"State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the
constitutional rights of persons, see Loving v. Virginia (1967); but, subject to
those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an
area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States.” - Windsor v. USWho wants to be remembered as the next
Leon Brazile? The judge in the first Loving trial who said: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and
he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his
arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he
separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Yikes, what a legacy!
@ Rock On re: "Only if you allow equal rights to legal cohabitation with
every single person in America regardless of anything.."----Sexual orientation like race and gender is considered an immutable
characteristic for most people. The desire to marry more than one, or every
single person (like religious views - for and against ones marriage) are
considered a choice. Therefore, the government is not obligated to formally
recognize every co-habitive relationship a person seeks to enter. Consider
that the existing right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or
desire of intimacy is quite simply no right at all.
@RockOn(Keep in mind, if you agree with full equality you must allow
three women, or four men, or two men and one woman, or a fraternity, and
pedophiles to all have the same right you do.)=====================I have no problem with 3 women, four men, two
men and one woman or a fraternity. As long as they are consenting adults and
the administrative complexities can be resolved (e.g. inheritance, what happens
if one of the parties decides to leave...etc).Pedophilia is easy to
ban because a child cannot legally consent to marriage. Plain and simple, same
reason a person cannot marry their dog as people like to use for an example.If my neighbor is able to sweet talk 3 women into marrying him, who am I
to say no?
Equality? In marriage? Only if you allow equal rights to legal cohabitation with
every single person in America regardless of anything. If you're good with
that, then you aren't an "equality hypocrit" which the Gay agenda
is. They only want what they want when they want it and don't care about
the consequences or the universality. (Keep in mind, if you agree with full
equality you must allow three women, or four men, or two men and one woman, or a
fraternity, and pedophiles to all have the same right you do.) We prohibit much
of this because it is destructive to children and the State doesn't want to
encourage it. There are good reasons for not granting universal equality in all
J Thompson says:"Society has the obligation to limit marriage to
those who will not harm themselves or to those entrusted to their care.Teaching a child that same-sex sex is acceptable harms society and harms that
child."======== I have a bit of advise - Teaching a child that gay people are icky, yucky, sub-humans harms society and
harms that child.BTW -- since when does marriage of anykind require
J Thompson says:"Society has the obligation to limit marriage to
those who will not harm themselves or to those entrusted to their care.Teaching a child that same-sex sex is acceptable harms society and harms that
child."--- Utter and complete nonsense. You just
made the claim that LGBT parents will "harm the children entrusted to their
care". That is simply not true, nor are you preventing those who will
actually do harm, abusers, molesters, etc. from marrying; the only reason, JT,
can be bigotry.
Regarding accusations of "hate rhetoric", my observation is that people
speak loudly and clearly for rational basis. Lack of rational basis is
uncomfortable if you lack it, but that isn't "hate rhetoric".To the Editor: If Utah County is calling you out on your argument (it
is), you can hang up your hat on this one.
John HowardCongress needs to resolve this debate..with a general law that
(defines) marriage as "approving and allowing the couple to conceive
offspring together".KJKThe sterile, neutered, and women over 50
shouldn't be allowed to (re)marry then?JHNo they still have a
right to marry someone eligible and try to procreate with their own gametes. KJKOh, so the politically correct group unable to procreate (the
sterile, neutered, and women over 50) are free to marry, but the disfavored
group (gays and lesbians...many of whom ARE ABLE to procreate via IVF like many
straights do) are unable to marry...Hmmmm. Only subjective religious belief and
one’s personal disgust of homosexuality are the reasons to deny SSM. The
same reasons used to ban polygamy.JHThey don't have to,
it's not a requirement that a marriage procreates...KJKSo why
is procreation constantly given as a reason to deny SSM? Opponents say that kids
are better off with straight parents. Even if true, we still allow child
molesters to marry and have kids. Are they better parents than gays with no
My congratulations to the good people of Virginia who saw equality for all come
to their state today with the 4th Circuit Court's ruling in favor of same
sex marriage.Also to the good people of North Carolina also covered by the
4th with the announcement by their Attorney General that he would no longer
defend North Carolina's ban on same sex marriage. Atty. Gen. Roy Cooper
said he had made the decision because the appeals court ruling "predicts our
law will be struck down. Simply put, it is time to stop making arguments we will
lose and instead move forward."Oh that we could be so lucky.
It's disheartening to see 1.6% suddenly stated as fact based on a single
CDC self report survey. Those who have studied the scientific method know that
for this number to be considered fact it must be repeated. After I learned
about the 1.6% number I did more research. In self report surveys over the last
few years results range from 1.6%-5%. So we should accept that the number of
people willing to admit to being homosexual is somewhere in that range. Of
course we cannot say that the real population isn't higher as there may be
some survey participants unwilling to admit their orientation due to the stigma
the LGBT population faces.But why does the number matter in this
debate at all? It doesn't. If percentage of population was a factor for
consideration for rights, why would the LDS church be given the legal rights of
a church since its membership is lower than 1.6% of the population (based on
their own records)? In fact that number comes in under 1%.It
matters not how large a population is. Equal rights and protection under the
law, due process, etc are guaranteed to all.
The article's author writes, "every substantive reference to a marriage
right [in Windsor] refers immediately to a state’s decision to grant such
a right. That's only half of the truth. The other half of
Windsor is that every time the decision mentions state's rights to regulate
marriage, the decision states that such regulation is subject to Federal
Constitutional protections. The quote from Windsor, my my emphasis added in
uppercase, is as follows:State laws defining and regulating
marriage, of course, MUST RESPECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PERSONS, see,
e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, SUBJECT TO THOSE
GUARANTEES,"regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has
long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States."Thinking that Lawrence, Windsor and by the way also Romer, won't
rule the day at the Supreme Court is nothing more than wishful thinking.
"The Supreme Court on July 18 ruled in favor of Utah, for the second time in
seven months, on the state’s legal efforts to preserve its definition of
marriage. "No, the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of Utah.
what it did do, however, was allow all the cases before the various courts right
now to come to a conclusion. The Supreme Court cannot rule in favor of one side
or another until the case is before it. Still tilting at windmills DNews.
@family girl,"Adoption is a great way for families to be
established"And in Utah singles, gay/lesbian or straight CAN
adopt--no marriage necessary.
@J Thompson," All "rights" come from God."and I thank Odin everyday for the rights he has bestowed on me and mine."States LICENSE that activity. "Yup, and the state
cannot discriminate based on religious dogma, ever."but the 1.6%
who demand that we change"Did Mike Richards give you permission
to use his made up statistic? I'd hate to see DN involved in any copyright
2 tell the truthI am not confused. Adoption is a great way for families
to be established - it's the mother and father that are ideal for raising
children. Obviously there are exceptions to most rules, but the overwhelming
evidence is in favor of mothers and fathers providing the balance in parenting
and Mitt's son's provide a mother as well as a father for their
children. Great point. Many in our society consider marriage
meaningless. No fault divorce has created a new climate of easy in and easy out
that undermines the stability of families. Same sex marriage takes it further
down that path by legally discrediting the need for both a mother and a father
in the lives of their children. When women think they can take the place of
fathers and men think they can take the place of mothers, the stability of
families is further at risk.Mother and Father are titles that have
been taken away in some states where gay marriage is legalized - birth
certificates say "party A" & "party B" as do some marriage
@JThompson,See? You side stepped my question. I asked whether
Marriage was a right from God or not, you completely ignored it.The
whole "if everyone did it" argument doesn't work. If everyone
withdrew all of their money from the bank, our economy would crash...so should
making bank withdrawals be illegal?Mother nature did a good job of
ensuring against everyone turning gay. I am completely enamored with the female
body, and nothing anyone ever said or did could convince to feel that way about
the male body. The same thing can be said about 98.4% of our population if Mike
Richards statistic is true. Therefore, it would be incredibly hard to argue
that "Same sex marriage" will ever become normal, as less than 2% of all
marriages performed will be for Same Sex couples.No one is saying
you have to teach your kids it is acceptable. It is your God given right to
teach your kids whatever you think is right. You can teach them that people
from the moon are purple if you want.
