Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah lawmaker questions if gay marriage case will reach U.S. Supreme Court’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 3 2014 5:43 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
bbc
SLC, UT

"Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, said he was struggling with how one federal judge could strike down a marriage law passed by the Legislature and approved by voters as Utahns did with Amendment 3."

Umm, because the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

"Changing the definition of marriage."

This is the most persistent buzz-phrase of the anti-gay-marriage supporters, but let's think about this for a second.

Is DESCRIBING something the same as DEFINING it? And, can't something be described in many ways?

Clearly, the majority of marriages will always involve a man and a woman, because the majority of people are heterosexual. So, when you read marriage laws written by the majority, it's understandable that they should describe the partners as such. But those two participants don't define the marriage.

There are many man/woman couples who are not married. Marriage must be something more than that.

If you look at how law treats marriage, you see a very egalitarian picture. There are no defined gender roles for the partners. There's no linkage to child-bearing. Family law deals with children regardless of parental marital status. The only overlap was illegitimacy, which SCOTUS threw away decades ago.

Claiming a "definition" is majoritarian ex-post-facto rationalization, not supported by any other statutes describing marital life, and insufficient reason to exclude a minority consisting of homosexuals who would benefit equally.

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

@higv

Your argument is fast becoming a p.r.a.t.t. Even just on this comment board. Once again, the courts are well within their rights in voiding laws voted on by either the public or Congress. In fact reviewing the laws is their job. The best example is segregation laws in the 50's. Had it been left to a vote these laws would have held firm for decades longer. Thankfully the Supreme Court voided the will of the voters because the laws were unconstitutional. You may not like the ruling but what they are doing is exactly what they are supposed to be doing .

Nowhere in the 14th amendment does it cover the right to marry at all. No where in the constitution does it cover the right to privacy or even the right to life. What the 14th amendment does say is that all citizens have to be equal before the law. The U.S. courts and laws of the land have for a long, long time now viewed marriage as a legal right. Therefore the argument that marriage equality is sound.

Lilly Munster
netherlands, 00

It is NOT "one Judge making a decision," as if there is something unlawful, unseemly, or unfair about that. OFTEN "one Judge" forges an entire decision, as in a SCOTUS Judge who breaks the tie vote on some issue. The Big Picture is this; Our Constitution says "All." You cannot argue, redefine, or diminish any part of that word, that meaning or Sacred Guarantee. There is no doubt that denying Equal Protection, Equal Treatment, and Equal Process demands that we set our Bigotries and Religious Fears aside, for the good of "ALL." After all, there was a time when we Mormons had NONE of those protections, because WE were the hated, abused, and demonized.

suhein
Farmington, UT

@Rocket Science

The "definition" of marriage as you describe it has not, and I cannot emphasize this enough -not, stood for thousands of years. A very simple examination of the history of marriage in the world is enough to destroy this idea.

- In ancient Greece marriage was between a man and a woman but only for legal and inheritance reasons. Men were expected to love and have a sexual relationship with adolescent boys - homosexuality was an important part of their culture.
-In Rome marriage was seen as a way of enhancing a career and so wife swapping was a large part of the definition of marriage.
-In parts of Europe both before and after Christianity arrived marriage was defined as between a man and several women.
-In many parts of the world both past and present marriages are arranged.
In the Bible marriage was also between a man and several women - especially among the important prophets of the Bible.
-For early Mormons marriage was between a man and several women. Even today Mormonism teaches that polygamy is an important part of Celestial Marriage.

I could go on an on.

Lilly Munster
netherlands, 00

Think of your children, grandchildren, friends, colleagues and fellow Citizens. They have uniformly, collectively, and with considerable thought and comprehension, declared that Equality is the Law of the Land. Equality is NOT based on, nor dependent upon, individual Religious Based Prejudices and Dictum. That's the beauty of Our Constitution. It says "ALL." Consider this; when (not if) Catholic Latinos dominate this Nation, and they will, do you want your grandchildren following the Dictates of the Roman Catholic Church? Their Thousand Year Plan specifically calls for "Reclaiming the United States for Catholicism." Fact. Are you ready for a picture of the Current Pope, and a statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe in all our Public School Classrooms? After all, if you defend "The Majority Rules," you support that and will have no redress from yet another form of Tyranny of The Majority. Ask your children and grandchildren why they honor Equality. This Nation is now in THEIR care, and Equality must be defended. Remember Mormon History? Often, the Majority was an angry mob, intent on persecuting, demonizing and dominating us Mormons. Lesson learned.

