Is bad hyperbole the best argument they've got? It could be easily pointed
out that affirming same sex marriage IS in the best interests of the children,
now and in the future. As for the attempted imagery of a federal judge in a
miley cyrus video, the citizens of the nations need them to protect us from
I see a paradox in the arguments of those who are trying to redefine marriage.
I wonder if anyone can explain it.Supporters of traditional marriage
will argue that marriage is about children.Opponents of traditional
marriage will counter that marriage not about having children. Examples of
infertile heterosexual couples getting married will be cited.A
supporter of traditional marriage will point out that then incest should be
legal because brothers and sisters then should have the same rights as
others.Opponents of traditional marriage will counter that if a brother
and a sister married the children will have genetic defects.Well, is
marriage about having children or not? Who says that the brother-sister who
want to marry are going to have sex? (Yuck, that's weird). After all, as
we've been told by PC, marriage isn't about having children. It is
about affirming an emotional bond between two people.
How unfortunate that the citizens of Utah must have their taxpayer funds wasted
by this continued political theater. There is no hope for the state to prevail
here.Even the state of Tennessee clearly sees the handwriting on the
wall, and had its SSM ban tossed out by a Judge Aleta Arthur Trauger yesterday,
declaring "At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United
States Constitution, the plaintiffs’ marriages will be placed on an equal
footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against
same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American
history,” The Tennessee verdict makes it 37-0 for all federal
against marriage inequality since the Windsor Decision last summer. Tick-tock... the days of state-sponsored discrimination are ending.
"Affirming the Supreme Court's decision requiring the desegregation of
schools in Arkansas would be a "judicial wrecking ball" to state
sovereignty..." Oh, oops; wrong generation. Same losing
As much as I fear it will be ignored by the activist judges who they are
addressing, I agree completely with this argument from our State attorneys.
Does the state really believe that a child having no parent is better than a
child having parents of the same sex?
There is a hint of sneering contempt in this brief, which actually comes across
as more honest than the arguments. Most opponents believe LGBTs are immoral and
they despise the idea of society reflecting otherwise. Makes sense.But moral disapproval doesn’t win legal arguments, so they instead
contend that, if SSM:1)marriage won’t be child-centric
(assuming it ever was);2)we might experience depopulation (!!);3)it may have the same effect as no-fault divorce has had (love that
one); and4)we’ll be labeled as bigots (or maybe just
mistaken?).Another argument is that allowing SSM would say that
“[b]iological ties don’t matter. This may lead a busy or
irresponsible biological parent (usually a father, but sometimes a mother), to
assume that, so long as someone is taking care of the child, there is no need
for him or her to be involved.” (I’m pretty sure this pre-exists
SSM.)To me the brief is an example of how religious belief can
distort rather than inform one’s view of reality. It genuinely makes me a
little sad that some really bright legal minds are behind it.
The most important thing in life is self preservation. Reading that the young
adults aren't going to have children. Same sex goes without saying. How
long will life survive.
Upholding U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby's ruling would
'"impose... the novel principle that marriage is whatever emotional
bond any two (or more) people say it is."There's the key,
simply stated.If homosexual marriage is approved the door would be
open for any and all forms of marriage including adult/children, incest,
mother/son, father/daughter, and you name it. Thus, marriage would disappear
from off the face of the earth.
Well, OK, but this argument leaves unanswered the question: what are gays and
lesbians supposed to do with their lives? Convert to heterosexuality? We know
this doesn't work. I grew up rather slowly. I married when I was 35 years
of age. I could easily have missed out on marriage. Now in my late 60's I
shudder to think what my life would be like without marriage. Gays and lesbians
think similar thoughts. Without marriage, what are they supposed to do?
Imagine a world where you get married in your home state. You, your spouse and
kids take a long weekend to visit a national park in the state next door --
where your family isn't "recognized." Later, you use your vacation
to take a road trip to see our great nation. Every time you cross a state line
your marriage status changes, your parental rights are removed or reinstated at
the whim of local opinion.Now imagine there is an accident or an
illness. You aren't allowed to make medical decisions for your family
because local opinion says you're not a "real" family.Rights aren't rights unless they are universal. We learned that in the
Civil Rights era. We also learned that some places won't evolve without
federal insistence. When it's all over, and marriage equality
is the law of the land, no one's marriage will change in any way. And a
decade from now, the usual parties will be rewriting history, again, to show
they were on the right side all the time.
Compromise, accommodation and "harmonious" resolution could have been
achieved if Amendment 3 had just defined "marriage" and not go further
and ban all other kinds of civil unions or domestic contracts with marriage
benefits. That would have facilitated that accommodation. Now the governor is
open to civil unions, but only after the fact. If the ruling is strictly on
Amendment 3 and all of its provisions, judges will have no choice but to uphold
the initial ruling. It is probably too late and too difficult to amend the
@ekakaromatagiAlthough I have actually seen this same question
addressed many time before on threads I will address it again. I think you have
a point about brothers and sisters marring, however the truth is if they decide
to have children those children are more likely to have serious physical
defects, is that reason enough to deny them access to marriage? I don't
know but it would be a great subject for the letter to the editor. But to
bring us back to the actual issue at hand the ability to have children has never
been a legal prerequisite of marriage some LGBT people do have children and
those children do deserve the same protections that their counterparts in
opposite sex relationships have. Additionally the research very clearly shows
that children raised in same sex households fare as well as their counterparts
in opposite sex remarriages. Which gong back to your argument incest relations
I simply cannot believe the people who continue to argue against SSM really
believe anything they say. Their arguments are so baseless, I just don't
see how they believe it themselves.
