Quantcast
U.S. & World

Supreme Court has range of options on gay marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    Though not Mormon I am pleased to support Mormon prophet monson in marriage only being legal between man and wife

    Anything else is just wrong

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    If gays can marry them there is no reason to ban polygamy or even sibling from being married

    Not even incest can be used as a reason to not allow siblings unless liberals are claiming that marriage is the governments approval for a couple to be intimate.

    Intimacy clearly happens outside of marriage in most relationships and there are marriages without intimacy

    So as I have clearly explained, if marriage is open to gays them clearly there are no reasons to prohibit any sort of marriage between any adults, regardless of number of participants or family relationships.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 23, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    Gay marriage has never worked in a free prosperous society, and never will.

    Distorting of the family, tears the foundation of great civilizations.

    If the Supreme Court can't comprehend this, we're in deep trouble.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 23, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    Nothing has distorted the family worse than the status quo. And nobody is advocating for incest or polygamy (except the beer of the same name). Surely we can make this work.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2013 4:05 p.m.

    Chris B and worf, you sound like those in the 60s who opposed interracial marriage which incidentally, is roughly how you'll be viewed by future generations.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 23, 2013 5:31 p.m.

    @Chris B;

    As an American, I'm pleased to support marriage equality and oppose the Mormon President on this issue.

    As an American, I support equal treatment by the law of all citizens of this country.

    Bigotry is not moral. Those who preach bigotry and support bigotry are not moral (and you have the nerve to claim that we're the sinners).

  • paintandestroy Richmond/Cache, UT
    June 23, 2013 5:45 p.m.

    Sadly an overall decline in values has made a mockery out of marriage. To many it's more of a party you throw after you've lived together long enough to rule out most other dating options. Gay marriage doesn't fix this, but it recognizes marriage is no longer a holy union to many.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 23, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    Neither gay marriage, or Bigotry are moral.

    Speaking out against gay marriage is a moral act, because it's wrong. GM distorts the foundation, and values of a society.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 23, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    @worf;

    Same sex couples marrying does nothing of the sort. The ONLY thing "distorting" the foundation of society is those of you who think you know what "god" wants. You're fooling yourselves, and you're harming others in the process. If you want to protect the sanctity of "traditional" marriage, perhaps you should work to prevent those that fail from failing.
    Stop divorce.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    June 23, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    Worf, can you give an example (beyond the Star Trek Universe) where gay marriage has been tried by a free and prosperous society? You said it doesn't work in a free and prosperous society, so I was just wondering what those historical examples were. I can't seem to believe that even if it had been tried (gay marriage), that a super small minority (4% of the population) could bring about the downfall of a civilization. I more concerned about a 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples being a much greater problem to a stable society.

  • not here COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
    June 23, 2013 8:22 p.m.

    Hey Worf prove it. And make real it proof,not something that you believe in.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    Chris B
    "if marriage is open to gays them clearly there are no reasons to prohibit any sort
    of marriage between any adults, regardless of number of participants or family relationships."

    LDS4
    Bingo. The purpose of government should be to prevent OBJECTIVE harm to others.
    "(A)ny sort of marriage between any adults, regardless of number of participants or
    family relationships"..in no objective way harms others. It may OFFEND you, but no
    one has the right to NOT be offended. Government's purpose is not to enforce
    anyone's morality in order for them to avoid offense.

    The number of sick kids born of incest are dwarfed by the number and severity of
    kids born to people who have other genetic diseases, like Cystic Fibrosis, and yet
    are still permitted to marry.

    Sure, the laws would have to be changed to allow multiple spouses to share the legal
    benefits that currently are given to only one, but that can easily and fairly be
    done.

    Let people be treated equally.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    June 23, 2013 9:36 p.m.

    And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    June 23, 2013 9:39 p.m.

    @Chris B: "... if marriage is open to gays them clearly there are no reasons to prohibit any sort of marriage between any adults, regardless of number of participants or family relationships."

    You got that right. The Supreme Court is on the horns of a dilemma. If they allow marriage other than between a man and a woman the institution of marriage will eventually disappear. The court will go down in the history books as the American institution that destroyed marriage. Everyone will be wanting to marry everyone else including the combinations you allude to, and beyond.

    Even jailed polygamist Warren Jeffs would likely go free (gasp) since his marriages would be covered by the personal right to marry who you will... even the under-aged.
    @Hutterite: "And nobody is advocating for incest or polygamy..."

    You'd be surprised what people would advocate for. If gays and lesbians can marry each other there'd be no reason for not allowing any combination of marriage that can be conjured. It would all be a matter of Constitutionally protected rights.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    June 24, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    #1 Far too broad and simplistic a category. "Gay" as a category of humans is problematic. Man to man is very different than woman to woman. Not to mention some men aren't attracted to women, but aren't attracted to men either. Some women aren't attracted to men, but aren't attracted to women either. Although, it those cases we lump them into the "gay" category. Anything other than heterosexual has some how become "gay".

