Quantcast

Comments about ‘10th Circuit Court ruling: Reasonable people can have good-faith disagreements’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, June 29 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Daedalus, Stephen
ARVADA, CO

The Ericksons cite a "recent national poll" insinuating how it reflects the "general public's" lack of support of SSM. This is false.

The poll sample is not "national" nor does the sample reflect the "general public". Instead it screens by "likely voters" in only the "most competitive" Senate and House district races heading into the 2014 election. This explains the skew that other commenters have already noted.

It is also misleading for the Ericksons to suggest that 10th Cir. J. Holmes believes that "Utah met the rational basis test." The opinion expressly states it does not hold that the rational basis review was or was not met. Ironically, this is because the 10th Cir. agreed with the Kitchens argument that higher scrutiny applies.

Instead Holmes used a common technique in oral arguments: starting with a too-simple black-and-white question to see how deep into the nuance of SCOTUS precedent/reasoning that legal counsel can lead them without losing the way. Indeed, Tomasic took the panel right down into the nuance of Windsor/Romer, and how a finding of 'animus' can bump 'rational basis' into a slightly higher degree of scrutiny.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Kevin J. Kirkham

Actually there are a number very good OBJECTIVE reasons against gay marriage.

Unfortunately those of pro gay have closed eyes ears and minds and refuse to listen any thoughts views not their own.

One of biggest objective reasons is gays are not a constitutionally protected group. And should never have been considers one those "special" groups.

Some groups like religious have been given special protection by the constitution.

the gays are not one of them

Some, like races or the disabled, deserve equal protection under the law because they are born that way.

There is no known scientific or otherwise reason for homosexuality. The gays make all the claims they want that they born that way, there is no proof and no known genetic component.

What is more objective than that!

Another objective reason, the federal government has no legitimate reason to be involved in marriage in the first place. It is not there business. And asking marriage status should stricken from federal statutory law

Here's another objective reason,

the 8th and 9th amendment are the law of the land. Are the bill of rights not objective enough for you?

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

The only "sexual liberties" case that came before SCOTUS in the last twenty years was Lawrence vs. Texas. Roe vs Wade was about a woman's right to privacy.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Actually, the poll cited was from Politico, and polled "likely voters" from Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia (all GOP or GOP-leaning states) along with Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon, as "less GOP-leaning".

Margin for error: 4.1%.

So, even with the heavily slanted sources from GOP-leaning states, with the margin for error the poll results could be the reverse, 52-48 for SSM.

Just about all nationwide polls since last year indicate majorities in support of SSM.

Cherry picked poll data, for sure. Weakens the editorial.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

the truth
@Kevin J. Kirkham
Actually there are a number very good OBJECTIVE reasons against gay marriage…One of biggest objective reasons is gays are not a constitutionally protected group. And should never have been considers one those "special" groups.
KJK
IOW, It's OK to OBJECTIVELY harm others when treating them equally would harm no one?

tt
The gays make all the claims they want that they born that way, there is no proof and no known genetic component.
KJK
So what? See above.

tt
Another objective reason, the federal government has no legitimate reason to be involved in marriage in the first place. It is not there business. And asking marriage status should stricken from federal statutory law
KJK
When your spouse is willing to forgo SSI benefits through you or federal/military pension benefits, we'll talk. Until then gays face OBJECTIVE harm while denying them equality benefits no one. That doesn’t need rational basis.

tt
Here's another objective reason, the 8th and 9th amendment are the law of the land. Are the bill of rights not objective enough for you?
KJK
They are subject to the 14th which Opponents can't overcome.

LeslieDF
Alameda, CA

This article tries and fails to argue more time is needed for "public debate" and this is "an issue best resolved through deliberative, representative branches of government."

It has been ten years since a ban on same-sex marriage AND any form of civil union or domestic partnership. It is hard to understand any language in the Amendment or this article when both want to portray liberal support for same-sex marriage as a means to "punish rather than to criticize or to persuade." Amendment 3 did just that - punish. Not for some wrongdoing, but for wrong-being.

