Quantcast
Utah

Court sets deadline for Utah appeal in gay marriage recognition case

Comments

Return To Article
  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Aug. 16, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    Further ...
    Re: "Raising children help one to be less self centered and more charitable and loving toward others who are different than themselves."

    And LGBTQ folk aren't capable of doing that?

    I read the following line elsewhere, and it bears repeating here: "The Stupids act like ejaculation and ovulation are the hard parts of parenting."

    Sorry, but merely being heterosexual is NO guarantee of having good parenting skills.

    BUT ... the topic is MARRIAGE, not parenthood. Please stop confusing/conflating the two.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Aug. 16, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    @ The Reader,

    Re: "Because of the difficulty of same sex married couples to get pregnant and have children there could in time be a serious decline in the population ..."

    Disprovable hyperbolic nonsense. Allowing same-gender couples to have their relationships recognized equally will not stop or prevent heterosexuals - married or NOT - from making babies. It doesn't work that way. I have been legally married for well over a decade, and in that time, tens upon tens of thousands of heterosexuals have reproduced.

    Your assertion also ignores that procreation is not a requirement of marriage ... for anyone! Heck, the State doesn't even INQUIRE as to a couple's ability (NOR their intention) to procreate when they apply for a marriage license.

    A little LOGIC, please.

    Re: "It takes two of opposite sex to have children."

    So? If having children were a requirement of marriage, you might have a valid point. It isn't and you don't. You seem to have forgotten about adoption. There are tens of thousands of LGBTQ citizens (some married, some not) who are raising children they have adopted because the children were ABANDONED or had them taken away FROM heterosexuals as unfit parents.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Aug. 15, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    @panamadesnews: "That is how I feel and my feelings will never change, no matter what you or anyone else says."

    Newsflash: no one is trying to change your "feelings". This really isn't about your "feelings" at all. This issue is concerned with secular law involving civil rights of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, the ones who have been subjected to legal discrimination for decades.

    This legal form of bigotry and discrimination is coming to an end.

    Those who want to codify their dogma-sourced beliefs into civil laws need to come to grips with the fact that not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringement on your freedoms.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 14, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    @Born that way

    Let's put a different spin on it and see what you think:

    "The straight people of Utah just need to continue throwing good money after bad to protect their "special rights" and deny equal rights to others they deem all wrong, and their personal vision of society-framed by their religious dogma-must rule supreme at the expense of the US Constitution...because freedom is only important if it conforms to our own personal values and as long as we get exactly what we want."

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 14, 2014 5:23 p.m.

    @the Reader

    "Because of the difficulty of same sex married couples to get pregnant and have children there could in time be a serious decline in the population needed to pay for services such as roads, police, fire courts hospitals"

    Well, that's just plain silly. Aside from the absurd suggestion that SSM will somehow reduce the numbers of heterosexuals now choosing to reproduce, it implies that gays and lesbians cannot reproduce. They can.

  • netsrik Draper, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 4:50 p.m.

    @TheReader
    Is same sex marriage going to cause sterility in straight couples? Even if these same sex couples choose not to adopt or use other means to have a child, it's not going to stop anyone else from having children.

  • Born that Way Layton, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    The people of Utah just need to completely abandon their values and stop wasting tax payer money, because I know they're all wrong, and my personal vision of society must rule supreme and any other deviations are not only wrong, but should be criminalized... because freedom is only important if it conforms to my own personal values and as long as I get exactly what I want.

  • rdean92 Los Angeles, CA
    Aug. 13, 2014 3:50 p.m.

    @panamadesnews

    Pet? Really? Once an argument includes a pet, you no longer have any honor or integrity and any opinions you have become a joke. Perhaps you are projecting your own fear on something you do not understand or are completely ignorant about. No one, and I mean no one (from the people I know who argue marriage equality) have implied, wished, stated, indicated, etc. that a pet should be considered in the equation. It is a simple right that is being sought after, marriage equality between two consenting adults, PERIOD. Worry about polygamists when they decide to wander into the debate about marriage. Otherwise, what two consenting adults choose to do behind a private door is frankly private. Gay, straight or otherwise. Unless you personally plan to stay in Utah or only plan to visit states that ban marriage equality, you too will have to accept marriage where it is legal, that is the law. The can of worms is here to stay. Enjoy the bigotry while you can.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    Laura Bilington: "Tell me, when you hear the word 'Selma', what's the first thing people think of?"

    Is it the ribs at Lannie's Bar-B-Q Spot?

    Oh, right, the Edmund Pettus Bridge and Bloody Sunday.

    Loved the "pandership" neologism, BTW.

    @wrz (8/12, 8:57 pm): You miss the point entirely. States have reciprocity for certain things and not for others (drivers licenses, yes; hunting licenses, no; professional licenses and gun permits, maybe). If states have reciprocity for some marriages (e.g. first cousins) then they should have reciprocity for all. You ask why you would need to tell the state you were in a first cousin or same sex marriage. Well, it would be fraudulent to file a joint tax return if you were not in a legal marriage recognized by the state. (I suspect the reason the tax commission backed down last December on the SSM issue and joint returns was that they didn't want to have to audit every joint return filed by couples named Pat and Dana, Lynn and Chris, Terry and Jordan, etc.) Other state benefits would also be at risk (inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.).

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    Aug. 13, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    panamadesnews designating a separate category to apply to gay couples won't, and hasn't worked. The fact is that anything other than marriage is not equal treatment. This is something we've known in the US at least since the 60s. That said, these laws affect only civil marriage. Churches in the US are not required to perform or sanction marriages for anyone they choose not to.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    @ panamadesnews: Utah's Amendment 3 clearly states, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    As UnderstandsMath stated, it doesn't matter what you call them, you can't have them in Utah.

    Ten years ago, when Amendment 3 was being debated, many in the LGBT community and their allies specifically asked that the second part of the amendment not be included - they would have been very happy to settle for and accept "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" but they were told they couldn't have those either.

    Now, they are the ones winning. Why should they settle for less now?

    And, just so you know, there are many with great influence in Utah politics (such as the Eagle Forum) who still do not think even civil unions or domestic partnerships should be available for same-sex couples.

    Again, why should same-sex couples have to settle when their previous compromise was rejected and those in power are still showing no willingness to compromise? Marriage equality is winning. Any chance to slow it down was thrown out the window 10 years ago.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    @RoundelRider

    You know, interracial marriage used to be regarded as ungodly, unnatural. Fortunately, people gradually were "enlightened" and accepted interracial couples' right to marriage, although it took decades for that transition.

    We are on the similar path right now towards same sex couples' right to marriage. Majority of American people already support SSM, and among young people, 70-80% support SSM. There are also more and more church denominations embracing marriage equality.

    So maybe there is such thing as good luck.

  • RoundelRider Mapleton, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    So xert, what you're saying is that what the less enlightened are being "enlightened" about is that immorality is the new morality - in the name of tolerance, and godlessness is the new religion. Good luck with that.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 13, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    @panamadesnews writes "Let them..use whatever term they would like..other than marriage. These non-traditional partnerships are not marriages and never will be."

    Serious question: What does the term marriage mean to you?

    To me it means two unrelated adults who commit to live together for life, to share the good times and bad times together, to take care of each other, emotionally and physically, in sickness and in health. They may choose to have or adopt children, or they may not.

    I assume you think that it's OK for a man and woman to get married even if they are unable to have a sexual relationship, correct? Or if the man becomes impotent after twenty or forty years, but they want to stay together, this is still OK with you?

    Gay people are not "them" or "those people"-- term indicate something distant or alien. They are your siblings, your children and your neighbors. They want marriage for the same reasons you wanted it.

    The Lutheran church is a church. The Mormon church is a church, not a "church". And a same sex marriage is a marriage, not a "marriage".

    Fairness demands no less.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    Aug. 13, 2014 6:56 a.m.

    The federal government already recognizes those marriages. Utah needs to wake up and smell the Postum.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 6:49 a.m.

    In similar news the United Church of Christ has filed a lawsuit against North Carolina seeking to overturn that state's gay marriage ban. The United Church of Christ allows and performs same-sex marriages and says that the ban against it is a violation of their freedom of religion. This is applicable here in Utah as well, where 21 different religious denominations have come out in support of marriage equality, but the state still bans it.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Aug. 13, 2014 6:46 a.m.

    to panamadesnews

    You said: "That is how I feel and my feelings will never change, no matter what you or anyone else says" in reference to same sex marriage and your opposition to it.

    Perhaps, then you fully understand why some people will label you (perhaps unfairly) with an unpleasant epithet that indicates a fair amount of scorn. They don't "feel" the same way and will never change "no matter what you or anyone says".

    If you would lighten up a bit, and just say that you don't understand same sex marriage and will never partake of such a practice, then I think those who have a differing opinion would not be hostile towards your attitudes. Such are the common courtesies of civilization that hold us together.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 13, 2014 4:05 a.m.

    There is leadership, Mr. Herbert, and there is what you might call "pandership".

    Do you really want the name "Herbert" to be remembered in the history books for your dogged dragging out the process of denying civil rights to those 1300 couples?

    Don't believe me? Tell me, when you hear the word "Selma", what's the first thing people think of? (Hint: It isn't the annual Butterfly Festival).

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Aug. 12, 2014 11:08 p.m.

    So Utah only has one month to come up with a NEW argument to justify why it won't recognize marriages which it lawfully granted, even though no court in the history of the US has ever reversed a marriage which was lawful at the time it was granted?

    Even more awkward for Herbert, Reyes and Schaerr is the fact that Utah explicitly prohibits retroactive laws. So even though Amendment 3 was restored due to the stay, it cannot impact those lawfully granted marriages.

    I'm glad it's Utah's money being wasted and not mine.

  • xert Santa Monica, CA
    Aug. 12, 2014 10:34 p.m.

    Just as the names of Mississippii, Alabama and South Carolina will forever be remembered as the ones who needed to be taken by the hand and led kicking and screaming into recognition of the basic human rights of their minority citizens, I will be a little sad to watch as my home state is tagged forever with being the place where the fight against marriage equality met its Waterloo. But I will be proud to claim that I was one of many who fought and won against the intolerance of so many of my, shall we say, less enlightened family, friends and neighbors and helped my beloved state grow. First Obamacare and now this. Don't tell me things haven't changed since we elected Mr. Obama!

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    Understands Math wrote: Ah, but you forget that Utah's Amendment 3 specifically bans *any* legal recognition of same-sex relationships. So giving them a 'separate but equal' name would not have changed anything in Utah

    But "union" is a different word than "marriage", just as a gay/lesbian partnership is different than a heterosexual one. Let them be called unions or whatever term they would like to use other than marriage. These non-traditional partnerships are not marriages and never will be. That is how I feel and my feelings will never change, no matter what you or anyone else says.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 12, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    @wrz wrote: "I think you might be right. That August body can't seem to stay on page. They're acting like politicians... or third graders."

    I don't know which August body you are referring to (I mentioned both the courts and the legislature), so I'll just assume you meant the congress and agree with you that 'third graders' is an apt comparison.

    @panamadesnews wrote "I believe this whole can of worms would go away if the courts were to designate gay & lesbian partnerships not as "marriages" but as "unions"."

    Ah, but you forget that Utah's Amendment 3 specifically bans *any* legal recognition of same-sex relationships. So giving them a 'separate but equal' name would not have changed anything in Utah.

    "Once this traditionalism is changed, marriage is opened up to whatever kinds of partnerships, 4 men and a woman, or vice-versa, or whatever. Think about it."

    After thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that that's a Slippery Slope fallacy.

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 9:23 p.m.

    I believe this whole can of worms would go away if the courts were to designate gay & lesbian partnerships not as "marriages" but as "unions". Many who are heterosexual, myself included, are traditionalists and do not feel a non-traditional partnership should be designated a "marriage". We feel that marriage should only denote a heterosexual relationship, as it has been for thousands of years. We do not feel it is right for a non-traditional union be designated a "marriage", whether it be two men, two women, a man or woman and his or her pet, or whatever. Once this traditionalism is changed, marriage is opened up to whatever kinds of partnerships, 4 men and a woman, or vice-versa, or whatever. Think about it.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 12, 2014 9:06 p.m.

    @Understands Math:
    "I expect that the second section of DOMA will be dumped in time..."

    I think you might be right. That August body can't seem to stay on page. They're acting like politicians... or third graders.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 12, 2014 8:57 p.m.

    @Lagomorph:
    "A shade off-topic to the question of recognizing marriages performed legally within the state, maybe, but can anyone speak to how the State of Utah deals with marriages performed legally outside the state that would not be valid here?"

    If you have a fishing or hunting license in Colorado can you illegally fish or hunt in Utah with them?

    If you have a license to practice medicine or law or CPA work in Arizona, can you legally practice these trades in Utah with those licenses?

    "Would the Tax Commission reject a joint tax return filed by a married, fertile first cousin couple?"

    How would the tax commission know? They don't require attaching a copy of a marriage license or genealogy tree to the return.

    "The state does not recognize as valid same sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. Why should other categories of marriages, lawfully performed elsewhere but unlawful here, be any different?"

    Why do you have to tell state officials that you are married to a first cousin? Or even that you are in a SSM, for that matter?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 12, 2014 8:11 p.m.

    @Intervention & Lagomorph

    It's worth stating that the second section of DOMA, which was *not* overturned in the Windsor decision, gives the states the power to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

    The vast majority of lawsuits challenging DOMA were focuxed on the third section of the law. I know of only one federal challenge to section 2, and that challenge sustained the law. However, that was ten years ago and obviously does not reflect the amount of judicial opinion that's occurred since then.

    I expect that the second section of DOMA will be dumped in time, but whether it's through a court decision or a legislative appeal, who can say?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 12, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    @The Reader, you believe that if 2% of the people in Utah are married to same-sex spouses, that none of them will procreate or adopt, and that this will somehow lead to a "serious decline in the population"? And that if Utah is successful in its quixotic effort to ban gay marriage, then all of these gays will marry opposite sex partners and procreate?

    "Raising children help one to be less self centered and more charitable and loving toward others who are different than themselves." Um...if that were the case, then no straight parent would ever disown his gay child. And no reader who is also a parent would ever write a letter to the DN advocating the denial of marriage equality.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    @Lagomorph
    That is actually one of the places the state runs into trouble in this case. They do recognize these other types of marriages when legally performed in other states.

  • The Reader Layton, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 6:46 p.m.

    Because of the difficulty of same sex married couples to get pregnant and have children there could in time be a serious decline in the population needed to pay for services such as roads, police, fire courts hospitals . . . .

    It takes two of opposite sex to have children. Raising children help one to be less self centered and more charitable and loving toward others who are different than themselves.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 6:33 p.m.

    A shade off-topic to the question of recognizing marriages performed legally within the state, maybe, but can anyone speak to how the State of Utah deals with marriages performed legally outside the state that would not be valid here? For instance, Utah allows first cousins to marry, but only if they are nonreproductive (sterile, postmenopausal). Some other states allow first cousins to marry without restriction. Does Utah recognize as legally married fertile first cousins married in a state that allows that? Do state agencies make any effort to identify such marriages? Would the Tax Commission reject a joint tax return filed by a married, fertile first cousin couple?

    The state does not recognize as valid same sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. Why should other categories of marriages, lawfully performed elsewhere but unlawful here, be any different?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    This case is a no-brainer.
    Just think about California. Even if prop 8 was passed to ban same sex marriage, those gay couples married before the passage of Prop 8, their marriages were still considered valid, weren't they?

    Utah AG has even slimmer chance to win this one than Kitchen v Herbert case (not that I think he can win that case though).
    Why wasting taxpayers' money on a case totally not winnable is beyond me.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    Its nice to see the courts are not going to allow the state to draw this futile exercise out forever, hopefully the supreme court will set a similar limit on the case headed towards them.

  • jonsyrt Provo, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 4:50 p.m.

    Why waste more taxpayer money? These couples were legally married. Denying them their marital benefits is discriminatory.

    Utah, abandon this senseless and doomed crusade.