@J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTThe voices become even more strident when
the obvious holes in arguments are presented. The Federal Government does not
"bestow" right on the citizens. All "rights" come from God. God
decreed that marriage is between a man and a woman. States LICENSE that
activity. ========== You do realize that Mormons is Utah
were responsible for the invention of "marriage licenses", don't
you.They were practicing unorthodox marriages, so they all marriages
were then required to be licesned.As for that how long line about
the Pre-Mortal existance, and laws and plans, and God's rights etc., etc.
and such.As a "brother" in the Gospel, you DO realize that
we are less than 1.6% that believe that, and yet -- here you and Mike are
repeatedly insisting that the 98.4% do as YOU say.
@ J. ThompsonYou wrote: "All "rights" come from God. God
decreed that marriage is between a man and a woman"When and
where? Genesis? Which perhaps comes from Enuma Elis which is a Babylonian Myth
of creation.Fortunately our society is a secular society and is
based on the rule of law independent of religion. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond just declared the Virgina ban of gay
marriage unconstitutional.Congratulations Virginia.
Darrell,Society has the obligation to limit marriage to those who
will not harm themselves or to those entrusted to their care.Teaching a child that same-sex sex is acceptable harms society and harms that
child. Society would be extinguished jf every person practiced that way of
life. If it would harm society if all practiced it, it harms society if only a
few practice it.A license requires that NO HARM be done to those who
are licensed. Great harm comes to society from those who practice same-sex sex
and who advocate same-sex sex as a "normal" way of life.
Another appeals court (this time involving Virginia) has ruled in favor of
@JThompsonYou probably won't answer this, rather go on some
side rant. But you just said " The Federal Government does not
"bestow" right on the citizens." And then right after said
"There is no inherent right listed in the Constitution that grants the right
of marriage to anyone." So which is it? Is there a right to marry or not?
Should government recognize marriage at all?A licensed activity, in
this case marriage, must have reasonable restrictions. For example, we must be
licensed to operate a vehicle; the restrictions are to be of age (implying some
sense of personal responsibility) and in good health and vision. Anyone who
meets those requirements (which are reasonable) can drive. The State cannot
however say, "And you must attend Church at least 75% of all Sundays in a
given year) because that is not a reasonable restriction to deny one the
privilege of operating a vehicle.Marriage is a licensed institution
for government recognition. Unless the State can show a compelling reason why
two people cannot wed (e.g. dangers in close genetic relationship) any two
people should be able to marry each other. The State must show why gender is a
"Marriage law inevitably treats prospective marriage partners as potential
fathers and mothers, and for this reason marriage policy establishes the norm
for parenting. By making same-sex parenting equivalent to man-woman parenting in
our marriage policies, we would undermine our ability to elevate any parental
arrangement as a social ideal — including biological parenthood itself.This gets to the core of why we need to stand for natural marriage
between a mother and a father. Legalizing same sex marriage is just the
camel's nose in the door. There will be far reaching ramifications that
will involve much more than just same sex marriage.
To conclude to 'family girl'Re: "The studies that are
so often quoted to say children are better off in same sex families are deeply
flawed with volunteers being the subjects of most if not all such
"studies"."Citation for your 'finding" please?
Otherwise, it is dismissed as nothing more than your opinion.Re:
"Let's stand by the natural family unit"You would need
to apply your definition to str8 couples before you get to apply it to
same-gender couples. And they reject your nonsense. Rightly so, imo.Re: "and take a look at ways we can provide for the rights of same sex
unions"That very idea is anathema to the FFF (frabid,
freligious, frightwing).Sorry, your entire 'argument' is
predicated on there BEING children - and that simply is NOT a requirement of
marriage ... for ANYONE.
more @ 'family girl'Re: "Surely there are ways to
protect rights without making marriage even more meaningless"Gay
people seeking equal marriage rights don't see marriage as
"meaningless". Sorry that YOU seem to think of it that way.Re: "marriage is ... the natural way of establishing a family
unit."Not really. TWO of Mitt Romney's sons are legally
married but could NOT have a "family unit" (odd euphemism for a baby) in
"the natural way" - they had to resort to IVF to make their babies. As
do lots of people - married or NOT.Re: "Society has no other
reason for promoting marriage between a man and a woman than protecting family
units that are most effective in producing responsible citizens."Baloney! I personally know over 4 dozen LGBTQ folk (couples and singles) who
raised 'responsible citizens". (One of them proudly serves her country
in the military.)
@ 'family' girl,Re: "Many in this state are quiet in
this debate because the rhetoric is so hateful toward those who would like to
preserve the titles of Mother & Father, Husband & Wife by reserving the
title of marriage for mothers and fathers."First off, no one IS
trying to take away those titles. Mothers are simply female parents and fathers
are male parents. Lots and lots of gay males and gay females are parents.
Husbands are male spouses and wives are female spouses and neither has THAT
changed. And of course, lots and lots of heterosexual fathers and mothers are
NOT married, so the 'titles' have never been 'reserved' for
heterosexuals in the first place. (Also, lots and lots of heterosexual wives and
husbands are not parents.You sure sound confused.
@John Howard"No they still have a right to marry someone eligible and
try to procreate with their own gametes. " The comment referred
specifically to people who can't. "But same-sex couples
don't have the right to procreate and should be prohibited from
trying"And people say there's no animus in support for
same-sex marriage bans...
The voices become even more strident when the obvious holes in arguments are
presented. The Federal Government does not "bestow" right on the
citizens. All "rights" come from God. God decreed that marriage is
between a man and a woman. States LICENSE that activity. There is no inherent
right listed in the Constitution that grants the right of marriage to anyone.
Sensible people can see that for themselves but the 1.6% who demand that we
change marriage to include "couples" who believe in same-sex sex are
trying to change the meaning of marriage to include their same-sex sex. No "rights" are disallowed. The license to marry requires all
who would enter into marriage to abide by the rules set by society. Distorting facts and lying are not reasons to change marriage. Society
requires that all who wish to marry fulfill all requirements before receiving a
license. In Utah, the license requires that ONLY a nan and a woman can receive
Thanks, Deseret News, for a reasoned and reasonable editorial. Many in this
state are quiet in this debate because the rhetoric is so hateful toward those
who would like to preserve the titles of Mother & Father, Husband & Wife
by reserving the title of marriage for mothers and fathers. Surely
there are ways to protect rights without making marriage even more meaningless
than it already has been with media lies and easy divorce that persuade us that
marriage is primarily for our personal gratification rather than the natural way
of establishing a family unit. Society has no other reason for
promoting marriage between a man and a woman than protecting family units that
are most effective in producing responsible citizens. The studies that are so
often quoted to say children are better off in same sex families are deeply
flawed with volunteers being the subjects of most if not all such
"studies". Let's stand by the natural family unit and
take a look at ways we can provide for the rights of same sex unions without
giving the stamp of approval that is really what this is all about.