The age old question, who's rights are supreme, the state or the
individual?The 14th amendment protects the rights of the individual
from the tyranny of the state and as such should be upheld.
I'm methodically working my way through the brief -- many thoughts, but
want to single out this one."Lawyers for the state say they have
submitted hundreds of pages of social science and other evidence to show that
redefining marriage would subject Utah’s children to serious long-term
risks."After the Regnerus testimony in Michigan just days ago,
these kinds of statements and these kinds of arguments are an embarrassment. The
best Dr. Regnerus could do during direct and cross examination was to argue for
being cautious because there --MAY-- be harm to children if gays were allowed to
marry. Notice his assertions, there "may" be harm, we just don't
know and until we have more data, we should err on the side of keeping the
status quo -- (or words to that effect). At the same time, when
asked about known harms to children, I'll say it again, --KNOWN harms--,
for instance, divorce, lack of education, poverty, etc... he either has "no
opinion", "no strong opinion" or does NOT think groups involved with
these --know harms-- should be excluded from the institution of marriage.
"Sub-optimal outcomes" are only a problem when were discussing gay
The attorneys are using bluster rather than legal arguments that a judge will
listen to. Waste of time.
State sovereignty comes to an end when said state hides behind that sovereignty
to legalize discrimination. The Civil War proved that. The state sovereignty
argument was used by the Southern States to defend slavery, and later Jim Crow
laws and bans on interracial marriage. Utah is going to go down in history as
the new Mississippi and Alabama. This will not be good for the economy in the
long-run, especially when coupled with our growing notoriety of being the
Beijing of the U.S. concerning air pollution.
@ TheTrueVoice If using the term 'discrimination' to describe
bans on SSM, you must also be in favor of polygamy, gay polygamy, and those who
want to marry very close relatives and immediate family. Forcing Utah to
allow SSM would be against the voice of the people in Utah and abandoning
everything this country and its supposedly democratic government structure stand
Tekakaromatagi: You are confusing the arguments between what's best for
children and whether the ability to procreate is a basis for marriage. Hundreds of thousands of american children are being raised in same sex
households. These are often children discarded by their heterosexual parents.
Denying same sex marriage disadvantages and discriminates against these innocent
children, depriving them of the rights, responsibilities, benefits, protections
and dignity that can only come from allowing their same sex parents to marry.
You may recall Justice Kennedy pointing out how Prop 8's ban caused real
harm to over 40,000 children in California alone.EVERY U.S.
Pediatric, Medical, Psychological, Psychiatric and Social Work Professional
Association and Academy strongly supports same sex marriage and the position
that children fare at least as well in 2 parent same sex households as in 2
parent heterosexual households, despite the fact that same sex households adopt
at-risk and challenged children, often that no heterosexual household will
adopt, to a significantly greater degree than heterosexual households. What would you say to these children? How would you explain that they
are less worthy of equal protection of civil marriage law? Why do you want to
disadvantage these innocent children.
I'm going to stand proud when one day same-sex marriage will be the law of
the land, throughout our great nation and I can tell everyone they can than the
people of utah for helping them. Just think if it were left to states to decide
what is best for their people, some states would still have slavery, other vile
laws on their books. Thankfully our forefathers realized the need for a federal
system because you cant always trust an individual state.
How unfortunate that so many of the citizens of Utah labor under the
misconception that the rule of law is established by democratic process. It is
obvious that judges rulings are morally superior and will ulitimately prevail.
Resistance is futile. How much trouble could be saved if instead of wasting our
time voting about such matters we could devote taxpayer funding to reeducation
of the ignorant where proper politically-correct thinking could be instilled in
that stubborn majority who persist in the delusion of believing that we are a
I just read the response. They are going to have trouble defending this in
court. I suspect during oral arguments you are going to hear a lot of quotes
from the State Legislature's debate on Amendment 3 that will seriously
undermine the rational basis justification. Very long and very weak brief.
No wrecking ball can break an eternal bond.What we do now has
consequences. Those consequences will be met. The work of God will continue. The
works of men will not. It's understandable that we make mistakes. But what
we need to remember is that you reap what you sow. If we're making the
effort to live the gospel, being agreeable with our priesthood leaders, and live
obedient and reverent lives... our Heavenly Father blesses us.That
can seem like a hard or impossible task, but it is possible. Everyone has the
capacity to change. When you feel trapped by an addiction, you may wonder
whether you were born conditioned to it, never to change because you can't.
That is a lie. Don't believe it.We're all born in
God's image. The atonement can heal everyone. We have to desire to improve
and not give up on that desire. You don't have to be perfect to turn
around. You turn around to be perfect. You don't have to be perfect to go
to church. You go to church to be perfected. Healing comes from returning.
Happiness comes from healing.
@Jim Cobabe,We are a Constitutional Republic, not a strict
democracy, but that aside, you wrote about a "stubborn majority."I
would ask, are you a majority anymore? or as large a majority as you were in
2004?In these last 10 years, have there been any Utah residents who
have:1.) turned 182.) died3.) moved to Utah from
out-of-state4.) moved out of Utah (thus, likely not being voting residents
any more) 5.) switched to supporting marriage equality6.) switched
to supporting civil unions/domestic partnershipsDo you really
advocate freezing a snapshot of the Utah electorate from yesteryear and making
that the final word on the subject? Especially since polling and numerous DN
articles seem to indicate Utahns are evolving (along with the rest of the
nation), particularly on the civil union/domestic issue.
