Quantcast
Utah

Utah lawmaker questions if gay marriage case will reach U.S. Supreme Court

Comments

Return To Article
  • George Spelvin KAYSVILLE, UT
    June 8, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    I feel great sorrow for so many people who have chosen to ignore God's laws, including His ordaining that marriage is between a man and a woman. (See Genesis)

    I empathize with Senator Hatch, whose political background prompted him to issue the warning that same-sex marriage will likely become law. His words were not a concession, but a warning.

    At the same time, God also decrees the right of agency, or the right to chose one's own actions and life course. We are not free, however, from the consequences of those choices.

    I join the plea for people and governments to uphold correct principles, including that marriage is only between a man and a woman. To chose otherwise will bring upon this nation the calamities foretold by men of God, both ancient and modern.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 6, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    Some said: "I do not need to recognize them or their so called marriages. I will continue to vote against those who do."

    I always wondered what Jesus meant when he said":

    "The second most important commandment is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’"

    Thanks for clearing it up for me.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    June 5, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    Re: "Marriage is not a right, it is a rite."

    Sadly, you have confused the religious rite of holy matrimony with what WE are talking about, namely, civil marriage.

    No religious rite makes a couple legally married in America.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    June 5, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    I truly hope the SCOTUS takes a case so this issue can be finalized once and for all. Plus I want to see Brian Brown sitting on the steps of the court with head in hand asking "why did I take this job?" Either that or he will be on his back crying like a little spoiled brat. Either way I will be content.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 5, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    @Badgerbadger: "Marriage is not a right, it is a rite."

    Marriage comes with over 1200 legal protections and benefits. Marriage in modern society has value because of the law, not because of the church.

    In fact, there is no discernible difference between a marriage performed by a local justice of the peace and a religious figure. Both give exactly the same rights under state and federal law.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    June 5, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    Quoting BadgerBadger, 'Shadow01 says it well. "I do not need to recognize them or their so called marriages. I will continue to vote against those who do. My vote may be unheard but my defiance will continue."'

    Everyone is free to hold whatever opinions they want, and act however they wish within the law. This does not extend, of course, to throwing rocks, damaging property, or violating individual rights.

    You may hold a same-sex marriage in contempt, but if you work in a hospital, tax department, social welfare agency, physician's office, or for an undertaker, you are legally required to extend to such people their rights as next-of-kin to each other, and to calculate benefits or liabilities on a household income basis.

    Maybe you can't accept their romantic equivalence to a "traditional" couple, but you must accept their next-of-kin, survivorship, guardianship, and household income status for all medical, legal, official, and financial purposes.

    What's so hard about that?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    June 5, 2014 6:40 a.m.

    Badger and Shadow: You are welcome to be as defiant and non-recognizing as you wish. Your neighbors will probably not copy your behavior. They know only too well how Lester Maddox and George Wallace--with their bluster about "Segregation Forever!"--ended up in history.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    June 4, 2014 10:44 p.m.

    Shall we protect conservative religious people from having to get used to others' achieving freedoms that you do not like?

    I remember very well "Why don't those Black people stay on their own side of town like God intended, and stop this immoral race mixing?"

    And how about "Why are those immoral mormons, with their strange religion and their pushy door knocking coming to my town, when they belong in Utah?"

    Why to those Jews of Mexicans or Chinese want to rent an apartment from me? Don't they know their place?

    --- Gays don't come knocking on your door and insist you listen to how they believe. The only reason you are hearing much about them is that they have to speak up to get their rights, which is a shame.

    By the way: To my knowledge, the only Judge dissenting in the marriage rulings was the Idaho mormon on the 9th Circuit, Judge N. Randy Smith. in the original Prop 8 case. He is the judge who should be criticized, because he exposed himself to the charge that he violated his Oath of Office to avoid controversy for his family in his stake.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    June 4, 2014 10:34 p.m.