KJK asked me "The sterile, neutered, and women over 50 shouldn't be
allowed to (re)marry then?"No they still have a right to marry
someone eligible and try to procreate with their own gametes. They don't
have to, it's not a requirement that a marriage procreates, but it is a
right that is valuable and meaningful even if they don't procreate. But
same-sex couples don't have the right to procreate and should be prohibited
from trying, like siblings are.
Re: "Neither Lawrence nor Windsor will be a support to those who would
undermine state marriage laws, including those of Utah."Actually, yes they will. Because the State-level marriage laws contravene the
Federal Constitution's promise of the equal protections of the law. They
apply to EVERYONE, not just those who believe as this author does.States are perfectly free to concoct their own laws (on ANY topic) - but those
laws cannot circumvent the US Constitution.Besides,
"States' rights" was never anything other than the rallying call of
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTThe argument about marriage, family,
procreation, and worship of God predated creation. We know that in that
"great council" held to determine how we would live when given mortal
bodies the question was asked, "Whose laws will we obey?" Everyone
on earth chose Christ's plan.[So then - -Why are you fighting so hard
against it?]BTW – Your buddy Mike keeps telling us that the
majority rules over the courts.The majority supports the 1.6%As a
fellow-member of another 1.6%, you might want to remind him how our 1.6% is
protected against “majorities” by the Constitution, BTW
– I got “married” out of Love and Companionship, not for
sex or just to have children.If you all continue to make marriage only
about sex, I must seriously reconsider who the real perverts are.
Mike Richards,I am not part of your "1.6% who engages in same
sex sex." I am, however, part of the 55% who support marriage equality
throughout the nation.
DarrelA great, great point. Strict "constructionism"
certainly falls all over its arguments, and even engages in a bit of hypocrisy,
when they argue from their positions. Certain rights, duties and
responsibilities are understood by most of us and have evolved over time from
the writing of the founding document. And it will continue as the world changes
and we respond to different understandings. We might even one day limit our
current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. (Not holding my breath for that
one though. Thank you NRA.)Also, many people conflate the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution when they attempt to find a
loophole to justify same sex marriage prohibition. Our country and government
are founded by the Constitution. The Declaration was really an act of rebellion
against King George. The Declaration has a lot of good thoughts in it that
guide our thinking, but it is really the Constitution that guides law.
In the New Testament, we read about Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for the
attitudes. You see, the Pharisees were overly concerned about fixing others that
they neglected the weightier issues of the gospel. Jesus condemned them because
they were more concerned about the visibility of their righteousness, they
forgot about cleaning the inner vessel. They neglected His greatest commandment.
In the Book of Mormon, we learn about a tower the Zoramites built to
declare their worthiness to the world. Scriptural scholars understand that this
was a sinful practice, and that God does not delight in the sinful practice.
What exactly do we learn about these people shouted praises to their God and
took delight in shouting how much better they were than everyone else?Today, we have the Internet to proclaim our superiority to the world. I think
it's time for a lot of us to practice a little bit more humility, get down
on our knees, and ask our God how he would have us treat our neighbors.
@Mike RichardsYou claim several times in other threads (and
correctly so) that Rights don't come from government but from our Creator.
The Constitution does not grant rights, but protects them. Over time we have
expanded that protection through amendments, but have never granted more
rights.The central argument against a Bill of Rights was the fear
that enumeration of a few would be construed as an exhaustive list, hence the
inclusion of the Ninth Amendment.So where do you get the silly idea
that Marriage isn't a right?And if it is a right, does it
matter if 1.6% wants it, or 99%? Shouldn't ALL rights be protected? Fewer
than 3% of the country is LDS, should we loose our rights of protection if the
other 97 decide to vote against it?
MikeRichards,Your personal crusade against same-sex marriage is
built on the logical equivalent of quicksand. Completely missing from your
analysis is the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled,
definitively, that there is no legal difference in the sex acts that straight
people and gay people may choose to engage in. Old Testament admonitions, while
certainly familiar to all the Justices, carried no weight when looking at the
law, not even with the Jewish ones.Same-sex sex, which others here
have noted you seem obsessed by, is therefore perfectly legal and may not be
considered as a detrimental issue when considering marriage rights. Besides,
marriage is about so much more than sex. As someone married for over three
decades, I can testify to that.To Miss Piggie, who points to
Leviticus as her justification to oppose equal rights, I ask you to honestly
answer, have you EVER complied with 15:19-30? Not do you ALWAYS comply, but
even once in your life as an adult woman?
Four of Drew's eight contributions are on same-sex marriage. Protesteth
The argument about marriage, family, procreation, and worship of God predated
creation. We know that in that "great council" held to determine how we
would live when given mortal bodies the question was asked, "Whose laws will
we obey?" One spokesman said that we would obey his laws, that he would
make it impossible for anyone to fail. He demanded all glory and the honor.
The other spokesman said that the eternal laws would be given to all, that he
would pay for our mistakes if we repented, and that all honor and glory would be
given to our Father in Heaven. Everyone on earth chose Christ's plan. Now there are those of us who honor our Father in Heaven, who marry
someone of the opposite sex, who procreate if possible, and who teach our
children to worship God. There are others who worship their bodies, use those
bodies in ways that distort the purpose of procreation, who refuse to acknowlege
God and who want to force us to change marriage to agree with their
lifestyle.Talk about "deja vu".
John HowardCongress needs to resolve this debate..with a general law that
(defines) marriage as "approving and allowing the couple to conceive
offspring together".KJKThe sterile, neutered, and women over 50
shouldn't be allowed to (re)marry then?MDurfeeAny union
which is intrinsically incapable of producing children provides no benefit for
society, and is not entitled to that status. KJKSee AbovePJB NewsgramLoving dealt specifically with race not behavior.KJKHow is "behavior" involved? Those banning mixed race
marriages and SSMs justify their positions based on the physical attributes of
the couples (color and plumbing), not "behaviors". 2 old impotent gay
men aren't going to be engaging in "behaviors" when they marry.
Lawrence outlawed the denial of rights based on private behaviors anyway.
Straight couples engage in those eact same "behaviors" as well and
aren't denied marriage. Your assertion is therefore moot.Mike
RichardsUtah's Constitution .. is the supreme law of the State.KJKThe Founding Fathers, case law, and the D&C state otherwise.
"Yet too many people causally connect decriminalization of sodomy and
recognition of same-sex marriage."This is because both deal with
the majority denying equal protection to a despised minority despite the
majority often engaging in those self-same practices the majority uses to
justify such laws.States can't unilaterally make marriage laws. The
Loving decision proves that. If the Court supports A3, it will allow challenges
to Loving and could lead to "Full Faith & Credit" issues where some
liberal states may deny reciprocal recognition of marriage certificates from
states which don't recognize for former's SSM certificates. Some
states don’t recognize Utah’s Concealed Carry licenses due to the
former's standards/laws on CCWs. Conservatives have been screaming about
the patchwork of these state laws that hinder one person's rights as they
travel. Just wait until the same thing happens regarding marriage. To defend
their position on SSM conservatives often state that marriage is NOT a right.
If so, then liberal states will have a much easier time, legally, denying
marriage license reciprocity.
