitalism? You are saing that the average of 2 and 6 is 8. Fascism is not a hyper version of capitalism, it is a weak form of socialism where the government controls business through regulation. Did you not read the Nazi part platform. They were fascists. Tell me how they can be to the right of conservatives that want as little government as possible while building up a large and powerful central government that micromanages private businesses?

    The LDS experiment was neither fascist or communist. The individuals still owned their property, and still controlled what they did with their land, and when things fell apart, people retained private ownership. They volunteered to give their excess to the community and the poor. The ironic thing is that once fascism or communism crept in, that is when things fell apart.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Feb. 13, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    You're drawing comparisons between ideologies on different spectrums. What you're describing is laissez-faire capitalism, a form of libertarianism. Libertarianism has its own left-right split; laissez-faire capitalism's on the right. Using your analysis, laissez-faire capitalism is virtually the same as anarchism. But it's not. Anarchism is on the left end of the libertarian spectrum.

    Fascism and communism must be viewed on their proper spectrum. Communism abolishes private economic interest. In the middle is traditional capitalism with private and public economic spheres, mixed to varying degrees. Fascism synthesizes the two spheres to be inseparable. It's a hyper version of the corporatism on the conservative end of capitalism. That's one reason why it belongs on the extreme right, along with its extreme nationalism, racism, and imperialism.

    In fascism's heyday, no one would have taken your conflation of the two seriously.

    If communalism is the defining shared characteristic of the two, separated by only a few degrees, where does the LDS experiment with communalism in Kirtland and Utah fall? Fascist or communist?

    To be on topic: libertarian philosophy should argue for SSM.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    That "increase or decrease" is mere rhetoric. Regan increased the government, in spite of all his speech to the contrary. Bush I and II both increased the size of the government too. Nixon? Guess...

    There is no doubt in my mind that the next republican president will increase the size of the government. Why do you think differently? Just because they talk the good talk?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 13, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    To "Unreconstructed Reb" as I stated before. It depends on your point of view. If your idea of a left wing is communism, and right is fascism, then fascism is right wing. However, if you define it like the acedemics do, then fascism is leftist. You see, left on the political spectrum looks to increase the size and power of government. The right on the political spectrum looks to minimize the size of government. That is basically the accepted definition of left and right in the US. In Europe the difference between left and right is only the difference between Communism on the left and a mild form of socialism on the right. That is why some say that fascism is on the right, it is only because it is to the right of socialism.

    So, looking at the NAZI party platform, answer this question. Does the NAZI party platform increase or decrease the size and involvement of government? Since in the US, the dividing line is increasing government or minimizing government, honestly justify why fascism is right wing.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Feb. 13, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    [MODS: I'm resubmitting a revised post initially denied as off topic. If posts accusing others of fascism are allowed, it's inconsistent to deny a rebuttal which specifically calls out those posts as off topic.]

    LDS Liberal,

    Don't bother.

    Some will never accept that fascism is considered right-wing by all but (ironically) right-wingers.

    Some will never accept fascism's history as a reactionary response to the USSR in Europe and to the New Deal in the US.

    Some will never accept that Communism is government ownership of the economy while fascism mixes the lines between government and wealthy capitalist industrialists (see fascist sympathizers Ford, Rockefeller, and Kennedy - hardly communists), encouraging corporate profit as secondary only to support of the state.

    Some will ignore the Spanish Civil War and the Eastern Front where the two ideologies fought bitterly.

    Some will sidestep the ultranationalism, racial superiority, and hyper-militarism of fascism, all of which is anathema to left-wing political theory.

    And some will toss out accusations of fascism as a distraction from the topic at hand, which is SSM. Ignore it.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 13, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" how many times do I need to pull out the NAZI party platform and show it to you?

    Lets start out with the basis that left wing policis promate strong central government and communal ideas.

    "We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen." call for unions-Lefist

    "We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens." leftist policies demand government provide jobs.

    "In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the Nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the Nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits." leftists/liberals here demanded that "obscene" profits be taken away from oil companies. Leftist.

    "We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts)." that is just socialism. Leftist.

    "We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises." current leftist demand.

