Quantcast
Utah

Plaintiffs in Utah gay marriage case will ask Supreme Court to hear state's appeal

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hank Jr Draper, UT
    Aug. 11, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    Be careful what you ask for......

  • abtrumpet Provo, UT
    Aug. 9, 2014 10:53 p.m.

    @Baccus0902

    I'll explain for him. He created us so that we could obtain bodies, walk by faith and not by sight and eventually become like him. He ordained the family to help us on this path. Also, he gave us commandments to protect the family and his children. The living of these commandments is essential for happiness now and in the eternities.

  • abtrumpet Provo, UT
    Aug. 9, 2014 10:45 p.m.

    Bob K,

    Man's true nature is not based on their sexual attractions, but on their inherent worth as a child of God. The LDS Church doesn't teach that anyone has to spend eternity alone, but one cannot expect to break the commandments in this life and receive the blessings of God in the next.

    God has given man his commandments, and they do not change. The Law of Chastity is one of these. A full understanding of his plan of salvation is necessary to understand why this is. I don't have room to explain it here, but it is important to remember that God does not think the way we do. He does not "change with the wind." Moreover, acceptance of immorality as the norm is not going to change God's commandments.

    This isn't a matter of equality. All are equal under the law. This is a matter of deciding to redefine an age-old institution that has benefited mankind for millennia to fit an ever-expanding definition of what is acceptable behavior.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Aug. 9, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards
    Mike, this is NOT anew idea. The same as the slave's dream of freedom was not born with Abraham Lincoln.

    You talk about the "Creator" as if you new his mind. Pretty arrogant if you ask me. But let me play with that notion. If the "Creator" doesn't want homosexual couples, can you explain why:
    1.- he "created" homosexuals
    2.- he "created" sexual drive as one of the main drives for humans.
    3.- Could he have "created" some people without sexual desires. Yes, he could and he did.
    4.- Have you noticed that throughout history homosexuals have made unique contributions? Perhaps we were "created" for that. And he created other of us, because " is not good for man to be alone".

    Mike, I am a happy homosexual and thank my "creator" for everything he has given me and done in my life, even through this painful process he shows his love everyday.... or dDo you think this change of mind across the land is because we LGBT are being so persuasive?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 8, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    Those 1.6% of the population who are trying to convince the 98.4% of the rest of us that they have a "new" idea have seemed to fallen victim to their own propaganda. Now they're insisting that because they reject the fact that they have the same rights as all other citizens of the United States, I.e. the right given them by our Creator to marry some of the opposite sex regardless of race, religion or national origin, that somehow the 14th Amendment "gives" them rights. Government has no "rights" to give. It never has and it never will.

    They also forget that everyone of them has a mother and everyone of them has a father. Do they really claim that the 1.6 who practice same-sex sex have found something that helps society and something that promotes the purposes of family?w

    It's time the Court sat everyone down and explained that it will not be party to same-sex propaganda nor will it destroy the family because 1.6% of the population is trying to change the Constitution to justify their same-sex attraction.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 8:03 p.m.

    @Constitutionalist

    So when you are accusing me "laws don't matter", you are not out of context.
    but when I pointed out your position would lead to tolerate legislated segregation, I am out of context? how convenient!

    SSM and interracial marriage are two different issues, but share many similarities.
    In the past, they were both banned by law, rejected by general public, condemned by religious community as ungodly unnatural; and gradually, more and more states, and people, especially young people, began to accept same sex couples' right to marry, just like accepting interracial couples' right to marriage in the past.

    "why do you have so little respect for what marriage is"

    So according to you, people who support SSM "have little respect for what marriage is"?
    Do you know just in the past 2 years, the number of marriage equality states has jumped from 6 to 19, and still counting?
    Do you know since 2010, majority of American people support SSM, and among young people, 70-80% support SSM?
    Do you know there is a unbroken streak of 30+ wins in court for SSM?

    Now in your opinion, we ALL "have little respect for what marriage is"? how self-righteous of you!

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Aug. 8, 2014 6:58 p.m.

    Mike Richards 3:09 p.m.

    We've been down this road before, Mike. Religion is based on *nothing* but feelings, but it still gets constitutional protection. You can love love same-sex marriage or hate it, but at least has tangible results that can be measured in the real world. All you have going for your side of this argument is "Because God said so."

