Comments about ‘Attorney for same-sex couples files brief in Amendment 3 appeal’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 26 2014 6:10 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

There seems to be some confusion on the part of same-sex marriage opponents, and I would like to take the opportunity of my last post to clarify some issues.

Polygamy - there is a movement to legalize polygamy, but the outcome of that movement will be dependent entirely on its own merits and not on whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized. Continually bringing up polygamy does nothing to further the arguments against same-sex marriage which is why it has never been brought up in a same-sex marriage legal case.

Incest, bestiality, pedophilia - these things all create well documented harms in society. Comparing same-sex marriage to these shows animus. Animus is not a legally valid reason for a law which is why attorneys and amicus briefs against same-sex marriage steer very clear of them. Constantly bringing them up weakens your position.

Not understanding the law, legal terminology, and the case at hand - shows a lack of willingness to truly understand the issues and implies by default that your position is knee jerk and not based on legal issues.

Civil unions - also prohibited by Amendment 3. Same-sex couples can't settle for them because of this.

Salt Lake City, UT

"The more promiscuous a society is the sicker it is:"

Discouraging monogamous homosexual relationships does nothing to helping the cause of less promiscuity.

"Instead, those people who want to improve society through encouraging chaste behavior are branded by some mean spirited people as bigots."

Like I said last time, the reason for the branding is because the actions taken are counterproductive to the stated goal suggesting this is just some holier-than-thou excuse making to justify discriminatory policy.

Los Angeles, CA

The nation’s first black attorney general, Mr. Holder has said he views today’s gay-rights campaigns as a continuation of the civil rights movement that won rights for black Americans in the 1950s and ’60s. He has called gay rights one of “the defining civil rights challenges of our time.”Mormons are you listening?

New York, NY

Strider303: "Why the constant proclamation of their sexual orientation?"

Sounds like you'd rather not know about it. But to be fair, you'd have to acknowledge all the ways big and small your sexual orientation is made apparent all the time. Consider this statement: "I'm going shopping with my wife." No matter who says it, it means the same thing. But if you can see that the speaker is male or female, you know their sexual orientation.

Try getting through the day having normal conversations without "giving it away." Hide all pictures, careful who sees your phone. Be sure to say "spouse" or "partner" instead of husband or wife or boyfriend or girlfriend. And be careful not to use pronouns that might give "him" or "her" away.

It's easier to simply acknowledge that some people are gay and some are straight, and get on with it.

@Strider303: "I find it hard to form an opinion of a person as a person, when immediately their sexual orientation is thrust into the forefront of the process of getting to know someone."

Why? Does your opinion change if they are gay? That might be the real question.

New York, NY

@JSB: "…custody issues, poverty, abused and neglected children resulting in more crime, drug abuse, school dropouts, social maladjustment, violence, sexual perversion… venereal disease, pornography and related sex crimes and psychological problems… more abortions and/or unwanted children."

That's quite a catalog of social ills to attribute to promiscuity. But the notion that preventing gay people from marrying somehow encourages chastity among heterosexuals is truly bizarre.

Where your (recycled) comment goes most wrong is more disturbing: Equating gay people with promiscuity demonstrates ignorance and prejudice.

Contrary to what your comment suggests, "gay" isn't just some extra-bad selection from the universal menu of promiscuous sexual behavior.

People who are emotionally and physically attracted to each other quite predictably have love lives, sex lives and, yes, marriages, that reflect that attraction. You have yours, other people have theirs. Promiscuity has nothing to do with that.

If your aim is to improve society, start small. Start by being polite. Stop calling a whole group of people in it "promiscuous" simply because you don't like their sexual orientation.

South Jordan, UT

If this is a land of Christians, then no quarter or special privileges should be given to same sex couples. If they want freedom of religion or paganism, it should not be denied, but also no special privileges. They should be ostracized by the Christian community. It is better to please God than men.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

I just read the brief. They use the arguments the State lawyers made against them very effectively. They also use the "arguments for" section of the Amendment 3 ballot measure very effectively. I wouldn't be surprised if the Court declares that discrimination against Gays requires heightened Constitutional scrutiny and not just "rational basis." If that holds, then I would say it will be Game, Set, and Match for the Marriage Equality side.

Ellington, CT

Unions between people of the same sex shouldn't have been recognized as a marriage in the first place and should be reclassified as unions. Marriage has only been between couples of opposite sexes for thousands of years and a court order can't change what marriage is by the stroke of a pen now. Redefining it now by a court judge doesn't mean a thing. It just makes gay and lesbian couples live in a lie.

Gilbert, AZ

The problem with the arguments presented by those who want to redefine marriage is that these arguments can be used for anything. Single people, men, children, women, polygamists, unwed mothers, foreigners etc. Using this argument, men and women have to be treated exactly equal. No separate bathrooms etc, in fact they can't even be called men and women, they need to find a common name. Otherwise one group is being treated differently.
Lastly, the term "legal strangers" is a made up term. Now the state will have to sanction and legally approve of any type of relationship that people can think of or else they are making those people "legal strangers". Sure we are brother and sister, but until the state gives us special legal status, we are "legal strangers". I can see why they didn't want other lawyers helping them with this brief.

