Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Judicial clarity on the issue of same-sex marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 12:34 a.m.

    Sooner or later, whether from the Roberts-Scalia court or another, what we know for sure is that judicial clarity will eventually clear the way for same-sex marriage in all 50 states. And that there will be no damage to or diminution of the traditional family. Gays and same-sex couples and their families will continue to support, celebrate and honor traditional marriages among family and friends and society at large.

    Traditional marriage will always comprise at least 97-98% of all marriages and always be, by far, the largest contributor to marriage and the family as the foundation of society. Gay marriage and their families will contribute proportionately to that same strong foundation. Their children will be just fine.

    The children of traditional marriage will grow up with same-sex couples and their children and families as friends, neighbors, playmates, schoolmates and even pew-mates. They will see with their own eyes that they are just folks.

    There'll be a brief period of unsettled administrative details and trivial lawsuits. Life will go on basically unchanged except for same-sex couples and their children and families celebrating their new found marriages.

    Time to move on to something important.

  • Joe_Libertarian San DIego, CA
    Dec. 10, 2012 12:47 a.m.

    This article is predictably conservative, from predictably conservative SLC. Recently a man I admire said that one of the problems that the GOP has, is that it has difficulty understanding another person's position. Here's yet another case. It is not a human right for two other people to marry. It is "social policy". And legislating from the bench is just that, not "guaranteeing a minority of their basic human rights". It is ironic, considering that the Mormans have been so persecuted throughout their brief existence, that the people of SLC would seek to persecute those that are different.

    I challenge you to think differently. Consider that the word marriage is a religious word. That the right to marry is established in churches and before God.

    So stay the heck out of my schools and government, thank you very much.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 7:16 a.m.

    "...the importance of prudence when reviewing democratically enacted social policy."

    The rights of minority citizens should have never been up for "democratically enacted social policy" votes in the first place. It is wrong to deny others the very rights you partake of yourself.

    I am trusting this Supreme Court to determine that in America, Equal Protection means EQUAL PROTECTION FOR EVERYBODY.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    Ranch I thought the same exact thing when I saw the photo "Equal Justice Under the Law" on the front of the building.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 10, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    If it were not for the Federal pronouncements against polygamous unions in the late 19 Century, I would not think that marriaage law is a Federal question. Regardless, it would not surprise me if the court rules that it is a state issue, but requiring all states to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of states that do decide to permit it.

    From the LDS standpoint however, this would not be a welcome decision, and not just from a moral standpoint, it also could also raise the specter of making polygamous unions legal. Simply put, if same sex mariages are legal, can the law really maintain the illegalty of any form of mutually agreed to adult unions?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    Here's my prediction: The court will rule DOMA unconstitutional. On the prop. 8 case they will issue a very narrow ruling which will not change the states' ability to regulate marriage. They may decide on technical grounds that prop 8 was either proper or improper. The ruling will apply only to California, since California is the only state that approved gay marriage and then rescinded the right to marry.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    Yes, we wouldn't want the court to be ahead of some of the state's on social issues. It was terrible that the court didn't let Southern states work out their civil rights issues on their own without federal intervention. (Sarcasm)

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    Mike in Cedar City said: From the LDS standpoint however, this would not be a welcome decision, and not just from a moral standpoint, it also could also raise the specter of making polygamous unions legal.

    I'm not sure I agree and think it might be a welcome decision.
    Then the church could reinstitute polygamy, since it was only abandoned for statehood to begin with.
    I know it had nothing to do with statehood just a quinkydink.

    Besides if all parties marrying are adults and can sign a contract, it would be freedom of choice.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 12:35 p.m.

    @Roland Keyser
    "On the prop. 8 case they will issue a very narrow ruling which will not change the states' ability to regulate marriage. They may decide on technical grounds that prop 8 was either proper or improper. The ruling will apply only to California, since California is the only state that approved gay marriage and then rescinded the right to marry."

    That's what I had predicted until someone pointed out to me a detail that gives me pause... since that is what the appeals court had come up with, why would the supreme court take up the case just to agree with the lower court ruling?

    @Happy Valley Heretic
    "Then the church could reinstitute polygamy, since it was only abandoned for statehood to begin with."

    The church would never re-institute it if for no other reason than the fact that re-instituting it would likely result in half the church membership to leave within 5 years. Plus it would still leave a mess seeing as its now a global church and many other nations still wouldn't allow it.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 1:30 p.m.

    To "Shelama" unfortunately for you, and so many others like you, the assumptions you made are wrong.