  • riverofsun St.George, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    Hope this will be settled soon.
    We are all quite used to the political hate day after day posted in the comments on the DN.
    Stomach wrenching to hear such hate about people who are good citizens, work hard, and live to provide a good home for their children.
    This lack of understanding and tolerance has turned to cruelty and hatred as it has been passed down from parents to children for decades.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    wrz,

    Let me explain...maybe a "for instance" story would help you understand.

    For instance, lets say that two lesbians are raising a child. One has given birth to this child through IVF. The other parent is the one working to support these two. They have been together for 15 years.
    On the way home from work one day, she is in an accident. She is in a coma. Her partner cannot make any health decisions because the working partner's parents are fighting her in court as the closest relatives and they think they should be able to make these decisions. Despite a power of attorney, the court decides that amendment 3 supersedes the power of attorney because it looks too much like a "marriage" to be legal.

    The working partner dies. Her parents claim half of the house as theirs, causing the mother and her child to sell the house and move.

    The mother and child will not receive any SS benefits or pension from the departed partner, since the child could not be adopted by the partner here in Utah.

    No harm done, right?

    A simple marriage license would alleviate all these problems.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    @Ranch:

    "You're making the mistaken assumption that children are "disadvantaged" by being raised by an LGBT couple."

    I guess that may be a matter of opinion. Children have the best advantage when raised by their biological mother and father. Surrogates, such as adoptive and step parents do their best, but this is still not the ideal.

    "How does denying marriage to LGBT couples ensure that "every child has a mom and dad?"

    That's not the point. People aren't perfect, so parents often split up, causing emotional trauma to their children. This lack of perfection does not mean that we should condone and legally endorse some relationships that are obviously flawed, such as same-sex parenting.

    "Homosexual women and homosexual men CAN have children." OK, so take my words out of the context in which they were offered. Certainly a homosexual man can still be sexually active with a woman, and thereby father a child, and visa versa. But same-sex couples cannot have children with each other.

    "in a household filled with bigotry"

    You are erroneously equating bigotry with an abhorrence for moral deviance. You are using the word 'bigot' to call evil, good, and good, evil.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 8, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    @Ranch:
    "--- Legal protections. Why shouldn't LGBT couples get the same legal protections for our families that you get for yours?"

    If the family belongs to you through birth or by legal adoption you have all the legal protection that anyone else has. Marriage adds nothing to the protection that I'm aware of. If you feel differently, please elucidate.

    "Are you really that selfish?"

    Sometimes.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    @USU-Logan:

    Your response to me @12:47 took my statement totally out of context. There is no point in continuing the conversation when this happens.

    But I'll make a point anyway, although you'll probably not read this point any more than your read the last one. You can't equate same-sex marriage issues to interracial marriage. Interracial marriages still involve one man and one woman. That's what marriage is. Same-sex marriage is not a marriage at all. It is an attempt to totally dismantle the word 'marriage' and reconstruct it according to your political whims. I might ask, why do you have so little respect for what marriage is, that you want to destroy it by dismantling it and totally changing its very purpose and nature?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 8, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    Where in the Constitution does it say that "feelings" are the basis for equality? No one would accept a premise that "feeling" poor is reason enough to steal. No one would accept a premise that "feeling" inferior is reason to destroy anyone who you "feel" is your superior.

    No one should ever accept a premise that "feelings" towards someone of the same sex is a reason to redefine "marriage", to redefine "family" or to redefine what is acceptable to teach children.

    We are not paid according to our feelings. No one tries to use the 14th Amendment to force equality in wages.

    We are not "housed" according to our feelings. No one tries to force us to live in identical houses because of the 14th Amendment.

    Nothing in law is dictated by "feelings". That's why we have law. No man is discriminated against if he wants to marry someone of the opposite sex nor is any woman. No one is discriminated against for honoring the purposes for which our bodies were created. Should the 1.6% who have decided to practice same-sex sex redefine "marriage", "family" and the proper education of children?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    Constitutionalist says:
    "@Ranch:

    Why shouldn't children receive legal protection from being disadvantaged by being raised by LGBT couples?"

    --- You're making the mistaken assumption that children are "disadvantaged" by being raised by an LGBT couple.

    "Every child deserves to be raised by a mom and a dad."

    --- How does denying marriage to LGBT couples ensure that "every child has a mom and dad"? (Hint: it doesn't).

    Homosexual women and homosexual men CAN have children. Maybe this is news to you.

    "Are you really so selfish, to state that the child is meaningless here, and only the selfish desires of the 'partners' should be considered?"

    --- I hope you aren't so selfish as to have/raise children in a household filled with bigotry.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    @Constitutionalist
    "I prefer to live under the rule of law as established by legislatures. They don't tend to be swayed as easily by media spin."