    Marriage is not a right, it is a rite.

    We would be far better off if all laws were marriage neutral. No one should pay estate taxes. Everyone should be able to designate who can visit them in a hospital. The state could recognize domestic contracts, but never marriages. Regardless what the state wrongfully does, I will not recognize state marriages of SS couples. Marriage requires a man and a wife, male and female. Contracts can be between any two or more people. They aren't the same thing, no matter what any court says.

    Shadow01 says it well. "I do not need to recognize them or their so called marriages. I will continue to vote against those who do. My vote may be unheard but my defiance will continue."

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    June 4, 2014 8:13 p.m.

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

    That's the exact same argument the racists used 50 years ago against mixed-race marriage, that everyone had an equal right to marry someone of the same race as themselves. No wonder your side is losing in court unanimously once again.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 4, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    And the wind force just picked up significantly. The state of Oregon amendment blocking gay marriage was overturned. The state declined to appeal the decision. The national organization for marriage tried to file an appeal, the Supreme Court denied it.

    I can't help but wonder, had Utah been the 17th case instead of the first case what the Supreme Court would have done with the stay.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    June 4, 2014 7:21 p.m.

    @wrz--Wow. The state could have saved two hundred thousand in legal fees if they had just talked to you first--they might even have let you argue the case, and I'll bet you would have done it for free. Any day now the 10th Circuit will rule against Utah, and you'll be able to tell them you told them so; you knew they would lose because they were just arguing the wrong points.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 4, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    @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?

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    June 4, 2014 7:04 p.m.

    "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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 4, 2014 5:02 p.m.

    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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 4, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    @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.

  • suhein Farmington, UT
    June 4, 2014 2:55 p.m.

    @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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 4, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 4, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    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".

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 4, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    @wrz & UncleFester;

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

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 4, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    @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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 4, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    @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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 4, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Uncle_Fester Niskayuna, NY
    June 4, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    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.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 4, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    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.

  • Philt Sacramento, CA
    June 4, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    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.

  • Lilly Munster netherlands, 00
    June 4, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    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.

  • suhein Farmington, UT
    June 4, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    @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
    June 4, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    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.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 4, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    @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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 4, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    "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.

  • bbc SLC, UT
    June 4, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    "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!

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 4, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    @shadow01
    You certainly have the right to say that gay marriage is an idea from Satan based on "primal gratification with no eternal reward."
    You are free to believe that the courts are liberal and eroding the nation.
    You are free to call a legal marriage "so called" and vote against equal rights every chance you can.
    For the sake of our nation, our church, and our families, I hope that you choose not do those things.
    I hope that you will allow yourself to see the real hearts of LGBT who want the same things you do. I hope that you will recognize that they are God's children made in His image.
    Protecting the rights of LGBT people protects all of our rights. Supporting committed, responsible relationships among LGBT people promotes commitment for all people.
    I invite you to search online for first-person stories and videos from LGBT people, including LGBT Mormons and how positions like yours affect them. Then go to the websites of the major organizations fighting gay marriage, read their position papers and watch their videos. See which one you want to align with. For me, the choice was clear.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 4, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    @Rocket Science
    ..." the dictionary definition, ... of marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife"

    This may come as a shock, but it doesn't take rocket science to realize that the dictionary isn't law and Noah Webster doesn't decide how the Constitution is interpreted and applied throughout the land.
    However, since you asked:
    "The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship" (Oxford Dictionary)

    "1 a: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife ...
    b: a similar relationship between people of the same sex" (Merriam Webster Learner's Dictionary)

    " a legally accepted relationship between two people in which they live together" (Cambridge Dictionary Online)

    Any questions?

