Quantcast
Utah

Parties have now finalized arguments in Amendment 3 case

Comments

Return To Article
  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    March 19, 2014 10:34 p.m.

    @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.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    March 19, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    @Evidence Not Junk Science

    I 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.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    March 17, 2014 9:34 p.m.

    @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.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    March 17, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    This is an issue of public policy, of what marriage is. States should have the right to define the scope and purposes of marriage.

  • Ariz Madison, AL
    March 17, 2014 6:07 a.m.

    “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.

  • UT Brit London, England
    March 17, 2014 1:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    March 17, 2014 12:53 a.m.

    @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.

  • tethered Salem, OR
    March 16, 2014 11:41 p.m.

    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 STEP-PARENTS!

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    March 16, 2014 11:06 p.m.

    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.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    March 16, 2014 11:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    March 16, 2014 8:29 p.m.

    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.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    March 16, 2014 7:51 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    March 16, 2014 6:33 p.m.

    "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.

  • digbythefox Logan, UT
    March 16, 2014 6:09 p.m.

    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 decades.

  • crimendelsiglo Spanish Fork, UT
    March 16, 2014 5:44 p.m.

    "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 end

    KISS STATES' RIGHTS GOODBYE
    it 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

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 16, 2014 5:34 p.m.

    Tekakaromatagi

    yes, 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.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 16, 2014 5:27 p.m.

    @equal protection

    Race 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 government.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    March 16, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    @ 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 other reasons,”

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    March 16, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    @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.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    March 16, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    @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?

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    March 16, 2014 1:35 p.m.

    states rights have taken a beating lately, as have the majority of voters.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 16, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    @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. Virginia

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 16, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    @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

  • rushc centerville, UT
    March 16, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    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.

  • nycut New York, NY
    March 16, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    @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?

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    March 16, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    @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 to do.

    Peace.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 16, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    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 Saint George, UT
    March 16, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    March 16, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    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.

  • JeffreyRO555 Auburn Hills, MI
    March 16, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    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 straight citizens?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    March 16, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 16, 2014 1:59 a.m.

    @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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    March 16, 2014 12:08 a.m.

    @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).

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    March 15, 2014 11:54 p.m.

    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.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 15, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    @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?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    March 15, 2014 10:52 p.m.

    @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.

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    March 15, 2014 10:38 p.m.

    Our country has no cultural norms, America is disintegrating.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 15, 2014 10:02 p.m.

    @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"

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2014 9:28 p.m.

    @banderson
    Do 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.

  • factsplease SLO, CA
    March 15, 2014 9:07 p.m.

    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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    March 15, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    "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.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    March 15, 2014 8:50 p.m.

    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 or Washington.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    March 15, 2014 8:17 p.m.

    @ 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…

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    March 15, 2014 7:21 p.m.

    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.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    March 15, 2014 7:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Archibald SLC, UT
    March 15, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    March 15, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    @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?

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    March 15, 2014 6:19 p.m.

    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.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    March 15, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    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!

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    March 15, 2014 6:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    March 15, 2014 5:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    March 15, 2014 5:38 p.m.

    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.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    March 15, 2014 5:22 p.m.

    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.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    March 15, 2014 5:21 p.m.

    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 2014?

  • digbythefox Logan, UT
    March 15, 2014 4:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    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?

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    March 15, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    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 .

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    March 15, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    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?

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    March 15, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    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.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    March 15, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    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!

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 15, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 15, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    @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 18
    2.) died
    3.) moved to Utah from out-of-state
    4.) moved out of Utah (thus, likely not being voting residents any more)
    5.) switched to supporting marriage equality
    6.) switched to supporting civil unions/domestic partnerships

    Do 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.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    March 15, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    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.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    March 15, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    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.

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    March 15, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    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 free people.

  • benny02 slc, ut
    March 15, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    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.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    March 15, 2014 2:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    March 15, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    March 15, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    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.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    March 15, 2014 1:33 p.m.

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

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 15, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    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?

  • Gibster San Antonio, TX
    March 15, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 15, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    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.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 15, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    @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.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    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.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    March 15, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    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?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    March 15, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    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.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    March 15, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    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.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    March 15, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Crusader Layton, UT
    March 15, 2014 10:05 a.m.

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

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    March 15, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    "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.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    March 15, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 15, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 15, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    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.