Jeff Harris...There is a need for a SCOTUS ruling, it clearly defined that
states have the rights to define marriage or even allow marriage.The
key to rule for SCOTUS is does the State have the right to define marriage.
Because no where in the Constitution does it is say marriage is a right. Most
people look to the Virginia ruling as proof that it does... if you look into the
background of that case, the reason the ruling was given was based that
"RACE" is something a person can not change or adapt... he is pretty
much stuck with it. I personally don't think Gay Marriage falls under the
same as RACE because people who were straight can become gay, while some gay
have changed to being straight.. It is not inheritant to be gay.that is why the ruling needs to be done.
This morning, July 28, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District
Court's decision overturning Virginia's anti-gay marriage law. This is
the second U S Appeals Court that has upheld lower decisions striking down
marriage bans post-Windsor. The first was the 10th Circuit Appeals Court which
issued two separate opinions upholding decisions in Utah and Oklahoma that
overturned those states' anti-gay bans. So far, there are no
post-Windsor decisions from any federal court that uphold anti-gay bans. There
is no reason for the US Supreme Court to intervene.
While I understand the reasons why DN takes the position they do on this
issue... this editorial is rather embarrassing. This passage, in particular:"We expect that the Supreme Court will ultimately address the
fundamental question in this case: Does the U.S. Constitution impose a
requirement upon states to institute same-gender marriage?"That
is not even close to reality.... that is not the question under scrutiny.The *sole* question under judicial examination here is the following:
"Does Utah's Amendment 3 comport with the US
Constitution?"That is it. That is all that it is, and nothing
more. There is no religious component to this examination. Judges rule upon
facts, not dogma.Reasonable people with a modicum of critical
thinking skills already know the outcome here. Has there been a single judicial
outcome since Windsor that has not favored marriage equality? No, there has not.
Yes, the appeals process still needs to play out, but the outcome is
clear enough. Just as "revelations" occurred in the mid-70's
regarding African-Americans, another set of revelations regarding marriage
equality will help soothe those currently suffering dogma-source angst.
J Thompson says:"No nation has survived sexual promiscuity -
ever!"--- Us marrying is not "sexual promiscuity" -
EVER! (It's pretty ironic that you won't let us marry and then
condemn us for being "sexually promiscuous"; do you see the cognitive
dissonance of your position?)@Willie deG;No "special
rights" being requested. YOU TOO will be able to marry someone of the same
gender if you so desire; see, nothing "special" about that.
If SSM passes (which i don't have a problem with) then there is no reason
other minorities can't have rights. It's called an Unenumerated Right,
and I don't think the general populace understands that.
I understand that you are convinced that you have the truth and those who
disagree with you are deluding themselves. Please understand that many people
who have differing ideas of how we were created and what life there is, if any,
beyond this one, are equally convinced. I'm not going to say you are wrong.
Describing a gay person's sexuality (but not that of a straight person) as
"personal sexual impulses" is arrogant.
Come on Willie GThat "special rights" argument against same
sex marriage is so 1990's. Your group of folks have yet to come up
with a convincing legal argument against same sex marriage.All you
are left with is the "its icky" argument. Time to get over
it, and move on to real problems.
Well the homosexuals and transgendered still have the same rights as the rest of
the population i.e. heterosexual marriage. What they want to be is a special
class of citizen who have more rights than the rest of the population. Now I am
not denying that they should have the rights of a civil union for benefits etc
but to balance things out what special rights should be given to heterosexuals
so things are in balance for all.
I am anxiously awaiting a decision that lays this debate to rest and allows
others to see that the world probably won't implode (hasn't in 19
states) and will allow everyone to worry about more pressing issues that really
affect the daily lives of their fellow citizens - case in point - the APPALLING
treatment of our veterans. To me, THATS an issue worthy of action, not SSM
I understand the fact that many people on this site have different opinions
regarding same SSM. Being gay myself, I certainly have my own opinions. I try
to read the perspective of others and learn different ways to view this
issue.However, it's frustrating when others claim their
position is fact. Sorry, it's not. It's your opinion based on
feelings, thoughts and experiences.The only ones issuing factual
decisions regarding SSM is the judicial system. One side brings a claimed
injustice/legal argument to judges to decide. The other side brings their
evidence to support their justification for such laws and then the judge(s)
decide(s). That's what they do.Many clamor about "judicial
activism" which is interesting because no one claimed such when the Supreme
Court stayed that ruling.
Even the most casual reader of the scriptures has read Christ's admonition,
"come follow ME". He didn't tell us to follow a popular minister,
rabi, or priest.He clearly instructed us to follow HIM.He put the
burden on us, not on those who held the microphone. He told us that "this
is life eternal to know thee, the only true God and Jesus Chrish, whom thou hast
sent".Those who try to divide us by telling us that their
religious leader disagrees with Christ are only telling us that they disagree
with Christ. They're telling us that because Christ does not Agee with
them that they don't agree with Christ.Fine. At least we know
why they will not submit to Christ's doctrine. They think that they are
His equals!Let them perform the atonement, after having NEVER
indulged their passions nor ever failed to live all laws perfectly.The Court cannot indulge those who will not control their sexual appetites
without destroying this nation. Marriage has been defined. Family has been
defined - by Deity, not by man.No nation has survived sexual
promiscuity - ever!
I am absolutely astounded by the harsh comments that claim to know
"god's will", most especially by those with a fundamentalist bias.
Any rational reading of the christian bible, and subsequent
iterations of its foundational doctrine, reveal a number of inconsistencies and
contradictions. I know that ambiguity is the enemy of fundamentalism.
However, how can so many be so arrogant as to assert one interpretation over
another? How the heck do they claim to know what god wants?The
truly reverent that I know follow a path that is humble, forgiving and
understanding of differences. And completely without arrogance. This affirms
my belief that the ones who are the most guilty of sin, usually cry out the
loudest about everyone else's failings. How else to make yourself feel
@J Thompson;Christ is a "member of the godhead"? Really? I
thought the "godhead" was Odin, Thor, etc. When did your god become the
god of our country?
@J ThompsonI guess those southern Baptists, southern Methodists who
believe segregation is God's will, slavery is God's plan back in
1800s, probably said the same thing as you do to their northern brethren.
Is it possible to imagine anyone so self-centered that he would dictate to
Christ, a member of the Godhead, who was given all authority over all creation,
including this planet, that THEY knew more than Deity about the purpose of life
and the purpose of family? Can you imagine someone standing before Deity and
telling Deity that his personal sexual impulses should be considered when Deity
gave all creation the eternal definition of marriage and of family? Is it even
possible to imagine that kind of arrogance? Would those who can't alter
the times and the seasons be so arrogant that they dictate to Him who put all
planets in their orbits and created all life and gave to each form of life
commandments on what they COULD do, that THEY have more WISDOM than Deity?I'm left speechless at the arrogance of God's children who
think that they are greater than God.Never before has such arrogance
been "accepted". Never before has the "child" been so brazen as
to tell Heavenly Parents what is permissible and what is not!Nothing
good will come from that arrogance.
@JThompsonBecause the Court has clearly stated that it willnot
define marriage (DOMA act), it seems more than reasonable that it will not
reverse itself and define marriage for the State of Utah.==================The Supreme Court did not say the States could
define marriage all they want. The DOMA ruling was that the Federal Government
MUST recognize ALL marriages performed by any State. It could not create a
second tier of citizens by recognizing some marriages and not others.
@JThompson,Congress, nor any other government entity is trying to
change the doctrine of any church. We are not required anyone in our temples
that we chose not to. Not even all hetero couples are entitled to a "Temple
Marriage" unless they prove themselves ready.However, in a
freedom of religion society, laws must be secular. If they are not, then one
religion is favored over another, in explicit violation of the First Amendment.
As others have stated, they have no religious problem with Same Sex Marriage, so
who wins?Freedom of Religion means that government will not
interfere with the practice of your religion. It however does not mean your
beliefs can be codified into law.Laws must be based on protecting
our rights to Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and Property. In other words,
a specific activity can be shown to violate one of the above, it ought to be
legal. We can debate whether or not an activity is moral even if it is legal.
@Mike Richards"Are you claiming that Christ is trying to force
you to accept His atonement?"Nope. I'm claimign that YOU,
through force of law, are trying to force it. There is an old saying: "I
like Jesus, it's his followers that I have problems with.""Do you want those of us who know that Christ is the Redeemer to keep that
knowledge to ourselves?"After I have asked you too? Abslolutely.
The 11th Commandment: "Though shall keep thy religion to thyself." -
George Carlin"He defined marriage as between a man and a
woman."And for his followers they are free to keep on marrying
only between man and women.The United States, however, is a secular state with a
secular constitution, Jesus' definition is moot in the public square. I
will never try and force you or your church to perform same sex marriage. Never.
Now it's your turn to stop trying to prevent the CIVIL marriage of same sex
partners."The choice is yours."If you truly
meant that--and I don't for a moment believe you do--then you would stop
trying to FORCE everyone else live the way YOU think they should.
J Thompson says:"Our religious "feelings" are guaranteed
to be respected by the government. "--- What about our religious
feelings? Do they get the same respect from the government yours do? My
"religious feelings" are that SSM is okay. If you say "no" then
you're nothing but a hypocrite which is condemned by your bible."How about if we see what the Constitution actually says about
religion?"--- How about if we see what the Constitution actually
says about equality?Amendment 14:"... No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State... deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""Article 4 -
Section 1 - "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, ..."--- SSM from other states must be
recognized (guess what JT, this is in the Constitution itself, not just an
@LeDoc: 1861 LeDoc says: "Secession is coming, let's not spend the
money on the War to unify the States."
Re: Mike Richards "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual
premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."But 1 in
100 live births involves some sort of inter-sex state. And 1 in 1000 births is
so inter-sex that the physician gets to determine sex of the infant (though
doing this is increasingly challenged - the belief being that inter-sex is in
fact the third sex).Regardless, in appears sex is not as essential
as you think, and that sex may be a thing of this world only.
Darrel,How about if we see what the Constitution actually says about
religion? "Congress shall make no law respecting an extablishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"The Federal
Government will not insert itself between any person and his God and it will not
interfere with the Doctrines of any establishment of religion.Our
religious "feelings" are guaranteed to be respected by the government.
No such guarantee has ever been written into the Constitution about a
person's sexual feelings. I'm sure that you understand the
difference, even if that understanding makes your point moot.The
Supreme Court has not ruled on a State's right to define marriage. The
Supreme Court has "stayed" same-sex "marriages" in Utah and it
has "stayed" the State's obligation to recognize same-sex
"marriages".Because the Court has clearly stated that it
willnot define marriage (DOMA act), it seems more than reasonable that it will
not reverse itself and define marriage for the State of Utah.
@Mike RichardsWe live in America, where people have religious freedom. You
can certainly believe your way of bible interpretation, that same gender couples
should not be allowed to get married; and other believers can have different
interpretations that SSM is not against the Bible, like Episcopalians,
Presbyterians, etc. do.Just like sixty years ago, some Christians
believed black and white marriage was ungodly, unnatural; while other Christians
supported such freedom.However, our marriage law is not based on
religion. Nobody should force you to marry someone of same gender, and you
should not forbid a person to marry someone of same gender based on your
biblical interpretation either.
Confused,In saying, "The ONLY court that can make a law
unconstitutional is SCOTUS," you are indeed confused.Your
understanding is deficient on the concept of jurisdiction. If you'd have
said that SCOTUS is the only court that could declare a law unconstitutional in
the entire United States at once, you'd be correct. However, any court can
strike down a law within its own jurisdiction, for any number of reasons,
including violating the national constitution. A county court judge could
strike down a village ordinance, for example. And, a Federal District Court can
strike down a state law within its jurisdictional district.The
losing party has the right to ask for an appeal, of course, if it can present
grounds for that appeal, but unless they can demonstrate that the lower court
erred on the law, they're unlikely to prevail. And SCOTUS has what I
believe is a unique right, the right to refuse to hear a case at all, for which
they need not even give a reason.
@Mike RichardsIsn't our religion "feelings based"? How
do missionaries teach people how to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon?Aren't you using your beliefs as a reason to deny Same Sex
Marriage? Aren't you using "feelings" to deny others the same
rights you enjoy?
Stormwalker..You are mistaken... Judge Shelby and other Lower courts
"Believe" that Utah's Marriage Ban amendment is unconstitutional,
just because they believe this is the case, does not make it
unconstitutional.The ONLY court that can make a law unconstitutional
is SCOTUS. That is one reason we have lower courts and the avenue of appeals.So please don't try to tell me some law that you don't like is
unconstitutional until the final decision is made by SCOTUS.
@my_two_cents_worth,Are you claiming that Christ is trying to force
you to accept His atonement? That is between you and Christ. He has offered to
pardon everyone who is willing to give away their sins. A sin is a wilful
rebellion against His commandments -ANY commandment. Do you want those of us who
know that Christ is the Redeemer to keep that knowledge to ourselves? He told
us differently. He told us that once we have been "warned", that we are
duty bound to warn others, not to cause them anguish, but to keep them from
experiencing the most horrid anguish possible. He told us that if we refuse His
atonement that we will suffer just as he did.He defined marriage as
between a man and a woman. He told us that gender is an eternal characteristic.
He told us that He is perfect - that He doesn't make mistakes about
gender.That's about as clear a statement as can be made about
marriage, about gender and about our choice to accept His atonement or to suffer
as He did.The choice is yours.
"Just don't call it marriage." I'm presuming this
stems from the religious view that marriage is a sacred relationship. Given
this, I understand why those who believe SSM is immoral would not want something
they consider sacred equated with it.But this is a civil matter, not
a religious one, and many do not share this particular religious view. So
wouldn't acceding to this request be government favoring one religious view
over another? In other words, wouldn't this just be following one
unconstitutional act with another?I do get that this is genuinely
troubling on the anti-SSM side. If opponents could show some valid reasons for
their belief that SSM is immoral, I for one would say, "Okay, let's
talk." But they haven't and I don't believe they can. The
evidence just isn't there. Instead the evidence is that there is no
difference. LGBTs come equipped with human nature and a sexual orientation just
like every other human. The only difference lies in how we view the latter, and
that's a reflection on us, not them.