  • shadow01 Edwardsville, IL
    June 4, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    As just about every Latter Day Saint has been taught; Whenever God puts forth a ordinances with blessings meant to draw us closer to him and receive eternal blessings, Satan puts into the minds of man counter ordinances based on primal gratification with no eternal reward. But of course God lets us choose. I suppose the courts may continue to stab at eroding away at the Nation. I suppose that people will continue to remake God in their image. I suppose that the LGBT community will get their way through the liberal courts. But I do not choose to support them. Since I am not a commercial entity, I do not need to recognize them or their so called marriages. I will continue to vote against those who do. My vote may be unheard but my defiance will continue.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 4, 2014 1:44 a.m.

    mcraven,

    The wording in Loving v. Virginia (1967) stipulates that marriage is a fundamental right. Granted, it is given in context of race. However, it is also worded in the context of due process. Many of the rulings regarding same-sex marriage are worded using the same language.

    "These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted ...by the State.

    These convictions must be reversed."

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 4, 2014 12:05 a.m.

    "Ivory said regulating marriage is a power that has belonged to the states for 237 years."

    Nearly all of the states used to ban mixed-race marriages. The federal courts declared that unconstitutional in the late 60's.

    So there's certainly precedent for the feds to step in when the states are treating American citizens unequally.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 3, 2014 11:02 p.m.

    @Skrekk Nikita Kruchev boasted to Ezra Taft Benson that his grandchildren would live under communism. What does that prophecy and those of so called same gender marriage have in common? They are both false prophecies one that hasn't came to pass and one that won't come to pass. If so called same gender marriage does exist in all 50 states like communism in Eastern Europe won't last too long as it will collapse under the weight of it's own iniquity.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    June 3, 2014 10:55 p.m.

    @Rocket Science "Remember CA prop 8 case did not make SSM the law of the land even though SCOTUS had the opportunity to do so if so inclined."

    No, that wasn't even an option for the court since the Prop h8 proponents didn't have standing to appeal.

    @Rocket Science "Maybe they will decide that states must either recognize SSM or some other type of civil union."

    Sorry but the courts already know that separate is never equal. In particular civil unions don't have any of the federal rights of marriage and aren't recognized by the feds, by other states or by other countries. 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. Marriage equality is the only possible outcome and so far the federal courts unanimously recognize that fact.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 3, 2014 10:00 p.m.

    @Rocket Science;

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling...

    You may not like it, but we are going to have marriage equality in all 50 states eventually. It won't affect you (or society) negatively (except perhaps in your mind).

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    June 3, 2014 9:32 p.m.

    While it may be SCOTUS decides the case not hearing it, it is interesting that SSM advocates want and expect those who have a differing opinion to shut up or give up now, to not pursue the interest of the State. Remember CA prop 8 case did not make SSM the law of the land even though SCOTUS had the opportunity to do so if so inclined. SCOTUS ruled those who brough the suit did not have standing. SCOTUS took the easy way out that time, perhaps suggesting they wanted additional judicial review through lower courts before it reaches them, then decline the case. OR, maybe they will take it in which case it is very possible they will be split 4/5 or 5/4.

    Those that want SSM do not want the case to be decided by SCOTUS because there is some uncertainty there, my guess is 80/20, it's not 100% as some hope. SCOTUS will certainly weigh very heavily if the powers recognized as the states for over 200 years should be changed or if the States retain that power. Maybe they will decide that states must either recognize SSM or some other type of civil union. Everything right now is opinion.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 3, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    What good are voters rights if courts overturn them anyway. No where in the 14th amendment is there a right to marry someone of the same gender? Why are people just now finding this right? So called same gender marriage I don't think will last since the person behind that inspiration never supports those that follow him in the end. In the vast majority of states that voted to define marriage they voted to keep it between man and woman. Courts are taking away there rights. If all else fails eventually enough of society will change that a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and woman will exist. Men and Women are different biologically, they are not regardless of race.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    June 3, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    Why is it that until recently changes to civil law to redefine marriage to include SSM have not even been brought up? SSM advocates hate it but again and again the dictionary definition, and a definition that has stood for thousands of years, of marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. No man can be a wife, no woman can be a husband. Protest the argument but it is fact and yes it affects families,No male can be a mother no female can be a father. Society will pay a price for this social mistake brought on by those who want to justify something that is not by creating something that not be, SSM.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 3, 2014 8:38 p.m.

