Quantcast

Comments about ‘Appeals court assigns 3 judges to hear Utah same-sex marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 31 2014 12:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@USU-Logan:
"@wrz The plaintiffs in this case ask judges to allow same sex couple to marry, not ask for polygamy or incestuous marriage. If you have a compelling argument why same sex couples should not join matrimony, speak to the point or hold your peace."

I think I made a compelling argument... i.e., if SSM is allowed, all other combinations should be allowed, including polygamy and incestuous relations. If the judges allow any departure from current State law (one man/women) they must also allow any and all departures from current State law. Anything else is discrimination.

The SSM argument for marriage is that they be allowed to marry whomever they love. That same argument should be available to all who wish to marry whomever they love... including the arrangements I listed.

"Arguing about polygamy or incestuous marriage to the judges simply won't help attorneys hired by Utah... to win this case."

The issue is not so much about polygamy or incestuous marriages, etc. It's about equal treatment/protection under the law (see Amendment 14).

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Evidence Not Junk Science:
"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."

Are you saying that laws against polygamy, incestuous, sib, dad/daughter, mom/son marriages (and a host of other marriage combinations that can be conjured) are discriminatory?

higv
Dietrich, ID

@liberal Larry Jesus came here to only do the will of the Father who sent him. Did not modify it. Money changers were in the temple where they should not of been. I think he left businessmen alone in other places. I would not call Jesus a pacifist. I am not here to send peace but a sword. Did not modify message to appease people who disagreed. The Premortal Jehovah gave the law of Moses. Did what was best for Children at the time. Women taken into adultery that was trap for Jesus. How many unrepentant adulters will be in the Celestial Kingdom. 0, Since the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and is no respecter of persons. There are those that say they don't believe in God. I know our prophets are inspired of God and choose to follow them. It don't matter what side different churches take since God is not an author of confusion can't have it both ways. Jesus never said keep on sinning. The Old and New Testament have same author too. there is harsness in NT and forgiveness in OT.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Meckofahess

Your Gay and Lesbian neighbors will have legally recognized marriages that have protections and benefits straight married couples have enjoyed all along. Extending those rights does not take anything away from you.

The definition of marriage will not change. It will still be marriage, it will still legally join two people into a couple.

"Self-evident." I have friends who are transgender. I regularly advocate for transgender patients in healthcare settings. I have been part of presentations on transgender healthcare experience to medical students at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and, when I lived in Atlanta, nursing students at Emory University. I teach healthcare technicians and include respectful and knowledgeable care of transgender patients in every class.

My definition of "self-evident" includes transgender people being treated as full members of society, which includes using facilities appropriate to their transition gender, proper pronouns and generally respectful treatment.

To me, it is common sense to do unto others as I would have others do unto me, self-evident to treat others with gentle respect.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@wrz: "Are you saying that laws against polygamy, incestuous, sib, dad/daughter, mom/son marriages (and a host of other marriage combinations that can be conjured) are discriminatory?"

When I see a list like this I start hearing Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis and the incomparable Bill Murray in the mayor's Office in Ghostbusters:
Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

I can't have equal rights because something bad might happen. Mass hysteria, indeed.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@ WTZ "..all other combinations should be allowed, including polygamy and incestuous relations. "

There is simply no constitutional right to harm and abuse that the government can easily demonstrate based on the relationships you propose. Therefore a rational basis exists for legislation against polygamy and incestuous relationships. There is no harm and abuse alleged that results from Same-sex marriage. Harm and abuse is well documented in closed FLDS like communities (see Bountiful Case 2011).

Do you have another valid argument?

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ wrz

Look up the harm principle. That will answer your question. Also, people who are related already enjoy legal benefits and privileges. They are related, so there is no reason for them to be legally recognized and related through a marriage license. The same is not true for same-sex couples.

Northern Utahn
Northern, UT

@ Evidence Not Junk Science

When quoting someone (Heyburn, in this case), you should indicate you are doing so. I realized you tweaked it from being EXACTLY word for word, to put an LDS spin on it, but give credit where credit is due:

"Many believe in "traditional marriage." Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society's benefit. They may be confused "even angry" when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer. Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. 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."

higv
Dietrich, ID

One thing the Bible, Constitution and Jesus's mortal ministry have in common is it is easy to use your own interpretation of them to defend any pre determined position. Was Jesus Christian with the Canaanite women? Was he wrong to tell the Israelites to wipe out the cruel Amelekites? Belief that he speaks to leaders today helps us know where he stands on moral issues. Generous for sure but for our benefit since Adam has told us what we need to do to be happier. So called same gender marriages will hurt society in the long run. People that don't believe in immortality would have no problem with immorality, after all if you are saved anyway or annihiliated just as well grab all the fun and excitement if you think there is nothing after death, or no need to keep any commandments since you think you are saved anyway.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@wrz said, "I think I made a compelling argument."