This sure sounds a lot like the old arguments we heard back in the 50s and 60s
about the right of the States to maintain segregation and the right of the
majority in those States to have their way. It didn't fly then and
it's not going to fly now.
I can't believe how baseless and ridiculous the arguments are for SSM.
Homes not built on traditional marriage have problems protecting their children
from sexual abuse and that is a FACT! The 14th amendment is so broad it
resembles the 10th amendment. If Shelby's ruling stands it would destroy
any form of goodwill in how laws are made among diverse groups of people. If
this is the path SSM people want to pursue you may end up reaping the worldwind
of such bad lawmaking. Traditions which are thrown out so hastily
may create a backlash among the states that will not be pretty!
It is interesting how some people are saying how this is all a waste of time,
money, etc. I wonder if they are the same people that would say the same things
about religious activities as well.
This is such an easy question,marriage eqality for all Americans including my
lesbian mormon daughter and her partner of many years.i ask you Amerikans do we
have a great country or not?
Gays, polygamists, bisexuals, children, heterosexuals, dog lovers, etc. are free
to love what they want, but forcing governments, tax payers, etc. to legally
enforce, promote, mainstream, etc. certain lifestyles or relationships is
something that should be up to the citizens and tax payers, especially when some
lifestyles are known to be harmful and some are not crucial, and thus it
isn't necessary that governments enforce them, and others are crucial. A
single judge etc. should not be able to force their morality, Constitution etc.
on all, especially on a matter .
This argument would be more convincing if Utah didn't let single people
adopt (including of course single gay people) and then, through banning same-sex
marriage, prevent the children adopted by a gay or lesbian person to have a two
parent household for that child. Seems like the whole child welfare argument is
used very selectively when it's convenient.@Avenue"If
using the term 'discrimination' to describe bans on SSM, you must also
be in favor of polygamy, gay polygamy, and those who want to marry very close
relatives and immediate family. "Were bans on interracial
marriage discrimination? If you were to answer that with a yes, does that mean
you must also be in favor of same-sex marriage, polygamy, etc? If you say yes to
the first and no to the second then why are you trying this argument against
same-sex marriage supporters?
I'm glad to see that this discussion has remained pretty civil. I'm
gay and very clearly in favor of gay marriage, but I do understand where the
state's coming from. This debate is about morality for some, sure, but
it's also a debate of power. It's not even a question of where this
will end up; the last 30 or so lawsuits have been ruled in favor of gay
marriage. This will eventually be legalized across the nation. Utah's
losing some power, and that can be worrisome.I am a bit worried
about my own relationship as long as I'm not married. I've been in a
relationship for three years now, and my partner and I are not allowed to stay
in family housing on campus at USU. We can't joint file tax returns, so
we're currently paying a lot more when we need food to eat. It's about
love, yes, but it's also about fairness; I hope to have the same rights
regardless of my gender or that of the person I love.
DN comments are not supposed to be published if they are off-topic. Can someone
explain why some of these letters quoting Bible verses or the writer's
beliefs about an afterlife are published? What does that have to do with the
state attempting to restrict the right to marriage?We're all
well aware that, in 2004, 2/3 of the Utah voters said no to marriage equality.
We've been reminded of that by many of the letter writers. Now how many of
these letter writers would be willing to let this issue be voted on again in
Avenue, to use your logic, those who were in favor of lowering the voting age
from 21 to 18 must really have been in favor of lowering it to twelve. Or to
six. Or whatever silly slippery slope argument someone might imagine.
It is interesting that nearly half of those commenting are from outside the
State of Utah.The whole SSM action in Utah was very carefully
orchestrated. It had been reported in the news here a couple months before the
decision of the Judge that Judge Shelby said he would rule sometime in January
2014. Yet the activist Judge couldn't resist the excellent timing to
undermine the people of Utah, with the opportunity of an Attorney General's
office in chaos due to corruption, resignation and temporary leadership; issuing
his ruling late on Friday and within a few days of Christmas Holiday; SSM
couples and advocates from around the country had come to Utah or been focused
on it; and SSM sympathizers in authority positions were poised and ready to
issue licenses, perform marriages and go late into the evening and some even on
Saturday; LGBT couples were poised and ready to rush out to get married in a
moments notice; etc. All suggesting a preplanned, precoordinated effort.
Digby, Come up to Washington and get hitched. Our minister will marry you and
our church community will welcome you--even if only for a weekend.
Nikita Kruschev said our grandchildren would live under communism, Paul ehrlich
predicted catastrophic population problems, What do them and those that say so
called same gender marriage will be legal across the country soon. They are all
false prophets as there predictions did not and will not come to pass.
Anybody who believes that allowing SSM won't eventually mean that every
other form of marriage should and must be legalized needs to look around the
tree to find the forest! Anything less than full equality is a mockery of any
other form of marriage, be it man, women, or beast!