    That was just the first half of the NAZI part platform. The rest is filled with even more leftist dogma.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut

    To "LDS Liberal" again with the lies about the Nazis. The Nazi party is left wing,

    =========

    You are not arguing against me Red,
    You are arguing with History, Facts, and Reality.

    Fascism is uber-Far-RIGHT-wing,
    making all your rationalizations contrary moot.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 13, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    To "5thGen" let me just yawn at your remarks. What you say can be said of LDS members around the world. It isn't any different than what so many other groups go through also.

    What you are asking for is to change the definition of marriage. Marriage traditionally has been defined as a man and a woman. Now, you and your ilk want to redefine marriage to be any 2 people regardless of gender that love eachother.

    To "LDS Liberal" again with the lies about the Nazis. The Nazi party is left wing, granted not as left as the communists, but they are big government people. Look at FDR's left wing record, it reads a lot like Hitler's domestic policies. FDR and Hitler both rounded up ethnic groups they feared. Both promised to make things better, when in fact things were not better. Both set up massive government programs to provide and do everything for everybody. Try as you may, the fact is that Nazi's have more in common with you and your liberal ilk than they do with conservatives. That is assuming that your left-right dichotomy runs between Communist and Socialist.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Feb. 13, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    @Redshirt,

    Sorry, demanding that people suffer as much as my forebears as a baseline for getting sympathy isn't a legal argument but an obscene absurdity.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    You forget that Mormons were attacked for practicing Polygamy. They were put into jail because of their beliefs. The gays have yet to suffer like the LDS did.

    4:47 p.m. Feb. 12, 2014

    =========

    I disagree,
    The radical Right-wing Nazis put gays in jail
    AND
    sent them to the Gas Chambers.

    Mormons have yet to suffer like the Gays did.

  • 5thGen Holladay, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    And RedShirt, why would we ask for something other than marriage - that's what it's called, isn't it? Besides, we were truly given no options, because no matter what other word we could've used to sugar-coat it to make it palatable for you, Utah law has made sure that it would still never be recognized.

  • 5thGen Holladay, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 7:37 a.m.

    What RedShirt? "The gays have yet to suffer like the LDS did"? Really? Despite how nice we are, how kind we are to our neighbors, how good we are in school, how much we contribute to our communities, families, etc, most of us have been persecuted our entire lives - be it the brunt of jokes, ostracism, name calling, vandalism and more out right physical attacks than you'd probably be comfortable hearing about. But you say we haven't suffered - and you say it like it’s some kind of requirement.

    Really, what many people with your opinion really want is for us to simply shut up and go away, become invisible and voiceless again. Well that just isn't going to happen - most of us have been there and it's no way to live your life. We're as red-blooded American as the rest of you and we're no longer going to settle for second best just to make you (and your "ilk") comfortable.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    To "RFLASH" but you are taking away traditional marriage. By demanding to use the word marriage, and by demanding legal recognition of the union of 2 gay people be called marriage, you are attacking traditional marriage.

    If you redefine marriage to be the union of 2 people that love eachother, instead of the union of a man and a woman, that has serious societal impact.

    If you and your ilk wanted to gain the same recognition as traditional marriage you would have had an easier time if you had come up with a different term than marriage. Now, when somebody says the Terry and Pat are getting married you no longer picture a man and a woman. If gays had chosen some other word, the idea of traditional marriage would be maintained AND they would have a word that indicates to everybody that it is 2 people of the same gender getting married.

    You forget that Mormons were attacked for practicing Polygamy. They were put into jail because of their beliefs. The gays have yet to suffer like the LDS did.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    First of all, people are opposed to Amendment 3, not traditional marriage. None of us have tried to fight against any heterosexual marriage, so please, don't accuse us of hurting your marriages! Many of you just don't seem to get it! People want to dismiss gay people as if we have no say in anything! None of us are trying to take away your traditional marriage! We are standing up for our right to be able to marry, which has nothing to do with the marriages of any heterosexual! Lets say it how it is, Mormons want the right to tell the gay community who they are and how they fit into the society and how they can live their lives! They want to say that gay people can't get married and they want to define gay people as bad parents! Guess what, we can decide for ourselves who we are and what we deserve! None of you have the right to deny us every right that you have yourselves! Can you imagine if Mormons were the minority and the majority voted that Mormons weren't worthy of marriage and the denying them the right to marry!

  • nycut New York, NY
    Feb. 12, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    @J Thompson's comment compounds the poor logic of the letter writer by misunderstanding the basic principle of equality:
    “The equality argument is total nonsense. We are not equal. Stand in front of a mirror with anyone and see the differences. Saying that your are "equal" does not make you equal. There are differences.”

    Obviously boys are different from girls. Black is different from brown. A gay couple is different from a straight couple.

    Advocating equality is not to assert that these things are the *same* as each other. It asserts that these *differences* are a not a good enough reason for the law to treat one group of people differently from another.

    A straight person tends to go for a member of the opposite sex, and can legally marry him or her. A gay person tends to go for a member of the same sex, and (in Utah, at least for the moment) cannot legally marry him or her.

    Amendment 3 discriminates against gay people.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 6:22 a.m.

    Marriage is many things. However, it is never simple.

    I know that's not really relevant.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    @Ultra Bob:
    "The Supreme Court decision is in effect, 'states can make any law they please, so long as their law doesn't violate the Constitution.'"

    The State of Utah has made marriage laws and they do not violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment. Anyone can marry... provided they marry one person of the opposite sex. How could that be violating the Constitution?

    You say, well, some people are prone to wanna marry someone not of the opposite sex. True. And others will say I wanna marry my sister or mother or dad or cousin or grand daughter or several people at once. Using the logic of the SSM crowd (equal protection) these combinations of marriage should also be allowed by the state... in which case the state will have a giant mess. Better to keep marriage simple... one man/one woman.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:25 p.m.

    "... there is really not much doubt that the traditional marriage argument stands on firm ground."

    The danger is, if traditional marriage falls as the only allowable marriage, the gates will be thrown wide for any and all other types of human associations. At which point the best alternative would be to ban all marriages and the negating of all legal benefits derived therefrom.

    @The Real Maverick:
    "All that needs to be proven is whether or not preventing same sex couples from being married is in violation of the Constitution. It has been done several times."

    There is not violation of the Constitution. All, ALL can marry provided they marry one person of the opposite sex. It's not rocket science.

    @liberal larry:
    "You are missing the point of same sex marriage. It doesn't threaten 'traditional marriage' or replace it, it merely adds the BENEFITS of marriage to a whole new segment of society."

    What about other segments of society... such as polygamy, incest, sibs, and close relative marriages who would also like the benefits, legal and otherwise, of marriage?

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:03 p.m.

    The United States Supreme Court wrote in 1923 in the case Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:59 p.m.

    I remember so well the stories about the Greek gods and the Roman gods. I remember their tantrums. I 'be read about societies who have sacrificed their children to their gods. So, what a privilege it is to live when the knowledge about God is beginning to fill the earth. What a privilege it is to see the scales fall from the eyes of those who seek Him.

    Of course it will be long after I'm gone before I understand enough to be an expert, but isn't it wonderful that an unchangeable God will instruct us a little at a time? Isn't it wonderful that He knows alll that can be known about marriage, about raising a family and about human weakness? Isn't wonderful that He told us that marriage is between a man and a woman?

    If we're wise, we'll listen to our Creator, our God, our Heavenly Father.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    To the truth,

    Did you have to prove you were entitled to marriage?

    Actually, all they have to prove is that they are human and thus entitled to their "inalienable rights."

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:14 p.m.

    "In any civil action, it's always up to the plaintiff to carry the burden of proving his/her case."

    No burden of proof on the plaintiff exists. The legal standard in a case of this nature is rational basis: the law's presumed valid if it's rationally related to a government purpose. There has to be a connection between the government's legitimate purpose and the disadvantaged group's exclusion from benefits.

    The Court held that Utah has a legitimate interest in supporting heterosexual marriage, but not to the point of excluding same-sex marriage because the State could not show that latter compromises or diminishes the former. Nor could the State show a rational connection between banning SSM and its objective of raising children in traditional family structures. There's no evidence that Amendment 3 has any effect on the decision to have children or how they're raised.

    In sum, the State's argument failed the rational basis test.

    "Unfortunately, the trial judge didn't require plaintiffs to do that, and that's why the case is now on appeal."

    Tell that to the State's attorneys, who didn't mention it in their appellate brief.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:39 p.m.