You didn't. Your argument is illogical, based on asymmetrical comparisons. Allowing unrelated, adult couples who wish to live in lifelong, committed relationships to marry, opens the door neither to incest nor polygamy. Adding those approximately 5% of our neighbors who are gay to the ranks of the legally marriageable makes no difference in this regard, either in law or in logic.

Incest is illegal for a number of reasons, which sociologists and family services professionals could explain to you in detail. One should note, however, cousins were generally able to marry in the U.S. and Europe until the latter half of the 19th Century, when eugenic concerns began to grow about inheritance of recessive genetic faults. Not all states changed their laws. First cousins can still marry in 18 states without restriction.

The modern marriage contract is based in equality of the partners regarding property, custody, support, inheritance and guardianship. That's easy with two partners, difficult with polygamy. Which, should it ever come, won't just be your religious notion of patriarchal polygyny.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@ Stormwalker, Evidence Not Junk Science, Two For Flinching and A Quaker. Thank you for your eloquent comments and rebuttals for wrz’s claim.

Bleed Crimson
Sandy, Utah

USU-Logan

wrz is right! If marriage is redefined to include homosexuals. Then where do you draw the line?

If marriage is redefined, then they're should be no reason that polygamy be illegal. Mother/son, Father/daughter marriage should be legal, Brother/Sister marriages should be legal. As long as they're all consenting adults who are in love and want the same rights that the homosexuals want.

Again I ask, where do you draw the line if marriage is redefined?

USU_Logan
Logan, UT

@Bleed Crimson

The line will be whether there is a legitimate reason, a rational reason to ban such practice, a long unbroken losing streak of same sex marriage opponents in the court in the past year shows that those arguments against SSM do not hold water.

For other combinations you mentioned, you can go back and read comments given by Stormwalker, Evidence Not Junk Science, Two For Flinching and A Quaker why they should not be legitimate.

Testimony
Philadelphia, PA

BleedCrimson, who asks "where to draw the line",

Here's the crux of the matter, it comes down to who's drawing that line. Religious conservatives such as yourself envision the world from a pulpit-preacher vantagepoint. If homosexuality is immoral and society chooses to recognize marriage of homosexuals, you argue, then what is to stop society from an amoral free-for-all?

Whereas marriage equality proponents argue from a position of secular ethics. If homosexuality is legal, which it is, and ethical, which it is, then why can't homosexuals marry? Adults have the right to pursue their own ethical and romantic relationships.

Meanwhile, it is clear to us that there are huge ethical problems with incest, and a bad history in patriarchal polygamy as practiced by those who abuse and exploit minor girls, trapping their young wives in a life of subservience, poverty and public assistance.

You see it as an absolutist religious morality question, we see it as a secular ethics question. Come over to our side and that line is bright and clear.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@USU Logan..

At Bleed Crimson... Is "redefinition" a logical statement?

History shows us that marriage is NOT defined by those who are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon child and spousal abusers to civil marry?
Interracial couples wanted to participate in the institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry.
There are no Interracial marriage licenses.
There are no felony marriage licenses.
There are no non-procreative marriage licenses.
Allowing same-sex couples to participate and/or strengthen the existing institution, means there is only ONE marriage license for all. Nothing has been re-defined.
Look no further than "traditional voting" which was NOT "re-defined" by allowing women the right to vote (from gendered voting to genderless).
A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply no right at all. The "redefinition argument" is a logical fallacy and nonsense.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@Northen Utahan

Even you did not quote Judge Heyburn correctly.. “Many Kentuckians believe..."

Even that comment was edited and paraphrased to fit in the comment limitation. The fact that it was paraphrased also should have also been included. By the time the explanations and authorship were duly noted, there was no room for even the the shortened and rewritten/derived version.

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

These three men hold the future of the families of Utah in their hand. At least until the Supreme Court rules on whether or not marriage is allowed to be redefined.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@ Lovely Desert "At least until the Supreme Court rules on whether or not marriage is allowed to be redefined."

How is marriage "redefined?" by including or excluding people?

Please explain?

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ LovelyDeseret

That's true. Hopefully the many homosexual families in Utah will soon enjoy equal privileges that the rest of the families enjoy. Your family will not be effected at all, no matter what happens

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

LovelyDeseret says:

"These three men hold the future of the families of Utah in their hand."

--- You're right. They hold the future of our same-sex families in their hand. Your family's future won't be affected by their ruling one way or the other; not affected in the least.

to comment

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