The DN continues to state their belief that the states “have the right to
define marriage”. A definition of marriage should include some statements
about the partners committing to stay faithful to each other, care for each
other, and to provide for each other and for any children that may be born or
adopted, for the rest of their lives.Is there anything like that in
Utah law? (Serious question; I don’t know the answer). I do know that
there is nothing about that in Amendment 3, which specifically restricts
marriage to opposite sex couples. But is there anywhere in this state’s
law where marriage is actually defined?
@Mike Richards"As for me and my house, we will accept the word
of Christ without argument."As is your constitutionally
protected right. You do not, however, have the right to force me to "accept
the word of Christ without argument". Please stop trying.
@wrz"I understood it to be slippery slop. Did I misunderstand?"Actually, the fallacy you offered doesn't even merit slippery
slop."Can't you summarize in a few words in a comment on
this thread?"Please do you own homework.@Redshirt"Heterosexual marriage is NOT equal to SSM no matter how many judges rule
on it."Maybe they are not equal to your eyes, but they are equal
in the court of law, and that is enough.
No doctor on earth will tell anyone who believes in same gender attraction that
he is not male or that she is not female. No matter how much rhetoric is used
to tell us that they were somehow born "that way", there is absolutely
no physical evidence to support their statement.Christ told us
through His prophets: "ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are
created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of
heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is
an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal
identity and purpose."So now we have a conundrum. Is Christ
wrong or are those who tell us that have no control over their sexual feelings
mistaken?As for me and my house, we will accept the word of Christ
This seems destined to bounce around a while until same sex marriage comes to
@Jazzsmack: "Homosexuality is a chosen behavior...Science has not shown nay
genetic cause for it."Actually, researchers noticed that
homosexuality follows maternal lines, and gene mapping has identified alleles -
groups of genes - that seem to connect to homosexuality. One key is gay men tend
to have sisters with higher-than-average number of children. And, the sisters
have the same alleles as their brothers. Current theory and research is those
genes, working in a group, cause a strong attraction to men. In women that means
early marriage and frequent childbearing. In men, it means homosexuality.None of this is conclusive, but there is growing consensus among
researchers that this is a probable cause and that further investigation is
needed. And, before demanding a black-and-white answer consider the
time and money put into other medical research, like cancer or Alzheimer's
and the paucity of answers at this time. There isn't a genetic
smoking gun for "gay," but a growing body of evidence says gay has a
strong basis in genetics. Google is your friend. Do some research on
recently published papers and articles.
I commend the state of Utah for supporting the rule of law and not caving in to
demands from the minority. Marriage between a man and a woman has served society
and is a noble institution.
@Jazzsmack"Religion is constitutionally protected.Homosexual behavior and practice are not."Hate to break it to
you, but SCOTUS disagrees with you. See Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558
The 14th Amendment says, "No state shall...deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This means that -- all other
things being equal -- one person is treated the same under the law as any other
person.In Utah's marriage laws, this is already the case. The
same requirements for marriage apply equally to everyone. One of these
requirements is that the marriage partner be a member of the opposite sex.To make its case, Utah should only have to show the rational basis for
this requirement. This is easy to do. Statistics show overwhelmingly that
children do better when they live in a home with both biological parents. Laws
which seek to maximize the likelihood of this occurrence, such as Utah's
marriage laws, have a valid purpose.The error of SSM proponents who
argue the 14th Amendment is in "all other things being equal."
Opposite-sex unions have the potential to produce children naturally, and
same-sex unions don't. The State of Utah has no interest in the ones that
don't -- no reason to promote them or to elevate their status.
@nycutWhat utter rubbish.Homosexuality is a chosen
behavior. period.Science has not shown nay genetic cause for it.
Even your own words indicate they chose that lifestyle and choose to be that
way.Religion is constitutionally protected.Homosexual
behavior and practice are not.Lets hope the supreme court gets it
right, and corrects the popular-based and wrong decisions of the lower courts.
"We expect that the Supreme Court will ultimately address the fundamental
question in this case: Does the U.S. Constitution impose a requirement upon
states to institute same-gender marriage?"This is a states
rights issue and if the law in question wasn't about legalizing same sex
marriage, many of those commenting would be all in arms that the federal
government is stepping on the states rights to govern themselves. Losing our
right to govern on a state level is an issue that will come back to haunt even
the same sex group some day after they're all married.
@Mike Richards:This "feelings" argument of yours is a mess.
Gay people aren't telling you what they FEEL: they are showing you
what they ARE. People are born. They grow. They discover their
romantic and sexual attraction to others. They fall in love. They marry, and
sometimes raise families. They grow old together. They die. Gay
and straight alike. WHY some people are gay and some are straight is
unknown, and irrelevant. Gay people exist. That's a fact.Now
along the way, you may have chosen a religion that explains the existence of gay
people in a way that (coincidence) makes people just like you the winner of life
eternal. Most people are straight after all, so it's no surprise most
religions would be.But all this twisting and thrashing about what
gay is and who should be allowed to do what? It's your issue. Your
"feelings."Gay people know they are real, and just wonder
why you have such a hard time with that.
The good news for society and especially those that aren't exactly like
everyone else, conservatives eventually always lose, always. They can create
havoc, & heartache until they do but they will lose.Their losses
may usher in a divine intervention as some believe but my guess is all that will
happen is that over time all or most of those who differ will gain acceptance
and happiness, again because conservatives will lose.
@Confused: "SCOTUS will have to rule on the constitutionality of these type
laws... even though several other courts have ruled otherwise, SCOTUS is the
final word. which has not been spoken, therefore nothing is
unconstitutional."The law was unconstitutional when it was
passed. Judge Shelby overturned it for that reason. As soon as he
ruled it was overturned. The 10th declined to stay the decision.
SCOTUS did stay it, pending review by the 10th. The 10th upheld
Shelby's ruling, although a stay was requested while the state appeals to
SCOTUS. The Supremes might take the case, in which their ruling will apply
nationally. The might decline the case, which lifts the stay and Shelby's
ruling stands. SCOTUS is only likely to take the case if a circuit
court rules that a state ban was constitutional and SCOTUS has to make a
decision between two conflicting opinions. If, as you claim, SCOTUS
had ruled there would be no appeal to SCOTUS. If the state had prevailed the
plaintiffs would be appealing, not the state.
MtnDewer...Look at the last line of your paragraph...."If
granted, a stay of judgment prevents enforcement pending appeal or other
circumstances."To me, now I am not a lawyer, but if you can not
enforce the court decision, then the decision is in error.just my
way of thinking.
