Published: Thursday, June 5 2014 2:18 p.m. MDT
" an irrational law whose purpose was to single out a group of their fellow
citizens for unfair treatment (as if the laws of virtually all known human
societies that have treated marriage as a male-female union were a vast
conspiracy of exclusion). "It's pretty clear what the
purpose of the constitutional amendments in a flurry around the turn of the
century was about... preventing same-sex marriages.
"Utah is unique in its commitment not only in word, but also in deed, to
preserving the ideal that children deserve to be raised by a married mother and
father."How can Utah make the claim that we only support
traditional marriage when there are an estimated 37,000 polygamists in the
state? Long ago we wisely decided to quit enforcing bigamy laws.Isn't it a little ironic that the state with the longest history of
untraditional marriage should be so vocal in defining "traditional
Utah isn't defending "traditional marriage." If they were defending
traditional marriage then they'd be defending polygamy. After all, that was
the "traditional marriage" here in utah. If they were defending marriage
between 1 man and 1 woman, then why haven't they imprisoned and/or taken
away state benefits from the polygamists?What the state is doing is
defending the irrational fear of gay marriage. They are upholding discrimination
against gays. They'd rather treat them as inferior citizens than as
equals.This is, no matter how you slice it, an irrational and
ultimately, losing position.I'm guessing it's smoke and
mirrors too. Most utah politicians know where this is going but are giving the
impression that they're doing "everything" in the power to fight it
so they aren't attacked in elections for it.
This article started with promise. And then I read: "federal
district court judge ruling that a state’s marriage amendment should be
invalidated based on guesses of how a majority of Supreme Court justices might
vote..." That is misleading and inflammatory and caries the implication that
Judge Shelby used intuition instead of education, training, and experience in
reaching his conclusion. It also implies numerous other Federal Judges are
professionally incompetent. Much worse, the article closed with,
"Utah is unique in its commitment...to preserving the ideal that children
deserve to be raised by a married mother and father."State
boosterism aside, the writer is going to protect children by classing thousands
of children being raised in Gay and Lesbian families as undesirables who may be
tolerated and pitied but who do not deserve respect or legal protections. Then,
to add insult to injury, his wording includes the children of all single parents
in the same class of undeserving children. You cannot protect all
children by harming some children, or "Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr
I wonder if this writer really thought out what he/she was inferring. They say that in our legal system both sides of the argument deserve a
rigorous presentation. Does this apply to the indigent? Does the state of Utah
fully fund qualified lawyers for those people who do not have the adequate funds
to defend themselves before a judge and jury? The state is willing to spend
millions on what appears a losing proposition in its prohibition of same sex
marriage. Is the state willing to spend that and more to make sure no innocent
person goes to jail?I think this is a somewhat self-serving
assertion by the writer, and one that legal aid advocates ought to pick up upon.
I agree with the writer; Utah's case should be the one. This is the state
most in need of a hard lesson about a religious majority imposing its views on
other U.S. citizens who share the same geographic space. We need to learn that
it is unjust to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one
religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual
privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
"Utah is unique in its commitment...to preserving the ideal that children
deserve to be raised by a married mother and father."Riiiight,
that's why a single person can legally adopt a child according to state
law. Married people or a single person can adopt, BUT NO GAYS!!!!! Kinda pops
that balloon don't it?
Duncan: "...Utah is unique in its commitment... to preserving the ideal
that children deserve to be raised by a married mother and father."The state, echoing this sentiment, has based its entire case on the
"conjugal view" of marriage, making the procreative element of marriage
the predominant policy purpose. The state and its allies at the Sutherland
Institute dismiss as irrelevant the "revisionist view" of marriage that
puts a premium on the love and affection of the partners. "[M]mainly about
adult romance," says Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson, quoted in
DesNews; "adult-centric selfishness," writes Sutherland's Paul Mero
in the Tribune.Section 30-1-1(f) of the Utah Code prohibits
procreation for certain marriages. Can anyone at Sutherland answer these
questions?1. Is there any way to interpret 30-1-1(f) as anything
other than a state acceptance and endorsement of the "revisionist view"
of marriage as valid policy?2. Would Sutherland back a repeal of
30-1-1(f) as inimical to the state's interest in the "conjugal
view"?3. Would Sutherland support invalidating the marriages
performed under 30-1-1(f)?4. If the "revisionist view" is
acceptable for cousins, why isn't it acceptable for same sex couples?
Re: "There are . . . reasons to believe that Utah’s case would be the
best and likeliest [case for Supreme Court consideration]. First, Utah is making
a robust defense of its law."Along those lines, the Supreme
Court's selection of the case[s] to consider will likely telegraph its
punch. If it's Utah's we would appear to be in good shape, though
Chief Justice Roberts' history of solid conservative reasoning -- until it
really counts -- is still a little scary.The Court has ruled LGBT is
not a suspect class, so strict scrutiny analysis won't apply. It's
unlikely to discover some new right to perversion in the penumbra of another
disused constitutional provision, so heightened scrutiny is also off the table.
