JS "But the fact is, state does not have a compelling rational
argument against same sex marriage."AlfredOh, but they
do... it's called the eventual demise of all marriages.LDS4Please explain how SSM will cause straight people to stop marrying.AlfredMarriage is primarily to provide a home for the bearing and
raising of children. The state has compelling interest in that arrangement.LDS4Then why are women over to allowed to marry? How are
heterosexual newlyweds in their 50s/60s different than homosexual newlyweds?
How is that hypocrisy is justified? AlfredIt does not have
compelling interest in seeing that two people have a homosexual relationship.LDS4Does it have compelling interest in seeing that two people
over 50 have a relationship? How about the infertile or sterile? Why are such
a compelling state interest?
@Alfred If your "responsible procreation" argument is
compelling, then why it not only failed in Judge Shelby's court, but also
failed in Judge Walker's court? failed in 9th circuit court? failed in NJ
state court? failed in NM supreme court? In fact, does that argument
ever win in the courtroom? If this old argument works, why AG has to
hire expensive outside lawyers?
@Contrarius:"Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey a significantly
increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage."Heterosexual marriages also contain risks... called domestic violence.There hasn't been enough same-sex marriages and for long enough
time to allow an informed study of potential damages. Same with incestuous
marriages... of which there has been none, incidentally.@J. S.:"Each state actually CAN ban SSM, polygamy, underage marriage etc, IF the
state can provide compelling rational argument against each situation."If the state can ban polygamy it should be able to ban heterosexual
marriages as well. Then where are we?"But the fact is, state
does not have a compelling rational argument against same sex marriage."Oh, but they do... it's called the eventual demise of all
marriages.Marriage is primarily to provide a home for the bearing
and raising of children. The state has compelling interest in that arrangement.
It does not have compelling interest in seeing that two people have a
Contrariuser"If states could define marriage any way they wanted to,
then we would still have bans on interracial marriage."States
can and do define marriage anyway they want to. Most states have laws against
same sex marriages, polygamy, incestuous marriages, juvenile marriages, old
men/young girl marriages, etc. I guess what you're saying is that states
can define marriages anyway they want except for gay marriages."All state laws MUST conform to the US Constitution."And
the Constitution tells us that the powers of the federal government are limited
and does not include defining marriages... which is left to the states. Which
means that federal judges can't come along are redefine states'
Harm...blah blah blah. For one, race or skin color is NOT the equivalent of an
action by an individual.And 10 years...blah blah blah. It has
already been mentioned, but the premise that there has been no harm in the past
10 years is faulty, as well. Time will tell and prove to those who want to
see.The 14th amendment trumping all other portions of the
constitution is a faulty argument that has been worked on for the past 50 years
and has finally worn on people to the point of being accepted. Just remember
that when those seeking religious protection are using the same argument in
addition to the 1st amendment. It can't work for only one side.
@Contrariuser:"States will not be allowed to continue ignoring the
Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution for much longer."If you're so concerned about 'full faith and credit,' why
is it you haven't gone to bat for the use of marijuana in Tennessee since
it's legal is other states such as Oregon? Maybe you have. If so, tell us
JPLoMRedefining marriage is unwise, but it is doable. This however should
be done through the legislative process, not the judicial one. It is a matter of
public policy, and the public policy should be determined by either the people
directly or their elected representatives in a legislative body, not by
unelected federal judges.LDS4That's what the Good
Ol' Boys down South said too after the Loving decision allowing mixed race
marriages. Those opposing same-sex marriage are grasping at straws since they
have no objective reasons to ban same-sex marriage. We have moved beyond
allowing the majority to impose subjective morality on minorities who would be
objectively harmed by such impositions. We LDS should know better after our
experiences regarding marriage 125 years ago.
@Pops"given that homosexual couples, as a general rule, have
neither the desire nor the capacity to provide in return any benefits to the
state"Here's the difference between same-sex parents and
opposite-sex parents... the children they have aren't "accidents".
They can provide all the same capacity as opposite-sex parents once that child
Since the line is drawn in between understanding what you want to understand,
or, what you might understand if you ask for reasons beyond your present
knowledge.I understand that this debacle over judges is a chance for
interpretation.But interpretation is a thing of human mind and culture, it
will lead you.You need to free yourself of any limits to understand
purpose.The pictures next on this page about the Book of Mormon by
Arnold Friberg, shows us this when Abinadi explained :"...and
little children also have eternal life. But behold, and fear, and tremble before
God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel
against him and die in their sins."Either you know, or you
don't. If you do, you have responsibility. That is what some of the
post in here are trying to tell you.
This is the most ridiculous move ever. If you sue to overturn a state's
law, of course the state has a vested interest in being a party. The constant
attempt by the homosexual lobby to exclude people from participating in making
marriage law is disturbing. This is especially true since with county clerks,
judges, wedding chapel operators, florists, bakers, photographers and many
others there are many people with key religious freedom and freedom of speech
rights closely connected to marriage.
Marriage needs to be in the form of a man/woman relationship to connected it to
its primary goals of creating a situation where as many as possible children are
raised by their biological parents. Redefining marriage is unwise,
but it is doable. This however should be done through the legislative process,
not the judicial one. It is a matter of public policy, and the public policy
should be determined by either the people directly or their elected
representatives in a legislative body, not by unelected federal judges.
@nlowder83350"I would like to see more from Idaho to respond to
this then [sic] out-of-state folks."First of all, this is a Utah
newspaper, so we can expect those of us in Utah to read and reply to the
article. Secondly, since other articles here on the same topic get responses
from all over the US, why should this one be any different?
I would like to see more from Idaho to respond to this then out-of-state folks.
There's a lot from out-of-state who think that they know what is best for
Idaho. I am not telling those folks what to do in their state, but let us
Idahoans be. I have seen my states constitution and there isn't much room
Why do we even need states? That is just a lot of unnecessary duplication. Why
do we even need state legislatures. More unnecessary duplication. (They
can't do anything right, anyway). We still have the US Congress, but they
only have an approval rating of 14%. Based on that dismal number, they cannot
possibly be doing anything worthwhile or beneficial for the country. That
leaves judges and President Obama to tell us what to think, do and say.
@Popsall you need to do is to look around those married gay couples,
they are taking care of each other, especially for those in their senior years,
their marriages reduce state's burden of caring individuals, caring lonely
seniors.Gay couples are adopting and raising children just like
those straight couples who can not have their own child, such behavior benefit
state interests. and by the way, they are doing this by choice.To
say that "homosexual couples, as a general rule, have neither the desire nor
the capacity to provide in return any benefits to the state" is another
evidence to support jurists such as Justice Kennedy and Judge Shelby'
opinion, that such anti-gay marriage law or view is coming out of bias and
This is so awesome. Idaho's legislation was virtually written by Utah
LDS/proph8/Amendment 3 leaders. It's going to fall together with
Utah's. We told you so. Watch as Utah's
reputation and that of LDS leaders swirls circles the drain.
@Pops --"Gay marriage advocates are, in essence, demanding the
benefits of marriage for gay couples without any expectation of them assuming
the responsibilities of marriage. "That's baloney.You have not yet showed any way in which gay couples fail to "assume the
responsibilities of marriage" any more than any other infertile couples
do.Unless you wish to ban all infertile marriages, you don't
have a leg to stand on.
J.S. said, "You have to prove such claim in the court..."Actually, I don't, as I'm simply commenting on a Deseret News
website. I would be grateful if those defending the institution of marriage were
successful in said endeavor, though like you I don't expect that they will
given the current make-up of the Supreme Court and their proclivity of deciding
cases on the basis of might be popular or politically correct rather than on the
basis of reason and law.Gay marriage advocates are, in essence,
demanding the benefits of marriage for gay couples without any expectation of
them assuming the responsibilities of marriage. That's clearly irrational
and unjust and it should not be allowed to stand.
@robert muttenthalerEach state actually CAN ban SSM, polygamy,
underage marriage etc, IF the state can provide compelling rational argument
against each situation.But the fact is, state does not have a
compelling rational argument against same sex marriage. This has been happening
over and over again in both state and federal courts.
10 years of homsexual marriage is not enough time to determine if any harm has
taken place in soiciety. It will take at least 50-100 years to see the results.
Glad I won't be around then, and I'm sure many of the gay marriage
activists will be happy I won't be around either.
@Reflectere"Suspending a man for expressing his religious
beliefs concerning what behaviors are sin - that is discrimination"Phil Robertson has his freedom of speech, freedom of religion as everybody
else, but such freedom does not shield him from having consequences. If in A&E's opinion, he made vulgar, insensitive and discriminatory
remarks towards gays and black people, and that may taint the company's
image, they also have their right to suspend him.