It is not surprising the authors see little connection between the marriage case in 1967 (Loving) and this current marriage case. They instead think the Roe case about "sexual liberties" (authors words) is more analogous, than Loving or Brown - both cases about basic human civil rights.

I'm not surprised. The article here leads with a very mislead poll. It was not a "national" poll, but a poll of likely voters only where competitive US House and Senate Races will be held this November.

If more time is needed for public debate, then this time, much more honesty would be very welcomed.

rob88scps
Cedar Hills, UT

So this word "equality" that everyone is throwing around... I do not think that word means what you think it means. "Equality" doesn't mean calling an orange an apple. Utah defines marriage as a covenant relationship between a man and a woman. It (the state) is not denying the right of any citizen to enter into such a relationship. What the Utah amendment prohibits is the re-defining of marriage as something other than a covenant relationship between a man and a woman. A relationship between two persons of the same gender simply isn't a "marriage" by the traditional definition.

"civil rights"... I'm curious... where in the Constitution is found a "right to marry who or whatever I want"? I see rights to free speech, assembly, ownership of firearms, religion.... not seeing any "marriage rights".

Equal protection under the law simply means the law treats everybody the same. In Utah, the definition of marriage applies to everyone equally... No person, gay or otherwise, is barred from entering into an opposite-sex relationship. Equal protection does not mean that we can change the definitions of legal terms whenever we're in the mood.

RBB
Sandy, UT

While reasonable people can disagree, judges can ignore those with whom they disagree and impose their own agenda. The power of the President to appoint judges is one of the greatest power he has. Judges are free to ignore the view of the majority and impose their own views instead. We are no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We are a government of progressives, by progressives and for progressives.

And if you dare to express your opinion, we will target you until you are too afraid to express any opinion with which we disagree.

Jeff T.
Logan, UT

Thanks for this article. It is indeed possible to have rational disagreements about this issue! It's disheartening that so many wish to demean their fellow Americans — around half of their fellow Americans, no less — as wholly irrational because of their political perspective. It is an absolutely toxic narrative that attempts to silence dissent by telling them that their views are not just mistaken, but so atrocious that basic civility is not even warranted.

Hugh1
Denver, CO

The most baffling statement is the one about interracial marriage. A gay person is gay, is gay, is gay. If you are prepared for a potentially lengthy discourse on the subject, just ask a gay person. The LGBTI alphabet is there for very good reason, I never, and I do mean never, met a gay person who said he or she chose to be gay or changed their letter in the LGBTI alphabet. You are who you are, no change possible. Ever. You know someone who changed? No, you don't. Read the history of Exodus, the defunct ex-gay movement. This matter has no business at the ballot box since my rights are not subject to a popular vote - we have a Constitution, a 14th Amendment, and the Loving v. Virginia precedent (the 1967 SCOTUS decision on interracial marriage.) It's time to enact those protections for me and my family.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

"the (total lack of) truth" says:

"One of biggest objective reasons is gays are not a constitutionally protected group. And should never have been considers one those "special" groups."

--- What part of "All citizens" don't you understand? It matters not if a group is a "protected" group; what matter is that the Constitution applies to ALL citizens - even LGBT citizens.

"Some groups like religious have been given special protection by the constitution."

--- Which, clearly they don't deserve.

"There is no known scientific or otherwise reason for homosexuality."

--- When did you choose your heterosexuality? Date/time please.

@rob88scps;

"Utah defines"; Utah can't take away someones rights via "defines". The Utah law does not "treat everyone the same". It PREVENTS some people from having the LEGAL BENEFITS that other people are allowed.

Jeff T. says:

"It's disheartening that so many wish to demean their fellow Americans ..."

You mean like voting away their rights? Calling them "sinners", "abominations"? That kind of demeaning?

