Gay marriage ban backers seek Supreme Court review

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 8:37 p.m.


    I and others have argued that the government should treat people equally- BUT that "equal protection of the laws" only applies to the law as written- that if a law defines marriage as man+woman, then as long as all people are bound by that same law, then the clause is satisfied. As I am out of room, I will also note that I have also argued here multiple times (which anyone can read) on how Loving v Virginia does not set a precedent for gay marriage arguments.

    The fact that my arguments ARE REGARDING the Equal Protection Clause is objective proof that my argument at the VERY least is relevant to this debate. Your 'red herring' accusation is therefore not logical.

    Equal treatment does not equate to relativist government. If "anything goes", then law cannot exist A Priori. Without some form of 'moral version' there would be no law.

    Arguing that equal moral recognition "is a right" is an "Invincible Ignorance Fallacy" and a "conversation-stopper". It's an attempt to circumvent any further consideration in favor of tyranny disguised as legal relativism (aka: anarchy). Rather, you should be arguing WHY you consider equal moral recognition a right.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 6:09 p.m.

    toosmart: "Everyone has the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite gender..."

    You discount the role of romantic love and physical affection in marriage. In effect, you are endorsing arranged marriage, saying the government has the right to fix up couples who have no affinity for each other and reduce marriage to a business transaction (like the royals of yore). Arranged marriages may be fine for some cultures, but western society has placed a premium on love and affection as strengthening the pair pond for the last couple centuries.

    To advocate domestic partnerships, as you suggest, is to embrace "separate, but equal," which is never equal.

  • hermounts Pleasanton, CA
    Aug. 1, 2012 5:17 p.m.

    I'm disappointed that even the Deseret News used the phrase "gay marriage ban" in the headline of this story, and that you left it in the body of the wire service story. The purpose of Prop. 8 was not to ban "gay marriage," but to preserve traditional marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is, and nothing else is marriage. Everyone has the right to that kind of marriage, the only kind, but some just don't want it.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 1:02 p.m.


    We're talking about human beings. You're attempting to inject red-herrings into the discussion.

    I am talking about the US Government treating Each and Every Citizen exactly the same. Providing the same benefits to me as to you. That is what this is about. It isn't about "intra-species" marriage. It isn't about pedophilia. It isn't about people marrying trees. It isn't even about morality.

    It's about equal treatment by our government for all American Citizens.

    Again, I know that this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but, unless I'm trying to force YOU to have a same-sex marriage, accepting same-sex marriage as legitimate for same sex couples is NOT infringing on YOUR morals in the least.

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 11:38 a.m.

    Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the State of California from defining "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman?

    No it does not.

    The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit the State of California, or any other state, from (for example) defining "citizenship" as the status enjoyed by a person who has been vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen, a citizen being a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection, having (in the case of a naturalized citizen) renounced allegiance to all other foreign potentates.

    Were Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California (or any other state) each to print 500,000 fill-in-the-blank absentee ballots and mail them to Mexico City and request the recipients to vote on them and mail them back, would there be an uproar? Likely.

    Were Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California (or any other state) each to print 500,000 marriage license applications, not distinguishing thereon the gender of the proposed marital parties, would there be an uproar? In California there was.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 11:38 a.m.


    Do you accept all three of the forms of marriage I outlined in my initial post? What about self marriage and inter-species? Unless you tolerate all actions as permissible, or are willing to extend state-recognition to all ways of defining the word- then you are legislating a morality as much as I am. The burden of proof is on you to show me how you aren't legislating your own morality on others. Just because what you are including my own form of marriage, doesn't mean you have included all forms. In order to NOT be legislating your own morality on others, you would have to be willing to accept all forms. This is basic relativism 101 and no relativist has ever been able to explain their way out of this conflict.

    You are free to live your life according to the dictates of your own conscience. Forcing society to accept your version of morality by mislabeling "recognition" as a right- isn't only irrational, but it devastates the foundation of law that we rely on. You may dictate laws and pervert the constitution until it hangs by a thread, but we WILL defend our freedom.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 11:27 a.m.

    Liberal John Roberts won't even hear the case -

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    The constitution is intended to protect everyone's rights. A smoker can not smoke anywhere anymore because of the second hand smoke argument. In other words, non-smokers have the right to smoke-free air because smoke causes health issues. So, until the second hand smoke argument can be made regarding homosexual acts, there will be no stopping the proliferation of the LGTB agenda across every aspect of society including family, education, business, government, sports, military, etc.

    What is it about homosexual acts that infringes on the rights of others? This is the constitutional question that remains unanswered.

    I happen to believe that homosexual acts are perversions of God's intended use of our procreative gifts. I happen to believe that the performance of those acts will never bring lasting happiness. But, I also believe that God respects our agency. So, I try to respect the agency of others.

    So, if anyone has a good second hand smoke argument, I still waiting.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 10:42 a.m.


    You are wrong. I'm not trying to legislate morality at all. Were I doing so, I would be attempting to force you to live by my standards. You, on the other hand, are trying to force us to live by your standards by legislating them.

    That, sir, isn't the freedom intended by our founders. You're simply trying to justify your actions - your attempts to deny other Americans the freedom you enjoy.


    Separate isn't equal. What you're saying is that we should accept a lesser status than you enjoy; lesser benefits from the government than you enjoy; basically, we can sit at the back of the bus because we'll all get to our destination but we aren't "worthy" of equality.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    Call gay companionship a civil union and let heterosexuals marry. This is any interesting call for the judges. The vote of the majority is defined in the constitution. Gay marriage isn't.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 10:18 a.m.


    What I'm really saying is that ALL of us, including yourself, are trying to legislate a morality. Yes, mine are in line with the principles this nation was founded with in mind and the freedoms that the founding fathers designed this country to protect- but the real logical conflict between my arguments and your own is that I am admitting that I'm legislating a morality and you are not.

    Unless you accept every action as legal, moral, or permissible- then you are support a system that has a moral consequence or impact in some form or another. There is no such thing as 100% tolerance, unless you allow for everything (including murder, theft, etc).

    The entire concept of such relativism is rejected by anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence and an education on the subject. It is a dangerous concept, not because of the tolerance of anything and everything as moral or permissible for justice- but because relativists never ACTUALLY argue for 100% tolerance of everything. The premise of relativism is tolerance, but always concludes with your own ruling as a dictator over all others. Your VIEWS on rights aren't entitled to govern us.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 9:49 a.m.

    2nd try:


    What you're really saying is that you hope the SCOTUS upholds your "moral version" and rejects all others. Yours isn't necessarily the correct one, no matter how much you feel it is. Sorry.

    I also hope that the SCOTUS upholds the American Constitutional Ideal of equal treatment of ALL Citizens by our government.

    You said: "I believe in treating others as equals. That does not extend to their actions. I support protecting everyone's God-given rights. I do not recognize or support certain actions as moral."

    Again, I agree with you - certain actions are not moral - like voting away the Civil Rights of your fellow Citizens. I don't recognize your religious actions as "moral". Where does that leave us?


    You've misnamed yourself. Everybody is able to believe in god too, it's just that the ONLY recognized god is Thor. You can worship him just like everyone else.

    BTW; The dissenting 9th circuit judge was a Mormon - what else would he do besides put his religious beliefs over the Constitution?

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 9:39 a.m.

    Of course if SCOTUS accepts the case, and then if the court follows the standard set by Chief Justice in the Affordable Care Act decision, then the rulings of the District and Appeals court would be reject due to interference in the policy powers specifically reserved for the legislature and the people and the need for the court to find a way to uphold under whatever means necessary the constitutionality of such policies.

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 9:32 a.m.

    Darrel, " I say remove government from it all together, strip all the legally recongnized benefits and allow churches to solemnize any relationship they choose."

    And there we have the end result of the slippery slope traditionalists have been trying to avoid. Businesses can have contracts, but family marriage contracts will be no longer recognized by the courts. No rights left to families. No right to sue for divorce. Come and go as you please. Empty your partners bank account and have lots of affairs.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Aug. 1, 2012 8:30 a.m.

    I'll bet Roberts blows this one too...

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 8:25 a.m.

    "The Constitution doesn't say you can marry just anyone, anytime---for example bigamy and poligamy are against the law, too, and someone you want to marry just might already be married so you can't just up and marry them. "

    Actually the constitution doesn't even say marriage. So should the government even be in it? I say remove government from it all together, strip all the legally recongnized benefits and allow churches to solemnize any relationship they choose. Business can like wise do the same. Free market solution right there.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Aug. 1, 2012 5:57 a.m.

    from article--"Lawyers for two same-sex couples who first challenged Proposition 8 in 2009 said they would urge the Supreme Court to reject the case."

    I was very surprised to read this.

    I thought if they feel allowing same-sex marriage is a morally superior position to not allowing it, they would be ALL FOR the case to be taken by the Supreme Court.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 1:10 a.m.

    @ Ranch Hand

    Everyone has the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite gender----that's what "marriage" is----so we already have equality regarding marriage. The exception is close family members, such as siblings, because of the genetic issues involved. Race, color, religion, economic status, education, etc don't matter so everyone is on the same legal ground for marrying a person of the opposite gender. In fact, millions don't even see the need to get married at all but choose to live together. What's to be gained by changing centuries old defenitions of countless societies in defining marriage? If you want domestic partner rights, go for it......most people would gladly support that concept.

    The Constitution doesn't say you can marry just anyone, anytime---for example bigamy and poligamy are against the law, too, and someone you want to marry just might already be married so you can't just up and marry them.

    I suggest you review the Constitution again because it doesn't state what you infer it says.

    @ George

    It wasn't a unamimous ruling of the 9th Circuit, or even a unamimous decision of the 3-judge panel, was it?

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 31, 2012 9:34 p.m.

    It is my hope that the court will hear this case and uphold the principles our constitution was designed according to. If our politicians today were asked to write a new constitution, our country would be more divided than ever before and the new constitution would put shackles on its citizens instead of protect our freedoms. It is more apparent now than at any other time that John Adams understood how the moral character of the people determines the ability of our constitution to effect justice and protect peace. Our constitution was not designed to govern an immoral and irreligious people.

    I believe in treating others as equals. That does not extend to their actions. I support protecting everyone's God-given rights. I do not recognize or support certain actions as moral.

    Some people wouldn't recognize two members of the same family...
    Some people wouldn't recognize two members of the same gender...
    Some people wouldn't recognize a 50 year old and a teenager...

    We all are legislating a morality of some form or another. I support human rights, I don't support morals contrary to my beliefs and the freedoms America was designed to protect.

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 31, 2012 8:54 p.m.

    the lawyers defending prop 8 stated "The 9th Circuit's sweeping dismissal of the important societal interests served by the traditional definition of marriage is tantamount to a judicial death sentence for traditional marriage laws throughout the Circuit." actually their inability to present one credible piece of evidence to support their claims is what did them in not the judges. The lawyers need to stop blaming the courts for the fact they have no passes for their arguments.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 31, 2012 8:24 p.m.

    If the government isn't going to treat all Americans equally, as guaranteed by The Constitution, then we really aren't the country we think we are.