@Pops"given that homosexual couples, as a general rule, have
neither the desire nor the capacity to provide in return any benefits to the
state"You have to prove such claim in the court, and good luck
!robert muttenthaler:Despite your four-page rant, your religious
beliefs or those of others aren't a factor in how our courts decide cases.
If the religious beliefs of the majority of US citizens were the deciding factor
in our laws, your beliefs, as well as mine and those of many other minority
religions, would be severely limited by law.
@nlowder83350Rupert, ID"I live in Idaho and if the voters
say no to gay marriage then so be it."You aren't living in
that compound down near Hayden Lake, are you? Would you also argue that if the
voters said yes to slavery, segregation and limiting voting to white males,
"so be it"? One of the basics that we all learned way back in civics
class is that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the role
of the judiciary is to determine whether particular laws and statutes fall
within the limits of the Constitution.
@New To Utah: I don't find it surprising that a Utah news source discussing
another state would includes comments from Utah. Since the arguments against
the state law focus on federal jurisdiction, it seems appropriate to have
comments from many states.My suggestion is: Let Same Sex Marriage
exist by enacting state laws that leave it entirely in the hands of a Justice of
the Peace. Nobody else will be forced to participate in it, whether for
photography or bakery or the marriage itself.
@robert muttenthaler --"other groups will be coming out of the
wood work"Here we go again.Individual rights are
always limited by harm.Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey a
significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.Gay marriage does not.It's a very simple
distinction.Look up the harm principle."...the
constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay
individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this constitutional right
similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous
relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification
for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships
because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment.
..." -- In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.Justice
Bauman of the Supreme Court of BC, reaffirming Canada's polygamy ban:
"I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,"...
"Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great
many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious,
cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur
wherever polygamy exists."
Ask him with a sincere heart and He will reveal to you in His own way what His
will is. He will answer your prayers, and sometimes it's not what we like
because it's not what God wants. If after you still think you are more
mightier then our Heavenly Father and believe you can change His laws, then I
feel sorry for you come judgement day. For you alone will have to stand before
Him and answer for what you have done.
God's laws and commandments are known worldwide and taught in every
language around the world long before you or I were even thought of. So what
gives you the right to Challenge God. Do you honestly believe that He would
change His mind for the likes of you. I certainly think not. God's
commandments have been around for thousands of years and they have never
changed, and they never will. I encourage you to go to our Heavenly Father in
prayer and talk to Him with an open heart.
. We who follow the teaching and guide lines of the LDS have a proclamation that
states that we will follow and observe the laws of the land until such time that
the laws of the land go against the laws of God and His Commandments. And the
laws of God states that a man shall have only one wife. Nowhere in any of our
Heavenly Father Commandments does it state that it is ok for a man to take
another man or a women to take another women for a spouse. Those of you who are
trying to change the laws of the land to suit your own purpose honestly think
that you are greater and more powerful and knowledgeable then our Heavenly
Father to challenge Him and His laws.
If this keeps up with the same sex marriages other groups will be coming out of
the wood works claiming their rights to being able to marry whomever they like
at whatever age. Where does it end, or is there going to be an end. Advocate
groups for lesbian and gay marriages and polygamy are just the beginning. This
is going to continue and it will be a snow ball effect. When the Constitution
was written and signed, it was in the belief and best interest for all US
citizens. Now we have groups challenging the Constitution claiming that it is
their right for same sex marriage. Well I have news for those of you looking to
@Reflectere;Voting to deny other citizens the same privileges and
rights you possess IS discrimination.
@nlowder83350 --"I live in Idaho and if the voters say no to gay
marriage then so be it. I believe that it's up to the citizens of each
state to decide if to allow these marriages. "If states could
define marriage any way they wanted to, then we would still have bans on
interracial marriage.That's exactly what Loving v. Virginia was
all about.All state laws MUST conform to the US Constitution.
Lest we forget, the states created the federal government, and not vice-versa.
A vote of 3/5ths of the states can create an amendment to the U. S. Constitution
that trumps the Supreme Court. No amendment has ever been adopted by that
state-proposed amendment process. But the procedure is already available.