BYUtah Fan
Herriman, UT

The problem with the courts resolving the issue of same sex marriage does not revolve around the merits. The problem is that the courts are creating a "right" virtually out of thin air. The term "equal protection" is vague enough that an equal protection argument can be made about most any law. For example "drunk drivers are not receiving equal protection of the laws because they are treated differently than sober drivers". As few as 20 years ago the notion that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage was not even considered. Now suddenly the courts have found it. As Justice Kennedy stated, a society that relies on 9 unelected judges for governance is highly dysfunctional.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Jeff T. ;

Let me rephrase your comment and then we can discuss:

"Thanks for this article. It is indeed possible to have rational disagreements about this issue! It's disheartening that so many wish to demean their fellow Americans — around 2-5% of their fellow Americans, no less — as wholly irrational because of their sexual orientation. It is an absolutely toxic narrative that attempts to marginalize by calling them "sinner" and "abomination" and telling them that their lives are not just mistaken, but so atrocious that the basic civility of equal treatment under the law is not even warranted."

Fixed that for you.

Mike702
Hamilton, 00

The cited Politico poll was not a national poll, it only covered specific House and Senate seats. The latest national poll had support for same-sex marriage ahead 55% to 42%.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

All of this discussion hinges on "taking away" rights of the LGBT community. But marriage has never historically been such a right and generations of Americans and constitutional scholars have not (until very recently) found such a right. To believe that reasonable people cannot disagree on this is to disagree with virtually all who came before and to cast them as unreasonable.

BJMoose
Syracuse, UT

First of all I disagree with Dave of The OC,CA. This poll was not just those 65 and over.
However I also disagree with the D-News calling this a national poll. I hardly think interviews with 867 likely voters in competitive US House and Senate races constitutes a national poll. I Googled "same sex marriage polls" and quite frankly I cannot find another one where the results show what this poll show. In all cases over 50% of the respondents were in favor of same sex marriage. The numbers ranged from 52-59% for to 34-40% against with the balance being undecided. I also note in this poll that only 16% of the respondents are under the age of 35 while 49% of the respondents are over the age of 64. All polling including this one shows trends for favoring same sex marriage increase as age decreases. Like the editorial the D-News put out Wednesday in favor of Judge Kelly I think this is another attempt by the D-News to exploit the one instance that reflects the preconceived mindset of the editorial board.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@TheTruth: Your anger and animosity towards LGBT people doesn't let you think clearly. First, you claim there are many objective reasons to deny marriage to same-sex couples. As your first example, you claim that same-sex couples are not a protected class so you can deny them marriage. I'm not versed in rhetorical analysis, but this would be some sort of circular reasoning if you weren't completely abandoning the first part of your "logic" in the second part.

Denying marriage simply because you feel free to discriminate at whim is by definition not objective.

Your second argument is dismissed by anyone who's studied the issue. Sexuality appears to be innate, even though it's not strictly genetic. Many things interact in sexual development, including the prenatal maternal environment during pregnancy, which hormones the mother has in what quantities, her immune system, how many prior children, birth order, hormone receptors in the fetus, etc.

Your third argument is completely illogical. Marriage exists as a legal status. Your proposition that it shouldn't is not justification for selectively denying it to others.

BJMoose
Syracuse, UT

To Ranch Hand: I like the way you continue to straighten out the confused contributors. Please keep it up!
Sincerely,
BJ

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

I find it intersting how many posters supposedly concerned with "equality" and "equal treatment" can come up with so many names for those they disagree with.

I stopped name-calling in the 3rd grade. I guess for others they never outgrow it...

Tiago -

I understand your comments and opinion regarding the recent event held with a formerly LGBT presenter. You have clearly documented your own experience with SSA, and it has been enlightening for all of us.

I know many who have overcome SSA and are happy. I see it as an individual journey that each must follow. It is concerning to me how quickly someone like this is attacked a villified by the media and individuals (not including yourself) for presenting her story. We all have our own experiences, and there should be respect and understanding for all.

The fact is, overcoming SSA is a reality in the world, and it should be looked as realistically and not demonized and attackes.

Tiago, I always appreciate your comments and insights, and have leaned much from them...

rob88scps
Cedar Hills, UT

@ Ranchhand:
Utah is not taking away anyone's "rights", because no such right to marriage exists. Utah is treating everyone equally under the law, because the definition applies to everyone equally.

to comment

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