    First of all the gays MUST prove they are entitled to marriage.
    hey show the federal government has a say in state marriage laws.
    Then they must show the amendment is unconstitutional

    They must prove it is civil right they are entitled to.

    Which means they must show homosexuality is a protected class.

    Which means they prove with hard scientific evidence they are born that way AMD they can not choose their behavior.

    NONE which has been shown,

    Ipso facto, the amendment is constitutional.

    They burden of proof is on the gays.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    Re: "When the law is being challenged on the claim of it violating the US Constitution it is up to the defenders of that law to prove that it is Constitutional."

    You've got it backwards. Again.

    In any civil action, it's always up to the plaintiff to carry the burden of proving his/her case. If plaintiff produces no evidence, or insufficient evidence, defendant wins. Even if the defendant has produced no evidence at all.

    In this case, by law, it's plaintiffs' burden to show what the law is, what the facts are, and how applying the law to the facts requires the judge to rule in their favor.

    Unfortunately, the trial judge didn't require plaintiffs to do that, and that's why the case is now on appeal.

    And, why Utah will ultimately prevail.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:39 p.m.

    "You're telling us that God changes. Does He? Does He change? Are you saying that He doesn't know what He's doing and that as He "changes", He passes along that information to His children?"

    I think the answer to your question is found in 2 Nephi 28, where we read: “For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.”

  • L White Springville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:18 p.m.

    My goodness, but reading comprehension seems to be at an all time low when same-sex sex is being discussed. There is even a poster that tells us that the Supreme Court was wrong when it said that the Federal Government has no authority to define marriage and that marriage is to be defined by the States, exactly as the 10th Amendment tells us.

    Some posters keep telling us that the 14th Amendment guarantees them "equal protection", but their reading comprehension about that also seems to be lacking, because they leave off the important part. That VERY important part says, "equal protection of the laws". Now, if an old lady like me can understand that if the Supreme Court tells us that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to make laws about marriage and that the place for those laws to be made is at the State level, then that means that there is no Federal Law being violated and that the State law is the where that "equal protection of the laws" takes place.

    Utah seems to be doing just fine. It is doing what the Court told it to do.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" can't you prove that SSM is equal to traditional marriage between a man and a woman?

    You are saying that you and your wife are more the same than different, but you admit that you are different. Now, with 2 gay men or 2 gay women, would there be more or less differences?

    Are you and your wife equally emotional, or is your wife more emotional? Do you use logic to solve problems more than emotion?

    Actually the burden of proof should be on the SSM advocates. They say are the ones claiming that SSM is not different than marriage between a man and a woman, and should be treated equally. If they are to be treated equally, then they should prove that SSM is equal.

    Right now, all of the studies show that SSM is NOT equal to marriage between a man and a woman.

    FYI, it is liberals like you that keep telling me that marriage is primarily about sex.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 4:36 p.m.

    "This is what judicial review seems to refuse to recognize."

    Judicial review refuses to acknowledge it because the burden of proof has always laid with those seeking to restrict access to right and privileges in our society regardless of your belief of what is "traditional."

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Feb. 11, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    If promoting an alteration to marriage means forcing everyone to socially and economically recognize your own idea of what it is, all while its proponents viciously attack and bully anyone who doesn't think like they do... People who reject the gospel and seek to convince others also on the sole basis of this fanatically-fueled drive to change marriage, and who hiss at those who identify as "homosexual" but who recognize the social and spiritual challenges it presents and who seek to amend such a trait...

    ... It is an affront to reason to suggest that it "doesn't affect traditional marriage".

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    How do the states' rights absolutists explain the holding in Reynolds v. United States? Loving v. Virginia? Those are obvious clues that territorial/state marriage laws are still subject to federal review and can be overturned, the 10th Amendment notwithstanding.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    Re-read the 10th Amendment again. It lets states regulate non-"enumerated" issues, however it REQUIRES them to do so within the confines of the Constitution itself (i.e., the states may not violate the US Constitution in regulating marriage).

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    @airnaut,

    You wrote to Mike Richards: "You claim we have a God that you say never changes,I say we have a God that changes and gives us higher laws and intructions all the time."