This whole SSM issue could be resolved through the legal system without changing
the definition of marriage. Changing the definition of marriage will prove to
be one of the most decisive things this nation could ever do. Changing the
definition of marriage in the long run is more about forced societal acceptance
and pressure to embrace that which is abnormal as normal, that which is deviant
as the same. Since this Nation began marriage has been between man
and woman. That is the very definition of the word. The union of a man and
woman as husband and wife. A Man cannot be a wife a woman cannot be a husband.
If what is demanded is any legal advantage marriage may have, let it be granted.
If you demand to change society and redefine marriage a division will always
exist because you then insist the teaching of children in the schools that
marriage is the same for all regardless of orientation. This would then
undermine the right of parents in teaching morality in their families.
@Hutterite:"It could be easily pointed out that affirming same sex
marriage IS in the best interests of the children, now and in the
future."People don't need to be married to effectively
raise children. How does a piece of paper in a book of remembrance enhance
raising children?@marxist:"Well, OK, but this argument
leaves unanswered the question: what are gays and lesbians supposed to do with
their lives?"Get a companion and settle down... you don't
need marriage."Convert to heterosexuality?"Many
have. It's possible with a little effort.@CynthiaB:"A gay couple marrying isn't going to affect my marriage one bit. If
it makes them happy, then so be it."The fear is not about your
marriage. The problem is about marriage in general. If gays can marry so
should dozens of other couples/combinations be married. Then the institution of
marriage will become meaningless and be abandoned altogether."Let's be fair here and kind and loving. Get out of the way and let
people choose how they want to live their lives."Are you
serious? Are you suggesting a father marry his ten year old daughter?
Gays and lesbians have the exact same right and opportunity to marry as
heterosexuals (opposite gender, not a close relative, minimum ages, limit one)
they just choose not to. Marrying someone you love is not a right heterosexuals
have if it conflicts with any of the previously mentioned restrictions. And yes,
if the Federal Court over rides the people of Utah, a precedent will be forever
set that limits state's rights.
Marriage equality, for all intents and purposes, will be a foregone conclusion
in the very near future. For Utah to continue to fight this issue is indicative
of its intolerance. The next war gay people and their friends need to prepare
for is non-sense legislation by paranoid law makers who will propose laws that
allow citizens to deny services to gay people who feel their religious beliefs
are being attacked. This fight is not over by any stretch of the imagination.
Legal arguments are not the only arguments that matter. You can frame an
argument under legal terms, but that is very limited. Arguments for traditional
marriage are not confined under legal rights only. I believe those supporting
traditional marriage are more concerned with the future of society in general.
Time will reveal traditional marriage as the only kind that will survive in
which children and families can not only survive, but thrive.
@ greatbam22“It is interesting how some people are saying how
this is all a waste of time, money, etc. I wonder if they are the same people
that would say the same things about religious activities as well.”I would have said this when I first came to this site. I’d had
enough of those that use their religion as a weapon and I thought I had only
contempt left for the practice. But on these pages I was reminded that, in the
hands of some, religion can actually be used to amplify goodness rather than
choke it.@ Rocket Scientist“Changing the
definition of marriage in the long run is more about forced societal acceptance
and pressure to embrace that which is abnormal as normal, that which is deviant
as the same.”Sigh…
It is interesting for a few homosexual "families" a judge decides to
start start a huge social experiment in Utah.I understand the whole
well it is legal in a bunch of other states and stuff.If you want to
go get married then why don't you go get married there then? Just like if
you want to go and smoke weed every day without worrying you can go to Colorado
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"These
scare-mongering comments-of-doom are straight out of the story of Chicken
Little! Poor little Chicken Little.Same sex marriage has been the
law of the land in Massachusetts for 10 years now. All that bad stuff
you're predicting would happen? Well it hasn't, and it can't.
There is zero evidence that society is unsatisfied with any of the other
restrictions. There is no "slippery slope."Marriage is
available as an institution to cement a committed relationship of two unrelated
people, and to allow them to be treated legally as a single household, a single
economic entity, and a family. No benefit accrues to society whatsoever by
preventing two consenting, unrelated adults who are mutually committed to each
other's support and welfare from forming a legally recognized household.
None.Family Law addresses care and support of children. It is
child-centric, and agnostic about whether the child has one parent or two,
whether they're together or separated, biologic or adoptive. Marriage Law,
by contrast, addresses the eligibility, rights and responsibilities of adults in
committed relationships. Confusing them is a mistake.
re:RocketScience"Yet the activist Judge couldn't resist the
excellent timing"The case was first filed in March 2013. It was
delayed at the request of the state, pending the outcome of the DOMA challenge
before the U.S. Supreme Court.Both sides--plaintiffs attorneys and the
attorneys representing UT filed a motion for summary judgment in Oct. 2013. A
summary judgment motion is: "A motion that asks a court for an immediate
judgment for the party filing the motion because both parties agree on the facts
in the case and because under law the party who introduced the motion is
entitled to a favorable judgment.""you then insist the
teaching of children in the schools that marriage"Can't
recall, attending public schools in UT, EVER having instruction on marriage.
Having raised 3 kids outside UT (both coasts) they also did not have instruction
on marriage. It is possible to teach in generic and general terms about
marriage, encouraging students to have additional discussion with their parents.
(However, I wouldn't want any teacher to shame a student based on his home
environment). Parents and churches are still free to teach their
views on the moral implications of marriage.