Los Angeles, CA

Latest news A federal judge on Wednesday declared Texas’ ban on gay marriage unconstitutional but left the ban in place while an appeals court considers the matter.Mormons are you listening?

Provo, UT

Next up on the agenda: Marriage between a human and robot. Yeah, I'm looking forward to it. If you don't like what you're partner's saying you just turn them off, but you still get access to legal benefits that married people get.

Values Voter

@Lovely Desert

You wrote:

"Sure we are brother and sister, but until the state gives us special legal status, we are "legal strangers".

No you're not. A brother and sister are already family. They have "next of kin" rights, they can make medical decisions when necessary, they can do family transfers for there vehicles, etc. Marriage makes the two partners, previously unrelated, into a family.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Paddycakes: I suggest you read the First Amendment and the legal brief.

@ rightway2go: Amendment 3 also prohibits civil unions to same-sex couples. If you wanted them to do that instead of marriage, you should have voted against Amendment 3 and left them that option.

@ LovelyDeseret: "Legal strangers" may be a made up term, but it has been in use since at least 1866 and no legal professional, first year law student, or individual who knows how to use google has any trouble understanding exactly what it means.

As for your other claims, care to provide some rational proof that the claims made by the plaintiffs can be used to support anything?

@ CJL2020: As we have seen from "Bicentennial Man" as soon as robots are recognized as individuals and not objects, they will be able to petition the courts for the right to marriage. However, since we have yet to develop a robot with real AI, I think your dreams are located somewhere in the distant future. (Also, I would suggest against holding your breath on being able to marry your pen, your dog, or your taxidermied cat.)

American Fork, UT

Thankfully, utah is leading the charge to get same sex marriage recognised nationally.

St. George, UT

Whatever our opinion on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, opponents of same-sex marriage are losing on multiple front, including what has become the front line in the battle, right here in good old 60% LDS Utah. Today the Texas state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was struck down. Another red state falls.

Some religious people across our state and country have started accepting this changing reality and are responding with reactive religious freedom bills (see Arizona). Many religious people are starting to see threats to religious freedom in every shadow.....lurking like, well, the devil himself. If a true threat to religious freedom arises, I'll be right beside you fighting for your rights. As for now, I'd advise caution. Crying wolf does you no favors. No one particularly likes this new victim mentality you are adopting, especially given your privileged position in society (especially Utah) and horrible track record of persecuting others.


"I love my Mom, I love my Dad, why can't I get marriage benefits from them? Am I legal stranger." You do get benefits from them. You get "next of kin" rights.

"If this is a land of Christians, then no quarter or special privileges should be given to same sex couples. They should be ostracized by the Christian community. It is better to please God than men."

That's very Christian of you. Do you believe God really wants you to ostracize any person? As a Christian, I want no part of your "God." Maybe you should be the one who is ostracized. The LGBT community is not asking for special privileges. They are asking for the same "right" heterosexuals enjoy. The "right" to marry whom they love.

"Unions between people of the same sex shouldn't have been recognized as a marriage in the first place and should be reclassified as unions."

Except that Amendment 3 specifically removed any chance of that happening. Amendment 3 specifically stated that not even "civil unions" would be recognized. Acting compassionate by "giving" somebody something after you took it away is insulting.

Gilbert, AZ

@ Values Voter

Every Conservative state allows patients to designate all those things. Brother and Sister's don't get tax status thus under the brief they are "legal strangers". There is no law that makes two married people a family. Allow the redefinition of marriage gives special rights to gay couples. Now they will be the only married couple that can use the same lockerroom etc. This is discriminatory per the silly arguments set forth in the brief.

Jim Cobabe
Provo, UT

Seems to be an awful lot of gratuitous "shredding" going on with those offering comments.

Columbus, OH

LovelyDeseret: "Every Conservative state allows patients to designate all those things. "

That's not necessarily true, those types of situations (where medical decisions need to be made by someone other than the patient) often begin with some kind of emergency, and the hospital must conform to legal connections when deciding who to ask about things like removing someone from life support. Often, this means that parents and siblings, even if estranged, will have the power to make decisions before what the patient considered, but never could legally designate, their spouse. This has happened many times, and was the basis for the case against DOMA in the Supreme Court recently. In that case, the estranged parent not only took over decision making, but barred the woman their daughter had been with for many years from even seeing her love in the last moments of life.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@Lovely.. History shows us that marriage is not defined by those who are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow horrific opposite sex felon spousal, drug, alcohol and child abusers to civil marry?
Interracial couples wanted to participate in the institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry. Tradition is simply not a valid reason to continue a practice of discrimination. There are no Interracial marriage licenses. There are no felony marriage licenses. There are no non-procreative marriage licenses. Allowing same-sex couples to participate and/or strengthen the existing institution, means there is only ONE marriage for all. Nothing has been re-defined. Look no further than "traditional voting" which was NOT "re-defined" by allowing women the right to vote. Some say, that including another gender has made voting "genderless" and confuses school children on the meaning and purpose of traditional voting.

A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply no right at all.

to comment

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