    Interesting. Very interesting. You're telling us that God changes. Does He? Does He change? Are you saying that He doesn't know what He's doing and that as He "changes", He passes along that information to His children? I doubt that you'll find that concept being taught in any Christian Church, especially the Church in which you claim membership. You might read Bruce R. McConkie's "The Seven Deadly Heresies", where he said:

    " Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

    This is false—utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression."

    Devine law is natural law. It does not change in that "sphere" in which it was placed - ever.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT
    To "Open Minded Mormon" are you saying that SSM is equal in all aspects of marriage?

    ========

    I'm saying, the burden of proof that someone else's Gay marriage harmingl your "marriage", is yours.

    It's like you banning someone else from having a pink car,
    simply because YOU don't like it and you don't want one.

    Prove to me how the color of someone else's car harms you or takes away your freedom,
    and I'll immediately change my opinion.

    and having children is never a definition of "marriage".

    As for being opposites --

    My wife and I are more the SAME than we are different.

    We like the same shows, foods, places, friends, books, vacations, leisure, etc.
    THAT'S why we are married,
    because she is my BEST Friend!

    You guys and your [marriage is about sex] just don't get it?!
    and IMHO, you are the one's twisting and destroying true "marriage".

    The point that I made before, and will make again, is that SSM is the same as traditional marriage between a man and a woman,
    IF
    you get married for the right reason.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    Most European countries and Mexico also have a civil ceremony requirement. A marriage in Mexico is legal only if it is a civil ceremony. The religious ceremony occurs later. The purpose behind a civil ceremony is to provide state (government) recognition of the union. I wish our country would move to this system so that regardless of sexual orientation every union would result in equal secular, civil benefits. Then each religion would be free to impose upon their congregation whatever restrictions they wanted for purposes of solemnizing the marriage in the eyes of god.

    To put this in perspective for Deseret readers, imagine if marriage that took place outside the Mormon temple was invalid on a civil level but valid on a religious level. Would you feel your marriage equal to the marriage of your catholic neighbor even though your catholic neighbor gets additional tax deductions, insurance benefits from their employer, the ability to pass their estate tax free to their spouse upon death, and a whole host of other benefits that you would be denied?

    That is why this argument is about equality rather than the procreative abilities and parenting skills of the partners in the union.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" are you saying that 2 gay men or 2 gay women are equal to a man and a woman in all aspects of marriage?

    Who said that the biological differences, the nurturing, and other natural differences between men and women are all about sex and reproduction?

    Teh fact is that you need opposites. Another difference is emotions. Women are typically more emotional than men, and men are typically more analytical then women. When a man and a women are married, they learn about compromise. If 2 gays marry, where is the compromise?

    The point that I made before, and will make again, is that SSM is not the same as traditional marriage between a man and awoman, not matter how you spin it.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    I am sorry that the SSM advocates claim that everything is the same, but facts, biology, and genetics prove that SSM will never equal traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

    12:50 p.m. Feb. 11, 2014

    ============

    I am sorry,
    but they are the same,
    the fact is most of married for LOVE, companionship and committment --

    your arguments about biology, genetics, and the single ability for sexual reproduction means very little to absolutely nothing to true "marriage".

    BTW -- Once you all have defined "marriage" as only about sex and reproduction -- you will thankfully loose each and everytime.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    Pretty good letter, and as usual we get a load of bunk from the gay crowd, who cant tell the truth to save their life. Gay marriage isn't about equal rights, its about forcing society to accept someone else's morality or lack of it. Its about one more step down the road to teaching someone else to become gay, and to bolster the ranks.
    We deny "constitutional" rights to different segments of society EVERY day, so don't fall for the notion that poor put upon gay persons are being exclusively denied any rights. All we need is more pedophile judges, or judges related to or friends with pedophiles, and we could have constitutional interpretation that pedophilia is legal. Who cares what the law says!!!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    To "Jim Cobabe" you said that the SSM advocates need to prove that what they want is "offers something superior to established tradition." I would be amazed if they could prove that it is even equal with a marriage between a man and a woman.

    No matter how hard they spin it, SSM is not the same as traditional marriage. Biology alone proves that there is a difference. If children are involved, a same sex couple cannot provide an example to that child of gender roles within marriage. 2 gay men will never have the same nurturing instinct as a mother, and 2 gay women will never have the same rough and tumble was as a father.

    I am sorry that the SSM advocates claim that everything is the same, but facts, biology, and genetics prove that SSM will never equal traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    I object to the characterization that those who support marriage equality are "opponents" of traditional marriage. I support a family with two biological parents of children as an ideal. But at the same time, we do not bar step-families from forming because there is only one biological parent. Children in step-families are generally better off than those being raised by a single parent. An adopted child is certainly better off being raised in a family which loves them, rather than the biological parents who either did not want them or knew they could not adequately care for the child. There are 8 million children with one biological parent in same-sex partner households in America. Would they not fare better if in a legally recognized family with all the protections and benefits of marriage.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    I understand "natural law", I'm an engineer.

    For 40 years,
    I have been designing and building airplanes and rockets that supercede gravity all the time.

    Note: I did not "break" the law of gravity,
    but I know higher laws that supercede and seem to defy and break it all the time.

    You claim we have a God that you say never changes,
    I say we have a God that changes and gives us higher laws and intructions all the time.

    Natural laws says a person should die from a tumor,
    I say we have learned surgery and change what could easliy be defined as "God's Will" all the time.

    I'm not going to argue about this --
    You have a stubborn and stiffneck and will never consider anyone else's opinions.

    Have a nice day.

    BTW -- The burdeon of proof that Gay marriage will have any effect you or anyone else's marriage is YOURS to prove.

    I married for LOVE and Committment, not for sex.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    @Sven

    But amend 3 didn't even allow homosexuals to call their marriages "unions." It even banned unions.

    So Utah essentially demanded a whole loaf instead of a half loaf. They will end up with no loaf. Too bad so sad.

    Much like the lessons that the tea party learned after the gov shutdown, sometimes compromise is necessary. Demanding your way or the highway often leads to no way.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    Good morning airnaut.

    You seem to confuse "natural law" with "natural man". God was not confused when He told us that marriage is between a man and a woman. His prophets were not confused when they declared to all the world that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gender is an eternal attribute, not something that we have the right to change.

    Natural law, like the law of gravity, cannot be changed by man. Mankind can stomp their feet and declare that they don't like the law of gravity. They can tell us that they having the law of gravity makes them unequal to a spirit, which, as far as we know, is not bound by that law. They can cite the Constitution and demand to be made equal to a spirit. But, when they step off that cliff, they will find that the natural law applies.

    Man cannot redefine natural law. It is eternal within the sphere that it is place.

    Marriage has been define by our creator as the union between a man and a woman. You can fight against it, but that will not change the law.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    Sven
    Morgan, UT

    Let homosexuals call their relationship a union, but not a marriage.

    [If Utah's Amendment 3 had allowed for Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships -- it most likely would have been upheld, but since it took the All-or-Nothing approach, it was struck down...i.e, Nothing.]

    ===

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Only the natural order is allowed. Those desiring an unnatural order might just as well claim that the law of gravity doesn't apply to them - because they reject it.

    9:53 a.m. Feb. 11, 2014

    [Good morning Mike.
    Where to start, where to start...

    Your using "Natural Laws" now?

    The Natural Man would have sex with as many women as possible, all marriage aside.
    and the remaining 3% are "naturally" homosexual.

    Still want to stand by your comment?]

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    Ultra Bob,

    Read the 10th Amendment. That Amendment directs all questions, all duties, all authority to the States unless that question, that duty, or that authority is enumerated in the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court understands the 10th Amendment. It directed all laws pertaining to marriage to the States, as required by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment demands equality under the "laws". The laws regarding marriage are written by the States. The U.S. Constitution has no "dog" in that fight.

    Everyone in Utah is treated equally under the law. Under the law, a cat cannot marry a dog and a man cannot marry a man, but any man can marry any woman who will have him and any woman can marry any man who will have her. That is full equality under the law. Race is not a criteria. Religion is not a criteria. National origin is not a criteria. Only the sex that God gave us is a criteria. Only the natural order is allowed. Those desiring an unnatural order might just as well claim that the law of gravity doesn't apply to them - because the reject it.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    The really sad part of all this, is that churches and religious organizations have done themselves harm by trying to force others to accept a single definition of marriage when it really doesn't matter.

