Published: Tuesday, Feb. 11 2014 12:15 a.m. MST
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.
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.
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?
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.
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,
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.
I'm not sure this letter writer understands how the Constitution works.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Jim, Even if we were all to agree that "traditional
marriage" is optimal, how does the prohibition of gay marriage advance that?
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
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.
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".
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
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments