Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah to appeal same-sex marriage ruling to U.S. Supreme Court’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 9 2014 2:05 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tiago
Seattle, WA

@RedWings

RE: "Intolerance and bigotry are just as much alive and well among LGBT supporters as they are among traditional marriage supporters."

The case for legalized same-sex marriage is about millions of gay and lesbian Americans petitioning the judiciary for remedy of a fundamental right they are currently denied.

“Plaintiffs ask for nothing more than to exercise a right that is enjoyed by the vast majority of Virginia's adult citizens. They seek simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond.” -Judge Arenda Wright Allen, Virginia

The organized opposition to same-sex marriage is based, fundamentally, on a belief that homosexuality is sinful and wrong. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are designed to stigmatize and marginalize gay people and their families.

The courts have reviewed the arguments against marriage equality and found them lacking rational basis.

"These arguments are not those of serious people." - Judge John G. Heyburn II, Kentucky

"Entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration." - Judge Bernard A. Friedman, Michigan

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Schwa, there you go again, marxist
Vandals spend money on spray paint to vandalize highway signs and the state needs to pay money to clean up the mess; plaintiffs spend money to fight amendment 3, and the state needs to spend money to fight the mess the plaintiffs create.

Really? Florwood, KarenR
Marriage equality is a misnomer. Marriage equality exists WITH amendment 3. Regardless of what twisted logic the SS crowd uses, when the same rules apply to all, all are being treated the same. Just because a gay does not want to marry a straight does not mean they do not have the right to marry; I don’t WANT to smoke, but I still have the right to do so.

Tolstoy, marxist
Where do you get off saying LGBT people are being treated as second class or being denied rights? See the paragraph above.

Redwings,
Intolerance and bigotry are MORE alive and well among LGBT supporters as they are among traditional marriage supporters.

birdbath
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@ Azazael - the valid reason you state isn't backed by legitimate research. And the Proclamation is not legitimate research - it is a document making claims that one accepts through a process of faith - a process which, by definition is not rational. The court must decide, at the very least, whether there is a rational basis to deny SSM couples the right to marry. Your argument doesn't meet that standard and I think the majority of the US Supreme Court judges will agree.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

"Attorney General Sean Reyes has a sworn duty to defend the laws of the state, according to his spokeswoman Missy Larsen.

"Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3 is presumed to be constitutional unless the highest court deems otherwise," the statement said."

Now if Judge Shelby had ruled the other way, would Herbert have urged Kitchen et al to appeal the decision, because, after all, Shelby's decision should be ignored and the matter appealed all the way to SCOTUS?

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

@lost in DC et al: Let's consider another scenario. The state of Oregon passes a law saying that no marriage in Oregon will be valid unless it takes place in a setting open to the public. City Halls are fine. Baptist Churches are fine. LDS meetinghouses are OK.

Ceremonies in the Portland Temple are not.

And they say with a straight face, "We're not discriminating against Mormons. We're only saying that all marriage ceremonies have to be open to the general public. No secret Lutheran ceremonies, and no ceremonies in any judge's closed chambers. No one will keep you from having your ceremony wherever you want; we just won't recognize it for legal purposes."

This is treating everyone equally, is it not? Would you have a problem with that?

Really???
Kearns, UT

@lost in DC,

"Marriage equality exists WITH amendment 3."

Okay, I will play along with your argument for a minute. Let's compare this to the state passing a law stating the we all are now required to eat a peanut-based diet. Voters approved the law because most enjoy peanuts, and they value the health benefits of such a diet. The law does not offer any exemptions for people who are allergic--even though such a diet is dangerous for them. What options do those who have peanut allergies have? Well, they could go along with the law and get sick or maybe even die, they could defy the law and find a diet that fits their needs, or they can move to a state that acknowledges their needs. My question, however, is why should they have to do any of these?

I hope you think my example is a silly comparison because that is how your argument comes across to us. Telling us that we have equal rights because we can choose to marry someone of the opposite gender or live alone is not completely honest and rather insulting.