And, since great deference to a state's determination as to what
constitutes its important interests is still the law of the land -- liberal and
LGBT bleating to the contrary notwithstanding -- normal-level scrutiny would
also clearly support Utah's constitution.So, if the Court asks
for briefs and arguments on Virginia's case, we should expect an adverse,
doctrinaire, liberal outcome.Utah's? Not so much.
I agree with the statement "Having both sides of a lawsuit adequately
represented is crucial because it ensures the Supreme Court will be able to hear
all relevant arguments before making a decision that will impact the laws of
every state and the fundamental unit of society."I believe this
is crucial in order to put this issue to rest. No matter the outcome, we need
resolution to the issue with both sides of the arguement well represented.The question in my mind is that if the SCOTUS rules against SSM, will
the LGBT community respect that? Doubt it. But... if the SCOTUS
rules in favor of SSM, the same group will expect the other 95% of the
population to respect it.And to those who point out the polygamy
contradiction I would point out that Utah does NOT recognize plural marriages
and treats polygamy as a cohabitation condition. The state of Utah treats same
sex cohabitation exactly the same.
Given Utah's history of projecting it's influence into other states on
this issue and the absolute bumbling, unoriginal legal representation that Utah
has put up so far, I sincerely hope Utah gets it's chance to be the first
state to lose soundly at the SCOTUS level. Indeed, for all the
reasons this author notes, it will be sweet justice when Utah sets the precedent
that undermines their codified discrimination.
When Utah loses this case, will I get a refund on the money they took from me in
Alright. I'll agree that a child benefits from having a father and a
mother to raise him or her. But if Utah truly believed in the advantages of
this arrangement, then why are the family courts and laws typically biased in
favor of mothers? If the situation arises in which the parents have separate
homes, shouldn't the children be afforded as equal time as possible in
both? That's not practice in Utah, so it's difficult to believe that
there's an ideal with any teeth. Or are we just touting this in order to
fend off challenges to marital laws?
"The question in my mind is that if the SCOTUS rules against SSM, will the
LGBT community respect that? Doubt it."No, and they
shouldn't. Civil Rights should never depend on a vote. Just because
separate but equal was sustained in past rulings doesn't make them correct
or just."But... if the SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, the same
group will expect the other 95% of the population to respect it."Civil Rights should never be determined by a mob. Mormons of all people should
understand this. Remember in Missouri when the mob determined that Mormons
couldn't own land or businesses? Remember when an activist governor and mob
declared it legal to exterminate Mormons? If 95 percent of America
declared Mormon marriages and families to be illegal, would you accept that?
Would you respect their ruling?The bottom line is, preventing gay
marriage from happening is discrimination. Allowing and recognizing gay marriage
isn't. How does gay marriage affect you or your family? How does gay
marriage infringe upon your rights? Please enlighten the rest of us
in your next post.
I believe that children benefit from having a mother and a father raise them.
Does anyone disagree? I believe that this is the ideal setting for raising
children. I believe that this ideal deserves to be honored and promoted by
state and federal governments, (with things like tax benefits.)Same-sex unions and families deserve a legal status and protections from
discrimination.I don't believe that we should be promoting
same-sex unions on equal footing with marriage. I believe that we should
promote the ideal. I believe that we should protect all parents and
families.I propose that specifically addressing rights and
protections that same-sex couples should have is a better solution than
Several posters have told us that polygamy is legal in Utah. Is that so? Is
polygamy legal? Can a polygamist get a marriage license to marry a plural wife?
Polygamy was outlawed in 1890.Some who believe in SSM are telling
us that they will disobey a Supreme Court Ruling that upholds Utah's
Constitution. They say that they believe that they are above the law.
Isn't that what the gay/lesbian activists have been saying all along?
Haven't they been telling us that 2% of the population can dictate to the
98% what marriage means and that their "feelings" about sex means that
they are protected under the 14th Amendment? Do they receive the same wage as
everyone else? Do they drive the same car as everyone else? Do they receive
the same grade in school as everyone else? If not, they we are all
fundamentally unequal. Do they expect to use the 14th Amendment to force
equality in wages, in school, in cars, in clothes? But, they want the 14th
Amendment to justify their feelings about sex.
I'm so proud that our state is defending our vote to have marriage be
between a man and a woman. I'm happy that our representatives are willing
to fight the good fight. They are suppose to represent the will of the people.
Regardless as to if we win this case, I'm glad to know that we are least
tried to defend the 'Will of the People.' Go Utah!
A mean spirited, petty waste of state resources.
The last poll I saw found that 59% of Americans now support same sex marriage.
So the argument that you are just defending the will of the majority is not
@Clarissa: "I'm so proud that our state is defending our vote to have
marriage be between a man and a woman. I'm happy that our representatives
are willing to fight the good fight. They are suppose to represent the will of
the people."Clarissa - I can only hope that on Sunday mornings
you are equally vocal in supporting Gov Lilburn Boggs and his efforts to
represent the will of the people not all that long ago.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments