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
LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

I find it myopic to say nuclear families won't be affect by the redefinition of marriage. Look at what is happened in Massachusetts.
1)Less and less people are getting married, it isn't treasured or embraced.
2)It has also become harder for religious people to adopt.
3)HIV/AIDS has gone up 30%, and
4) state spending has increased by $35 million for STDs.

I consider none of that good.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

@LovelyDeseret, I don’t know if your statements are accurate or not. But let’s assume they are. You infer that these changes have come because of 10 years of marriage equality. But the figures are useless without comparison to other states. Take Missouri--like Massachusetts, a large urban core and an agrarian heartland. Is the marriage rate down there? Have HIV diagnoses gone up there? As a religious person who has adopted before and after 2004, I can tell you that the process is much harder--but that has nothing to do with religion or marriage equality; it involves tougher state and federal regulations. And you have a problem with increasing state spending for STDs? Are you saying that people are more promiscuous now that marriage equality is the law? State spending on asthma diagnoses is also higher. Is this also a result of marriage equality?

No H8 - Celebrate
Salt Lake, UT

@ LovelyDesert
Yes, lets look at what is happened in Massachusetts and Iowa, both states with SSM.

These states have the lowest divorce rate in the country. Therefore, isn't SSM a godsend for all nuclear families by keeping stable family units together?

Moreover, why won't answer the question of how marriage is "redefined" by excluding or including people? For example, we allow convicted spousal and drug abusers to civil marry, does this "define" marriage too? Would spousal, drug and alcohol abuse go away if we did not allow these people to civil marry? Why target only same-sex couples with animus and discrimination? In fact, why even allow opposite sex couples to marry (because they can be a source of HIV and STD's too)? HIV and STD's infection rates be reduced in part by denying them access to civil marriage?

If you don't mind, please answer the question of how marriage is redefined by including or excluding people.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Lovely Deseret

I'm wiling to bet that all of the numbers in your post are not accurate....or are even close to being accurate.

Hank Jr
Draper, UT

I checked on the judges previous rulings and it strongly appears that the gays don't stand a chance. State's rights will prevail over Federal law. Amen.

No H8 - Celebrate
Salt Lake, UT

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.” Awad v. Ziriax (2012)

It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court 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.”

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

@no celebrate

There is no constitutional right to redefine marriage.

In fact the last Supreme Court ruling stated that marriage is a State right.

When the state of Utah appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held 9-0 that there was a likelihood that Utah would win the appeal and thus they put a hold on Judge Shelby's ruling.

They voted 9-0, they don't vote 9-0 on almost anything, yet to protect State's marriage rights in Utah the Supreme Court voted 9-0.

fact based
Salt Lake, UT

@ Lovely Desert

You may be surprised to know that the last Supreme Court case (Windsor) was actually TWO women. Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. So, according to the Supreme court, no one is "redefining" anything. They are constitutionally allowed to participate in the existing institution known as marriage.

Could you kindly explain how marriage is "redefined" by adding or excluding people?

Also, you missed the first sentence in the Windsor ruling. "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.” In other words, the state has a right to regulate, but not discriminate.

The Supreme court ruled on granting a stay, nothing about states rights or validity of marriages currently performed in Utah.

Where did you get your information that it was to protect states marriage rights if I may ask? First, could you kindly explain how marriage is "redefined" by adding or excluding people?

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

@fact baked,

It is ironic that you brought up Loving v. Virginia. The exact same Court that ruled in Loving v Virginia made their opinion known on gay marriage. One year later they summarily dismissed a gay marriage case with a rebuke. No honest person would think that the Court in Loving v. Virginia remotely believed that redefining marriage to gay was Constitutional.

Once again, the only right in Windsor, is that marriage is a State right.
Your "redefining" marriage question is rudimentary and isn't worth a response.

Once again, the burden to grant a stay by the Supreme Court on appeal is that there is a likelihood that the State of Utah can win the case. To that question and burden the Supreme Court responded with a 9-0 vote in favor of Utah. 9-0. Since then, every ruling redefining marriage has been stayed. In spite of District Judge shopping.
Lastly Ted Olsen in his gay California case before the Supreme Court said that gay marriage should not be forced upon Utah and that the Court shouldn't do that. He got that point correct.

fact based
Salt Lake, UT

@Lovely

The quote on Windsor was directly from the actual decision. Please read the decision (above) the state has a right to regulate marriage, and MUST also respect constitutional guarantees.

You cannot explain how adding people, felons, or interracial couples for example, "re-defines" marriage. Rudimentary or not, there is nothing to your redefinition claim. Otherwise, you would easily be able to support the claims you make.

Judge Walker and the 9th decision were both stayed, and voila we now have marriage equality in California. This one example clearly shows that a stay does not mean what you think it does.

'Lincoln said “It cannot have failed to strike you that these men ask for just the same thing, fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they and all others shall have.” Gays and Lesbians, and their children too, whose voices are in harmony with constitutional guarantees, also ask for fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as it is this courts power, they and all others shall have." Judge Wright wrote in Bostic. (Virginia).

Lastly, Ted Olsen is now challenging the marriage ban in Virginia. - The writing on the wall is clear is it not?

fact based
Salt Lake, UT

It is worth noting that In Windsor, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the “equal dignity” of the “intimate relationship between TWO people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community. . . .” The government does not have a right to interfere with their rights to file taxes jointly. Same-sex couples have a right to receive benefits under the state public pension system, to adopt or serve as legal guardian of a partner’s child, to receive inheritance protections, and to make medical decisions for a partner. In light of Windsor, restrictions and disabilities of vile animus, bigotry and ignorance imposed on gay and lesbian couples simply cannot stand.

Windsor did not then say, therefore this ruling means the states can do as they please and.constitutional guarantees can be ignored. Never in our nations history has there been any kind of states right to ignore the US Constitution due process and equal protection amendments.

to comment

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