Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Right to marry

Comments

Return To Article
  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 14, 2014 4:42 p.m.

    To "Stormwalker" but the arguments about the slippery slope are being proven true. Here are some examples of what is going in around the world where SSM has been legalized:

    From the Brussels Journal "First Trio 'Married' in The Netherlands". They were the first western nation to legalize SSM, now they are headed down the same road with polygamy.

    From the UK Daily Mail "Is this the real-life 'Her'? Army veteran who wants to MARRY his laptop says computers are his 'preferred sexual object'".

    Consentual incest is already legal in Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Turkey. Switzerland is moving towards making it legal too.

    You say that it is hysteria, yet the very things that you claim wouldn't happen are happening.

    Do you think allowing incest is a good or a bad thing for a nation? How do you think a nation goes from marriage being between a man and a woman to allowing incest?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 14, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701: "I don't have a problem with polygamy. I have noticed that the people that support gay marriage have a problem with it and typically are against it."

    Actually, I think most SSM supporters are tired of the hysterical slippery-slope fear-mongering that says if SSM happens then incest/polygamy/beastiality must be accepted. They are tired of people incessantly pushing buttons and making accusations and saying things like "if you support this then you must support that."

    Sort of like saying saying "if you support Biblical marriage you must support Niddah laws and groups of men kidnapping women and claiming them as wives."

    Also, patriarchal polygamy treats women as property and powerful men collect property. While some women did well under Utah polygamy, many did not. And the faith promoting myth "we had to do polygamy because men died" is, well, a faith promoting myth.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 14, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    To "Kimber" you are confusing the generic term polygamy with the religious practices of a few groups. The fact is that the cultures that abuse women, force teenage girls to get married and abuse them once they are married would do so regardless of the number of wives they were allowed to have.

    Actually, if you look at the writings of many of the LDS women involved in polygamy it was liberating to have polygamy. Think of it this way. You don't need babysitters, you don't need daycare, most women that wanted to persue education could because there were other adult women to care for the children and house.

    The reason why polygamy goes away in a democracy because the government doesn't kill off as many men, so the ratio of men to women eventually goes back to a near 1:1 ratio.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    I stand corrected....(didn't know gay marriage is actually against the law in states just thought they didn't do it because it is written that they should be the opposite sex. But, as we can see very quickly, that is changing. Just last night, even Idaho had their law declared unconstitutional.
    Now as to polygamy? Well, if they can change the law and show that they respect people, not force them or get underage girls, then let them do it. But history has shown that this lifestyle is basically a way for men to rule over women and make them second class citizens. And with all the cases of young people running away (or getting booted out of their communities so the old men can have the young brides) it's not looking good for them. This is an ancient way of life in some countries and they still continue it some places. But whenever they get Democracy, it soon starts to go away because it isn't compatible with equal rights.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 14, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    To "Stormwalker" I don't have a problem with polygamy. I have noticed that the people that support gay marriage have a problem with it and typically are against it.

    The problem is that the SSM supporters say that gays should be allowed to marry the person they love, while denying that same privelage to others that have alternate ideas of marriage.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 13, 2014 6:38 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701: "To "Kimber" but what is to stop the polygamists or anybody else from doing exactly what the gays did."

    And the problem would be?

    Polygamy is a problem when practiced as a patriarchal institution by monotheists. Those religions tend to treat women as property.

    Other groups practice polygamy - more commonly called polyamory - and it is more egalitarian, supportive and positive.

    Legalizing polygamy would bring it into the light - this would have a positive impact on society as a whole because it would tend to give those who are being abused by that system more resources and support to get help.

    Overall, the biggest problem I see is figuring out some of the legal aspects. But that is why we have so many lawyers.

    I see little downside and much hand-wringing about a slippery-slope bogeyman.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 13, 2014 5:09 p.m.

    To "Kimber" but what is to stop the polygamists or anybody else from doing exactly what the gays did. Only in a few instances did they get gay marriage legalized through a state's legislature. The gays typically use the courts to obtain the ends they desire.

    Now that we have the precedent, what is to stop the polygamists? It is quite possible. The Netherlands were the first to adopt gay civil unions, and within 10 years they had gay marriage. Just last year they had their first polygamist civil union. How long until they allow polygamist marriages? England recently added gay marriage to their laws, now a man is suing to allow him to marry his computer because he loves it just like anybody else.