From MDurfee: "Furthermore, states, and society in general, have a huge
interest in ensuring that social unions (such as traditional marriage) with the
potential of producing children (who will provide the next generation of workers
and tax-payers to support the economy) are protected and given special status
and support. Any union which is intrinsically incapable of producing children
provides no benefit for society, and is not entitled to that status." ___________________________Any union which is intrinsically incapable of
producing children includes all seniors, anyone male or female who has had any
kind of surgery or illness which nullifies their ability to reproduce and those
whom for whatever reason are just plain sterile. So I guess to satisfy your
concerns the state should institute fertility tests as a requirement for
marriage and deny those who do not pass for whatever reason. (And I would hope
that my answer sounds as ridiculous as your restrictions.)
From Mike Richards: "There's a lot of rhetoric coming from the 1.6% of
the people of the United States who engage in same-sex sex. They want us to
think that everybody favors same-sex sex... The Court will examine the effect of
letting 1.6% of the population change the basic unit of society. If they are
wise, they will rule that traditional marriage is best for all
concerned."Mike it isn't just the 1.6% you reference. The latest
ABC/Wn. Post poll from 5-29 to 6-1 shows 56% favor SSM with 38% opposing. The
latest Gallup poll from 5-8 to 5-11 show 55% for and 42% against. It isn't
just the 1.6%. It is the majority of all Americans including myself (male) and
my wife (female) who have been married 35 years and counting. And we don't
even have a family member affected. We just know Amendment 3 is wrong and
can't be gone soon enough.
@MDurfee;The 10th amendments PROHIBITS states from violating other
clauses in the Constitution. What does "prohibit" mean to you?"... are protected and given special status ...".--- And
you guys claim that we're the ones asking for "special rights".
Mike Richards says:"There's a lot of rhetoric coming from the
1.6% of the people of the United States who engage in same-sex sex."--- Why are you so focused on "same-sex sex", Mike? Are you not
telling us something? All you EVER think about relating to marriage for LGBT
couples is the "sex"."The family is the foundation of
society."--- We are also families, Mike. Just because our
familes don't look like yours is no reason to discriminate against our
families."Ask those nations who rejected God. "--- Your "god" is no more relevant than any other god in our societies
laws. If that weren't so, your god would be our state god, which he is
not.@dev;At one time marriage was intended to merge two
fortunes together. Do you long for those "good old days" too?"I hope the Supreme Court will recognize that and let the citizens of the
states decide how to define it. "--- What if the "state"
decided to not recognize Mormon marriages? Would you allow states to do that?
UteFan, An amendment IS part of the Constitution. The Supreme law of
Utah defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. No matter what Judge
Shelby says, no matter what you think, no matter what the 10th Court says. It
is still part of the Constitution and will be unless the Supreme Court reverses
itself (DOMA) and decides that the Federal Goverment has the right to define
marriage. The Supreme Sourt has already crossed that bridge. The MAJORITY
opinion in DOMA said that the States have the right to define marriage. Judge
Shelby used the MINORITY opinion to tell Utah that the State could not define
marriage.Marriage IS licensed. It is NOT a right. Marriage is NOT
listed anywhere in the Constiution; therefore, according to the 10th Amendment,
it is an activity that is left to the States or to the People.
"Over time, some states might democratically change their laws in favor of
same-sex marriage. They would also likely ensure protections for religious
freedom. In the long run, this result would be better for all."Drew; Is your own marriage recognized when you move or travel from
state to state? Why then should the marriages of LGBT couples not be recognized
as well? If you don't have to be single crossing state lines, then
you're a hypocrite to demand that LGBT couples do."“Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual
conduct as ..."What does "equal treatment" mean to you,
Drew, if not equal treatment?"Marriage ... binds a child to a
mother and a father.?"--- Marriage also joins two people as a
legal family, EVEN WITHOUT CHILDREN.
The DesNews poorly serves its readers by publishing writers who lack basic
understanding of the intersection of human sexuality, marriage, and
constitutional jurisprudence.The author incorrectly identifies the
central legal issue. "Same-sex" marriage is not at issue. That the States administer marriage is established. And marriage has been
found repeatedly by the Supreme Court to be an inherent right. (Viriginia v
Loving, for one)So the question at issue is if States can single out
gay people and prohibit them, through legislation or popular vote, from this
inherent right.Further, the Supreme Court has repeated found that
moral disapproval alone is insufficient justification for exclusionary laws.
(Romer v Evans, for one). A compelling state interest must be demonstrated.Yet no arguments to date have done that.Rather than
attempting to justify their own prejudice, the DesNews should focus their
opinions on how its readership can be better citizens, friends and neighbors to
the gay families among them, whether married or not, instead of fanning the
flames of discontent with "legal" arguments that have no basis in
Mike Richards: no amount of capital letters make your statements true. The court
ruled in Loving: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of
the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men ... ." It has affirmed that marriage IS a right dozens of times.
higv asks "Gay people have existed for a long time why are they just now
finding the right to marry someone of the same gender?" It's because
now stem cell science has advanced to the point that we might be able to have
kids without having to pass on our inherited diseases and without having to
partner with some yucky girl or boy, but to be able to do it with someone of our
@Bob K:"Gay people, ask your church to talk to God about the
issue."God has been addressed about the issue. The results are
spelled out in the Bible which indicates in against His law for men to lie with
each other.I suppose it would be OK to marry provided they
don't lie with each other.
Pray for the second coming. It is the only thing that will resolve this.
@jeclar2006:"You realize that in California, first cousins may marry,
but for Utah, unless the parties are older than 65, they may not marry."You've totally missed my point... which is: SSM proponents cite the
14th Amendment to justify their position. That same argument can be made to
justify all other types of marriage arrangements such as polygamous and
incestuous marriages which are currently and discriminatorally illegal.@PJB Newsgram:"Loving v. Virginia is a persuasive case that many
point to in favor of same-sex marriage."Loving was wrongfully
decided using the 14th Amendment. The 14th simply says that all laws
(state/federal) must be equally applied to all citizens. It says nothing about
the fairness of a law. For example, if the law says that blacks can't
marry whites and is equally applied to all, the equal protection clause has been
met.If anti black/white marriage laws are considered discriminatory
then SCOTUS shoulda remanded the case to the Congress for a law or amendment to
fix it. The court has an example to follow where Amendment 21 canceled the 18th
regarding the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcoholic beverages.
Mike Richards, not once in the original Utah Constitution does it mention that
marriage is between a man and a woman. The only mention of marriage is that
polygamous marriages are forever prohibited. Your letter was not factual.
Amendment Three, now disqualified by the courts was the only mention of that.
I fell you are so bent on stomping your own feet for your cause that
you are not being integrate with your facts.And again what
difference does anyone else's marriage make to you? Only reason I can see
is that you are trying to interfere with others inalienable rights.
For anyone who, like the author, doesn't understand the legal argument for
permitting SSM, Friday's latest published opinion might be illuminating.In that Miami-Dade County ruling, Judge Zabel begins with a quote from
the Supreme Court in Loving, without the racial references:"To
deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the . . .
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without
due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice
to marry not be restricted by invidious . . . discriminations."Zabel's decision concludes: "The journey of our Nation towards
becoming 'a more perfect Union' does not stop at any particular
generation; it is instead a fluid process through every generation."I strongly recommend the entire 36-page decision if you want to
understand the predominant principles and reasoning of all those courts that
shot down SSM bans. Google 14-1661-Decision and choose the one on Scribd.
Marriage is NOT a right; it is a licensed activity which is controlled by the
State. No amount of foot stomping, yelling or rhetoric from the 1.6% who
practice same-sex sex will give marriage the status of a right.In
Utah, before I can open a business, I have to comply with all the laws
pertaining to that type of business. No matter how often I tell the clerk that
I "feel" like I should be allowed to run a business, the rules apply,
not my feelings. Utah's Constitution requires that marriage be between
people of the opposite sex. That is the supreme law of the State. Under the
law, no licesnse can be issued unless the applicants obey the law - no matter
what Judge Shelby thinks. We have laws that pertain to all licenses
issued by the State. A driver's license isn't issued to anyone just
because he/she "feels" that the law should let them drive. Even a lowly
fishing license has rules.The safety of the family and the children
raised in a family require that strict laws be in place to regulate marriage.
@ greatbam, I'm asking if anyone notices any changes or differences in
their lives because of what two other people do in their own lives. What's
this about burden of proof? That makes no sense at all and seems a strange
"argument" to fight SSM.
MDurfee, I'm going to assume that you are serious in your statements. May
I ask you a few questions?Do you think that restricting marriage to
straights will make gay people marry opposite sex partners and produce
children?You wrote, "Any union which is intrinsically incapable
of producing children provides no benefit for society, and is not entitled to
that status." Do you think that the state should restrict marriages to
people with proven fertility? When it is clear that no children will be coming
from a marriage (e.g. the woman has had a hysterectomy), should she be forbidden
to marry?As you have noticed, lots of children are being born in
Utah to unmarried mothers. These kids will certainly grow up to be workers who
will be supporting the older generation via social security taxes. Along with
forbidding gay marriage and encouraging straight couples to procreate more,
should we be encouraging single women to have more babies? As I read your
concerns, I think the answer is yes, isn't it?
Now it's later Sunday afternoon, and the grandpas in the small towns have
had their Sunday dinners. Time to hit the computer to put in yet another defense
for the status quo.Again, we hear a comparison between 2 unrelated
people in love and incest.Again, we hear about polygamy.--- Both are
completely against public policy and public opinion, while marriage equality has
both legal and popular support.We hear about the "basic unit of
Society" -- in your church, that might be the family, but in US laws, it is
one citizen.Then we get "Why are they just demanding in
now?", which is shot down by the Emancipation Proclamation, Womens'
Suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, Loving v Virginia, etc.ALL of
it is simply "We don't want those people to sit on our part of the
bus"Grandpas, please ask the grandkids, or their kids, if
"Gay" is still a big deal, or has become a part of everyday life among
everyday people.Gay people, ask your church to talk to God about the
Loving v. Virginia is a persuasive case that many point to in favor of same-sex
marriage. One significant distinction is that Loving dealt specifically with
race not behavior. The marriage in Loving was completely acceptable other than
the race of the people, and thus it was unconstitutional to prevent the
marriage. The 14th amendment was intended to prevent discrimination of race, not
discrimination of behavior. Merely engaging in or desiring a behavior, which
deviates from societal norms, does not make a person a separate race (or
something like unto it). Being born a particular race, does not lead to any
particular behavior. I love the speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. that a person
should be judged by "the content of their character" rather than the
color of their skin. In my opinion, the “Civil Rights” movement of
today in essence says that whatever a person does is right and that society
should be forced to rejoice in whatever behavior a person engages in. The former
civil rights movement was a wonderful thing, but this modern civil rights
movement is wrong.
This article is right on target. The constitution specifically stated that all
rights that are not explicitly granted to the federal government remain with the
state. If the federal government can dictate to the states how to define who
receives a marriage license, a power which granted to the states, then this will
set a precedence that there are no state laws that federal law cannot supercede.
The states will be left essentially powerless.Furthermore, states,
and society in general, have a huge interest in ensuring that social unions
(such as traditional marriage) with the potential of producing children (who
will provide the next generation of workers and tax-payers to support the
economy) are protected and given special status and support. Any union which is
intrinsically incapable of producing children provides no benefit for society,
and is not entitled to that status. Raising children requires a
great deal of self-sacrifice, and as society increasingly fails to emphasize the
rearing of children as a primary goal and traditional marriage as the
fundamental basis of society, birth rates will continue to drop. Falling
birthrates bring economic instability and unsustainability. The states
therefore have a vested interest in protecting traditional marriage.
@higv 2:21pm -- You make an excellent argument that banning SSM is an entirely
religious enterprise. Your religious rationale and judgment are perfectly
justified in the practice of your chosen religion, assuming your religion
permits the rights of judgment and interpretation to you.That said,
there is the little matter of the US Constitution, which doesn't permit
theocracy. Marriage is a government regulated, licensed, and recorded matter.
If a churchman solemnizes a marriage without government involvement, that
marriage is a legal nullity. Conversely, if a magistrate officiates a marriage
without church involvement, that marriage is legally valid.All legal
marriage being the purview of civil government, and religion not being permitted
as a governmental function, you need a clearly civil and rational reason for
denying marriage to same-sex couples. Your religious belief not only isn't
a rational civil reason, it's completely anathema to my religion, which
believes quite the opposite after discerning the true meaning of Jesus'
words, actions and teachings. While I'd be happy to argue the theological
merits of our respective convictions, marriage remains a completely civil
function of government.
Let's not bother to criticize Drew Clark or his positions. No one could
believe that anyone in his job is paid to put over his own original thoughts.One thought: the DN might be digging in more on the "Federal
Government vs poor Utah", because the current President is a Democrat. It
reminds me a bit of the "forced by Federal troops to give up polygamy"
thing I have read in some comments.But I go back to the central
thought that no one has mentioned: about 2/3 of the Gay people in Utah are the
children and adult children of mormon families. When the issue is settled,
and the non-mormon Gays have freedom: -- How will a mormon Mom and Dad
feel, as they marry of most of their kids, and one must be left behind?--
How can we, as Christians, tell a person raised to marry that because he/she now
realizes they are Gay, to forget having a loving marriage?I think
God guides events, and He has guided the majority of Americans into seeing the
fairness of allowing taxpaying Gay American citizens to have loving
marriages.States and churches ought to listen better to God,
@shrekk---Correct. All you need to deny polygamy or incestuous
relations is a simple rational basis. For polygamy, administrative complexity is
sufficient to deny it.---A polygamous marriage is no more
legally/adminstratively 'complex' than an LLC or other form of
'company' or 'small corporation'. There are rules on the
incorporation of such, as well as the dissolution of such. They have been in
existence for quite some time, and can easily be amended to deal with matters of
'common property', a marriage concept that has not been universal in
the US, but has grown in coverage for the last 100 years, starting mostly with
states that were at one time under Spanish Law such as California.The only objection that can be raised is some 'moral' objection
which reduces essentially to 'we don't like that form of
@WRZ---If these Constitutional clauses mean states cannot make laws
against SSM, it also means states cannot make laws against any other type of
marriage such as polygamy, incestuous relations, etc. It's not all that
complicated.---You realize that in California, first cousins
may marry, but for Utah, unless the parties are older than 65, they may not
marry.There for, a California marriage between first cousins would
be invalid in Utah by your reasoning.It is not.I could
extend this to the various states that have different ages of consent, and
should a couple visit or move, to Utah, by the same reasoning their marriage
would be invalid.They are not.The prohibition on same
sex marriages follows similar lines as the formatter anti-miscengentation laws
of yore, where 'blacks' had every 'equal' opportunity to
marry another 'black' person, but not a 'white' person.