@bandersonDo you oppose interracial marriage? Those bans were struck down
first you know. If you don't oppose interracial marriage because of a
slippery slope argument (after all those court overturnings are being used as
precedent here) then you're using a double standard by using that argument
against those of us who support same-sex marriage.
@hammer Typing fact in all capital letters does not make your claims
true, now if you have some credible evidance to support your claims that
actually address Lgbt two parent households please do share seeing as all the
leading professional organizations that study this field disagree. @rocket science So who says gay men are trying to be wives and gay
women are trying to be husbands? I think you are confusing gay with transgender.
Your narrow definition of marriage may make for convinice for your argument but
is not unversal, or "traditional"
Our country has no cultural norms, America is disintegrating.
@Avenue: "If using the term 'discrimination' to describe bans on
SSM, you must also be in favor of polygamy, gay polygamy, and those who want to
marry very close relatives and immediate family."These false
equivalences are transparent and illogical. Polygamy is illegal. Incest is
illegal. Marriage is not illegal. Homosexuality is not illegal. To conflate a
criminal act with same sex marriage is intellectually dishonest, and reveals
animus. "Forcing Utah to allow SSM would be against the voice of
the people in Utah and abandoning everything this country and its supposedly
democratic government structure stand for."Chicken Little
argumentation is not a legal basis for denying equals rights to all law-abiding,
tax-paying citizens of Utah. All state laws, including "will of the
people" laws, must comport with the U.S. Constitution. Since Amendment 3
creates legalized discrimination "for no rational reason" or benefit to
the state, it fails this legal scrutiny. Its days are numbered. It will lose in
the 10th Appeals hearing next month.
@rocket sceince "It is interesting that nearly half of those
commenting are from outside the State of Utah."So it's alright
for Utahns to tell people what to do in their private relations but it's
not alright for people outside Utah to comment on public policies to do so?
It takes a bride and a groom to have a marriage. It doesn't matter what
race(s) they are. It doesn't matter how old they are (within reason). A
man and a women committing to be true to one another with a legally binding
agreement is marriage. Starting to call some other relationship marriage doe
not make it marriage. Not allowing a relationship that has not been marriage to
now be legally called marriage is not discrimination.
@TheTrueVoice:"Polygamy is illegal. Incest is illegal."SSM is illegal (in Utah and several other states). If you favor SSM as being
illegal you must also favor polygamy, and incest."Homosexuality
is not illegal.""To conflate a criminal act with same sex
marriage is intellectually dishonest, and reveals animus."SSM is
not a criminal act. It's an illegal act."Chicken Little
argumentation is not a legal basis for denying equal rights to all law-abiding,
tax-paying citizens of Utah."All Utahans have equal rights.
They can marry whom they will provided the person they marry is of the opposite
sex, of marriageable age, not married at the time, is not closely related (and
several other caveats)."All state laws, including 'will of
the people' laws, must comport with the U.S. Constitution. Since Amendment
3 creates legalized discrimination 'for no rational reason' or benefit
to the state, it fails this legal scrutiny. Its days are numbered. It will lose
in the 10th Appeals hearing next month."Let me say it again...
everyone has the right to marry provided they marry someone of the opposite
sex... (see above for the rest).
@Tekakaromatagi "Well, is marriage about having children or not? Who says
that the brother-sister who want to marry are going to have sex? (Yuck,
that's weird). After all, as we've been told by PC, marriage
isn't about having children. It is about affirming an emotional bond
between two people."There is simply no procreative requirement
in civil marriage law as it exists today. There is however, a consanguinity
limitation in existing civil marriage law, so siblings and immediate family
cannot civil marry. Gender, race and sexual orientation are
considered for the most part immutable characteristics for most people. The
requirement to change one's gender in order to marry is unconstitutional.
Religious choices, number of partners and desire to have an intimate
relationship with a parent or sibling is considered a choice. Therefore, these
choices, polygamy, parent child marriages are voluntary meaning the government
is not required to recognize every single type of relationship as a marriage
(tables, chairs, dogs, cats, horses, pigs etc.) a person may desire to enter.
Moreover, the right to marry someone for which there is no sexual
attraction is no right at all.
@ A Quaker"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"Indulgence of hysteria seems to be one of the signature characteristics
of the apocalyptically religious. Another is co-opting words:
"Christian"; "patriot"; "freedom"; "family";
"marriage." As if only they know and abide by the "true"
meaning of such terms. This does make it easy to spot a Religious Right
organization. They can't seem to help but sanctimoniously include one or
more of these terms in their organization's name.But the
characteristic most evident in the SSM debate is the inability to see the
inhumanity of some of their beliefs. They cry in alarm that we are headed down
the road of immorality when we are actually finally leaving it. This is an example of the harm that religion can do. It can smother
one's moral compass in the service of the religion itself.
I wish someone could explain why the state is spending all this money and time,
just to lose. It not only makes the state look bad, it should bother any
taxpayer conscious of wasteful government spending. Who's driving this
ridiculous attempt to stop gay citizens from having the same legal rights as
SSM is happening, will happen and continue to gain support no matter what the
outcome. Opponents of it have neither moral or legal grounds to stand on.
Whether or not they win the battle the war is lost.
Schnee: I absolutely do support interracial marriage. Anyone who thinks that
SSM and interracial marriage are the same has not only lost their moral compass,
but has stacked absurdity on top of ignorance, a dangerous flaw that handicaps a
child's ability to recognize truth. However you look at SSM, I absolutely
believe that those who enter into it do not out spite for God, but out of fear
of God's plan of happiness, something that our modern culture has warped.