    So just because interracial marriage ban was the law, segregation was the law, you would rather live under such rule of law established by legislatures?
    Even if there were so many clear-sighted media rightly pointed out or "spin" those laws were discriminatory?

    If those laws were not struck down by the court, you think Southern states would have been desegregated soon?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Aug. 8, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    @ Confused

    I Googled a section of your comment and it led to another person's work. You should cite your sources or at least enclose the copied language in quotation marks.

  • Cletus from Coalville Coalville, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    This is good because it will help people who love each other and want to marry family members and marry multiple people at the time. Why shouldn't group marriage, polygamy, and inter-family marriage get the same legal protections? All forms of discrimination are wrong.

  • CMO Beaver Beaver, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    everyone who is pro same sex marriage thinks the answer that they desire will be found in the supreme court... careful what you wish for, the court can be very subtle and they have a penchant for staying away from legislating from the bench.. it doesn't really matter what all of these lower court judges think in the end.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    @Ranch:

    Why shouldn't children receive legal protection from being disadvantaged by being raised by LGBT couples?

    Every child deserves to be raised by a mom and a dad. Homosexual women and homosexual men cannot have children. Maybe this is news to you.

    Yes, some men or women have had children, and then emotionally damaged their child by divorcing their spouse. Should they be legally allowed to damage the child further by marrying a person of the same sex? Heaven forbid. Or in the case of people who do not believe in heaven, Society forbid.

    Are you really so selfish, to state that the child is meaningless here, and only the selfish desires of the 'partners' should be considered?

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    @USU-Logan:

    "it excludes the possibility of civil union too. even if many Utahns now support civil union, Amendment 3 makes it impossible."

    If I read your thought correctly, you are stating that laws don't matter. What matters to you in the governance of our society, is opinion polls. It sounds like we should do away with legislatures, and courts, and just have polls conducted from time to time.

    If a group gets the ear of the media, and they put a positive spin on the desire of that group, then public opinion will soon support that view and it will soon be law.

    I think I prefer to live under the rule of law as established by legislatures. They don't tend to be swayed as easily by media spin.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    @wrz;

    "Explain why they need marriage? Children can be raised just fine without marriage. Even single people raise children."

    --- Legal protections. Why shouldn't LGBT couples get the same legal protections for our familes that you get for yours? Are you really that selfish?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    "The state contends that ruling deprives Utah voters of their right to define marriage as they overwhelmingly did in passing Amendment 3 a decade ago."

    --- Utah voters did not have the right to pass any amendment that restricted the Civil Rights of LGBT American citizens; even to the extent of "defining marriage".

    @illuminated;

    "So if it removed the clause excluding civil unions, you would agree with Amendment 3? "

    --- At this point, absolutely not!

    1) You would have to VOTE to amend Amendment 3 anyway.
    2) You weren't willing to allow civil unions when you passed A3, now there is no reason whatsoever why we should accept some lesser term now that you're losing the battle in the courts.
    3) Separate is not equal

    Frankly, I think you're assessment is wrong. SCOTUS knows which way the wind is blowing; additionally, refusal to allow SSM creates a condition where an LGBT couple is married, divorced, married, divorced, married, divorced again as they travel from state to state; something that DOES NOT happen to straight couples.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Aug. 8, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    It seems that Utah is focused in making nationwide history.

    If the Utah case goes to the SCOTUS and the SC rules in favor of equality and declares SSM legal in our country, what impact will this have around the world?

    The LDS church have thousands of missionaries around the world who will be questioned about SSM and Utah. Obviously the missionaries will state the position of the church. But just having the conversation is a huge step for the whole world in the right direction.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    Aug. 8, 2014 2:09 a.m.

    FatherOfFour
    WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    "Utah had laws preventing interracial marriage from 1852-1963."

    --If Utah had gotten rid of that law 10 years sooner, it would have been embarrassingly late for a non-slave State.

    All this has to do with the Mormon dilemma: there are at least 100,000 Gays in mormon families in Utah, some too young to have realized it. All these people are raised in a marriage-centered culture.
    --- Think of that 13 year old who is hating himself/herself because to follow his true nature means that he is supposed to spend not only this life, but all eternity, alone.

    The lds have been willing to overlook the hurt to many hundreds of thousands of Americans, and to their own family members, because they believe God has not given them direction to do differently.

    I think that the wave of acceptance of equality that has swept most of the country (and something like 80% of the young, is a sign that God says He was ready.

    If Utah does not want to be thought of as equivalent to Mississippi and Alabama, it needs to move on this issue.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Aug. 7, 2014 5:44 p.m.

    @illuminated
    "If I were a SSM supporter, I would be absolutely terrified that this is going to the SC."

    I suggest you read Scalia's irate dissent in Windsor to learn why he was so upset. The Windsor ruling is why your side is losing unanimously. Something like 34 courts have now ruled against you in the last years, and not a single one has ruled in your favor. Windsor is why.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 7, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    @FatherOfFour:
    "Depends on what you consider a child. Myself, I think of those in their 20's as children."

    Sometimes my spouse acts childish.

    "Young children cannot sign a legal contract, like those to buy a car, rent an apartment, or a contract with the state such as a marriage license."

    Change the law so they can sign a marriage license... with attestations by an adult.

    "Personally I would have no problem with the legalization of polygamy."

    I think alotta young bucks in town would cry foul if some rich dude gathered up all the young fair maidens and took them to wife.

    "I have a neighbor who has three wives and many children."

    That's a little selfish, isn't it?

    @MtnDewer:

    "It is easy to see the harm that can fall upon the children of any close relative that may marry."

    What harm?

    "...explain to me the harm in allowing two lesbians to marry that are raising children."

    Explain why they need marriage? Children can be raised just fine without marriage. Even single people raise children.

    "How about two gay men who have lived together for 40 years?"

    Same question.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    wrz,

    Whenever we (as the government) place a restriction upon a citizen or group of citizens, we must have a reason for taking their freedom away.

    It is easy to see why a blind man is restricted from getting a driver's license - it is easy to see the harm that can come from that.

    It is also easy to see why a child under the age of 15 (that is Utah's law, btw) must have parental approval before they are allowed to marry. It is easy to see the harm that can fall upon the children of any close relative that may marry.

    Now, explain to me the harm in allowing two lesbians to marry that are raising children. Who is harmed by allowing them to marry? Will keeping them from marrying cause less harm to them or more harm to this family? How is anyone else harmed?

    How about two gay men who have lived together for 40 years? What harm can come from allowing these two men to marry? Who is harmed and how?

    Thanks for your reply.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 4:20 p.m.

    @wrz,

    Depends on what you consider a child. Myself, I think of those in their 20's as children. In Utah you can legally get married at the age of 15. Young children cannot sign a legal contract, like those to buy a car, rent an apartment, or a contract with the state such as a marriage license. Those who opposed interracial marriage also warned against the same slippery slope. Personally I would have no problem with the legalization of polygamy. I have a neighbor who has three wives and many children. They are wonderful, nice, great people. Utah also recognizes some marriages that are not legal here but are in other states. You cannot marry your 1st cousin in Utah. But you can drive to Colorado, marry your 1st cousin there, and drive back. And Utah will still recognize you as legally married.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    MtnDewer,
    You that misunderstands the 10th admendment....

    Civil marriage laws are enactments authorizing the grant of special state benefits for certain kinds of unions. In other words, they give to people in qualifying relationships what the Framers called “privileges and immunities”—an 18th century legal phrase that refers to benefits bestowed by government on some people to the exclusion of others.

    American governments traditionally have conceded the “privileges and immunities” of civil marriage only to a social union complying with certain exacting requirements. With some variations, state laws traditionally require that the union be (1) of a man and a woman, (2) who undergo certain procedures in advance, (3) obtain a valid license, (4) have consented, (5) are above a certain age, (6) are not married to anyone else, (7) are not too closely related to each other, and (8) meet certain other requirements of ceremony and/or cohabitation.

    States traditionally have excluded from special benefits all other groupings—including, but not limited to, same-sex marriages, polygamous marriages, polyandric marriages, other plural clusters, designated intra-family unions (e.g., brother/sister and uncle/niece), and unions that are unlicensed or that otherwise fail to meet the states’ rules.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 7, 2014 4:04 p.m.

    Web Geek
    "I think both sides of the debate can agree on this one thing: We need a nationwide ruling on gay marriage."

    We need a national ruling in order to simply the application of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the US Constitution.

    And, if SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, we need to understand completely how the court came to that conclusion... not just citation of the 14th Amendment. Because if the 14th Amendment supports SSM it must also support all other marriage arrangements that can be conjured by mankind... such as polygamy, siblings and other close relatives, and even children.