You kind of lost me early on in the piece, when you asserted that the Supreme
Court, to paraphrase you, "ruled in favor of Utah's LGBT marriage
ban." They did no such thing. The case hasn't even been heard on the
merits, and may never be.All the Supreme Court did was extend Utah
the courtesy of a stay until its appeal is heard. That's a very different
thing. As to their sentiment on the case, it's hard to say. We don't
know if they'll even grant cert. Perhaps they simply repeated their action
in Kitchen so as not to appear inconsistent. At this point we don't even
know. They haven't explained the reason for either stay.I was
rather surprised to see that the author has a law degree, but then I noticed
he's never practiced law and so perhaps was never even admitted to the bar.
Given his propensity for wishful thinking, he'd probably make a great
plaintiff's lawyer. Although, given his iffy understanding of how courts
rule, he probably shouldn't work on contingency.
Justice Sotomayor granting Utah a stay should hardly be considered a ruling in
Utah's favor. That is quite a twist of logic, isn't it?
At one time marriage laws were intended to legally bind parents to children and
hold people responsible for the lives they created. I would like to see our
society return to that premise, rather than focusing on marriage as a way to
make adults happy. This issue should never have been given to the courts, since
marriage is not and never has been a right. It should properly be decided
through public discourse and democratic processes. I hope the Supreme Court will
recognize that and let the citizens of the states decide how to define it.
Concerns about protections for persons who wish to be considered domestic
partners can be addressed through civil union legislation.
"...It is them trying to redefine marriage what God has not let his children
redefine. And even if all the mortal judges overturn votes it will not be right
in the site of the Great Judge and people who try to redefine it will have to
answer to him. It will have long term effects on society in future generations.
Or it will collapse under the weight of it's own iniquity since the person
who wants us to be miserable does not support those that listen to him in the
end when he has them under his grasp..."Exactly the same
arguments opponents of interracial marriage use pre-Loving.
@marxist:"...I don't see how different marriage laws from state
to state can be managed in the 'United' States."Federal law (see DOMA) prohibits denying federal rights to SSM couples (such
as filing a joint income tax return) regardless of where they reside. However,
where states deny SSM, state rights accorded to heterosexual couples (such as
filing a joint income tax return) will still be denied SSM couples.States have something like that now. A doctor, CPA, etc., licensed in one
state cannot practice his/her trade in another state where they are not
licensed.@skrekk:"That's the exact same argument the
racists of the south made against mixed-race marriage 50 years ago. And just
like you, they were flat wrong."No, no. Flat wrong would be
allowing SSM but denying other marriage arrangements such as polygamous and
incestuous marriages."All you need to deny polygamy or
incestuous relations is a simple rational basis. For polygamy, administrative
complexity is sufficient to deny it."If administrative
complexity is your argument for denial, we perhaps need to shut down most of the
complex US government.
There's a lot of rhetoric coming from the 1.6% of the people of the United
States who engage in same-sex sex. They want us to think that everybody favors
same-sex sex, that tolerance for it should be taught in every school, starting
in kindergarten. The family is the foundation of society. What is
taught in the home determines how the children will conduct themselves when they
leave the home. There are many who tell us that God is not part of their lives
and that any argument that cites God or scripture cannot be used against them
because they reject God. That is my greatest concern about those who reject
God's doctrine of marriage and of family. Those who reject those
principles will teach their children to reject God and to laugh at religion.
Will that harm society? Ask those nations who rejected God. Ask a Russian what
family life was like under Communism. Ask about their suicide rate.The Court will examine the effect of letting 1.6% of the population change the
basic unit of society. If they are wise, they will rule that traditional
marriage is best for all concerned.
No state should recognize or allow same-sex marriage. Congress needs to resolve
this debate for the whole country, as the Full Faith and Credit clause directs,
with a general law that prescribes the effect of marriage as "approving and
allowing the couple to conceive offspring together" and under the commerce
clause, a law that prohibits creating a person except by joining a man and a
@KarenR actually people in favor of so called same gender marriage have been
the ones bringing it up. Gay people have existed for a long time why are they
just now finding the right to marry someone of the same gender? It is them
trying to redefine marriage what God has not let his children redefine. And
even if all the mortal judges overturn votes it will not be right in the site of
the Great Judge and people who try to redefine it will have to answer to him.
It will have long term effects on society in future generations. Or it will
collapse under the weight of it's own iniquity since the person who wants
us to be miserable does not support those that listen to him in the end when he
has them under his grasp.
Memo to Self:Drew Clark, not Lewis, David. I think maybe
the very thought of Utah and the West makes you get these two good explorers
mixed up. -dlj.
@wrz "If these Constitutional clauses mean states cannot make laws against
SSM, it also means states cannot make laws against any other type of marriage
such as polygamy, incestuous relations, etc."That's the
exact same argument the racists of the south made against mixed-race marriage 50
years ago. And just like you, they were flat wrong."It's
not all that complicated."Correct. All you need to deny
polygamy or incestuous relations is a simple rational basis. For polygamy,
administrative complexity is sufficient to deny it.
@higv "You can't compare interracial marriage to same gender
marriage"Really? I'm in a mixed-race marriage and have
straight kids and a gay kid. It seems obvious to me that my gay daughter
should have the same civil rights which her sisters enjoy and which my wife and
I enjoy. To do otherwise is immoral and blatantly unconstitutional, no
different from a few decades ago when my own marriage was banned in Utah and in
the confederate states."interracial marriage always has been
between people of the opposite gender and there are biological differences
between a man and a woman for a reason."Your side will have to
prove to a court how those "biological differences" matter in regards to
a legal contract about kinship rights and property rights. So far Utah has
utterly failed to do so, as have all the other states which ban same-sex
marriage. It also sounds like you might have confused marriage with
procreation, or are unaware that neither one is necessary for the other. Or is
it that you simply want to harm the children who are raised by gay couples?
"The Supreme Court on July 18 ruled in favor of Utah"Your
side has lost every single case since the Windsor ruling last June, and lost
virtually every case since 2003. All your side has won are a few temporary
stays which are part of ordinary due process, and even there the lower courts
have found that there's no legitimate reason to grant a stay. No surprise
that the supreme court didn't explain why it granted a stay, given that it
wasn't actually warranted on the merits."Yet too many
people causally connect decriminalization of sodomy and recognition of same-sex
marriage."Once the state can no longer criminalize homosexuality
it has no rational basis to deny gays equal protection of the law in other
areas. Nor can it deny gays a fundamental right like marriage, much less
dictate which consenting adult they might marry. The state has no
more legitimate interest in the relative gender of one's spouse than it
does the relative race of one's spouse, and Utah has been unable to
demonstrate any legitimate interest much less a compelling one.
@Esquire"I ask you, how have the gay marriages that have been
performed here in Utah and in other places changed a single, solitary thing? How
has your life been impacted? How have your family and children been
harmed?"Actually the burden of proof is upon you because you all
are the ones trying to change things.The burden is upon you to show
how things haven't changed.
@ liberal larry"Large corporations, and high tech firms will
slowly cross Utah off of their lists of eligible spots to do business
with...."And that would be a bad thing because?
@ Marxist"What happens to their social security survivorship
rights?"To your question I will ask another. How long is social
security actually going to be around for? I don't count on it for when I
"Unlike sexual relations, marriage is a public act, not a private
act."This is a very good point. I have often read others
opinion about how we heterosexuals shouldn't care what is going on in
someones bedroom and I don't. As stated in the article the laws that
barred homosexuals their freedom to do whatever they please in their private
bedroom.Marriage laws deal with the public space.