    Gay marriage is against the law in many states.

    To "dmcvey" since when is love a requirement for marriage? Right now the only requirement for getting married is that you are of opposite genders, not closely related, and are 18 or have permission from a guardian. Love has nothing to do with marriage laws in the US. Gays now want to define marriage by love. We are going from a measurable trait to unmeasurable.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 13, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    Redshirt, your claim that the rights are the same is disingenuous. Straight people can marry the person they are in love with, gay people cannot.

    If a law is unfair it should be changed.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    Redshirt 1701:

    Each type of law is made in the right kind of court. The courts for polygamists and for incest are not in the same types of courts as regular marriage (gay or straight) because they violate the laws of the land. Polygamy and incest is already against the law and the people that would like those things legal need to prove that the laws are not right. So far, that doesn't look to be plausible what with the horrible things like Warren Jeffs and all of the sad incest stories we've heard in polygamist populations as well as in other populations.
    Gay marriage isn't against the law, but those that are gay are just trying to show the courts how it should be made part of marriage for TWO people.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 13, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    To "TrihsDer" but a brother and sister do not have the same protections as marriage. They cannot file joint returns, nor can a sister make medical decisions for her brother.

    Who says that marriage must be legal strangers? I know people that did not fit that requirement before they were married.

    Why do you want to allow the government to limit how many people you can love? Since love is not a commodity, a person can love more than one other person. Why do you want to deny polygamists the same protections that the gays are obtaining?

    Laws are being changed for gays, so why can't laws be changed for polygamists or incestuous marriages?

    You are not consistant. You want to allow marriage for one group, yet deny it for others based on arbitrary reasoning.

    To "Schnee" so what you are saying is that you want to continue to deny marriage to brothers and sisters who want to marry eachother and to polygamists. Are you really wanting to deny them the same legal protection afforded to the gays?

    Justify why you want to deny marriage to polygamists and incestuous groups? Why can't they be married like the gays?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    Let's try this post again, minus a certain historical example...

    @Redshirt
    "So, if you are for gay marriage, unless you are a hypocrite, you must also be for incest, polygamy, and anything else that people want to call marriage."

    Absolutely not. Each of these things are different. Contrary to what you stated the argument for same-sex marriage is not based on people being able to marry who they love. That's a large part of why people marry the person they do but it's not the legal argument. The legal argument is that my side of the debate believes there's no reason to limit marriage to just an adult man and woman who are unrelated/etc and that it should be extended to include same-sex couples as well.

    Those who wanted to allow interracial marriage certainly argued that they wanted to marry the person they loved too, but I take it you don't consider them hypocrites for not supporting incest too.

  • TrihsDer ISS Enterprise, OH
    May 12, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    @RedShirt: "So, if you are for gay marriage, unless you are a hypocrite, you must also be for incest, polygamy, and anything else that people want to call marriage."

    Do these marriages all take place on Gilligan's Island or Fantasy Island?

    Marriage joins two legal strangers together in a legally recognized relationship.

    A brother and sister already have a legally recognized relationship. They are not legal strangers. Marriage does not apply.

    Under the current formulation, marriage is a civil contract between two people, not a group of people. So, while some might argue extending marriage to include polygamy, that would require rewriting many, many laws and changing many legal precedents. It might happen, but it is not the direct path you seem to envision.

    Some people feel marijuana should be legalized. That does not mean they think heroin should be served in kindergarten cafeterias.

    As with your previous Thought Exercise - an experiment yields new information, an exercise gives predetermined answers - I do not have to follow your dubious logic simply because you state that is the only answer.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 12, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    To "Schnee" interracial marriage is different. People can't choose their sexual orientation.

    Right now there is no scientific evidence saying definitatively that people are born gay. Scientists are still debating nature vs. nuture regarding homosexuality.

    But you are wrong. They gays want you to be able to marry the person that that you love. If a 40 year old man loves a 16 year old girl, why should age prevent them from getting married? The only reasons why they can't get married now have to do with signing legal contracts, not marriage. If a brother and sister love each other, why can't they get married? Gays justify their idea of marriage based on loving the other person. What is difference between 2 men loving eachother enough to get married and a brother and sister loving eachother enough to get married?