Confused: "umm Ranch you are mistaken..... SCOTUS ruled that the 10th
circuit decision of being "Illegal" was wrong, thus they reinstated the
Utah's ban on same sex marriage as a legal binding law."***SCOTUS did not rule that the 10th circuit decision was wrong but
merely placed a stay on that decision.Here is the definition of a
stay: "Courts enter judgments or orders following trials or motions. The
prevailing party expects that the judgment or order will be enforced. If the
losing party appeals the judgment, that party does not want the judgment
enforced pending appeal, so they apply to the court for a stay of judgment. If
granted, a stay of judgment prevents enforcement pending appeal or other
circumstances."That certainly does not mean that the 10th
circuit was wrong, but the enforcement of the verdict of allowing SSM in Utah
has been stayed or put on hold. Pretty simple, really, Confused.
@Mike Richards"Under the law, no person can claim
"feelings" as the basis for his behavior."--------------Mike,I think this is a pretty accurate
description of religion - and acting on the feelings of religious beliefs,
something that is protected by law. How come YOU get to decide what exactly is
and isn't protected? Please explain your interpretation of
Loving v. Virginia and why that was decided as it was. After all, the Lovings
were acting on their feelings, weren't they?
Ranch..."The Supreme Court issued a stay of Shelby’s ruling,
reinstating the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and allowing it
to continue until a ruling from a federal appeals court."The
state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages is NOT legal; the ruling that it
was unconstitutional it is simply on hold - but it is still considered
unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise."umm Ranch you
are mistaken..... SCOTUS ruled that the 10th circuit decision of being
"Illegal" was wrong, thus they reinstated the Utah's ban on same
sex marriage as a legal binding law.You may not like it, but that is
what the "Stay"... that it is legal until proven otherwise.SCOTUS will have to rule on the constitutionality of these type laws... even
though several other courts have ruled otherwise, SCOTUS is the final word.
which has not been spoken, therefore nothing is unconstitutional.
You are treating stays as some kind of victory. They are not out of the
ordinary, but a standard practice. The stays only delay the inevitable. It is
likely that the Supreme Court will not even take this case, which will mean the
lower court rulings will stand. They did so with California's Prop 8 and
when taking on a case and making a ruling, struck down DOMA. So far states with
SSM bans are 0-21. Is Utah's appeal so superior, with such brilliant
arguments previously not conceived and applied, that the trend will be reversed?
If just ruling on Amendment 3 as is, the draconian parts which forbid any kind
of civil union or domestic partnerships which provide marriage benefits, will
make it impossible for any federal court to uphold its constitutionality.
@DaveSJ:"Doesn't anybody at the opinion desk read the
Constitution?"Some people are reading it wrongly. Some say the
14th Amendment requires equal rights for gays to marry each other. What it
actually says is that states cannot deny any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws. And the Utah marriage laws say that anyone can
marry anyone else. Just pick someone that is not already married; of legal age
to marry; not a close relative such as mother, father, daughter, son; and not of
the same sex. That seems like equal protection to me."The
protection and exercise of fundamental rights are not matters for opinion polls
or the ballot box." (Kitchen v. Herbert, Opinion at p. 62):Sorry, but that's how state Constitutions get created... by the ballot
box. The judge is mistaken because the Constitution says that there are certain
rights retained by the people (Amendment 9). And one would assume that one of
these rights is the right of the people to decide what marriage will be in the
state. And Utah did it by the voice of the people in its Amendment 3.
This isn't about equal protection under the law, this is about the state
providing incentives for citizens that enter into an institution shown to be of
great benefit to society. the fundamental differences of a same gender union, in
one example, preclude children from being raised by both their biological mother
and father. Granted marriage has many failures, but government has limited means
of providing incentives for parents to marry and remain married. We should as a
society look for further ways to provide incentives that reinforce the "gold
standard" of the family, rather than find new and creative ways to devalue
marriage and the vital roles of mother and father.
The News wants us to believe that Utah can do whatever it want, to whomever it
wants, merely by resorting to "democratic process." Doesn't anybody at the opinion desk read the Constitution?Let's look at the law:* "The protection and exercise of
fundamental rights are not matters for opinion polls or the ballot box."
(Kitchen v. Herbert, Opinion at p. 62)* "[S]tate laws defining
and regulating marriage...must respect the constitutional rights of
persons." (United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2691).Whether
the News likes it or not, the good citizens of Utah can't vote to trample
the rights of others. They just can't.
@Mike Richards"Under the law, no person can claim
"feelings" as the basis for his behavior."So, Mike, has
the AG asked you to present this argument for the state should the SCOTUS grant
certiorari? It has to be as "solid" and argument as anything else
presented by the state.
I have a question for all of the folks who are basing the argument against Gay
Marriage on the fact that Gay's/Lesbians do not have the ability to
procreate. Do you folks ever watch the news? I know we are here to replenish
the earth and all but I'm pretty sure we are no where near potentially
snuffing out our species just because we let they Gay's get married.Some scholars and even some Christen Religions believe that God/Mother
Nature only intended for 500 million human inhabitants of this planet. Any more
throws the entire planet "out of whack" so to speak. I think it's
fairly clear this world is severely overpopulated and I think it's fairly
clear some bad things are going to come because of it. Don't
believe me. Try driving on I-15 south at 5:30 P.M. Monday through Friday and
then tell me don't have population problems.
Is "same sex gender attraction" an inborn trait or is that
"trait" cultivated? We have been told that there is no "same sex
attraction" gene. We know that doctors can easily tell us which sex we are,
if we doubt our own ability to see for outselves. A bank robber
could easily tell us that his desire to rob a bank is an "inborn trait".
He could cite his "feelings" about the real ownership of wealth. He
could tell us that he "felt" that his family would benefit from a sudden
influx of cash. He could tell us that he "felt" that some of the
depositors had used fraud and deceit to become wealthy. A judge would throw his
"feelings" out when determining whether the bank robber broke a law.In court, "feelings" don't matter.Under the
law, no person can claim "feelings" as the basis for his behavior.
Under the law, there are no prohibitions on marriage. Any man can marry any
woman. Any woman can marry any man.Changing the fundamental unit of
society is too costly a change when that change is based on "feelings".
To "Mickie" you said "Separate but equal is not equal at all".
The problem is that heterosexual marriage and SSM are not equal. A heterosexual
marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. In SSM you have 2 people of the same gender. A
man is not the same thing as a woman, and a woman is not the same thing as a
man. You are trying to enter your cat in a dog race. Yes it has four legs,
fur, and runs fast, but it isn't a racing dog. Just because you think it
is equal or can get a judge to declare it equal does not make it equal.Heterosexual marriage is NOT equal to SSM no matter how many judges rule on
it.To "USU-Logan" the slippery slope argument is valid.
Look at the Netherlands. They were the first to allow SSM, first by civil
unions, then they legitimized it by giving it full marriage rights. Now, that
same country has given legal status to polygamous civil unions. Within 10 years
they should be legalizing polygamy there.To "Frozen
Fractals" since when is homosexuality an inborn trait? All reasonable
scientists still say they don't know.