What does the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities,"
"due process," and "equal protection" clauses really mean?If these Constitutional clauses mean states cannot make laws against
SSM, it also means states cannot make laws against any other type of marriage
such as polygamy, incestuous relations, etc. It's not all that
complicated.The State of Utah and many other states have made laws
dealing with marriage: All citizens can marry provided they marry someone that
is not already married, of legal age, not closely related, and of the opposite
sex. This law applies to all. And it applies equally to all. It's not
all that complicated.
Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of
society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for
themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once
the government defines marriage and attaches benefits tothat definition,
it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based
limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it.
Assigning a religiousor traditional rationale for a law, does not make it
constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without
other reasons.The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates
our individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the
government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardlysurprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both
freedom of religion and freedom from it.Judge John G. Heyburnin Bourke v Beshear (3:13-CV-750-H)February 14, 2014-------"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 ScaliaUnited States v Windsor(CV12-307, June 26,
The Utah staunch defense of 'traditional' marriage is obscenely
ironic, given that Reynolds vs US of 1878 was exactly the same sort of
'majority' vs 'minority', were the 'majority' at
the time in the US, and where there were no dissenting opinion from the Supreme
Court, believed 'plural marriage' was morally wrong.It
would seem that a new 'precept' has been practiced, 'do unto
others, as has been done unto you'.
American has been successful because we are a nation of laws which are based on
civil content. This is why church and state must be kept separate. Otherwise
we would be having religious wars such as countries in the Middle East. State
Governments need to make decisions based on civil thinking that grants equal
rights to all of their citizens, just like they charge equal taxes to all of
their citizens, fair is fair.
Drew Lewis engages in a currently popular dance, shouting about religious
liberty while demanding that the state enforce his religious views upon other
people. The dance involves a childishly simple contortion, the
confusion of "allow," "enforce," "permit," and forbid,
and a variety of other pairs of opposites. It also involves a fast-step, the
quick hiding of who does what with whom. State don't marry,
People marry. Churches solemnise marriages. Secular states register
marriages. The Drew Lewis dance hides these facts behind a modest skirt, the
skirting of the Constitution and of all dictionaries. The right of
people to marry, one of those unenumerated rights "reserved to the
people" in the excellent U.S. Constitution, does not marry people, does not
force people to marry, does not interfere with any traditional forms of
marriage. Drew Lewis' dance is simple, and attractive to people
who like that sort of thing. Sadly he can't pull it off in the
United States of America. Try Russia maybe, Drew. -dlj.
Many comments have already identified the flaws in this argument. I would add
that states don't sanction individual marriages, but rather they sanction
the institution of marriage. If the former were true, I believe this would make
states liable for allowing marriages they knew/should’ve known would lead
to harm (e.g., marriages involving child abusers or those with a history of
domestic violence).As for the claim that SSM is being forced on the
states, this strikes me as the bully who starts the fight and then cries
"victim" when he thinks he's going to lose. Opponents have brought
this upon themselves and it's disappointing to see them fail to take
responsibility for what they have wrought. It's even more disappointing to
watch them refuse to acknowledge the evidence that proves their beliefs are not
supported by the facts.Religion claims to improve people in
character and in deed. It purports to be a bastion of integrity and truth.
IMO, religion is not a "thing" in itself, but merely a reflection of the
people who follow it. This debate has not reflected well on some.
Calling others "Intellectual elite?"That screams desperation
to me. The radical right seems to identify liberals, minorities,
feminists, Hollywood actors, the media, and intellectual elitists as enemies to
their ultra-conservative agenda.Some advice I would give: if you are
ever called an intellectual elitist, you should consider that a compliment and
not an insult.
Issuing a stay is not the same as supporting the underlying issue. The only
thing the stay tends to indicate is probably that it wouldn't be a
unanimous decision which I don't think any of us expected anyway.
At this time there are 26 responses. Two of them hope the writer is correct. Two
of them agree with the writer. The other 22 disagree with the writer. I've
come to refer to these anti-SSM op-eds as the desperation editorial of the week.
We'll see how the responses trend later this afternoon.
Temporary stay does not a victory make!The writing is on the wall,Utah,and it
ain't in your favor...
Mr. Clark asserts that marriage's "public" nature is the reason why
same-sex couples will not be allowed to marry. He gets that backwards! Because
civil marriage is precisely a "public" act associated with multiple
state and federal benefits and responsibilities, the courts will rule that
tax-paying, law-abiding same sex couples cannot be barred from entering it.Utah should get ready for this new reality.
Sorry Drew...Loving vs Virginia.
You are treating two stays as major court ruling victories? A stay is not a
ruling on the case. It just puts it on hold until the Court can either make a
ruling or not take it at all and let the lower court ruling stand. The problem
is the provisions of Amendment 3. If just defining traditional marriage the
amendment might have had a chance. But it goes too far. It also bans civil
unions or domestic partnerships of any kind which provide marriage benefits and
refuses to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it is legal.
I would certainly hope that the Supreme Court upholds state's rights. What
we have been seeing of late is courts running roughshod over the democratic
principles upon which this nation was founded.
You can't compare interracial marriage to same gender marriage as
interracial marriage always has been between people of the opposite gender and
there are biological differences between a man and a woman for a reason. No
real biological differences besides skin color and some physical characteristics
among races. @Marxist of course the US cannot function on two different
systems of marriage that is why redefining something that always has been
between a man and a woman will hurt society in the long run. Marriage always
has between a man and a woman.
It seems that some who want to loudly proclaim they are against SSM are merely
acting out as modern day Pharisees. It's as though the statement
demonstrates how "worthy" they are. If though one actually believes in
eternity, why spend so muc; time worrying over a non-eternal matter? We line in
a world where genocidal actions are commonplace. We also ignore poisoning the
planet because after all, we need more billionaires. It seems like we have
forgotten who our neighbor is and, that we are supposed to love them; regardless
of who they love.
Wow, I know you believe in your cause, but this borders on fantasy. It proves
that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I don't know how the
current Supreme Court will rule, particularly as it is more political now than
ever, but the rationale in this piece is really shaky and is more wishful
thinking. A couple of additional comments. I ask you, how have the
gay marriages that have been performed here in Utah and in other places changed
a single, solitary thing? How has your life been impacted? How have your
family and children been harmed? Can you even tell a difference? I'm
betting it's more of a concept than reality, all of the sky is falling
talk. Second, calling SSM proponents things like "cultural elitists" is
showing desperation and immaturity. It's just not true, nor is it fair to
slam the majority of Americans who have no problem with it.
Nice try and an interesting premise, but I don't see it flying. Civil
marriage has been considered a contract for a very long time. And while you
would want the religious interpretation of the reasoning behind marriage to
enter into the argument, it does not. People of all exceptions legally marry.
Furthermore, two straight atheists can go to City Hall, obtain a
marriage license, be married by a judge, with no mention of religion, and that
couple's marriage is recognized by that state, all states, the Feds, and
all other countries. Perhaps, a number of religions would not recognize such a
marriage but as we are talking about legal matters, who really cares about the
opinion of some (and certainly not all) religions?No, like it or
not, this is a legal matter (as we are speaking of civil law) and the issue will
be resolved in the courts.As far as your claimed "victory"
by obtaining a stay, I agree with Mage, and it has been a discussion among many
friends. Wouldn't it be ironic that a conservative state such as Utah be
the SCOTUS case that wins marriage equality for the country?