The equal protection clause cuts both ways. If the state of Idaho can be
required by the courts to extend to same sex couples the same benefits
traditionally provided to heterosexual couples, the state of Idaho stands to
lose the legal authority to require heterosexual couples to feed, clothe,
shelter, nurture, correct, and teach their children as a condition of marriage,
given that homosexual couples, as a general rule, have neither the desire nor
the capacity to provide in return any benefits to the state,
I live in Idaho and if the voters say no to gay marriage then so be it. I
believe that it's up to the citizens of each state to decide if to allow
these marriages. It can be put on the ballet's every 2 to 4 years depending
on the demand of it. I know that I'm going to take a lot of heat over this
but that's how I feel about this topic at this point in time.
@ JeffsflaDefending traditional marriage (historically, a religious
institution) is not discrimination.Suspending a man for expressing
his religious beliefs concerning what behaviors are sin - that is
One of the other dangerous fights behind the same-sex marriage bandwagon - state
Those who oppose same-sex marriage constantly predict horrible consequences for
the future: destruction of the family, growing immorality, incest, social
chaos... Such predictions resemble the predictions made when slavery was about
to be abolished, or racial discrimination, or the ban on interracial marriage.
But fear-mongering is not an argument.Countries that have had
same-sex marriage for more than a decade now prove that it becomes a non-issue
without any negative consequences, on the contrary. The desirability of marriage
is reinforced and the importance of a steady, strong commitment between two
persons is reaffirmed. Even more important, this kind of tolerance allows all
people to live in peace and pursue happiness.
Here we go again. We no longer live in a Republic where the Majority rules!
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us
under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and
not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and
the privilege of their corps. Their... power [is] more dangerous as they are in
office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the
elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal... It has
more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within
All 10 comment are people who don't reside in Idaho.i think theState
& it's citizens should make the laws ofeach state.
Wadsen is right. He has the right to speak for the people. Irrespective if it
is not popular amongst some. His voice needs to be heard, just like those who
support Gay Marriage.
Legalizing gay marriage will pave the way for polygamy and other marriage
combinations. Things are progressing nicely.
Federalism is dead. We once had strong states that defended their laws and
jurisdiction against the federal government. Within a decade we will have one
set of marriage and family laws (once the domain of the states), one set of laws
against indecency and pornography, one set of laws period. There will be no
differences between states, no local laws, no differences... just one monolithic
So just to be clear, a suit is brought against the State of Idaho, and those
filing it don't want the AG to defend it? Hmmmmmm. Is there some legal
precedent for not allowing the respondent in a lawsuit to have counsel? The
Governor is the Governor, he and the State are entitled to be represented by
legal counsel, so if the plaintiff gets to decide if the respondent may have
counsel, where is the due process here?Correct, there isn't
This would also create complications for the case presented by State of Idaho.
It sounds like someone is doing some political posturing in case they lose. As
others have pointed out however, all it accomplishes is to waste resources.
States will not be allowed to continue ignoring the Full Faith and Credit clause
of the US Constitution for much longer. Ohio has already ruled against it on a
limited basis. More wide-ranging decisions against it will not be much longer in
coming."They contend Idaho has historically recognized marriages
performed in other states that would have been considered illegal under Idaho
law, such as marriages between first cousins and common-law marriages, but has
unconstitutionally drawn the line at gay marriage."
@Nate The burden of proof lies with the state to provide evidence of a
compelling state interest in denying someone equal access to their
constitutional rights not on the individual to prove they deserve their
constitutional rights the state has failed repeatedly to do so. Following your
logic a person accused of a crime would be required to prove their innocence.
If an infertile couple needs the help of science then it is not
"producing a child on its own" anymore then a gay couple seeking the
help of science or adopting a child. It also does not account for those straight
couples that make a choice not to have children. There is also no were in the
current laws anything stating that marriage is exclusively for the purposes of
reproduction. Even if such a clause existed the state would still need to
provide compelling evidence as to how changing that definition would cause a
substantial harm. Again something they have failed to do.
AG Lawrence Wasden may believe that, with his joining the lawsuit, the big
government has better chance to keep a discriminatory amendment, which denies
same sex couples' individual liberty, in place. The truth is,
unless they can present some new and more persuasive argument in the court, they
will fail just like those other opponents of marriage equality. and I doubt they
can present anything compelling.
I am very surprised that governments first want to spend money on defending
discrimination but furthermore they seem to duplicate their efforts and end up
spending more money. They cannot seem to get anything right.