@Meckofahess: Marriage equality exists where gay and straight people
alike are permitted legal marriage. That's it. No moral, anatomical or
biological dimension is required. Every day of your life people
give you the right to define yourself and your experience of the world.They take your word for it that you think what you think, and feel what you
feel, and are who you are.Why can't you do that for gay people?
You think marriage is better between a man and a woman. Great. So
think it.Look more closely at the country you live in, where the
majority at the very least acknowledge that who someone else loves and marries
is just none of their business. It's their decision to make, not yours.
They believe gay people who say "this is me, this is who I love,
this is who I am." But not you. You take for yourself a courtesy you
won't give to others.Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of gay
people are married, nothing "counterfeit" about it. You judge them
morally inferior? Fine, judge away. Your acceptance might be appreciated, but is
not required. Life, love and marriage belong to everyone.
@USU-Logan:"@wrz - Don't you think your polygamy argument is
getting old?"Not as old as SSM proponent arguments."... the fact is, you have nothing to offer but slippery slope
fallacy."I understood it to be slippery slop. Did I
misunderstand?"I already told you to read the ruling of 10th
circuit court, it explains well. so let me say it again, in case you can't
find it..."Can't you summarize in a few words in a comment
on this thread? Besides, judges and courts often make errors. As do
politicians, as we can see in the Edmonds-Tucker Act of 1887 involving (gasp)
polygamy.@Understands Math:"There is a rational basis for
not allowing a 12-year-old to consume alcohol..."Alcohol affects
children and adults the same... kills brain cells. It also is a major cause of
deaths on the freeways. We need a return of Prohibition."There
is no rational basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples."It will negatively effect the concept of marriage and eventually destroy it.
Gay folks should just live together. Why do they think marriage is needed?
@marxistAs usual, your telling of history is inaccurate. While black
slaves may have been prohibited from doing many things not to their owner's
liking, such as leaving, traveling abroad, expressing their opinion, and, yes,
even marrying, many were encouraged to raise families much as if they were
cattle (I know, it sounds rather crude in light of today's sensibility).
Don't leave out there were many free blacks who were not prohibited from
marrying as long as they were husband and wife. The whole Civil War was fought
to maintain an orderly and organized State of the Union. What we are seeing with
these cases is the organized dismantling of the common order and structure of
@wrz"In which case so is all other forms of marriage including
polygamy, siblings, father/daughter, mother/son, etc. You name it. Else legal
discrimination will have been installed by action of the courts."That comment really demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the
constitutional issue presented. The constitutional issue is equal protection
under the law. By Amendment 3, the State of Utah is seeking to deprive a class
of 2 individuals (i.e., same-sex, unrelated, consenting adults) a fundamental
right guaranteed to another class of 2 individuals (i.e., opposite-sex,
unrelated, consenting adults). It is not a deprivation of equal protection under
the law (i.e., a constitutional violation) to deprive 3 or more individuals the
right to wed because NO group of 3 or more individuals is afforded that right by
any state. As a result, your fears about polygamy and other unrecognized
non-traditional forms of marriage are really unfounded.
@Mike Richards"Should we change "marriage" so that 1.6% of the
population can exercise their "feelings" towards someone else who has
the same sex as they have?"Sexual orientation is an inborn
trait, and since heterosexual people like you or I can exercise their
"feelings" towards someone else with marriage, I don't see why
homosexual people shouldn't be allowed to do that too. @Meckofahess"Same-sex marriage is also a divisive construct and will
not result in the type of acceptance the gay community thinks it will."Actually it kinda is resulting in that type of acceptance, that's
why support for it has increased so much the past 20 years. You compared it to
abortion but I'd compare it to interracial marriage which around half a
century ago most opposed it but now less than 10% of people oppose.
"We expect that the Supreme Court will ultimately address the fundamental
question in this case: Does the U.S. Constitution impose a requirement upon
states to institute same-gender marriage?"If that isn't the
most ridiculous statement EVER!This is no requirement to IMPOSE
anything.It is simple of striking down any State Laws denying or BANNING a
group of people the "equal rights" -- based only on the criteria of
Gender, Race, Religion, Age, or Sexual Orientation. Which has been
upheld over and over again.======== Mike -- Being
LDS is > 1.6% of the population, but you are guilty of doing this ALL the
time.And if you fully understood that "marriage" is about
Love, Committment, Sharing and Caring --- and not fixating, focusing and
singling out ONLY...s-e-x, you'd agree.But obvioulsy you ONLY
got married for s-e-x, we get that, but some of got married for far, FAR
more important reasons...
AllBlack wrote: "So, for the pro-SSM here, why is it that a man can marry a
man but I can't marry three women? (me being a man) Or is it that your
lobbying is actually for us too and you are opening the way for a return to
legal polygamy?"The case at hand is Kitchen v. Herbert. The
specific case is dealing with same-sex marriage and has nothing to do with
polygamy law.If you're so eager to enter into a legal
polygamist marriage, then why don't you file a lawsuit and see what
happens?Unless of course you're just arguing the typical
"slippery slope" fallacy because you don't have any real arguments.
@~Rico~:"The issue is whether it is permissible under the Equal
Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution for the states to deprive same-sex
couples of the same fundamental rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples."Wrong. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment simply says
that states will not deny persons within its jurisdiction equal protection of
the laws. And Utah's marriage laws provides equal protection because all
citizens can marry... provided they marry someone who's... not already
married, of legal age, not closely related, and of the opposite sex.
That's equal protection because it applies equally to all citizens of the
state of Utah.You might argue, as some do, that the denial to marry
anyone you wish, such as the same sex, is a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause. If that be the case so is the other restrictions to marriage shown in
the above paragraph.So, take your pick... allow (1) all conceivable
combinations of marriage or (2) restrict as indicated in Utah law. Number (1)
will cause social chaos of unbelievable proportions and the eventual demise of
Mickie,I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, so this is just
conjecture, but...As there are already children legally living in
same-sex households, clearly there's some path for that to happen. The
important issue for them is in the adoption by a second parent. While a couple
in a relationship that is not a marriage cannot adopt, and certainly not as a
couple, a single person can, even a single person with a "roommate." If
that unmarried person has an adopted or natural child and then begins (or
otherwise declares) a relationship with a same-sex partner, without marriage
that partner cannot become a second parent through adoption.Certainly in the cases where lesbians have their own natural children from
failed heterosexual marriages (hey, they tried!), the entire issue is whether
their chosen partners can adopt and become legal parents to the children they
love and are helping raise.
@wrzDon't you think your polygamy argument is getting old?the fact is, you have nothing to offer but slippery slope fallacy.I already told you to read the ruling of 10th circuit court, it explains well.
so let me say it again, in case you can't find it:Please google
Kitchen v. Herbert and download the 10th circuit court ruling, it is a pdf file,
and read judges' rebuttal to slippery slope fallacy, it is on Page 63.
"...because the majority hate gay people"I don't think
the majority hate gay people. It's more about defending what we have now.