"Marriage...binds a child to a mother and a father".No, it
doesn't.Children are "bound" to their mothers and
fathers even when there is no marriage. Adoption, custody, and guardianship
legally "bind" children to parents. Custody and guardianship are often,
but not always, implicit in marriage.Convoluting parenthood and
marriage is a common but red herring tactic used by those who oppose marriage
So far, in every legal challenge in every single state, US District Courts have
ruled that state constitutional bans on same sex marriage violate the 14th
amendment and are therefore unconstitutional. Casting aspersions on those who
support this action by labeling them as the "intellectual elite" will
not change the fact that opponents to this trend have not yet won a single case
in a Federal court. If you want other precedence, look no further than the US
Supreme Court throwing out Utah's anti-miscegenation amendment in 1963.
There is clear precedent for the Supreme Court to insert themselves into state
laws on marriage. (For those of you not "intellectually elite" enough,
Utah had a law banning mixed race marriages that the Supreme Court threw out as
unconstitutional.) Finally, why was it necessary to label those who
support same sex marriage as the "intellectual elite?" Name-calling
dampens rather than encourages dialogue, and it retrenches thinking by labeling
those who disagree as "other." For someone who is the opinion editor of
a regional newspaper, you should understand that name calling is not the same
thing as building an argument.
I agree that it would be productive to consider what happens if the Supreme
Court upholds Amendment 3. As Mr. Clark points out, some states will likely
vote to allow same-sex marriage. Will Utah give full faith and credit to a
marriage performed in a state where it was democratically allowed? Suppose
someone married in that state moves here to teach at a public university and
eventually retires and dies. Under federal law, the surviving spouse would be
entitled to Social Security benefits. Would the state of Utah pay survivor
"The Supreme Court on July 18 ruled in favor of Utah..."No
they did not. They simply granted a request to wait.
Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure that there is no
requirement that a married couple ever consummate their union, and thanks to
Lawrence v. Texas, two unmarried people can have sex as long as they can both
legally consent. Regardless of the assumptions we naturally make, where's
the valid basis for tying in sexual activity to marriage?And the
DN's editorial staff grows ever more desperate...
As usual, the DN gets the case wrong. This isn't about states' rights.
If gay people are citizens of the United States, how can they be denied
something as fundamental as the right to marry? You seem to suggest that Utah
can pick and choose what rights it's going to allow gay citizens to have.
Doesn't work that way.
Dear Drew Clark:I hope with all my heart that you are right. I
can't imagined any justification for imposing this so-called
"right" on the people of this state or any other.
Another thing, Mr. Clark.You have said: "Our constitutional
rights to life, liberty and property do not require anyone, let alone the state,
to publicly recognize private acts. A truer live-and-let-live attitude permits
consensual private activity without coercing public acceptance."Is not the argument that atheists and other non-believers make for Christmas
symbols and other forms of Christian observances? If you wish to be consistent
in your views, please work your way out of that conundrum.
If your opinion on the matter would carry the majority in a Supreme Court
ruling, how do you reconcile one state allowing same sex marriage and another
not. Aren't states required to recognize legal acts of another? Do you
wish for state A to refuse to recognize state B's acts, in a pique of anger
over SSM? It could happen, you know. Some states are controlled by quite
liberal/progressive governors, legislators and electorates who just might take
that step. Another good argument against this gentleman's
opinion might be the Catholic church. It is against Church dogma to divorce.
Yet the Catholic church is forced to recognize and deal with civil divorce. The
Catholic church has been in business for a long time, and maybe the good people
of Utah ought to emulate the Catholic church and reconcile themselves with the
fact that same sex marriage will become quite common, and may indeed become the
law of the land.
Don't hold your breath Drew, same sex marriage is a matter of when, not if
in Utah. The courts ruled that Utah's same sex marriage ban was
unconstitutional. They also granted two stays: 1. on implementing decisions
overturning Utah's ban on gay marriage. 2. on recognition of gay marriages
that took place under the ban. Lawrence ('03) reversed a ruling allowing
states to regulate bedroom activity, "Bowers ('86) was not correct when
it was decided, and it is not correct today." Even if Justice Scalia
wrangles a victory (coalition with Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy), it will
likely be reversed within a decade or two as it was in Lawrence. Utah's ban
fundamentally conflicts with the 14th amendment, and in order to fulfill this
anti-gay marriage fantasy in-perpetuity, the court would need to undo Loving v.
Virginia and refined equal protection. Radical elements on this court, led by
Scalia, will do handstands to comply with your wish, but they are fighting
precedent and the tide of history. This argument seem more geared to the
benefits of a theocracy than the need to follow the equal protection provisions
of the 14th amendment.
"What happens if the Supreme Court upholds Utah’s marriage
laws?"I can tell you exactly what will happen. Utah will strut,
and crow about the wonderfulness of their moral victory, but the celebration
will be short lived.Large corporations, and high tech firms will
slowly cross Utah off of their lists of eligible spots to do business with, and
Utah business leaders will be in a panic.Utah's legislators
will quietly find a way to reverse Utah's discriminatory laws, or face the
prospect of becoming an economic, and social backwater.
"What happens if the Supreme Court upholds Utah’s marriage
laws?"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward
From the piece: "Changing a core aspect of marriage cannot be forced upon a
state under the guise of the 14th Amendment." This is flat our
wrong as the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia.
Funny, it seems the federal government had no trouble at all trumping
Utah's marriage laws....back around 1887 or so.
I see where you are coming from Drew, but I wonder if the Supreme Court
isn't playing chess while Utah leadership plays checkers? I believe key
members of the Supreme Court want to rule on Kitchen v. Herbert, and they
don't want Utah to drop our appeal like other Republican States did when
they came to the conclusion their cases would fail on higher appeal. SCOTUS is
simply granting stays now in order to reel us in. The Supreme Court has struck
down state defined marriage before when they found certain state definitions of
marriage to be discriminatory (Loving v. Virginia). Utah once had a law defining
marriage as between a man and woman of the same race only - but it was
unconstitutional. This Kitchen v. Herbert case bears too many similarities to
Loving to realistically expect the Supreme Court to uphold Utah's current
definition of marriage. With all due respect to you as an opinion writer, over
20 state and federal judges trained in constitutional law, and of both political
parties have ruled in disagreement with you in just the last 6 months alone (at
least one of those judges - Judge Kimball - was a BYU Law graduate).
Okay, let's kick your can for a minute. If states get decide who gets to
call themselves married, as you maintain, is anyone entitled to be legally
married outside the state that they were married in? Does any adjacent state
have to recognise any Utah marriage? Marriage is just contract law, and it
should be recognised nation wide. Any other concept will just make it worse.
One of the reasons I remain troubled by the Deseret News' position is that
I don't see how different marriage laws from state to state can be managed
in the "United" States. Say an SSM couple moves from a state allowing
SSM to Utah. What happens to their social security survivorship rights? Say
they entered into contractual arrangements in the state of origin as a couple,
are those contracts, say for a house or car, now null and void? What about
pension and/or 401K survivor benefits? Are they then shredded? This
doesn't even get to the disruption involved if there are any kids
involved.I believe two systems of marriage will break up the United
States. We are now the owners of the world's #2 economy - I think we should
hang together. I'm happy to hear any and all thoughts on this