Comments about ‘Utah, Oklahoma same-sex marriage cases on parallel track’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 16 2014 5:20 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

I've read the briefs in both cases. Overall, I would say that the Marriage Equality advocates in the Oklahoma case have the most provocative arguments. They center their case around the fact that in three Supreme Court cases affecting Gay Rights (Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor,) the majority applied a heightened level of scrutiny rather than rational basis.

I strongly suspect that the Tenth Circuit Court is going to make some sort of ruling on that specific issue. This seems to be the aspect of the case receiving relatively little notice from the press. If the Marriage Equality advocates prevail in that argument, then as far as striking down bans on same sex marriage, its Game, Set, Match.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

It ain't all that tough. That's alotta brainpower (three judges) for a simple issue..."Equal protection under the law."

And the law in question is a Utah law which basically states that all marriages much comport to a certain set of circumstances.... one man/woman, no family members, no polygamy, no close relatives such as first cousins, certain minimum age, etc. It does not include people who happen to have feelings such as love or other types of attraction for another like another man, another man's wife or his own mother, father, brother or married neighbor. It applies to all citizens across the board. How difficult is that to comprehend and make a judgement on?

slcdenizen
t-ville, UT

@wrz

"How difficult is that to comprehend and make a judgement on?"

It's not, that's why the rulings have been made. These are the appeals, which will likely err on the side of equal protection. Definitely not rocket science here, folks.

intervention
slc, UT

@wrrz
"It does not include people who happen to have feelings" why, because you say? Because the state says? Sorry it does not work that way?

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

@Henry Drummond:
"If the Marriage Equality advocates prevail in that argument, then as far as striking down bans on same sex marriage, its Game, Set, Match."

If it's game, set, match for SSM, it also has to be game, set, match for dozens of other type of marriage relationships that can beconjured... such as polygamy... and you name it.

And if it's game, set match the courts will have gotten themselves in a heap-a trouble essentially nullifying the age old institution of marriage.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@slcdenizen:
"These are the appeals, which will likely err on the side of equal protection."

If the judges rule for SSM they will have certainly erred.

You can't have equal protection for gays/lesbians re marriage and not have the same equal protection for polygamist, marrying your mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree, or a myriad of other possible marriage combinations.

@intervention:
"It does not include people who happen to have feelings" why... Because the state says?"

Yeah, read the law.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Alfred

SSM has been legalized in a number of very civilized countries, including Canada.

In which ones has it led to "If it's game, set, match for SSM, it also has to be game, set, match for dozens of other type of marriage relationships that can beconjured... such as polygamy... and you name it."?

Please list.

intervention
slc, UT

@wrz

Just because a state passed a law does not make it consitutional or simply a matter of fact as you would like to pretend.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@WRZ

the problem is your argument breaks down before it even starts you want to play a black and white zero sum game of either you have to be for everything or nothing then attempt exclude yourself from the game. following your logic if you are for heterosexual marriage you must also support all other forms of marriage. Simply because you have decided that heterosexual marriage is the only proper form of marriage does not buy you a pass any more then those that may have decided heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage are the only appropriate forms of marriage or do not take a position on other forms of marriage.

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

@Stormwalker:
"SSM has been legalized in a number of very civilized countries, including Canada."

And by doing so they have taken giant steps toward becoming uncivilized.

"Please list."

I did list... polygamy.

If you want more added to the list, try marrying your mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree (see wrz above).

Also kids marrying. You might have seen an article recently that the youngest parents on record were a 12 year (girl) old and a 13 year old (boy). Whether they are married or not is not clear.

@intervention:
"Just because a state passed a law does not make it constitutional..."

Doesn't make it unconstitutiona, either.

tedward55
Little Rock, AR

@wrz Laws have to have a "rational basis" for existence and to be defensible in court. So far opponents of SSM have not been able to present a rational basis for their law banning it. In the cases of "polygamist, marrying your mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree, or a myriad of other possible marriage combinations" states could very easily present rational basis for their laws banning them. Big difference

intervention
slc, UT

@alfred
Funny the courts disagree

Also Please do tell us how those countries have become more "uncivilized" and do please show us the evidance supporting a causal link between gay marriage and this negative shift you believe exist.

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

I thought it showed the weakness of the arguments for those who are trying to redefine marriage as Judge Lucero kept trying to prevent the redefiners' attorney from answering the tough questions.

With that said, the appellant Judges will affirm the Oklahoma district court ruling and then send the Utah ruling back on remand to determine if Utah has a compelling interest to define marriage in light of their polygamist history.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Two trains, speeding along parallel tracks towards a huge concrete wall called the constitution. I guess it's a matter of who gets there first.

Bob K
portland, OR

Only in Utah

Would so many commenters keep bringing up polygamy. Apart from other issues, polygamy is considered by most of the country to be weird and unconscionable. Utahns, if they could take the fact that marriage equality threatens the lds church out of their minds, would notice that it works works well in MA and other places for many years.

All of this, including Prop 8, is about the catholic and lds churches being based on procreation, and having no room for Gay married couples.

And only in Utah and a few other places would one hear the lie "trying to re-define marriage", as an argument against equal treatment.

Only 180 years ago, the lds actually did "re-define marriage", then they later re-defined it again, under much pressure, that many here still resent.

People who live in glass marriage definitions ought not to throw stones.

koseighty
The Shire, UT

If the passage of marriage equality will mean the automatic legalization of polygamy, the members of the LDS church should be overjoyed at the prospect of being able to live that portion of the gospel denied them since the 1890s by an evil federal government. ;o)

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

Victory for the LGBT community is undisputable.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

wrz wrote:

"You can't have equal protection for gays/lesbians re marriage and not have the same equal protection for polygamist, marrying your mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree, or a myriad of other possible marriage combinations."

and

"Yeah, read the law."

I see you're still offering your slippery-slope arguments. Rather than repeat my question to you in a previous thread, I'll simply assign you these three SCOTUS cases to read:

1.) Reynolds v. United States
(DN readers should be familiar with that one).
"Having Reynolds on the books for 135 years establishes weighty stare decisis considerations." From the Bostic brief

2.) Zablocki v. Redhail

3.) Loving v. Virginia

"In the real world, there are unlikely to be facial class-action challenges to consanguinity laws. And if facial or as-applied challenges should someday be filed, courts have the doctrinal tools from Zablocki and Loving to decide them."

Also from the Bostic brief

EstoPerpetua
Holden, MA

Perhaps the "opponents" of equal rights for LGBTs will pay the LGBT taxes so they can have their unequal rights imposed on the LGBT community. :>)

slcdenizen
t-ville, UT

@wrz

'You can't have equal protection for gays/lesbians re marriage and not have the same equal protection for polygamist, marrying your mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree, or a myriad of other possible marriage combinations."

It's these types of frivolous arguments that further convince me that I'm on the right side of this debate. But by all means, continue to make silly arguments and those interested in honest debate will be drawn to the better ones.

to comment

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