Politically powerful gays have little need for court protection, Supreme Court brief argues

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 29, 2013 6:11 p.m.

    you wrote:
    "Me and my wife have had numerous discussions with our son who has repeatedly told us how concerned he has been over the bigotry and discrimination he faces yet hes the one who keeps telling us that forcing the issue judicially will do more harm than good, especially emotionally"

    Dwayne, perhaps as a father you need to explain to your son that "freedom and equality" are worth fighting for, and yes, fights are extremely uncomfortable. However, if that is the price we have to pay to achieve what heteroasexuals take for granted, then so be it.

    Comparing blacks and gays is perfectly valid. Of course, an anti-gay black pastor will attempt to deny the simple fact that he can change the color of his skin as much as an homosexual can change his sexual orientation.

    There are many gays who have been conditioned to believe there is something wrong with them. Many express it. Fortunately, it doesn't make it true.

    We are all children of the same God. God knew what he was doing when he made us all with our unique personalities. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have contributed to the development of our civilization.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2013 12:18 a.m.

    7 billion humans on earth.

    To claim that gay marriage will destroy the Human race as a species is absurd.

    While children wait for adoption because the gender of their parents, did not or could not, raise them.

  • Hmmm... North Ogden, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 10:32 p.m.

    When it comes to what kind of union produces life, gender matters – it matters a lot. The strength of that union is absolutely vital to the existence of mankind, to families, to society, to nations. Any other kind of union, social agency, adoption agency, etc. (wonderful as they are) is simply an appendage or substitute due to its breakdown.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 27, 2013 3:08 p.m.


    The problem with your position is that the supposed sin is just made up nonsense. Love and commitment by themselves are not sins in anyone's book. And because no one chooses his/her sexual orientation (a quick self-check reveals that fact through simple introspection), why is it that love and commitment are fine for one combination but not another? Religious blacks might be offended by the equation, but marriage equality is a civil rights issue. Remember, interracial marriage was also viewed as a sin. But viewed as a civil rights issue we now see the folly of our past.

  • 5thGenUtahn Salt Lake County, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    I heard a quote from a black preacher recently who stated, "don't compare the color of my skin with the nature of their sin", referring to gays. Although gays may be born with a predisposition toward the sin of homosexuality, it is no different than any other persons predisposition toward a particular type of sinful behaivor.

    We are admonished to "take up our cross", and given the agency to decide what we will choose. While we are free to choose the action, we are not free to choose the consequences of that action. Of course we should continue to show love and compassion to our gay brothers and sisters, just as the Savior would. But this doesn't mean we don't continue to stand for what is right.

  • TexasMom Flower Mound, TX
    Jan. 27, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    Regardless of one's stance on gay marriage, equating the struggles that black people endured with gays not being allowed "marriage" is wrong!

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 27, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    So if someone wants to challenge the constitutionality of a gun law the Supreme Court should throw it out because the NRA is so politically powerful?

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 26, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    Dear Hmmm....

    I'm with Kalindra on this.

    But I would add that you are right about one thing: There is an emotional argument in the gay marriage debate. And that emotion is fear. Fear of gays, fear of the other. Fear of gay marriage.

    You have not made rational arguments against gay marriage because there aren't any. The prohibition of gay marriage doesn't strengthen families. Nor does it change a gay person's sexual orientation. Nor does it stop gay couples from living committed lives together. Nor does it stop gays from having kids, as Kalindra pointed out.

    If the government has a clear interest in strengthening families it won't be done by invalidating some of them. It will be done by constructive measures aimed at the divorce rate, safe and healthy homes, etc. And you have to concede that a gay parent's capacity to love his or her child is not limited because he or she is gay. The prohibition of gay marriage cannot accomplish any of the things you would like to believe it will, and that is why it's irrational to ban it.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 26, 2013 2:56 p.m.

    nice attempt at rewording an old argument but since homosexual couples do have children and develop intergenerational bonds coupled with the fact that there is strong evidence to support that such relations do produce healthy high functioning members of society your argument as in the past falls short.

  • Hmmm... North Ogden, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    Not allowing consenting adults of the same gender to marry is an emotional argument; not a legal one.

    Legally, proponents cry discrimination and invoke the 14th amendments Equal Protection Clause. Keep in mind, government must be able to discriminate - and it does - otherwise it could not regulate human behavior. Nonetheless, government may not discriminate unreasonably. Government must show that the distinction between gay marriage and traditional marriage serves a compelling governmental interest and that the distinction is related to achieving that goal for the discrimination to be reasonable.

    Government does have a compelling interest to sustain society and preserve its future; achieved by strengthening and maintaining that kind of union that creates and rears children and bonds us to past and future generations. Since nature excludes gay unions from that objective, that kind of union as a whole may properly be excluded from marriage.

    True, not all traditional marriages are fertile - they needn't be. That governmental intervention would conflict with the individuals right of privacy (the Supreme Court has declared the right to privacy existence in cases centered on birth-control and abortion). Government meets this important object by merely promoting what kind of union qualifies for marriage.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 26, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    @What is the Truth:
    No. That did not make it OK.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 26, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    Leave it to the lawyers! At least they appear to understand that prohibiting gay marriage can't be won in court, but they might prolong DOMA if they can keep it in the political process. Their twisted argument seems to say "gays are becoming so powerful that they will eventually get their way anyway so there is no point in ruling on the matter," if the doom of DOMA is inevitable, why are they wasting our resources trying to defend it?

  • What is the truth? Sandy, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 8:59 a.m.


    Really?? So before the Civil Rights Movement, blacks couldn't use the same water fountain as whites, so it's ok that you could only use a water fountain for your "color"? Blacks couldn't use the same bathrooms, go to white schools etc... That made it ok? No, it didn't and not allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to marry in a legal sense because you can't marry someone of the same gender doesn't make it right (or ethical)

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 26, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    Gays have rights, just like the rest of us. I can't marry someone of the same gender. Neither can they. I should not be able to 'marry' someone of my gender neither should they because that would dilute the status of marriage as being society's way to promote the value that children should be raised by their biological parents whenever possible and that mean should be responsible for the children that they father.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    So what Clement is saying is that there was an issue where they needed court protection, but the system dragged it out so long that it's no longer an issue.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    The supreme courts sounds like there are some on the bench inclined to use some common sense and good jurisdictional decisions. This has been a good week for the American people.

    There should be more prudence too in what items the supreme court chooses to pass judgment. It seems that just about every law and legislation is being sent to the supreme court before they even gets viewed, reviewed, or passed by the houses of congress. No laws can pass that don't go through the houses of congress. Monarchy and dictatorships are unconstitutional heads of state and have no legislative powers.

    Team Obama is getting slapped silly with all their aggressive and illegal maneuvering of bills to try a bypass the congress and its about time. Lets hope that any attempt to amend inalienable rights is also shot down as illegal legislation not within the powers of the president or supreme court to change.

    Congress is the only ones that can approve constitutional changes with a declared constitutional convention of all 50 states in attendance. The supreme court and president cannot make decisions or judgment on the constitution or bill of rights or declaration of Independence.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 25, 2013 6:45 p.m.

    I think they just know there is no constitutional justification for denying gay rights. If you want a theocracy then by all means secede from the USA and have one.