    And don't tell me that children can't marry. History is replete with such marriages. But, if you have trouble with children marrying then just strike it from the list of marriages in the above paragraph.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    Utah had laws preventing interracial marriage from 1852-1963. When that was overturned, I have to wonder if Utah fought this hard then too.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    illuminated: First off, you are reading the 10th amendment wrong. It states right in there that the states or the people can have the powers not delegated to the federal government as long as they obey the constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (that is the Constitution, btw) to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    That means that the states must not pass any law regarding these powers that are unconstitutional.

    Secondly, the state definitely does not have the right to keep an institution "sacred." That is putting some religious beliefs above others or those who do not have any religious beliefs. We can show that is unconstitutional right in Amendment #1, right?

    If I remember my Civil War history, states rights were defeated by the Union. (19th Century blood was spilt for that victory.)

    The Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. Our State Constitution also states that fact. Now, we just need to learn how we can enjoy some rights and privileges that we will not allow other Americans of enjoying-- and still say we are following the constitution.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    Aug. 7, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    How exactly does preventing gay parents who are raising a family from marrying support families?

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    @MtnDewer

    "If it isn't struck down now, by the time this new generation is grown, our children will vote to abolish this bad amendment to our state Constitution. It is just a matter of time...They will change this if we, their parents are too chicken."

    Even you don't sound too confident with the SC ruling on this. Good sign. If they do in fact side with the 10th Amendment, it will mean you will need a 2/3 vote from the states to add an amendment allowing an override of the 10th on marriage law. All I can say is...good luck with that. ;)

    "They are not being taught to fear and hate those who are different, but to accept."

    Do you really think people still buy this straw-man? It's not about hate, man, it's about states having the right to keep an institution sacred. It's about Federalism, the concept that the best blood of the 18th century died for. We're not a Democracy, each person does not get to decide what is best. We are a Representative Republic with state laws and leaders that are voted upon by, yes, the -majority-.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    illuminated,

    There is nothing to be afraid of. If it isn't struck down now, by the time this new generation is grown (yes, even in Utah), our children will vote to abolish this bad amendment to our state Constitution. It is just a matter of time.

    They are not being taught to fear and hate those who are different, but to accept. They know too many people (some of whom are related to them) who are not scary or to be feared. They will change this if we, their parents are too chicken.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 2:38 p.m.

    @illuminated
    "So if it removed the clause excluding civil unions, you would agree with Amendment 3?"

    the point is, because there is already such a clause, Amendment 3 is definitely unconstitutional.
    if you want to have another constitution amendment without the clause excluding civil unions, that is a different issue.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    "NO Mr. AG, Amendment 3 did more than simply banning SSM, or "defining or recognizing marriage only as the legal union between a man and a woman", it excludes the possibility of civil union too. even if many Utahns now support civil union, Amendment 3 makes it impossible.

    That fact alone is an invitation of striking down Amendment 3."

    So if it removed the clause excluding civil unions, you would agree with Amendment 3?

    I think most people are assuming that the SC will rule in favor of the SSM side and strike down state amendments banning gay marriage. They say Utah will, ironically, be the force to allow SSM across the entire country.

    I actually think this will go the other direction. I think Utah will be responsible for upholding State's Rights across the country. Other than the flubbed first ObamaCare ruling, the SC has been ruling very Conservatively since then, including the recent strike down of the ObamaCare benefits from the federal marketplace and the Hobby Lobby ruling.

    If I were a SSM supporter, I would be absolutely terrified that this is going to the SC. A poor strategy on their part for letting it get this far.

  • mufasta American Fork, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    Well said Web Geek.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 7, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    Well, I feel vindicated. I wrote a rather scathing comment the other day, which didn't make it into print, criticizing Utah's SCOTUS petition (lead attorney: Gene Schaerr). Reading the petition, I was struck with how singularly ineffective those recycled legal arguments have been thus far. I closed with, "those opposed to marriage equality better hope SCOTUS doesn't accept this petition. Any other states' would probably be better for your cause."

    Apparently, the Plaintiffs' attorneys must have read the brief and come to the same conclusion.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    Utah asked the Supreme Court to answer a single question: "Whether the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from defining or recognizing marriage only as the legal union between a man and a woman."

    ===

    NO Mr. AG, Amendment 3 did more than simply banning SSM, or "defining or recognizing marriage only as the legal union between a man and a woman", it excludes the possibility of civil union too. even if many Utahns now support civil union, Amendment 3 makes it impossible.

    That fact alone is an invitation of striking down Amendment 3.

  • Web Geek Lehi, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    I think both sides of the debate can agree on this one thing: We need a nationwide ruling on gay marriage.