However in the past the majority hated mormons and because of that
hatred they legally banned and outlawed polygamist marriages. True they repelled
the law back in the 70's but a man STILL can't marry 3 women legally
in polygamy. So, for the pro-SSM here, why is it that a man can
marry a man but I can't marry three women? (me being a man) Or is it that
your lobbying is actually for us too and you are opening the way for a return to
@Mike Richards"We should not be swayed because 1.6% of the population
wants to change a fundamental unit of society..."FYI, the
majority of American people support marriage right for same sex couples. and for
young people, the number is 70-80%, it is just the matter of time that SSM will
be seen the way as people see inter-racial marriage.
@Jeff Harris:"The message is, states cannot carve out an exception to
the equal protection clause of the US Constitutions because a majority hates gay
people."The Federal government definitely carved out an
exception to equal protection clause with the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 making
polygamy illegal and causing the jailing of hundreds of husband and fathers."The US Government cannot carve out an exception to the due process
clause of the US Constitution because a majority of congress members hate gay
people."The due process clause of the US Constitution has
nothing to do with carving out exceptions to any conduct, including SSM. The
due process clause merely means that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law and that all levels of American
government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.@LeDoc:"SSM is coming, period."In which case so is
all other forms of marriage including polygamy, siblings, father/daughter,
mother/son, etc. You name it. Else legal discrimination will have been
installed by action of the courts.
@procuradorfiscal"...by deciding a case based, not on the law, but
rather on the fashion of the day, or fealty to the political leanings of
politicos who appointed them."Just because the rulings did not
go your fashion, doesn't mean the judges did not decide the cases based on
law.In those 20+ unbroken streak of different court rulings, many of
the judges are appointed by Republican presidents, if you must know.@haggieYour comments support the argument that the driving force
behind Amendment 3 was animus, not evidence, not rational basis.
There is no such thing as "marriage equality". Marriage is a unique
definition reserved for men and women united in that time honored relationship.
So called "same-sex" marriage is nothing more than a counterfeit
concept. Same-sex marriage is counter-anatomical, counter-biological,
counter-moral and counter intellectual. And for those religious folks it is
counter-scriptural as well. If the Supreme Court were to rule that states cannot
determine the definition of marriage and the courts dictate this then we will
have a mess on our hands. Same-sex marriage would end up being like abortion
which is not accepted by a major percentage of Americans and is divisive in
society. Same-sex marriage is also a divisive construct and will not result in
the type of acceptance the gay community thinks it will. Better would be some
sort of a legalized "same-gender partnership" where committed gays can
have the typical legal benefits but not the same definition.
@haggie: "Inequities of race are substantially different than moral and
biological variances in sexual relationships."You must be young.
When I was in high school, in the 70s, I heard religious and political leaders
arguing that not only were interracial relationships immoral, but so were
integrated schools and neighborhoods. "God says..." or the
more rational sounding talk of general "morality" has long been used as
smokescreen and distraction for pure prejudice. Alabama's
population adopted the argument that integration was harmful. It required the US
Army to protect children going to school in the face of naked hate. The same old arguments are the same old arguments, even if you do slap a new
coat of paint on the outside.
We should not be swayed because 1.6% of the population wants to change a
fundamental unit of society. Their demands are based on race or national
origin. Instead, they base their entire case on their "feelings". No
doctor would be able to find a physical reason for their claim. No government
official would be able to see any reason for their claim that they are
discriminated against unless he threw out the law and administered his office on
"feelings". Should we change "marriage" so that
1.6% of the population can exercise their "feelings" towards someone
else who has the same sex as they have? What would be the basis for doing that?
They claim "equality under the law" as their reason. Again, no doctor
would agree that they have any claim of being discriminated against. ANY MAN
can marry any woman who will have him. ANY WOMAN can marry any man who will
have her.There is NO discrimination under the law. Feelings are not
reasons to change marriage any more than letting feelings determine the fate of
a bank robber "under the law".
Ack. Phone went on the fritz.Utah law: title 78B, Chapter 6, Section
117(3) A child may not be adopted by a person who is cohabiting in a
relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of
this state.Am I misinterpreting the law (I would love it if I am)?
To me this states that any couple living together that is not married cannot
adopt.PS: Note that the law makes very specific and stringent rules
for adoption when it comes to single parents anyway. So even if one person in
the same sex household could adopt, the state makes it difficult for them to do
haggie says:"An argument could similarly be made that a 12 year old
doesn't have the same rights as a 26 year old ..."---
We're comparing adults to adults. And you mention apples/oranges."Utah's population has adopted the argument that SSM is harmful to
its population."--- With absolutely no proof whatsoever." The morality or immorality of that lifestyle is a judgment made of
the population and a constitutional right to create laws. "---
Sigh. The Constitution protects ALL citizens, not just heterosexual citizens.
Heterosexual citizen do not have the right to violate the Constitutional Rights
of gay citizens."While the relationship of two sexually
incompatible people is considered both immoral and a deviation from the
natural."--- Being gay is natural for me. Nature created gay
creatures, thus, we are as "natural" as straight creatures.
"The population does not want the immoral and the biological deviation to
become acceptable ..."--- "Immoral" is relative.
Bigotry and discrimination are "immoral"."Families
purpose is to care for offspring which SSM couples can not create."--- Offspring which infertile & elderly couples cannot create, yet you
allow them to marry (hypocrisy).
Reserve the word marriage for one man married to one woman. There is no need to
destroy the meaning of the word marriage for a subset of the population who
wants to use it for their own unions. There is an inherent, biological
difference. And its ok to have a word such as marriage to make the distinction.
@A QuakerReview the adoption laws yourself.Title 78B,
Chapter 6, Section 117:(3) A cold Matt
Why is the DN and the state of Utah so opposed to committed people marrying? I
don't understand this irrational fear. You don't want your gay
children to marry and live chaste lives? You want to force them to "live in
sin"? You don't want to let them into your churches and equal, devoted
@haggie wrote: 'Proponents of SSM use the argument of racial inequities as
the basis of their argument for SSM, comparing apples to oranges for the purpose
of shaming those who believe differently than they do. An argument could
similarly be made that a 12 year old doesn't have the same rights as a 26
year old because they can't drink alcohol or drive a car.' There is a rational basis for not allowing a 12-year-old to consume alcohol or
drive a vehicle on the public highways: it is a legitimate public health issue
on both accounts.There is no rational basis for denying marriage to
same-sex couples.'Inequities of race are substantially
different than moral and biological variances in sexual relationships.'I think that is a meaningless, word-salad sentence.
@Mickie: One slight correction. Same sex couples already can adopt children,
even in Utah. But, because of Utah's adoption laws, only one of them can
be a legal parent to any one child. They can adopt two or more children, but
each child only gets one legal parent. One may have one parent, and another may
have the other, or one partner may be the one legal parent to all. Only if a
couple (gay or straight) is married, are they both allowed to be legal parents
to an adopted child.All preventing same sex marriage does in a
family like that is prevent adoptees from being legal siblings or having two
legal parents. It has no effect whatsoever on how many children they're
allowed to adopt. The adoption laws regulate that, and like I said, Utah law
doesn't make any effort to prevent single-parent adoption, regardless of
@Oh Really? "Same-sex marriage is NOT the same as interracial marriage.