    Read "Dutch Decline: Losing interest in matrimony" in the National Review.

    It is also harmful to children. See "Man and wife? That's best for baby" in the Austrialian National Times.

    As for seeing a significant upsurge in marriages between gay couples. In the countries that have gay marraige, that never materialized. Most gays will remain cohabitating, and little will change, except marriage rates will continue to fall as people see marriage being cheapened.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 1:55 p.m.

    I think DOMA's going down, as it should, since it clearly violates Article Four Section One of the constitution, the 'full faith and credit' clause. I think Roberts will craft a narrow 6-3 opinion striking down Prop 8, but only in California.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 2:39 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "marriage rates will continue to fall as people see marriage being cheapened."

    'Gay people can get married? Well that's it, I'm not going to bother marrying anyone myself.' - said no straight Dutch person ever.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 3:16 p.m.

    @redshirt
    once again opinion pieces and pieces that use the erroneous assumptions of the writer are not the same as research redshirt, try reading the credible research the facts clearly contradict your opinions.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 3:50 p.m.

    To "Tolstoy" once again, try reading what was posted, and the researchers that were interviewed about their scientific research.

    Just because it is a news article about a study published. The article from Australia is not an opinion piece. It is reporting on a study that was published. It is no different than the AGW articles that you believe.

    Just because you reject the truthes contained in the article does not mean they are invalid. You should try reading articles before you lie about their content, that way you don't appear to be as ignorant as you do right now.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 4:24 p.m.

    Judge Roberts showed his true liberal bias last summer so I suspect gay marriage will be forced down our throats - like Obamacare - very soon. Every state - including Utah - will be forced to recognize homosexual marriage regardless of the what the people of the state say. Socialism doesn't regard states rights - just the all powerful federal government. Get used to it.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 10, 2012 4:48 p.m.

    @ RedShirt: Marriage in the Netherlands has been in decline for many years - the decline started before gay marriage was allowed. And, yes, you can argue that the decline started as soon as gay couples started to ask for permission to marry and you may even be able to find support for that position - but, if the gay marriage debate was handled in the Netherlands the same way it was handled here, the only people you have to blame for the decline in marriage rates are those who argued that marriage really isn't that important in all situations and gays really don't need it since all benefits are available without marriage. In other words, blame the decline in the desire to get married on those who oppose same-sex marriage - they are the ones who talked marriage down and devalued it.

    The "Man and Wife?" article you reference is actually in the Sydney Morning Herald, was written by Chris Meney, the director of the Life, Marriage and Family Centre in the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, and is an editorial - not a fact-based article. All it proves is the Catholic Church thinks people should be married before having children.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 5:39 p.m.

    Let's get gay marriage legal and move on.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:30 p.m.

    @redshirt
    So the article on the Netherlands at best shows a weak correlation between the gay marriage debate and the decline in marriage but as usual fails to provide any evidence of a causal relationship. I can make erroneous correlations between the number of dead rabbits on the side of the road and the number of telephone poles per mile but that does not mean their is any casual relationship. Now if you have some evidence of a causal relationship lets see it.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:47 p.m.

    @redshirt
    the article you quote from the Australian times does not seem to exist anywhere on the internet, care to tell us exactly what research they make reference to in support of their claims?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:04 p.m.

    there not their sorry.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:44 p.m.

    @redshirt
    Since we are laying blame for social ills based on weak correlations should we also give gay marriage credit for the fact that the Netherlands has done very well economicslly while countries like the us that does not have a nation wide law legalizing gay marriage has struggled? Why not it is no less logical.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    If the knee-jerk conservatives on the Court have their way, this could be the conservative's Roe vs. Wade and end up creating unnecessary divisiveness on this issue for decades to come. I'm actually surprised Roberts (known for his judicial restraint) is taking this on. I would have thought he more than any of the rest would have seen the wisdom in letting the country continue with its democratic conversation at the State level.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:26 a.m.

    My prediction. Marriage will be defined as One Man and One Woman. Federal rights will be extended to civil unions.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:34 p.m.

    There is often a conflict between different pieces of democratically enacted social legislation. One example is the democratically enacted Virginia law entitled the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" that banned interracial marriage in the State. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1967 that this violated the democratically enacted 14th Amendment. Their rationale is germane to the current debate and reads in part:

    "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

    They went on to say racial discrimination was unsupportable and deprived citizens "of liberty with due process of law."

    They concluded:

    "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

    It will be interesting to see if the Court invokes similar logic with same sex marriage. I suspect that they will strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and punt on Prop 8 by striking it down on technical terms.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 10:50 p.m.

    @Henry Drummond:
    "It will be interesting to see if the Court invokes similar logic with same sex marriage."

    If gay marriage falls under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and becomes legalized, then any other combination of marriage that humans can devise, such as father/daughter, mother/son, sister/brother/, brother/sister/sister, Brother/sister/pet cat, etc., etc., should also be found allowable and legal. I can even envision a dozen or so close friends marrying each other (just think, they wouldn't have to 'swing' anymore). At which time our society will begin to unravel, deteriorate, fall apart, and eventually disappear.

  • Miss Piggie Ogden, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 11:09 p.m.

    2RanchHand:
    "I am trusting this Supreme Court to determine that in America, Equal Protection means EQUAL PROTECTION FOR EVERYBODY."

    Everyone wishing to marry already has EQUAL PROTECTION. Anyone can marry... so long as the person they marry is of the opposite sex as per DOMA. This is why the Court will find DOMA to be constitutional.

    If you want the law to change so that other combinations are permitted, such as two men or two women marrying, then you must extend that right to all other combinations such as three men and four women marrying, and such as polygamy. At which time the entire marriage ritual will vanish from the country.

    You cannot say that equal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment extends only to gay and lesbian marriages and no further.

    Given this, the Court will keep it wits about it and support the marriage of one man and one woman intact.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 11:16 p.m.

    @Flashback:
    "My prediction. Marriage will be defined as One Man and One Woman. Federal rights will be extended to civil unions."

    A distinction without a difference.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 12, 2012 6:48 a.m.

    wrz
    Ogden, UT
    "If gay marriage falls under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and becomes legalized, then any other combination of marriage that humans can devise, such as father/daughter, mother/son, sister/brother/, brother/sister/sister, Brother/sister/pet cat, etc., etc., should also be found allowable and legal."

    This argument is complete nonsense... you're letting fear override logic. Society can simply define marriage has "between two consenting adults."

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 1:58 p.m.

    "At which time our society will begin to unravel, deteriorate, fall apart, and eventually disappear."

    There is absolutely no empirical, rational, or historical basis for, nor evidence to support, such a fear-mongering assertion.

    Only the truth will set people free.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    @Tyler D:
    "This argument is complete nonsense... you're letting fear override logic. Society can simply define marriage has "between two consenting adults."

    We're not talking about what society can decide. We're talking about Equal Protection rights under the US Constitution. We're talking about a potential ruling by the US Spreme Court.

    If a person wishes to marry several people or their daughter, etc., that person has as much right to do so as a person wishing to marry a person of their same sex.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 4:06 p.m.

    What would Jesus do (or WWJD), is a standard that long has been advocated by certain Christians. Let's put that another way. If Jesus were on this forum, 'What Would Jesus Say' = WWJS? I ask this in all earnestness, because three times I've tried, and three times I've been denied because of what I said.

    If the Supreme Court decides in favor of 'Gay Marriage', then I suppose the DesNews editorial board or staff will get the clarity they say they want. But, would that be good?

    Having read what Jesus has said, whether by his own voice, or by the voice of his prophets, which Mormons view as being the same, I do not think Jesus would be for that. God instituted marriage on this planet in the beginning. And, clearly, it was intended by him to be between males and females, and not between persons of the same gender.

    God, speaking through Isaiah, speaking of persons who have had and do have intimate relations between persons of the same gender said this— (see Isaiah 3:8&9). Are we not as a society there ourselves?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 13, 2012 6:57 a.m.

    @wrz
    I'm not a legal expert but your logic seems flawed to me... otherwise why wouldn't the Equal Protection Clause already allow all the combinations you mention? Why do we even need a SC decision?

    And it sounds like Scalia would agree with me that ultimately it is a question for citizens (i.e. States) to decide (Lawrence v Texas).

  • Pick1 Lindon, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 3:25 p.m.

    @Redshirt "As for seeing a significant upsurge in marriages between gay couples. In the countries that have gay marraige, that never materialized. Most gays will remain cohabitating, and little will change, except marriage rates will continue to fall as people see marriage being cheapened."

    Those last three words give yourself away.

    You see, for us gays to cheapen your marriage by having it allowed, you're stating that we are less than you. You look down on gay people and I believe there is a word for that. It starts with a 'B' and rhymes with "Schmigotry".

    We are in a country that values equality. It's time the federal courts took a stand for that.