    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.

    =============

    If voters can vote away another's rights, Rep. Ivory, what's left?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 3, 2014 8:32 p.m.

    In my opinion, SCOTUS is going to pick up a SSM case, but it may not be Utah's case. They may table 10th circuit case and wait for a while, until another one or two circuit court rulings, especially the most conservative 5th circuit's, come up, to see if there is any difference in their separate opinions, and then decide to pick which case.

    Unless several circuit courts all reach the exact same conclusion, especially in terms of narrow or broad interpretation of Windsor, which I doubt they will, I think SCOTUS will eventually pick up a case and set the tone for the whole nation.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    June 3, 2014 8:21 p.m.

    @Henry Drummond
    "Windsor never needed to reach the Supreme Court either since the Justice Department made it clear it agreed with the lower court's ruling."

    If SCOTUS had declined to hear one of the several appeals of rulings which had found DOMA unconstitutional, gays would only have full federal civil rights in the 1st and 2nd circuits and DOMA section 3 would still be enforced in the rest of the country. That's not an outcome SCOTUS would tolerate. In other words SCOTUS had to take one of these cases and they chose the one which told the best story.

  • mcraven Dugway, UT
    June 3, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    I think that the whole issue is based upon the determination of whether "marriage" is a fundamental unalienable right, as in Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, or not. If not, and is determined to be a state regulated social contract, then of course the state legislature can define it. If so, then the Supreme Court must apply the Constitution to the issue. The idea that the U.S. Supreme Court can't nullify a state's law is just wrong and has been done over and over again throughout our (USA) history.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 3, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    Let's be clear. Rep. King wasn't saying whether he thought it was a good thing or a bad thing that the Supreme Court should review the case. He's merely sharing his knowledge of how the Court typically allocates its limited docket time. They only agree to hear cases ("grant cert") when they think it's necessary and the issue can't be resolved otherwise.

    The Federal judiciary has three levels, the District Courts, the Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. Federal District Courts in several different Circuits have rendered basically identical decisions. It's very early days yet if you're counting on SCOTUS stepping in. None of the Circuit Courts have spoken yet, and as Rep. King points out, unless they disagree with each other as to the constitutionality of restricting gay couples from marriage, there's no question for SCOTUS.

    We not only have to wait for the 10th, but also the other Circuits to see if they agree.

    Rep. King is right. SCOTUS may not step up at all. Nearly half the population of the US now lives in Marriage Equality states. Its job isn't removing rights.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 3, 2014 7:12 p.m.

    Thanks Schnee, I read the article but it didn't seem clear to me. I agree though, I could see the Supreme Court declining the case and letting the lower court decisions stand if they are all in agreement (and I believe they will be in agreement in granting marriage rights to same sex couples). I actually hope that's what happens it's faster that way and the faster same sex couples can legally marry the better.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 7:00 p.m.

    @The Wraith
    Yes and no. Depends on how technical you want to be about it. What he meant by his comment is that the Supreme Court won't hear the case.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 3, 2014 6:54 p.m.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but when the 10th Circuit rules in the case (no matter which side they rule on) the other side will appeal. The Supreme Court would then at least have to say whether they will hear it or not. Is he not counting that as "reaching" the Supreme Court? By reaching does he just mean if they will hear it or not?

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 3, 2014 6:15 p.m.

    All 14 verdicts are based in large measure on last year's ruling in U. S. v Windsor. If you think about it, Windsor never needed to reach the Supreme Court either since the Justice Department made it clear it agreed with the lower court's ruling. The appeal was purely to have the Supreme Court decide the issue once and for all. I think that will happen here as well.