There are inherent, unalienable differences."I'm in a
mixed-race marriage and one of our daughters is gay. It seems that the states
which deny marriage equality to my daughter today are the very same ones which
denied my own marriage until just a few decades ago. And it's rather
absurd that one of my daughters is denied a basic civil right which her sisters
are each free to exercise.Simply put, the state has no legitimate
interest in the relative race or relative gender of your spouse. That's
why states like Utah have lost every single court ruling to date since the
Windsor ruling last year. Within a year this issue will be concluded and all
my kids will have the same rights no matter where they live in the US.
"As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a
matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe."Justice
Antonin Scalia United States v Windsor(CV12-307, June 26, 2013)
The Deseset News is also ignoring the huge message that was very clear in the
DOMA case which caused Justice Scalia to engage in a vitriolic dissent in which
even he declared that "the writing is on the wall". It is very clear
that if the USSC takes up the issue of marriage equality in the next session,
barring any change in the balance or change of idealogy, that marriage equality
will become the law of the land.
Honestly the only thing Utah has going for it at this point is that another
state will make a bigger embarrassment of itself (like Oklahoma politicians
considering for a week or so the idea of abolishing all state marriage
"Families purpose is to care for offspring which SSM couples can not
create."Yet there are multitudes of children without homes.
While a same sex couple cannot create (without the intervention of scientific
procedures or a surrogate/donor), they are more than capable of adopting if law
did not prohibit this. Same sex couples are capable of providing loving homes
for children. They are capable of providing a more stable environment for
children than the foster system can provide. Can you tell me why it's
better to deny same sex couples marriage, and therefore adoption, and leave
these children in foster care? I can't think of any reasons.
Proponents of SSM use the argument of racial inequities as the basis of their
argument for SSM, comparing apples to oranges for the purpose of shaming those
who believe differently than they do. An argument could similarly be made that a
12 year old doesn't have the same rights as a 26 year old because they
can't drink alcohol or drive a car. Inequities of race are substantially
different than moral and biological variances in sexual relationships.Utah's population has adopted the argument that SSM is harmful to its
population. The morality or immorality of that lifestyle is a judgment made of
the population and a constitutional right to create laws. To deny biologically
compatible individuals from marrying because it is immoral (such as no
interracial marriages allowed) is symptomatic of prejudice. While the
relationship of two sexually incompatible people is considered both immoral and
a deviation from the natural. The population does not want the immoral and the
biological deviation to become acceptable as it harms and undermines a valuable
institution (family). Families purpose is to care for offspring which SSM
couples can not create.
"Personally, I am 100% behind Civil Unions, but there must a recognition of
the difference between same-sax and heterosexual unions."Separate but equal is not equal at all.Utah boasts the largest
number of same sex families raising children. By denying these children's
parents marriage, you tell them they are not important. You leave them in a
legal limbo should their legal guardian parent die.These families
already exist and will continue to exist. So the only thing you do by denying
same sex marriage is harm the children if these families and stigmatize their
"Put 100 different same-sex couples on 100 different unpopulated islands and
visit them in 10 years and there will not be a single child."Are
we going to establish laws based on hypothetical birth rates of couples placed
on unpopulated islands, or are we going to base the laws on the people who
actually live within our state? Like it or not, we have gay and lesbian couples
living within the borders of our fine state, and they deserve the same legal
rights and protections as everyone else. Their inability to produce offspring in
an isolated setting has no bearing in this issue. We are a community, and
it's past the time for us to be more inclusive in this community."The Supreme Court issued a stay of Shelby’s ruling, reinstating the
state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages..." Actually,
what a stay of execution means is that we are postponing what the two courts
have declared unconstitutional until SCOTUS takes a look at it. Based on the
common outcomes in over 20 court rulings so far, I suspect SCOTUS will come back
to Utah and tell us to go with the 10th Circuit's ruling.
Wow DN! If you're going to publish an editorial, you should at least make
sure you understand the issue first. The issue before the court is not whether
"the U.S. Constitution impose[s] a requirement upon states to institute
same-gender marriage" as you assert. The issue is whether it is permissible
under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution for the states to
deprive same-sex couples of the same fundamental rights enjoyed by opposite-sex
couples. Big, big difference and you either know it and are being deliberately
misleading, or you don't know it and therefore shouldn't be
editorializing about it.
"....We expect that the Supreme Court will ultimately address the
fundamental question in this case: Does the U.S. Constitution impose a
requirement upon states to institute same-gender marriage?...."______________________________The Deseret News misstates the issue
with that statement. Authorizing same sex marriage is not
‘instituting’ anything. It’s simply legalizing that which is
already legal for a limited segment of society.
Oh Really? says: "Put 100 different same-sex couples on 100
different unpopulated islands and visit them in 10 years and there will not be a
single child."Are you so sure about that? If a gay couple wants
children, they could always find a willing lesbian couple to help. If a lesbian
couple wants children they could always find a willing gay couple to help.
We're not as selfish as you seem to be; wanting to keep others from
enjoying the same benefits you enjoy.If you are 100% behind
"civil unions" then you are still going to have to overturn Utah's
amendment 3 because it prohibits civil unions right along with marriage. In any
case, it's far too late for compromise. You REFUSED to let us have
CU's to begin with, now we are going to get more than just crumbs from the
table, we'll enjoy the feast with you.
This may not mean much to you, but to those of us who've recited it some
2500 times in the course of our schooling, it ought to mean something:"I pledge Allegiance to the flagof the United States of Americaand to the Republic for which it stands,one nation under God,
indivisible,with Liberty and Justice for all."Note
especially, two things. 1) "indivisible"; and 2) "for all."The Supreme Court, should it rule, has limited options. A ruling
against same-sex marriage doesn't put the toothpaste back in the tube in
those 19 states that legalized it. A state's rights decision leaves those
in place. The most such a ruling would accomplish would be to divide the
country into two distinct segments, breaking the "indivisible" United
States into two. Even if they favor "tradition," would they want to
divide the US into two separate legal systems?As for the second
thing... "with Liberty and Justice for all" is pretty self-explanatory.
Same-sex marriage is NOT the same as interracial marriage. There are inherent,
unalienable differences.Put 100 21 year old interracial heterosexual
couples on 100 different unpopulated islands, visit them in 10 years, and 99 of
those islands will have children on them. Put 100 different
same-sex couples on 100 different unpopulated islands and visit them in 10 years
and there will not be a single child.Proponents of redefining
marriage to include same-sex couples ignore that difference, seeking to to grant
a status or right that that type of union, as the Declaration states,
"endowed by their creator," whether you consider that creator to be
Nature or Nature's God.Personally, I am 100% behind Civil
Unions, but there must a recognition of the difference between same-sax and
heterosexual unions. Some will say there are non-child-bearing
heterosexual marriages. Indeed there are, but that does not alter the fact that
as a group or class, the differences are inherent, unalienable, defined by
nature and marriage should be defined similarly.