Philt
Sacramento, CA

I have heard the very same arguments being made against same sex marriages as being made against inter-racial marriage, and nearly word for word. The Bible was cited, sacred immutable laws were invoked, and damnation was guaranteed for anyone who had the effrontery to (then) marry outside of his/her race and (now) to marry within his/her gender. The Bible did not then, nor does it now prohibit inter-racial; yet this was law of the land in the not-to-distant past. Wisely most of the states--the 15 southern states, in the end, being the exception--repealed these laws. After WW2, several servicemen were coming home with "colored" wives (ie Japanese, Korean, Philippina). Similarly, the Bible doesn't prohibit marriage between 2 men or 2 women; it makes no mention of it. It does have a whole slough of sexual proscriptions (including marital relations during menstruation). It's time for the various states to come to grips with reality, and get out of the business of intruding into the private affairs of its common citizens.

higv
Dietrich, ID

There are biological differences between genders, There really are no biological differences between races, So you can't use laws against interracial marriage to compare to so called same gender marriage. It is biology not bigotry. The majority of Americans never supported segregation or slavery either, both were man made institutions as is so called same gender marriage which will fall under the weight of it's own iniquity. Marriage of a man and woman is ordained of God. Also why do people that engage in homosexual relations have a higher rate of aids and other std's. Could be lifestyle. Pushing for something that only gives people more misery.

Uncle_Fester
Niskayuna, NY

Marriage is not a right, it's a regulated activity. The notion it's a right created whenever two (and why stop at two?) people love each other is absurd. You can't marry your sister or your brother for example. You can't marry under fraudulent conditions either. To elevate sexual proclivity and deviant behavior to legal moral equivalency with traditional marriage is just perversion.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

Ranch:
"You may not like it, but we are going to have marriage equality in all 50 states eventually."

That could be a good move. Means that polygamists would have their marriages solemnized/recognized. And first cousins, brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters who love each other can no longer be denied marriage.

This could also mean that someone can even marry a tree, perhaps.

"It won't affect you (or society) negatively (except perhaps in your mind)."

It will mean the eventual demise of marriage.

The Supreme Court cannot stop with just ruling on SSM. It would have to include ruling in favor of any and all other marriage combinations regardless of how seemingly weird. Anything less would be effectively court authorized/approved discrimination.

Thanks, Supreme Court, for moving civilization back a few giant steps toward the Stone Age.

skrekk:
"You'll just have to learn to deal with the fact that all Americans will soon have the same civil rights you've always enjoyed."

Wait a minute... marriage is not denied anyone. All anyone need do is marry someone of the opposite sex. Applies to all adults.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@higv: Show me in Utah's laws where that "biological difference" affects any of the rights, duties, responsibilities or effects of marriage. If that difference matters to marriage, certainly it must be mentioned somewhere? Anywhere? Cite me the section or sections.

Show us where it explains (in the law) which part of a marriage requires a woman to do or not do something, and which part requires a man to do or not do something.

Here's the problem with your assertion: None of the laws of the great state of Utah which describe, permit, or regulate married life say anything whatsoever about the roles of the partners. The laws themselves are entirely mute on gender roles within a family.

If there are biological differences essential to letting a couple marry, certainly the law will explain what the function of those are. Cite the law. The entire Utah Code is online and easy to research.

I'll be waiting.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@higv

"There are biological differences between genders,"

And?

"There really are no biological differences between races"

There absolutely are; how do you account for the fact that there are different races?

"So you can't use laws against interracial marriage to compare to so called same gender marriage."

Yes, you can. Inequality is inequality.

"It is biology not bigotry."

It's bigotry couched in "biology/religion/protect the children..."

"Marriage of a man and woman is ordained of God."

Then why do I need a license from the state to marry? Why do ministers, bishops, and other clergy need permission from the state to perform marriages?

"Could be lifestyle."

Well, if enough of "Christian" society keeps telling you your relationships are meaningless I suppose that after time you might just begin to believe it.

@wrz

"All anyone need do is marry someone of the opposite sex."

