Comments about ‘Parties have now finalized arguments in Amendment 3 case’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, March 15 2014 8:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hutterite
American Fork, UT

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 tyrannical states.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

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.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

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.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

"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 argument though.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Crusader
Layton, UT

Does the state really believe that a child having no parent is better than a child having parents of the same sex?

Karen R.
Houston, TX

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); and

4)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.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

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.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

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.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

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?

koseighty
The Shire, UT

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.

nonceleb
Salt Lake City, UT

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 amendment.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@ekakaromatagi

Although 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 cannot say.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

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.

Gibster
San Antonio, TX

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.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

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 people. Why?

BCA
Murrieta, CA

The attorneys are using bluster rather than legal arguments that a judge will listen to. Waste of time.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

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.

Avenue
Vernal, UT

@ 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 for.

aislander
Anderson Island, WA

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.

to comment

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