Tiago
Seattle, WA

@lost in DC
re "Where do you get off saying LGBT people are being treated as second class or being denied rights?"

I'd encourage to review the decisions from the judges who have considered the laws against gay marriage. They all confirm that the right to marry the person you love is a fundamental right. There is a long history of legal precedent in the US confirming this.

The state of Utah accepts in its arguments that Amendment 3 infringes on the rights of gay and lesbian people.

There must be a strong rational basis for the government to violate a fundamental right of a citizen.

The state of Utah tries to argue that they have sound legal/public benefit reasons for infringing on these rights. The many problems and inconsistencies with Utah's reasoning are clearly addressed in the 10th circuit's decision and in the many similar court cases.

The argument is not whether or not gay and lesbian's rights are being infringed upon. The argument is whether or not the government has rational basis for this infringement. If you believe they do, please explain your case and make sure the state of Utah gets the message.

xert
Santa Monica, CA

Bring it on! Let's make absolutely sure that when the history books read about Jim Crow laws, the states and people of Alabama and Mississippi led the charge of segregation now and forever. When denying basic human rights and marriage equality to our friends in the LGBT--Utah and it's elected leaders led the charge to the Supreme Court and had their collective noses rubbed in the decision. Folks, if you didn't learn it through your Prop 8 embarrassment, you are about to learn it---and learn it well. Hate don't pay!

Shelama
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Some Utahns will be able to take pride in financing the successful effort to rightfully being same-sex marriage to all states through their tax dollars PLUS their tithing PLUS their direct contributions to the plaintiffs.

Undoubtedly that will include some Mormons Building Bridges and other enlightened members.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

@Redwing: "I know that I am no bigot"

Well.... your statements and positions clearly indicate that you are indeed engaging in bigoted behavior, by their very definition. While I realize it stings to hear it, it is this *behavior* that indeed makes one a bigot, by definition.

Bigotry is the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics... like homosexuality.

"I only ask that my rights be respected the same as LGBT rights."

In this particular situation, you are not the one having your civil rights denied to you. And, no, you really DON'T want to have your rights "respected" the same way the LGBT community does in Utah currently. To do so would mean you can not marry the one you love. It would mean you could be denied an apartment or house rental just because of who you are. It would mean you could be fired from your job just for being who you are.

As If!
Layton, UT

Go UTAH! I pray daily that they win the case for traditional marriage. Whatever the outcome, I still believe that gay marriage is wrong, but I guess I'll just have to live with it if it is allowed. Just don't expect me to be happy with it. Don't expect me to condone it. If it stays out of my life, I'll be one happy camper. Once again: GO UTAH!

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

@Jamescmeyer
"In defining or recognizing marriage in a legal sense, the state is free to define it however it wants. "

The Supreme Court did strike down interracial marriage bans so there are limits to what the state can do.

@RedWings
"How do you know that I do you know that I do not support secular legal status for gay couples?"

Well Amendment 3 bans that so that must mean you oppose Amendment 3 even if you don't support same-sex marriage itself.

@lost in DC
"Where do you get off saying LGBT people are being treated as second class or being denied rights?"

When we had bans on interracial marriage that was a rule that applied to everyone as well. Would you say interracial couples were being treated as second class citizens or denied rights?

"Intolerance and bigotry are MORE alive and well among LGBT supporters as they are among traditional marriage supporters."

One side is based on affirmation of love, the other is based on opposition.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

To those claiming marriage is a "State issue"

How does that jive with the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Marriage is a public act, record and judicial proceeding. So how can a marriage performed in one State not be recognized in another?

Even if Utah were to somehow claim they would not marry same-sex couples, if that couple were to go to Colorado, get married there, Utah would still have to recognize and honor it.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

@ Tiago: Thanks for your comment. While the quotes from judges are very good, most posting on this board, and comments in general, show just as much hatred toward people of faith from the LGBT community as the other way around.