    Children matter, and need the protection of traditional parents, society and even government. Yet the churches and religious organizations refuse to separate the two issues. As a result, children may be the losers no matter which way it goes.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    J Thompson.

    The Supreme Court's decision to allow the states to define religion, is like Henry Ford's quote "People can have any color car they want, so long as it is black".

    The Supreme Court decision is in effect, "states can make any law they please, so long as their law doesn't violate the Constitution".

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    Still waiting to hear a sound argument against gay marriage that does not involve religion (which is irrelevant since our government is forbidden to pass any laws respecting an establishment of it) or what essentially boils down to the “it’s just yucky” argument.

    And truth be told, I get the 2nd argument. But I also don’t understand how people like brussel sprouts, yet I don’t have anywhere near the hubris to suggest people shouldn’t be allowed to eat them.

    And thanks to those who have pointed out the hypocrisy of those who claim they simply “support traditional marriage.” I too would be against anyone who does not support traditional marriage. When you find someone that fits that description (they appear to be non-existent among gay marriage supporters) please let us know.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    From the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

    Many of us believe that part of the Constitution allows individuals to be able to think and do as they please so long as their actions do not harm or adversely effect others. And they may call it what they please.

    If one believes that the Constitution trumps state law, it is up to the state to show cause for the apparent violation of the First Amendment protections.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    Jim,

    Even if we were all to agree that "traditional marriage" is optimal, how does the prohibition of gay marriage advance that?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    "We're not "opponents of traditional marriage", we're advocates of marriage equality. There is a huge difference."

    That is exactly why this terminology is used. Some do it out of weakness, but the device was created very purposefully.

    It's used to not just simplify the issue (erase all the grey areas and possible points of agreement), but to create an "us or them" mentality.

    Tribalism is a very primate instinct and if you want to win an issue you need as many people on your side as possible.

    Thus you have, pro life, anti gun, anti traditional marriage. The one place Dems have used it effectively is with anti global warming.

    In my opinion this is what has happened to Congress, the tea party has turned it into a tribal contest, and you don't cooperate with the other tribe, you destroy them.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    It looks like same-sex advocates have got the cart before that horse - again. The Supreme Court left the decision of what constitutes "marriage" to the States. Utah's Constitution defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Utah has fulfilled its obligation, according to the Supreme Court.

    The equality argument is total nonsense. We are not equal. Stand in front of a mirror with anyone and see the differences. Saying that your are "equal" does not make you equal. There are differences. There are differences in our duties. There are differences in our paychecks. There are differences in our education. We are all different. Some are trying to force a convoluted definition of "equality" on society.

    Those who use the 14th Amendment's "equality" clause, haven't even read it. "or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Supreme Court told the States to make the "laws" about marriage. Everyone in Utah has equal protection to marry someone of the opposite sex according to the LAW.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    I am still scared of the connection with the Family Research Council. I don't want my children being taught creationism. I do however want them to understand the bible as far as it is translated correctly, and to further their education in all areas of science on philosophy. New truths are being discovered every day in this world and to restrict their brains to a limited scope of the world like the Family Research Council does is unacceptable to me as a parent.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    When a claim to a right is advanced, those claiming the right don't have to prove access to that right nor that the right provides a benefit to society - those wishing to limit or restrict the right must prove a legally valid reason for the limitation or prohibition.

    Contrary to claims by Utah, they do need to prove a connection between the prohibition on same-sex marriage and the claim that it promotes heterosexual unions and the bearing of children.

    There is no proof of that. Areas with civil unions have more heterosexual couples partaking of "marriage light" but areas that just have marriage - available to heterosexual and same-sex couples - have not seen a decrease in heterosexual marriages. (Some areas may have a continuation of a trend of declining marriage rates that started before same-sex couples were allowed marriage, but the rate of decline has not increased.)

    There has been no decline in fertility rates, no increase in out of wedlock child-bearing, no non-economic increase on child poverty.

    Prohibiting same-sex marriage does not further the goal of heterosexual marriage and allowing same-sex marriage does not negatively impact heterosexual marriage or child rearing.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    The burden of proof?

    So if 100 studies are done and 99 show that gay marriage has no negatives and 1 study does, will repubs disregard the 99 studies as they've done with global warming?

    Lets just admit that no amount of studies is going to change religious peoples' minds on this issue.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:04 a.m.