SSM fails to take on the responsibilities and challenges of marrying someone of
the opposite gender and supporting the children that come from it. Anyone that
enters into SSM has essentially taken a narcissistic approach to life to the
extreme and is handicapping his/her own potential for growth and development, as
well As others. SSM essentially is attempting to marrying himself or herself!
How does that benefit society! I expect such narcissism from a teenager, but
not an adult! What we have today is narcissism and pride masquerading as a
right and that is hardly a right that should be encoded into law.
Enter comment@Tolstoy:Either marriage is about having children or it is
about affirming emotional bonds between people.Just because
childless couples aren't forced to divorce has not changed the meaning of
marriage as being an institution to promote that men should be responsible for
their procreational actions.If, 'marriage' is extended to
a very specific obviously non-procreational union for the purpose of affirming
an emotional bond between two people, then why should 'marriage' not
be extended to all unions where people want to affirm an emotional bond? If we
don't then we've created a class of second class citizens.As soon as you say that certain unions are not allowed because of harm to
children then you've affirmed that marriage is about having children."some LGBT people do have children and those children do deserve the
same protections that their counterparts in opposite sex relationships have.
" The child is at most, the offspring of one of the parties in the group.
If not, why can't I marry my sister? She has children. Don't they
deserve the same benefits as other children? Why are they relegated to an
inferior legal status?
@bandersen " I expect such narcissism from a teenager, but not an
adult!"Respectfully, we didn't sign a legally-binding
contract because we are "narcissists".My partner and I have
been in a committed monogamous relationship for decades. We fell in love, just
as heterosexuals fall in love. We eventually decided it was time to commit to
one another, just as heterosexuals do.There isn't enough lust
in the world to keep a couple together for decades. Trust me. When my partner
came down with the flu a few months ago, I made him chicken soup (from scratch!)
and nursed him back to health. That's not "narcissism."When my mother lay dying in ICU, my partner was there, by my side, for weeks,
until the very end. And he was there for me then as well. That wasn't
"narcissism."Sorry. It's easy to dismiss people and
relationships you don't know. But it's not a good, wise or fair thing
@banderson says: "Anyone that enters into SSM has essentially taken a
narcissistic approach to life to the extreme and is handicapping his/her own
potential for growth and development, as well as others"Your
assertion that gay people are selfish and your arguments against same-sex
marriage derive from your chosen religious point of view: one that places you,
and people like you, at the center of all meaning for all creation. You've
decided that the existence of the universe, the purpose of all life from time
immemorial to time everlasting revolves around someone like you. How
narcissistic is that?
The whole SSM crusade has from the beginning never had anything to do with
marriage and everything to do with acceptance. The very people who have for
many years been evangelizing that marriage is irrelevant, misogynistic, and even
harmful--are now taking another tactic. Now marriage must be made "equal
for everyone". These are both different angles to the same goal. To
broaden the definition to include other things. This decade it will be SS
relationships, next will be something else. The goal is to weaken nuclear
families and to make them increasingly more of a minority, and eventually a
quaint memory of a past age. The goal is to make casual families that
constantly morph the norm.
@Schnee:" I absolutely do support interracial marriage. Anyone who thinks
that SSM and interracial marriage are the same has not only lost their moral
compass." Race, like gender and sexual orientation for most
are considered to be immutable characteristics and fundamental to a persons
being or identity. A requirement to change in order to equally participate in
civil marriage law is unconstitutional. Religious belief and deeply
held bigotry and prejudice are considered a lifestyle choice than can be changed
and not unreasonable or unconstitutional to do so. "LGBT men and
young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and
heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to
homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your
sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and
rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less."
"It’s more than tragic—in fact it’s shameful—that
faith communities, especially Christian ones, continue to be complicit in
putting our children at risk and abetting the attitudes that oppress
them." -Episcopal Church
@The Hammer - "Traditions which are thrown out so hastily may create a
backlash among the states that will not be pretty!""Tradition is simply not a valid constitutional reason to continue the
practice of discrimination." Brown v. Board of Education. Loving v.
states rights have taken a beating lately, as have the majority of voters.
@Tekakaromatagi "The child is at most, the offspring of one of the parties
in the group. If not, why can't I marry my sister? She has
children."Did you father your sisters children? Do you
currently have an intimate relationship with your sister? Civil marriage law
has Consanguinity limitations, what valid evidence might you have that
consanguinity laws are unconstitutional? Do you have any evidence to support a
claim that your desires for your sister is an immutable characteristic,
fundamental to your identity and that it would be unconstitutional for you to
change in order to marry someone else?
@KarenR.: I can't promise that Quakers are not also "apocalyptically
religious," just that the core of our religion is obsessive about Equality.
(Too little room to detail how obsessive, how it manifests, or how much
we've sacrificed in its quest.) But, your points are well taken.@banderson is a case in point. Isn't it ironic that the very words he
uses accusingly of those simply seeking an equal right to marry their life
partners, "narcissism" and "pride," could far more appropriately
be used of those who are appalled at letting anyone share "their" legal
status? Further, he has the audacity to assume to speak for other heterosexual
couples. He certainly doesn't speak for us. Our straight marriage is
unthreatened by the happiness of our married gay friends, colleagues or
neighbors, and we celebrate that our state had the good grace to let them marry.
