Comments about ‘Ruling on affirmative action ban now being argued in Utah same-sex marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 2 2014 5:57 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Furry1993
Ogden, UT

Schaerr is really scrambling. I guess he knows exactly how weak his case and position really are.

Reflectere
Utah, UT

It's called fortifying - not scrambling. He obviously understands his case enough to identify current rulings which enhance the argument.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Reflectere wrote:

"It's called fortifying - not scrambling. He obviously understands his case enough to identify current rulings which enhance the argument."

Yes, "fortifying the truthiness of the argument".

A sophistic technique used by those for whom truth and reality are plastic.

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

So those who previously stated that LGBT equality was nothing at all like the civil rights movement or race-based rulings are now invoking a race related argument to shore up their case? Color me surprised.

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

Friends this case has been lost long ago , equality for all will be the rule in our country very soon.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

"...Peggy Tomsic wrote that the ruling 'did not and could not hold that voters can deny constitutional rights.'"

There is no denial of constitutional rights re marriage in Utah... All can marry provided they meet state requirements, including: of legal age, only one person, not already married, no close relative, only man/woman, etc.

"Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court's prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results."

There you have it... the Constitution is not being violated when states ban SSM via a voter approved State Constitutional amendment... That includes not only SSM but a plethora of other banned marriage arrangements (such as noted above).

rhappahannock
Washington, DC

Many of us have suffered abuse at the hands of those who have gone against nature. It is insulting to us to see gay marriage be promoted as a healthy lifestyle. Some consideration should be given to victims of abuse in this debate.

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

Wow Gene Schaerr is phenomenal. I can see why he doesn't lose very many cases. The Supreme Court is making it clear that States have rights and that all rights are given to the people by the people and not to the people by the Judiciary.

When this is over, Schaerr should be Times man of the year, Utah should give him the key to the State.

Seldom Seen Smith
Orcutt, CA

Our country has no cultural norms, America is disintegrating.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

The Michigan case was about whether voters can deny the granting of rights not offered to others. The Utah case is about whether voters can deny the equal rights to some while offering them to others. It's sad that the Gene Schaerr can't see the glaring difference between the two. I haven't seen something taken so badly out of context since I was speaking with the antis. Gene Schaerr should be ashamed. I am ashamed that he claims to represent Utahns and claims to represent honest legal debate.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

Many legal scholars point to two major differences between the affirmative action case and same-sex marriage cases:

1 - Saying that state universities cannot use race in determining admissions is not denying anyone the right to attend college simply because of their race - members of minority groups still have the right to attend college. This is not true of same-sex couples - denying them the right to marry someone of the same gender makes access to marriage meaningless and is a de facto denial of the right to marry.

2 - Not being able to attend a specific university or college does not create a harm - the applicant can choose to attend a different university or college. This is not true for same-sex couples or their children and therefore denying them the protections and responsibilities of marriage does create a harm.

It is established principle - reaffirmed by Kennedy in the recent ruling on affirmative action - that rights cannot be taken from the minority by the majority and laws, no matter how passed, cannot create a social harm against a discrete group.

These are two completely separate issues and the ruling in one does not foretell the ruling in the other.

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

Red Corvette:
"Dream on folks. Enjoy those fantasies until the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage equality is the law of the land."

In which case everyone will soon be able to marry whom they choose and as many as they choose... including father, mother, son, daughter, aunt, uncle, cousin ,teens, sub-teens, and perhaps even someone else's spouse or your fav pony... in which case marriage will become a worthless and vanishing ritual.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

FYI, equality is not a guaranteed right and never has been. They do have the right to have equal opportunity and what they do with opportunity is not something government or legislation has control of.

This supreme court ruling is directed at all civil law cases regardless of the racist Sodomayer objects to and its stated in the ruling as such. The LGBT has no arguments now and neither does the NAACP and ACLU and all the race based organizations policies.

Law of the land is that civil laws are not guaranteed and subject to state and local government creation and enforcment for the reasons that the constitution cannot be fair if it is used as a socialist tool to argue freedoms, liberties, and rights. Being gay is not a right just as being a criminal, a Jew, a christian, a lawyer is not a right.

The LGBT is a dead issue for the supreme court. In their divine and worldly knowledge and wisdom our forefathers omitted civil and human rights laws from federal government and the bill of rights knowing the prejudices and arguments of chaos they can become. Then gave that power to each state to regulate.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

This article sounds like high quality satire. Mr. Schaerr is a lawyer--what was he thinking?