    "Opponents of traditional marriage values appear to have their priorities reversed. "

    We're not "opponents of traditional marriage", we're advocates of marriage equality. There is a huge difference.

    Equal does not mean "superior", it means "equal".

    "The FRC, along with the state of Utah, has no obligation to further demonstrate the virtue of traditional marriage."

    Incorrect. If you're going to deny equal treatment under the law to citizens of this country, you'd better have a darn good reason - and you need PROOF of it. YOU need to prove that allowing LGBT couples to marry is detrimental, not the other way around.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    Oh really? So the burden of proof now falls upon gay rights activists? Where was this thinking when I advocated for greater gun restrictions (like background checks)? Even a majority of Americans supported those. Yet, the right demanded that I provide the "proof" that background checks would lower gun violence. The people who wanted to restrict one's right to hear arms needed to provide proof.

    Had this remained consistent, it would be the people desiring to restrict gay marriage who needed to provide proof. Now it appears that the shoe is on the other foot.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    Consider the source...

    Funny that the letter writer quotes the "Family Research Council" in the Deseret News,

    since they have stated that Mormons are a non-Christian Cult,
    and just recently trashed the LDS Church for supporting the Boy Scouts.

    Speaking of "Burden of Proof",
    other States and Countries have legalized non-Traditional marriage...
    Traditional Marriage has not been hurt in the least.

    BTW -- Polygamy is considered Non-Tradiational.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    I'm not sure this letter writer understands how the Constitution works.

  • 5thGen Holladay, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    More snide and condescending comparisons. Yes, Jim, gay people just want to get married so they can have a "prolonged free-for-all party" where we can all play with our "trendy new toy". Anti-gay marriage folks never seem able to resist getting a dig or two in.

    And Jim, I don't believe there's any such thing as "anti-traditional marriage" - you're just making that up. Supporting gay marriage doesn't mean you're against traditional marriage - it simply means you support marriage equality.

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:33 a.m.

    Actually, the burden now is on Utah, as the proponent of Amend 3, and not the SSM plaintiffs. The issue is not whether there is any rational reason for encouraging "traditional marriage".

    Utah spent most of its opening brief on the point that the pro-creative, stable-child-rearing, biological-parent rationale for restricting secular marriage to one-man-one-woman is a legitimate state interest. In fact, Judge Shelby's summary judgment analysis assumed that was all true.

    So to prevail at the 10th Cir., Utah must convince the panel that Judge Shelby erred in finding that there was no rational basis for the exclusion of a single class of citizens (gay couples) from the benefits/privileges of secular marriage, in Utah's pursuit of all those (presumed) legitimate state interests, when, by law, all other classes of couples which similarly don't measure up to those same standards(physical/emotional abusers, substance abusers, infertile, elderly, adoptive parents) are not excluded.

    Utah must persuade the 10th Cir. that the logical disconnect of the isolated exclusion of gay couples and the state's presumed legitimate state interests is, as a matter of law, rational.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:24 a.m.

    You misstate the nature of your opponent's argument. No one is opposed to traditional marriage. I have never heard anyone say anything about changing traditional marriage one iota.

    This is a civil rights issue. Those of you who "support traditional marriage" (which is code for oppose same sex marriage) wish to deny your fellow citizens their full civil rights.

    And you are right; the Court has ruled; the writing is on the wall. Marriage equality is coming.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:22 a.m.

    You are missing the point of same sex marriage. It doesn't threaten "traditional marriage" or replace it, it merely adds the BENEFITS of marriage to a whole new segment of society.

    Bringing more love and stability to society should be a conservative value, don't you think?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:48 a.m.

    False.

    No one needs to prove that same sex marriage is better than traditional.

    All that needs to be proven is whether or not preventing same sex couples from being married is in violation of the Constitution. It has been done several times. That's sort of what equality is all about. Discrimination is never good.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:11 a.m.

    When the law is being challenged on the claim of it violating the US Constitution it is up to the defenders of that law to prove that it is Constitutional.

    As an example, consider something that presumably most who oppose same-sex marriage also support, the DC gun ban. When that was challenged in the courts it wasn't up to gun rights advocates to prove that getting rid of the law would be beneficial, it was up to gun control advocates to prove that the ban was constitutional.