All our straight friends have said the same. @banderson, as for
being "encoded into law," your religious doctrine against homosexuals
never should have been. This suit removed it. Utah's appeal of that
decision may prevail, but I wouldn't give you very good odds.
@ mrjj69 "states rights have taken a beating lately, as have the majority of
voters."The US Constitution does not permit either a state
legislature or the state’s citizens through a referendum to enact laws
that violate constitutionally protected rights. And “while the public has
an interest in the will of the voters being carried out .. . the public has a
MORE profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s
constitutional rights.” Awad v. Ziriax 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir.
2012). In Windsor - State laws defining and regulating marriage, of
course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, SUBJECT to those guarantees,
“regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long
been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”“Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make
it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without
@equal protectionRace and gender have clear genetic markers, clear
genetic identification.There are no homosexual genetic markers,
there's not even any hard scientific evidence to the cause of
homosexuality.To put it on par with race and gender is absurd.But homosexual behavior and activity is clearly a choice.One
can't choose their race, or choose to "act" their own race. Race truly is an identity, homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.In protecting homosexual behavior, the 14th amendment is horribly
misapplied and totally absurd.The whole constitutional system was
set up so states and communities could have the laws they wanted. If
there are states and communities that do not want gay marriage then so be
it, and if there are other states and communities that want it then
so be it.We are supposed to be a patchwork quilt, not a federally
enforced one gray blanket.We are supposed to be free nation, where
states and communities can pursue their own happiness, and have their own
character.For the Federal government or one judege to force this on
everyone is out of line, and beyond the power and rights given the federal
Tekakaromatagiyes, because it either has to be all about children or
not about children at all. Actually like most things in life marriage does not
come down to a binary line. Marriage demoes protect children's rights to
parent inheritance etc.. marriage also has legal befits to the married couple
(Ie survivor benefits). It also has benefits to society at large )people in
committed marriages are less likely to have mutable partners and are less limey
to live in poverty. Marriage by law has never ben defined as for the purpose of
procreation. Again the only rational reason to deny marriage is if there is a
proven harm, something that doe snot exist in gay marriages and again if you
would like to have an honest debate about the merits of wing refused the right
to marry your sister then by all means write a otter to the editor and lets see
were it goes but please stop trying to muddy the water.
"But because of Amendment 3, they are denied not only the substantial
protections that flow from civil marriage, but also the common vocabulary of
family life [ like husband & wife, father & son and father &
daughter, mom & dad, etc, and mother and mother & daughter or father
& father & daughter ]and belonging [ a piece of paper makes one feel
belonging ? in hetero relationships which gender belongs to whom? ] that other
Utahns may take for granted."where will the vocabulary endKISS STATES' RIGHTS GOODBYEit takes a federal community to
rear (a) child/ren, AND a federal law to define what a relationship is and bring
dignity to a couple
You know, I find it weird that many people from a state created from a
polygamous heritage would use polygamy to fight gay marriage. Could this open
the doors to legalized polygamy? Possibly, but it's unlikely any time soon;
it's still extremely taboo, and it breaks the sort of two-person
relationship generally defined by marriage. Plus, it would be a legal nightmare
to work out tax codes and such. Polyamorous relationships often fall apart
because of jealousy, as well. With that said, as a gay atheist, I wouldn't
have a problem with polygamy as long as it was between consenting adults.
Besides, LDS theology still allows for polygamous relationships--they just
can't all be alive for it to happen right now.With that said, I
still think those against polygamy, incest, and bestiality are pretty safe; none
of those would become legal from this court battle. Polygamy seems like the only
one that might eventually, and even then, I wouldn't expect it for several
"TheTruth", Regardless of your ambitious pseudonym, it is
not the truth you speak.Firstly, "homosexual behavior" as
you call it is already protected. The Supreme Court ruled in "Lawrence"
that laws that prohibit such behavior, that invade privacy, that intrude into
the bedroom, are unconstitutional. Personal sexual behavior between consenting
adults is a protected right. Second, while behavior can be chosen
(which must again be emphasized, is a legally protected right), there is zero
evidence that sexual orientation can be chosen. Whether you're straight or
gay, no one gets to choose their orientation, nor with whom they fall in love.
(Some people are bisexual and can bond with either gender, but even they
don't get to choose who to fall in love with. They can choose to be
unrequited, but that's not the same thing.) Most scientists are presently
convinced that orientation is innate and immutable.I certainly
didn't have any struggle in discovering that I was attracted to the
opposite sex. None at all! And, as gays are widely persecuted for just
existing, it's clear they're not making any conscious choice, either.
==> Love thy neighbor, as thyself.
@ The Truth"There are no homosexual genetic markers, there's not
even any hard scientific evidence to the cause of homosexuality. To put it on
par with race and gender is absurd. But homosexual behavior and activity is
clearly a choice. Race truly is an identity, homosexuality is a chosen
lifestyle."Where are the genetic markers for heterosexuality?
Where is the hard scientific evidence to the cause of heterosexuality? Many
heterosexuals also choose to engage in homosexual specific behaviors. Our courts recognize that heterosexual and homosexual sexual orientation
is fundamental to a persons identity AND a requirement to change it in order to
marry is simply unconstitutional. Think about changing your own orientation
which is not like a new pair of shoes. SCOTUS has reaffirmed that
“freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of
the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to
the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the
Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation,
disregard, or disrespect.It is well-established law and CRYSTAL
CLEAR that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty,
privacy, association, and identity.