Racial preferences are given to give a leg up to blacks, who have the double whammy of having been discriminated against historically e.g. slavery, housing restrictions, poorer schools. Affirmative action programs can include preferences in admission or hiring in situations where there are a limited number of positions available, extra programs to encourage minority teens to apply, enrichment programs in schools to enable those with poorer home backgrounds to gain the skills to pass the entrance tests, etc.

And this relates to marriage equality---how?

Are there programs in Utah to encourage gays--but not straights--to marry? Are there a limited number of marriage licenses available each year in Utah and a percentage of these are being reserved for gays? Are high schools teaching Marriage and Family Life to only a limited number of students, and gay kids are being given preference?

If--big IF-- any of these were the case, then Schaerr would have a case--but the remedy would be to eliminate the "preferences" in these programs and expand the number of slots to allow all to participate.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Michigan sought to eliminate a discrimination via state law. Utah seeks to maintain one. I don't think that's going to fly.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@wrz 9:05 p.m. May 2, 2014

I've heard your argument before, back in the 1960s. Only then it said "There is no denial of constitutional rights re marriage in Utah... All can marry provided they meet state requirements, including: of legal age, only one person, not already married, no close relative, only someone of the same race, etc.....There you have it... the Constitution is not being violated when states ban inter-racial marriage." The US Supreme court, in a unanimous decision in Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), said that argument is totally wrong. Sorry -- your argument is a loser.

Daedalus, Stephen
ARVADA, CO

As others have noted, the Michigan case (Schuette) doesn't help Utah's case.

Google: 12-682_j4ek.pdf for the Schuette opinion.

SCOTUS overturned the 6th Cir. holding that Michigan's voter-approved ban on racial preferences within public sector employment, education, and contracting was unconstitutional. SCOTUS held that the 6th Cir. misapplied a prior ruling (Seattle) which had a narrow holding: it is unconstitutional for voters statewide to narrowly target and overturn a local school district's agreement to remedy historical racial discrimination/segregation through busing. In Seattle, there were overtones of unconstitutional segregation of public schools.

In contrast, in Schuette there is no fundamental right for any race to receive preferential treatment, so it does not matter if voters take the power to use racial preferences out of the hands of public university regents/boards, etc.

Schuette's comments about the deference that courts must afford state/local laws is phrased as stating-the-obvious, but that general rule is repeatedly qualified to make clear that such deference applies only when the state laws do not violate the U.S. Constitution, an idea also mentioned as a sort of no-brainer.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Gene Schaerr's argument was that the State of Utah was practicing marital Affirmative Action by giving special preference to opposite sex couples. I'm not sure how a Supreme Court ruling that goes against the concept of Affirmative Action helps you. You're kinda of arguing the case for the other side.

Kally
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Alfred: Your inability to inarticulate a logical, legal argument against same-sex marriage does not automatically mean that there are no logical, legal arguments against the scenarios you posit.

There are very sound, logical, legal reasons against child marriages, marriages to animals, and marriages to inanimate objects.

There are sound, logical, legal reasons against incest and incestuous marriages. (FYI - parent/child, sibling/sibling, aunt or uncle/niece or nephew relationships are all forms of incest - listing them all individually doesn't change that.)

Cousin marriages are already allowed under certain circumstances in many states and even states which don't allow them or whose circumstances have not been clearly met, recognize them as valid marriages.

There are several legal issues that exist in polygamous relationships that do not exist in couple marriages - until those issues can be resolved, they present valid reasons not to allow polygamy.

You can throw as many slippery-slope red herrings around as you want - they won't suddenly become logical, legal reasons for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

QuercusQate
Wasatch Co., UT

@wrz 9:05 p.m. May 2, 2014

"...of legal age, only one person, not already married, no close relative, only man/woman....

One of these things is not like the other. The first 4 have a rational basis for exclusion from state marriage laws; the 5th, on the other hand, does not. Two consenting adults, be they male/male, female/female, or black/white do NOT have a rational reason to be told they can't marry like the other hetero, white folks.

For the sake of those of us who have to endure your repetitive and faulty logic-a-fying, abandon your silly argument for inequality in CIVIL law.

to comment

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