I strongly disagree with the conclusion the editorial writer draws. Granting
stays on a volatile issue like this is not evidence that the Supreme Court has
predetermined the outcome. In my view, they're simply granting Utah's
government every possible legal courtesy along the way to the most likely
conclusion of this controversy. Which, I'm lead to expect you won't
like.It's not even clear that the Supreme Court will weigh in
at the end. While there's a strong chance that they may want to put their
stamp on the case, there's also some possibility that they'll
"deny cert" and let the Circuit Court decisions, as long as they're
uniformly in agreement, stand.If you're hoping for this to go
to the Supreme Court, you should first hope that one of the 11 Circuits rules in
favor of "tradition." You were one judge shy of that at the 10th
Circuit, but judging from the fact your AG passed up the opportunity of a full
"en banc" appeal, I'm guessing he thought it was lucky to even get
that one dissenter.
Sigh.... The DesNews puts an unusual twist to their argument. It will be
interesting to see how they spin a possible decision that doesn't go their
way.Let's do this. I want the DesNews to come out and say they
do not believe in equal protection under the law and the Constitution. Just say
it, once and for all. Just tell us that the founding principles are
conditional, depending on whether the application concurs with your view of the
world. Come on, say it. I know that's what you think.
@firstamendment;Banning LGBT couples from marriages does absolute
NOTHING to promote "Healthy heterosexual relationships are crucial for our
children...".Judge Shelby didn't "strike down our
Constitution", he UPHELD it. Utah citizens, voting on amendment 3,
stripping equal treatment under the law from LGBT citizens are the ones who were
"striking down our Constitution".Marriage between LGBT
couples does absolutely nothing to "harm humanity"; that's all in
your head and if you're that frightened, perhaps you should seek help for
it.If you really are concerned about "the children" and
"humanity" then fight bigotry and discrimination; while you're at
it, fight against divorce, cheating, war, poverty, etc. All these things are
far more important to the success of "humanity and the children" than
preventing gays from marrying.
For the 2nd time, your opinion is wrong."The Supreme Court
issued a stay of Shelby’s ruling, reinstating the state constitutional ban
on same-sex marriages and allowing it to continue until a ruling from a federal
appeals court."The state constitutional ban on same-sex
marriages is NOT legal; the ruling that it was unconstitutional it is simply on
hold - but it is still considered unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says
otherwise.Utah's "democratic process" is not allowed to
violate the constitutional rights of citizens of the USA. Please go read the
Re: "I think the end result is already determined."While
that may be, the United States Supreme Court is dedicated to the rule of law.
Under the rule of law, these things should be decided according to the
procedures laid down in the law. Not according to the whim of unelected activist
judges, seeking their 15 minutes of fame by deciding a case based, not on the
law, but rather on the fashion of the day, or fealty to the political leanings
of politicos who appointed them.It's gratifying to see Justice
Sotomayor, whose vote on the outcome of any case involving same-sex marriage is
entirely predictable, and likely formed the basis for her selection by the
President in the first place, take her job seriously enough to honor the rule of
law, applying long-accepted procedures and precedents, rather than the
pandering, illegal shortcuts of judges below.
Utah's battle against the rising tide of equality is starting to make it
look like King Canute!
"...Message delivered — again...".2 to 1.Again 2 to 1.The DN will be equally dismissive regarding the
endless 5 to 4 decisions delivered by the SCOTUS.Right?"...arbiters of this major cultural battleground. But their constitutional
role relative to the nation’s inferior courts requires them to damper the
rush by federal district court judges to implicitly overturn Supreme Court
precedents...".Courts are defined as inferior only when rushing
to implicitly overturn precedents favored by the DN.Right?
It would be dangerous to think one can anticipate a favorable decision from the
decision to stay enforcement of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmation of the
same sex marriage decisions.Seems to me the Court is merely
following precedent. Of course, precedent means little to the current
conservative majority on the Court.
SSM is coming, period. It would seem like all the $ being spent to fight it
could be better used on something else.There was once a time not long ago when
(some) interracial marriage was illegal too. That change doesn't seem to
have affected others negatively. Time to move on.
Why are the State of Utah and the Deseret News overlooking the same message sent
by each and every court that has heard a marriage-equality case post-Windsor?
The message is, states cannot carve out an exception to the equal protection
clause of the US Constitutions because a majority hates gay people.For that matter, why are the State of Utah and the Deseret News overlooking
the Supreme Court's similar message from Windsor? The US Government cannot
carve out an exception to the due process clause of the US Constitution because
a majority of congress members hate gay people.
What is winning? "This latest Supreme Court action is encouraging.
Utah’s marriage laws remain intact for now." Intact, really? In law
perhaps, but not in the world of public opinion. Try extending the timeline in
the story in months and then try decades. Every two months or so gay marriage
wins another battle, overcoming opposition mostly built on anti-gay stereotypes.
Now, anti-gay marriage activists have retrenched to defending states rights -
the best case scenario is a technical 5/4 Supreme Court decision ASAP. hence
Utah's direct appeal. It is the threat of a future reversal that is Chief
Justice Roberts' dilemma - outlaw gay equality, get reversed; support gay
marriage, get attacked by the right-wing (including Scalia and Thomas). Best
advice, punt. Same sex marriage is coming to states like Colorado soon,
regardless. If winning is viewed as delaying same sex marriage, that's a
possibility, but public opinion is on a two month cycle, and within decades,
same sex marriage seems a certainty nationwide. So, is this winning?
There was another great U.S. population which was denied the right to marry, and
that was the black slave population. Black slavery was well established in the
colonies by 1650. From then until the end of the Civil War in 1865 black slaves
were denied marriage and the ability to form stable families. Think of it! The
denial of the marriage privilege and slavery itself was justified with
scripture, which scripture was eventually found to be completely baseless.I suspect the justification for denying same sex marriage is to be found
in scripture (that's why it is tied to religious freedom). Those who
oppose same sex marriage should be thoroughly upfront about the basis for their
opposition. They should cite specific scriptures.One more thing.
Is a scriptural support enough to support a freedom of religion argument, or
does the scripture have be rational? I would argue that if the scripture is
irrational, the argument fails.
I still have no idea why Judge Shelby would ever think that governments and
taxpayers have a responsibility to legally enforce, promote, etc. homosexuality.
Gays are free to love, enter contracts, etc. Healthy heterosexual
relationships are crucial for our children, and for humanity. Anything that
unnecessarily detracts from the sanctity marriage isn't good for us, and no
judge should have so much power that they can force their opinions over
government by the People and strike down our Constitution. Gay marriage
benefits only a few, and harms humanity in general, those who truly love should
really think about everyone, rather than just what they want right now.
If Utah wants a marriage definition of being only between a man and a woman,
then the State will also need to provide some type of civil union recognition
with benefits pretty much the same as marriage. CA Prop 8 provided
the same benefits for gays, Lesbians and heterosexuals. If the Supreme Court was
inclinded to support this defination and state right, why didnt they rule that
way with Prop 8 instead of declining based on a technicality? I
think the end result is already determined.