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
Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

LD: "There is no law that makes two married people a family."


Legally, what do you think marriage does for a couple? It makes them the closest relative that each of them have on this earth by law. Not even their parents have the right to make medical decisions over the spouses objections, because marriage allows those two spouses to have over 1100 federal and state privileges and benefits that preclude all other relatives.

They become a family - the closest relationship offered by the government.

Civilly, marriage is a contract between the two people and the government. This is the relationship that gay couples and families are looking for.

I know you are open-minded enough to see the difference between a temple sealing and this civil marriage that each and every citizen of the US is entitled to per our 14th amendment.

Just Wondering...
Gilbert, AZ

I believe that God loves all of his children and expects us to do the same. God also has a standard that is consistent. God's standard of chastity is that sexual relations are reserved for a man and woman who are lawfully married. Even if same sex marriage is determined to be an acceptable "legal" contract, God's standard will not change and the rulings in the courts will not make homosexual behavior "chaste" inside or outside of a same sex marriage.

Values Voter

@Lovely Deseret

I'm not inclined to spend much time picking through your points because, a.) errors have already been addressed by previous posts and, b.) I trust any reasonably intelligent reader to spot additional factual problems in your post and flaws in your thinking. Your dismissal of the arguments set forth in the Kitchen v. Herbert reply brief as "silly", given the legal landscape around you, makes you look particularly unserious.

A couple of questions: Gay people exist. They form relationships. In some cases they adopt children or have them through any number of avenues. What should societies answer to that state of affairs be?

Currently, in Utah, because of Amendment 3 they get nothing. Is this wise, fair or desirable?

Sugar City, ID

To those who disagree with my earlier comment about a chaste society the problem is this: If gay marriage is legalized, what will prevent legal recognition of polygamous and polyamorous (two or more adults of each sex) "families" (these "families" are anxiously looking forward to that door being opened). Legalization of three or more homosexual people getting "married" could also happen. The long term socially chaotic effects of gay marriage and what will follow will be disastrous for our society and tragic for the children involved. Given the serious problems we presently have in our society, whatever our sexual inclinations are, isn't it time for us to start living in a mature and responsible way and to discourage selfish, irresponsible sexual behavior? Is it too much to ask and expect of our fellow citizens to have some self control and live a chaste life (i.e. sex between a man and woman who are married to each other)? Are people who desire this kind of civil society really mean spirited bigots or are they genuinely concerned good citizens?

Ogden, UT

@Tekakaromatagi 10:57 a.m. Feb. 26, 2014

If one type of non-procreational union can get marriage beneftis then all non-procreational unions should be able to get the legal benefits. Or else we've created a new class of second class citizens.

I am straight, as is my husband. We have been married for over 44 years. Our un ion is non-procreational since we are long past our time of fertility. e get marriage benefits. You just said that we don't deserve them because we re unable to procreate. You are wrong.

If you think otherwise, please explain why some non-procreational unions (like ours) deserve benefits while others don't.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

I see several commenters here are recycling the same arguments against same-sex marriage that they've argued all along. Many of those arguments have either been debunked, or correctly characterized as mere expressions of prejudice, or are echoes of talking points being promulgated by a number of anti-LGBT organizations, most of which have been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.

Have any of you actually read the brief? It's linked to in the article. You could read the whole thing in under an hour, or just use the table of contents to read the part that addresses your own favorite anti-gay (or "pro-Traditional") argument. After comparing what you're saying with what the Plaintiff's brief says, who do you think the Court is going to favor, and why?

Sandy, UT

Unfortunately, the LGBT community has successfully hijacked a very American notion, that of equality and equal rights, to justify what really is a matter of unhealthy sexual behavior. This principle of equality has become a buzz-word. This hijacking of those God-given principles has given the homosexual lifestyle the best appearance possible under the circumstances.

In my view, to call it equal rights to protect gay behavior is a extraordinary effort to take unfair advantage of those sublime equal-rights principles. But I have no doubt some truly believe the premise that it is an equality issue. To them, I invite them to rethink. Are you really comparing your sexual behavior (as a basis of equality) with the equality based on different skin color?

Has the GLBT community given up the notion that we can have self-control? We, as humans, do have the power to live with same-sex attraction and still not participate in the behavior.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Just Wondering: No one is trying to change the standards of your god. You and your god are more than welcome to believe that same-sex marriage is sin. Your religion is more than welcome to not officiate at same-sex marriages. But this discussion is not about religious beliefs - it is a discussion about civil laws and legality. And based on civil laws and legality, same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage and the religions that support it should be able to perform them.

@ JSB: You make some good arguments against polygamy - but none of those arguments are valid for denying same-sex marriage. To claim that allowing same-sex marriage will naturally lead to polygamy is similar to claiming that allowing children to drink soda will lead to allowing them to drink alcohol - after all, soda and alcohol are both beverages made with water. We know that there is a difference between soda and alcohol and we know there are reasons to limit the ability of children to consume alcohol. We can draw those same distinctions between same-sex marriage and polygamy.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

The appellee's brief easily dismantles the weak and misleading arguments of the State. I'm now convinced more than ever that the State knows it has a loser, but intends to proceed to the end out of principle.