I keep seeing claims that same-zex-marriage will lead to legalized polygamy,
marriage between close relatives, and adults marrying children. I will grant
that the former is possible - and those who claim they want "Biblical
Marriage" would hopefully support such a move, as polygamy was practiced by
all of the great Biblical Patriarchs through the ages. The latter
two are not a possibility. Close family members already have a legally defined
relationship that creates areas of responsibility toward each other. Marriage is
not needed, and straw-man arguments don't change that. Likewise
with children. Marriage is a contract, and minors can't enter into legal
contracts. That is not likely to change. During the FLDS trial, the general
public had mixed reactions about adult polygamy, but there was true outrage
about the mistreatment and marriage to children and teen girls.People have seen that SSM is about relationships between adults, and find it
acceptable. This clearly does not extend to kids.
States shouldn't have the right to deny citizens equal rights. The whole
states rights thing has always been an attempt to justify government sponsored
discrimintation. It shouldn't stand.
Avenue, that's ridiculous. Marriae equality and poligamy have nothing in
common. But, I can imagine a lot of people who would be in favor of poligamy.
I was taught in Seminary when I was growing up that when the Millenium happens
poligamy will be the way again--under Our Heavenly Father's Plan.
Quoting the DN:The state also says it would establish in federal law
the "corrosive principle that moms and dads are interchangeable and,
ultimately, irrelevant to children." Utah's attorneys
are forgetting that all 50 states have already allowed this very concept of
interchangeable parents to take root... It is called DIVORCE,
involving rotating children between different homes, rotating custody and
@StormWalker.. a minor hiccup with the practice of polygamy that you may
advocate. Can the government claim a rational basis for laws intended to
prevent harm and abuse in closed faith promoting communities where harm and
abuse is well documented to be under-reported?The Bountiful Case
court findings of fact:-Women in polygamous relationships are at an
elevated risk of physical and psychological harm.-Children in
polygamous families face higher infant mortality, even controlling for economic
status and other relevant variables.-Early marriage for girls is
common, frequently to significantly older men. The sex ratio imbalance inherent
in polygamy means that young men are forced out of polygamous communities to
sustain the ability of senior men to accumulate more wives.-Polygamy
has negative impacts on society flowing from the high fertility rates, large
family size and poverty associated with the practice.-Harms against
women include: exploitation; commodification; social isolation; the inevitable
favoritism of some women and deprecation of others.-Harms against
children include: the negative impacts on their development caused by discord,
violence and exploitation in the marital home.-Polygamy harms good
citizenship; threats to political stability; and the undermining of human
dignity and equality.
Why do people in Utah freak out about polygamy? Is it not an eternal principle?
Polygamous marriages still go on in temples today. We had a president of the
church still practising into the 1900's and an apostle excommunicated in
1943 for it. Utah should be hoping SSM reopens the door to polygamy.
“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against
miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions
against incest and incestuous marriages.”(Source: Perez v. Lippold,
198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))That quote was from 1948. Neither of those horrible a came to be in the
66 years since. The idea that same sex marriage will lead to incestuous
marriage or polygamy is nothing but recycling decades old failed arguments
against interracial marriage. Pretty much anything people say today against
same sex marriage are the same arguments used against interracial marriage. The
people proffering these arguments seem to believe the slight change in context
from race to sexual orientation will magically turn laughable legal positions to
legally sound reasoning.
This is an issue of public policy, of what marriage is. States should have the
right to define the scope and purposes of marriage.
@John Pack Lambert of Michigan "This is an issue of public policy, of what
marriage is. States should have the right to define the scope and purposes of
marriage."Windsor- State laws defining and regulating marriage,
of course, MUST respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving
v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, SUBJECT to those guarantees,
“regulation of domestic relations” is indeed “an area that has
long been regarded exclusive province of the States."The
Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s
citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally
protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the
voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound and long-term
interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.” ”The actual point of Constitutional law is that the Fourteenth
Amendment protects the minority from the majority. That's how our checks
& balances system of government works. Historically, if the vote of the
people had been able to stand as the law of the land, women would not be able to
vote. So voting was re-defined to include women.
@Evidence Not Junk ScienceI don't believe I advocated for
polygamy, I think I said I could see it being legalized. In reality, there is a
very strong poly-amorous movement that includes long-term stable relationships
with several partners. What it tends to not include is abuse,
neglect, and coercion, because it is not based on religious model of male
superiority. Partners tend to be treated as equals in the relationship, with
differing needs and contributions based on personality and ability. This is not
to say it without conflict and break-ups, but it tends to look much different
than the FLDS model that treated women as property and children as pawns.
@StormWalker. The FLDS model of polygamy I don't see becoming legalized
because the government can demonstrate a rational basis for anti-polygamy
legislation in closed communities where harm and abuse is well documented. Cohabitation (sister wives) is another matter. The next question,
should the government formally recognize every kind of relationship a person
seeks to enter? The Cohabitation model for example If not, why?For
most sexual orientation, like sex and gender is considered immutable and
fundamental to a persons identity. Cohabitation, like religion is widely
considered a voluntary choice. Therefore, the government in my view, is not
obligated to recognize every type of relationship a person seeks to enter.