    Since marriage is the qualifier for marriage now, if the government says that polygamy is illegal, then they are in fact regulating how many people you can love.

    So, if you are for gay marriage, unless you are a hypocrite, you must also be for incest, polygamy, and anything else that people want to call marriage.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "You have 100% equality right there."

    How'd that argument work for people who supported interracial marriage bans?

    "Gays are asking to change the laws so that now love is the only qualifier for marriage. "

    Absolutely not, there'd still be requirements on things like age and lack of family relation.

    "Can government regulate who and how many people we love?"

    No, but it can regulate who and how many people can marry to the extent that those regulations are deemed to be constitutional.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 12, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    To "dmcvey" right now everybody has teh same rights when it comes to marriage, regardless of sexual orientation.

    Right now in all 50 states and in any US territory marriage anybody can get married to a person of the opposite gender. Love is not required for marriage, neither is the ability to have children, the only requirements that are the same is that each person is at least 18 years old and not the same gender.

    You have 100% equality right there.

    Gays are asking to change the laws so that now love is the only qualifier for marriage. Since love is a qualifier for marriage then why limit it to 1 person. Since people are capable of loving more than 1 person, why not allow any number of people to be married, regardless of sexual orientation? What limit can there be when the only qualifier is "love"?

    Can government regulate who and how many people we love?

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 12, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    So, marriage is a "special right" that should only be granted to heterosexuals? And yet, people are always complaining about homosexuals wanting "special rights". Seems to me everyone should have the same rights-gay and straight.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 11, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    I hope Mr. Poulson wasn't vying for a seat on a judicial bench somewhere because this letter just took him out of the running.

  • Jl Sandy, UT
    May 11, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    I personally don't care if you get married or not but I am convinced that the majority of those in opposition to the right of gays to marry are concerned they will be miraculously converted into that lifestyle.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    "Couples don't have the right to be married, but they may be granted the privilege to marry when they comply with the laws of the land. If they don't comply with the law, they don't have a legitimate right to those privileges."

    So how do LGBT folk "comply with the law?" By becoming heterosexual? Get real. SSM is here to stay. And BTW everything you have said was advanced against racial integration and inter-racial marriage. Social conservatives like yourself want to pretend that the debate over SSM comes completely fresh beyond historical context. Well it doesn't and you are going to lose this round also. SSM is constitutional.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 11, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    You are correct. States can ban ALL marriages. So, in the name of fairness and equal protection, if a state bans marriages of same-sex couples, shouldn't it ban all marriages? Ridiculous argument, you say? Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about our obligations to treat one another with fairness and dignity, but I am going to err on the side of treating everyone with respect.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 11, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    The problem with your logic is that you are seeking to allow states to decide not to give bald guys drivers' licenses or let anyone under 5 feet tall to get married. There are some umbrella clauses that have to be applied first, equally and to all, before we can let states have their way with us.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 11, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that marriage is indeed a fundamental constitutional right.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 11, 2014 7:18 a.m.

    Interestingly enough one of your own addressed this tactic of "I don't see in the constitution..." very nicely today In his weekly column.

    The failure of this tactic to accept the need to govern in the real world and the underlying principle of rejecting the preeminence of federal law is a losing argument. It's always been here in America but in the long run it has always lost. From the rejection of the articles of confederation to the current situation with the BLM, it is a losing principle and always will be.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    May 11, 2014 6:49 a.m.

    It looks like the soul purpose of electing representatives now is so they can confirm judges and ballot initives can go out the window since judges will overturn them anyway. Why are judges just now finding things in the constitution that were not there before. And those that complain about money spent defending traditional marriage, It is not the Governor and AG that is wasting tax payer dollars which is a drop in the bucket as most school districts have budgets well over a million dollars, It is the plantiff's that are bringing on the suit. Just now finding things in the constitution. So called same gender marriage will crumble under the weight of it's own iniquity. How come there is a high rate of aids and other STD's among the gay population?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    Sorry, Mr. Poulson, but the right to marry has indeed been determined to be constitutionally fundamental by multiple courts, including the US Supreme Court.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 11, 2014 12:26 a.m.

    I agree with this letter. The only rights we have are the ones specifically mentioned over 200 years ago.

    States have the right to discriminate and hate all they want, regardless of what the 14th amendment says.

    Equal protection clause? Meh! It's just words anyway.