Religious principle, that is.

Religious principle that isn't even shared by every religion in the state.

And it's being done with taxpayer money.

Truly a free exercise of religion, eh?


I think that we must acknowledge the ideal. Children function best with their mother and father who are committed to each other and the children. Anything less than this is an adjustment, compromise or artificial environment. Adopted, single, divorced, homosexual or otherwise is a noble imitation or an attempt at the ideal. Mother or father who does not meet their obligations to each other and to their children is a negative impact on society. We must hold up the ideal as just that. THE IDEAL. Obviously life isn't ideal and as a society we have to do the best we can when the ideal can't be achieved. But not holding the ideal up as the IDEAL brings a distortion and an eventual destruction or dissolution of that culture.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

One is left to wonder what happened in the lives of the people who support using violence to suppress equal rights to all people. Make no mistake, whether it's done via a pen or a sword denying equal rights as guaranteed under the Constitution is a violent act. State sanctioned violence against same sex couples is a stain on this great nation.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@frugalfly "Children function best with their mother and father who are committed to each other and the children."

Not supported in fact by any main stream medical, sociological or psychological or psychiatric organization responsible for child welfare on parenting. Have you read the brief (it's linked to this story)?

Moreover, are you proposing a "parental fitness test" for civil marriage law, that would include annual income and educational requirements and a criminal record check (well known to influence child outcomes)?

Currently the "best way for bearing/procreating children" does not have the slightest relevance to CIVIL marriage law. Parental fitness and procreation is an issue for adoption, reproductive and family law.

Brigham City, UT

Headline: "Attorney for same-sex couples files brief in Amendment 3 appeal" ... While others spend countless hours throwing rocks, comments, innuendo and vitriol at each other on the Dnews and SLTrib comment pages, thinking somehow their tired arguments will convince the other side of "the truth"...



"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."

Sharing a locker room is not a right. Siblings can make medical decisions for a sick loved one. An LGBT person in a homsexual relationship cannot make medical decisions for their loved one.

Philadelphia, PA

Not sure if anyone here has seen it yet, but the State has filed a motion with the 10th Circuit requesting an additional 7 days and 5000 words for their response to Plaintiff's brief. (Tip: Might make a good story for the DN.)

One doesn't wish to infer too much from Gene Schaerr's language, but it seems to me he might be feeling a little panicky after seeing Plaintiff's far-superior filing.

I find it amusing that after petitioning the Court for an additional 10,000 words, and an extension to file, the State now finds themselves in a hole of their own making. Having granted additional wordcount to the State, the Court granted same to Plaintiffs, and now the State is complaining about having to answer a longer brief! The State pushed everything closer to the Court's April oral argument date with their first request for an extension, and now the State finds itself running out of time.

The 10th Circuit may refuse this request, as they've set this hearing date in conjunction with Oklahoma's. Besides, Schaerr's arguing appellants need time to answer amici briefs is nonsense.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Freedom is the Distance Between Church and State

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Testimony: The not so nice part of me wants the request denied - the process is supposed to be fast-tracked so there is less harm to the plaintiff's and others who are waiting resolution. The brief doesn't take that long to read, it shouldn't take that long to come up with rebuttals.

The other, even less nice, part of me wants the request granted. When the State is shot down and loses pathetically, I don't want people to be able to claim the State wasn't given every opportunity to present the best case possible. I want it extremely obvious that they lost because there is no basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Logan, UT

@ RanchHand:

Anyone who contends that God is irrelevant is not whose side of any argument I want to be on.
Whether later in this life or sometime in the next, I promise you that someday you will change your opinion about that.

Tooele, UT

It's amusing to see how quickly liberal supporters jump to this subject whenever it comes out in any way, shape or form in a newspaper article. They jump to the comment sections like flies to stink. The numbers speak for themselves.

Are we really so naive as to believe that we are now somehow morally superior (open) in our thinking to what all other societies around the world have been for thousands of years? Deviancy has always been kept in the shadows of civilized societies for a reason.

Apparently, we're going to have to learn that lesson the hard way this time. Unfortunately, it will probably take at least several decades to finally become obvious to those with the most "progressive" attitudes.

Bob K
portland, OR

Sugar City, ID
"...Given the high cost to society of promiscuous sexual behavior, should a state be forced to legitimize these behaviors through liberalizing marriage laws? Can’t a state or the people of the state for the good of the state, openly encourage chaste behavior and discourage sexually promiscuous behavior through reasonable laws and social pressure or expectations. Instead, those people who want to improve society through encouraging chaste behavior are branded by some mean spirited people as bigots."

--- What name should we propose for people who say that keeping some people from marrying encourages chaste behavior?

I tried to think of some kind of comparison about this thinking, but I just could not.

Maybe some people think that Gays are waiting for marriage to have sex, and should wait for eternity.

to comment

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