    #2 For one side of this argument, it is about money/benefits. For the other side, it is about preserving a tradition.

    #3 The "gay" equality argument could be a template for illegal aliens. Why are we discriminating against them just because they weren't born here?

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 24, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    @Chris B --

    " there is no reason to ban polygamy or even sibling from being married "

    Baloney.

    As courts in Canada have already proven, it is both easy and logical to permit while banning the others -- as I've shown you several times before.

    Here are excerpts from the presiding judge's decision when reaffirming the constitutionality of Canada's polygamy ban:

    -- "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial,"

    -- "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."

    -- "women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

    As for incest -- as you well know, incest and pedophilia harm children. Also, children can not give informed consent, so they can't sign contracts.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    contragion,

    Two consenting siblings(Adults) yes can give informed consent.

    Yes they can sign contracts.

    Again, if you are claiming that two people cannot be intimate before obtaining the governments permission through marriage, then you may have an argument.

    However I doubt that is your understanding of the law.

    If that is your understanding of the law, I politely correct you.

    Adults don't need the governemnts permission to be intimate.

    Additionally I will inform you that marriage does not equal intimacy.

    There are plenty of marriages that are full and complete and healthy marraiges and yet are absent of intimacy, for a variety of reasons.

    Therefore, as I have plainly and simply explained, there is no justification in banning two adult siblings from being married, if we are changing the only appropriate definition of marriage.

    Thank you

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 24, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    @Chris --

    "Two consenting siblings(Adults) yes can give informed consent."

    First, they will still have a high risk of expressing genetic defects in their offspring.

    Second, you'll have to find a pair of adult siblings who actually want to get married. Good luck with that.

    In the meantime, it's a waste of time to argue about a hypothetical pairing that is extremely unlikely to occur in reality.

    "Adults don't need the governemnts permission to be intimate."

    So what?

    "there is no justification in banning two adult siblings from being married"

    If this is your only remaining argument against gay marriage, then I am well satisfied.

    Now just find us a pair of adult siblings who actually **want** to get married, and maybe we can work on establishing their rights. ;-)

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    contagion,

    "First, they will still have a high risk of expressing genetic defects in their offspring."

    That risk has nothing to do with marriage, that's my point.

    That risk is the exact same before marriage, after marriage. Marriage does not impact that at all, unless again you are suggesting that marriage is the governemnts permission for a couple to be intimate.

    And considering liberals keep bringing up offspring with genetic problems, yes, that must be your understanding.

    I've explained this in first grade terms in hopes that all understand.

    Also I am trying to avoid the "sex" word because it probably has a higher likelihood of being disallowed by the Deseret News.

    I will again correct liberals who must not understand this.

    Consenting adults do not need the governments permission to be intimate.

    It happens before marriage all the time.

    It happens irrespective of marriage.

    It is absent in marriage.

    It is absent irrespective of marriage.

    There is no relationship between allowing/disallowing siblings to marry and the "risk of offspring with genetic problems"

    I'll continue to try and make this clear and simple in hopes that all comprehend this simple fact.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 24, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    @Chris B --

    "That risk is the exact same before marriage, after marriage. "

    Actually, no, it isn't.

    Remember, marriage increases the stability of relationships. Increased stability means that the couple is more likely to stay together if they're married. And more time together means more likelihood of more children -- children with defects, in the case of incestuous siblings.

    Remember, it is still true even in this country that more than half of all children are born to married women. So, no, the risk is NOT "the exact same" before marriage as after it, no matter how loudly you may claim that it is. In reality, women who are married are still more likely to have children than women who remain unmarried.

    And remember also -- limitations on personal freedoms that are based on the "public safety" or "public well-being" concepts don't depend on the CERTAINTY of harm, but rather on the RISK of harm. And it is certainly true that incestuous couples have a very high risk of producing children with genetic defects.

    So why would the government want to encourage those incestuous couples to stay together?

    Keep trying, Chris. ;-)

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    June 24, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    Contagio,

    I see I have confused you. I apologize. I am sincerely trying to help you understand. The adage of "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you" certainly applies.

    Are you still suggesting that sex never happens outside of marriage and that sex always happens within marriage?

    You appear to be believing that a couple must obtain a marriage certificate before engaging in sexual acts.

    That is not the case.

    Again, I politely correct you.

    No such thing is required.

    2 consenting adults do not ask the government for permission to have sex.

    Therefore, the risk of siblings producing offspring exits irrespective of marriage.

    Contagion, I sincerely hope I can help you understand this concept.

    Good luck! I wish you the best in this endeavor.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 24, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    @Chris --

    "Are you still suggesting that sex never happens outside of marriage and that sex always happens within marriage?"

    Straw man. I have never suggested any such thing. :-)

    "You appear to be believing that a couple must obtain a marriage certificate before engaging in sexual acts."

    Nope. I have simply pointed out to you the fact that *children* (not sex) are more likely to happen within marriage.

    That is a simple reality, Chris. Not hard to understand at all.

    More children are born to married people than to unmarried people.

    Therefore, the risk of incestuous couples having defective offspring increases if they are married.

    The government has no interest in encouraging the birth of defective offspring.

    Very simple, Chris. :-)

  • Girlse State Midvale, UT
    June 24, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    @Contarius, No one likes Chris on sports articles, myself certainly among them, but he has you on this one. You're losing, big time. It seems a bizarre and agreed unlikely scenario he brings up, but regardless of the rarity, its a valid argument none-the-less. Suggesting it wouldn't happen often is a poor excuse by you to try and avoid the argument in the first place The rarity has nothing to do with the validity of it. Now I agree with you that if 2 siblings were to marry there would probably be an increased chance of procreation. However, marriage and sexual relationships do not go hand in hand, even if that is the stereotypical historical case. What if an 80 year old brother and 82 year old sister were to want to marry. They are not capable of procreation. Your argument about deformities is therefore gone. Completely. Gays have as good of a chance of procreating as those two. You are left with no argument.

    This will be the first and last time I ever support him, but Chris is right. You are grasping now Contarious, and its getting ugly.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 24, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    @Girlse State --

    "What if an 80 year old brother and 82 year old sister were to want to marry. They are not capable of procreation. Your argument about deformities is therefore gone. "

    Nope.

    Remember, the government bases its decisions on the RISK of harm, not the CERTAINTY of it.

    The "risk" -- probability -- of children increases with marriage. The existence of 80 year old incestuous couples doesn't change the overall risk. The government has to base its restrictions on probabilities spread across the entire population. They can't make single-couple exceptions to those laws.

    And that's how laws against incestuous marriages are constructed. They are based on the increased RISK of producing defective children -- not on the certainty of doing so.

    It is still a fact that, in the US, somewhere around 2/3 of all children are born to married women. Roughly 1/3 of children are born to unmarried women. Therefore, by allowing incestuous marriages, the government would essentially be DOUBLING the risk of those incestuous women producing defective offspring.

    That's a significant increase in risk.

    The government has no interest in encouraging the production of defective offspring.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 24, 2013 3:40 p.m.

    Here's an interesting US case from 2005. Adult siblings were convicted of incest. They contested the constitutionality of anti-incest laws to District (Federal) court level. The court ruled to reaffirm the constitutionality of those laws.

    Here's a few excerpts from the decision. In those quotes,"Lawrence" means the earlier Supreme court decision that overturned sodomy laws.

    Emphases mine --

    "Allen moved to dismiss the criminal complaint against him, on the basis that Wisconsin's incest statute was unconstitutional insofar as it sought to criminalize a sexual relationship between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS."

    "Because we have already concluded that THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN PROHIBITING INCEST, we reject Muth's challenges to the constitutionality of the incest statute."

    "Muth...is not in prison for homosexual sodomy. The ultimate question then is...whether Muth is a beneficiary of the rule Lawrence announced. He is NOT. Lawrence did NOT address the constitutionality of incest statutes."

    "Certain varieties of sexual conduct clearly remain outside the reach of Lawrence, things like prostitution, public sex, nonconsensual sex, sex involving children, and CERTAINLY INCEST, a condition universally subject to criminal prohibitions."

    The courts already recognize the difference between homosexuality and incest, Chris.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 24, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    @Mainly Me;

    Bring it on.

    @Miss Piggie;

    If marriage disappears, it won't be because you allowed LGBT couples to marry (that ADDS to the number of marriages); it will be because heterosexuals decide not to marry (won't happen).

    @John20000;

    Well, for one thing, we WERE born here. We ARE citizens of this country.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 25, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    @Chris --

    Here's excerpts from a 2013 case regarding adult sibling incest. This time it's the California appeals court contrasting the legalization of sodomy with incest.

    Emphases mine --

    -- "'In any given non-consanguineous relationship, the rate of severe abnormalities in offspring is estimated at two to three percent...children of siblings or a parent-child coupling have a risk between thirty-one and forty-four percent.'...This increased risk is surely sufficient to provide A LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR CRIMINALIZING INCEST..."

    -- "Lawrence held that the Texas statute (against sodomy) was unconstitutional...because the (anti-sodomy) statute 'furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.'...(in contrast)...THERE IS A RATIONAL BASIS FOR CRIMINALIZING INCEST, specifically between consenting adults...who are related by consanguinity..."

    -- "Other courts have also rejected claims that the criminalization of incest violates Lawrence..." (followed by citations for several recent cases)

    -- " ...Even applying a heightened level of scrutiny...California’s interests in...PROTECTING AGAINST INBREEDING ARE SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT TO JUSTIFY section 285's incest prohibition."

    Yes indeed, Chris -- again the courts obviously do understand the legal distinctions between homosexuality and incest -- even if you don't.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 25, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    @RanchHand: If gay marriage adds to marriage, why are the divorce rates among gay couples so much higher thant among heterosexual couples? (gay men divorce over 75% of the time).

    @amazondocs: I could find court rulings from the early 1900s that state a rational basis for criminalizing homosexuality. But O guess we are more enlightened now, aren't we?

    Maybe we will continue to become more "enlightened" as a society and finally stop the "bigotry" against those who simply want to marry the 1st cousin that they love.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 25, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    @RedWings --

    "If gay marriage adds to marriage, why are the divorce rates among gay couples so much higher thant among heterosexual couples? (gay men divorce over 75% of the time)."

    Sorry, Red, but that simply isn't true.

    Here's reality: "As of 2011, for states with available data, the dissolution rate of same-sex couples is about HALF that of different-sex couples. The percentage of those same-sex couples who end their legal relationship is 1.1% per year, while 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually."

    Refer to "Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States" put out by The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, in 2011.

    "Maybe we will continue to become more "enlightened" as a society and finally stop the "bigotry" against those who simply want to marry the 1st cousin that they love."

    A 30-40% chance of producing defective offspring isn't bigotry. It's cold hard science, and a compelling reason for incest to remain illegal.

    In contrast, SCOTUS has already determined that sodomy bans "furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 25, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    @Red --

    "Maybe we will continue to become more "enlightened" as a society and finally stop the "bigotry" against those who simply want to marry the 1st cousin that they love."

    Sorry, I read that part of your post too quickly when I responded the first time.

    First cousin marriages are *already* legal in roughly half of all US states, and are *already* legal in most other countries.

    We were talking about CLOSE incest -- such as parent/child and sibling/sibling -- not cousins.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 25, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    @plainbrownwrapper

    You just proved my point. Marrying cousins was illegal, but is now accepted in half of the US. SOciety has "redefined" incest to only siblings. I am sure we will have a movement in the near future to ban this under the "bigotry" and "discrimination" banner.

    Funny thing about studies - you can find one to fit your opinion. I have seen others showing gay males divorce at a much higher rate than heterosexuals. This will prove out as more data becomes available.

    If you want to talk "cold, hard science", let's not forget that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce. Reproduction requires male AND female. Homosexuality involves using the body in ways that are not corect from a biological standpoint.

    That is one fact that no court, opinion poll, etc can change.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 25, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    @RedWings --

    "You just proved my point. "

    Ummmm, no.

    First cousin marriages have been legal in most of the world for CENTURIES. Worldwide, more than 10% of ALL marriages are to first cousins. In fact, first cousin marriages have become LESS widely acceptable in the 20th century than they were previously.

    First cousin marriages have been legal in the US for the country's entire history. In fact, first cousin marriage was legal in EVERY US STATE before the Civil War.

    Keep trying, Red. You'll find a fact eventually. Probably.

    "Funny thing about studies - you can find one to fit your opinion. I have seen others showing gay males divorce at a much higher rate than heterosexuals. "

    WHERE, Red? Repeating your claim will never make it true. Let's see some evidence.

    "let's not forget that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce. "

    Which means, of course, that there is no danger of homosexual couples producing defective offspring. ;-)

    "using the body in ways that are not corect from a biological standpoint."

    There is no such thing as "correct from a biological standpoint". "Correct" applies to morality, not biology.

    Keep trying, Red.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 25, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    @RedWings;

    Since very few gay couples have been allowed to marry in this country the divorce rate among LGBT Americans is yet to be determined fully.

    Regardless, since we don't prevent heterosexuals from marrying based on the divorce rate of heterosexuals, there is no reason (except discrimination/bigotry) to prevent homosexuals from marrying based on the divorce rate of homosexuals.

    Additionally, GLBT marriages will neither add, nor subtract from YOUR marriage (that's up to you). I said that allowing LGBT couples to marry adds to the TOTAL number of marriages, which it does. It INCREASES the number of marriages, not decreases it as the person I was responding to said (as if allowing LGBT couples to marry could possibly 'destroy' traditional marriage, sheesh).
    You need a better argument.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 25, 2013 11:22 p.m.

    Gay marriage transforms how right, and wrong is interpreted.