Really? How about we pass laws prohibiting Jews from marrying gentiles? Blacks from marrying whites? Mormons from marrying non-mormons.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@wrz & UncleFester;

Slippery slopes are for sliding. Have a fun ride down.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

What will happen first:

A. The US Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of a same-sex marriage ban by a state

or

B. The Deseret News will run out of "Two hands" pictures illustrating a same-sex marriage story

I'm leaning towards "A".

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

Tiago:
"Protecting the rights of LGBT people protects all of our rights."

Tell us, does that include the rights of polygamists to marry? Or brother/sister marriage? Or two or three brothers and a sister to marry? Or an old geezer to marry a 10YO?

Sorry, but you can't just limit marriage 'rights' to LGBT's.

A Quaker:
"...and insufficient reason to exclude a minority consisting of homosexuals who would benefit equally."

Does it exclude other types of marriages as described in my response to Tiago, above?

The Wraith:
"Once again, the courts are well within their rights in voiding laws voted on by either the public or Congress."

But the courts must have a reason for voiding laws. And the reason to void a state law on marriage is not within the 14th Amendment. Clearly it says that 'states... cannot deny equal protection of the laws.' There are no federal law re marriage. So, the 14th applies only to state laws. And state law allows the marriage of all adults provided they marry one adult person of the opposite sex. Seems the law apply equally to all state citizens.

suhein
Farmington, UT

@wrz

You need to go and read the briefs presented to the 10th circuit by the lawyers arguing your side of this case (the ones who want to ban same sex marriage). There is a reason none of them are making the argument that you are concerning the 14th Amendment. Because they no it would be thrown out. They are making other arguments because they know that the 14th Amendment does in fact apply in this case and so they are trying everything they can to work around that problem citing other legal issues. In other words, this point isn't being argued by anyone actually trying to ban same sex marriage because they know it's an invalid argument.

So yes, the courts have been applying the 14th Amendment appropriately when voiding same sex marriage bans.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@wrz: You have my deepest condolences on your inability to engage in rational debate or thought. Just because you disagree with what others are saying is no reason to say the stupidest things you can think of.

We've had this discussion before, as have others with you, and it's been explained dozens of times what the differences are. If you want to continue to play the village idiot, you're probably going to just be ignored from here out.

But, just for old time's sake, let's review the ground rules, which are not at issue:

TWO. (Equal partners.)

CONSENTING ADULTS. (Human persons considered legally capable of consent, as defined by state law.)

UNRELATED BY BLOOD. (To the degree of non-consanguinity required by state law. Bear in mind that several states permit cousin marriages, even first cousins.)

Thank you. Now, carry on.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

suhein:
"You need to... read the briefs presented to the 10th circuit by the lawyers arguing your side..."

They're arguing the wrong points.

"There is a reason none of them are making the argument that you are concerning the 14th Amendment. Because they no (sic) it would be thrown out."

What will be thrown out is their argument... (families/children.)

Again, there is no federal law re marriage, since DOMA was tossed. Thus, SCOTUS can make no ruling on marriage citing federal law.

So state marriage laws prevail (since powers not delegated to the US are reserved to the states...). And state marriage laws apply equally to all citizens of the respective states (Amendment 14 - Equal protection of state law).

For example, marriage laws in Utah says... anyone, ANYONE can marry provided they marry:
One person who is not already married,
Is not a child,
Is mentally competent,
Is not the same sex... etc.

Seems like, to me that that's equal protection under State law since it applies equally to all state residents.

Some adults might wanna marry their son or a child but... they can't, per State law.

Bob K
Davis, CA

"Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, said he was struggling with how one federal judge could strike down a marriage law passed by the Legislature and approved by voters as Utahns did with Amendment 3.
'If a judge can do that, what's left?' he asked."

-- Either Rep. Ivory slept through Civics class, is pandering to the most conservative in his district, or????
People sued, and the judge had to rule according to the Constitution. Period! He did not wake up one morning in an activist mood and decide to overturn the Amendment.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@wrz: "They're arguing the wrong points."

Really? So how come the only place your points are being argued is here, by a few people posting in the Deseret News forums?

I haven't read all of the arguments in all of the cases, but I have at least read summaries. Nobody is making the argument you're making. Non-of the high price, highly educated attorneys on your side are making your points. Why?

to comment

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