TrueVoice: I have no hatred, fear or distrust toward gay people in general. I have mistrust in the activitsts who use lies and name-calling to advance their position. My mistrust of gay activists is based on their actions, not my prejudice. The outright bullying used against anyone in the public eye who supports traditional marriage is shameful, but apparently acceptable.

Fractals: That is correct. I do not support the Ammendment 3 ban on civil unions. Govt is to preserve the rights of all, not erode one groups rights in favor of another, smaller group.

Daedalus, Stephen
ARVADA, CO

The Utah AG's office released a statement that reads in part "Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3 is presumed to be constitutional unless the highest court deems otherwise."

This sort of misstatement of the law is what has fascinated me about Utah's formal legal defense and how DN has covered it without scrutiny or correction.

Contrary to what Utah AG is representing to the citizens of Utah, there no longer is a presumption of any sort.

Today, as a matter of law, Amendment 3 is unconstitutional.

The federal district court for Utah held that, and so did the 10th Circuit panel. If the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to do nothing by denying cert, the current stay expires and all SSM-bans throughout the 10th Circuit immediately become invalid, and marriage licenses must be issued to same-sex couples.

The legal status quo -- not a mere presumption -- is that SSM must be permitted across the 10th Cir., and Utah faces a ticking clock to change that status quo.

SCOTUS need not deem Amendment 3 unconstitutional. It already is. SCOTUS may -- but need not -- first agree to hear the case, and then decide the 10th Cir. erred.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

lost in DC says:

"Marriage equality is a misnomer. Marriage equality exists WITH amendment 3."

Now there's some real Orwellian thinking for you. No, lost, Amendment 3 does not promote equality, it promotes bigotry and discrmination.

"Where do you get off saying LGBT people are being treated as second class or being denied rights? See the paragraph above."

See the paragraph above.

@As If!;

You believe SSM is wrong, don't have one. Easy peasy.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

In 1838 Gov Lilburn Boggs signed into law the expressed will of both a majority of citizens of the state and the dominate religion of the state. The law was about states right to defend the purity of traditional citizenship - not passing the law would have devalued citizenship for the majority and caused children to be confused.

The law was challenged a few times, and was defended by conservative legislators who were defending the expressed will of the people of the state, and protecting children who would obviously be harmed.

The law stood the test of time - one might say it was based in God given tradition - until1976 when a (probably liberal) Gov. Kit Bond violated the right of the state to determine who can live in the state, and against the expressed will of the people who supported the law, decided it was unconstitutional and overturned it.

It would be wrong for Gov. Herbert and AG Reyes to stop defending an unconstitutional law - only a liberal would do that. Conservatives know that defending constitutional rights means defending laws that are unconstitutional. They do it for the children.

molecman
South Jordan, UT

Marriage isn't a right by the US Constitution. Some have used Section 1 of the 14th amendment to say that it is a right. It isn't. The 14th amendment protects against laws that "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Marriage isn't specifically called out and does not fall under 'life, liberty, property or protection.' The 14th amendment never would have passed if it included same-sex marriage protections. Likewise, voters should decide, preferably STATE voters. Utah voted and decided. If you want to change it, lets have another vote.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

"Utah voted and decided. If you want to change it, lets have another vote."

As it has been mentioned in these forums a gazillion times, you can not "vote on" the civil rights of law-abiding citizens. You don't have to agree with the Supreme Court's 14 distinct, separate rulings that marriage **is** a fundamentally right of all Americans, but they are fact, they are on the public record, and they are law.

The Constitution stands for the proposition that some rights cannot be left to the whims of a democratic majority. Equality before the law is one of those rights.

You can not deny rights to those you have moral objection to, and you should be glad of this, lest you find yourself in the minority one day on a civil matter important to you.

jazzer
St. George, UT

No matter what happens I am okay with the result. I have no problem with same sex marriage

to comment

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