Quantcast
U.S. & World

Supreme Court set to hear gay marriage arguments

Comments

Return To Article
  • Embarcadero SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    March 24, 2013 9:34 p.m.

    Those who oppose marriage equality have tried every argument known to man, but their point boils down to this: they believe that civil law should reflect their religious view of morality. LGBT supporters see such views as arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory. A SCOTUS ruling supporting LGBT rights would send a powerful message about the limits of religion in America's public life.

    I welcome such a message. No specific religion ought to dictate the basis of the civil laws we all share.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    March 24, 2013 10:21 p.m.

    To Embarcadero: I need that you say that marriage equality have tried every argument know to men. Interesting. I believe that marriage is decided by God, not man. Either you believe in the Word of God, or you don't. We'll see what the Supreme Court decides, but still, it will only be the mortality of man's decision.

  • Radically Moderate SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 24, 2013 11:13 p.m.

    To Embarcadero:

    Your ignorance of the variety and depth of arguments which counter your preconceived notions is sad commentary on the state of the debate on this issue. This is not a mere question of morality, but one of changing millennial of established legal, social, political and even biological precedents. Unfortunately, many on your side only are there because they see the zealots on the other side of the question and "don't want to be on the wrong side of history". They never realize that the presuppositions of the LGBT arguments are flawed and not universally accepted, even by many in their own community.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 25, 2013 12:47 a.m.

    There is only one decision the Supreme Court can come to if this country is to survive as a nation... support Prop 8 and the Federal DOMA...(the later signed into law by Clinton).

    All other combinations of marriage will doom this country.

    If marriage is opened to same sex, then all other combinations of human relationships will require legal recognition of marriage as well... such as polygamy, adults marrying kids even of the same gender, group marriages such as two guys and five ladies... or vice versa.

    As to the financial and social benefits of marriage... gays/lesbians seeking such benefits can realize them by simply finding someone of the opposite sex to marry. You say, well, they don't love each other. What has love go to do with it (as Tina Turner asks)? Many heterosexual marriages have no love in them.

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    March 25, 2013 1:00 a.m.

    Simple solution: get the government out of the marriage business. Want a tax deduction, inheritance rights, hospital visiting rights, etc? Go to the courthouse and get a civil union. Want the blessing of your chosen God (or Gods)? Go to the church, temple, synagogue, or mosque of your choice, who can then apply whatever standards they choose, without fear of having their terms dictated by government.

    It's long past time we recognized that what we've defined as marriage as two distinct institutions. Separating them lets government be faithful to its guarantees of equal rights, and lets religious believers be faithful to their doctrines.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 3:03 a.m.

    @Clarissa
    " believe that marriage is decided by God, not man. Either you believe in the Word of God, or you don't."

    That's exactly the point. You don't have an argument that isn't religious in nature. That's why Prop 8's side lost the first two rounds in the court. What God says is irrelevent when it comes to Constitutional law.

    @Radically Moderate
    "This is not a mere question of morality, but one of changing millennial of established legal, social, political and even biological precedents. "

    Well if you've got a good non-religious argument then you best inform the Prop 8 team because they haven't managed to find one yet.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 6:51 a.m.

    To Radically Moderate:

    Embarcadero made a very well reasoned point. You on the other hand have not made any specific point whatsover as to why same sex marriage should not be legal. give me one good reason why you should be able to dictate who can and cannot marry.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    To Clarissa,
    Which God in particular are you referrring to? Zeus, Thor, Woden, Ra, Allah, Yahweh, the Great Spirit, Quetzalcoatl, Baal, Mars, Anu, Brahma, Loki, Isis, Vishnu, Shiva, Osiris, etc., etc.... My God believes that two consenting adults should be able to marry. What you really mean is that your beliefs should be able to dictate how others live.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 25, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    Bye-bye DOMA. And good riddance.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 25, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to determine who can and cannot marry. Why do conservatives feel differently?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    Question: Let's hope that SCOTUS refers it back to the states, as the constitution dictates, then I can take great consolation that it will never be changed here in Utah! Good luck with the rest of society, as the states have to decide on polygamy, bigamy, or any other form of 'marriage' that someone wants. Thank God there is a God and it is His view that counts most in the end!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 25, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    @ Candide. The same God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for what you are supporting. Yep, that God!

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    bandersen
    Saint George, UT
    Question: Let's hope that SCOTUS refers it back to the states, as the constitution dictates, then I can take great consolation that it will never be changed here in Utah!
    ----------------

    You then have to deal witha the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution. All gays need to do is go to California and marry and because of that clause, they MUST be recognized as married here, correct? It does not matter what law Utah passes since the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    I don't think you can do anything about that. They will be married here too, just not able to marry here.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    Embarcedero does a good job of bringing the dispute down to a single point. I see no reason why Goverment should be making decision for God and our citizens. If your a religous person and your church defines marriage as between a man and a women, live that way. The company I work for and most other Fortune 500 companies already lets their employees define their mariiage in any way they choose, and they provide the same benefits to both hetero and homosexual partnerships.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    Ezekiel 16:49

    "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

    ----------
    Mountanman,

    You need to read a little more into what the sin of Sodom really was. It is in the Bible, if you read it and not what someone told you in a church meeting. Read about ancient times and how important it was to show hospitality to those in this desert region.

    You might be surprised that we are headed towards Sodom - but it is because we are starting to refuse to take care of our poor and needy!

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 25, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    @wrz --

    "If marriage is opened to same sex, then all other combinations of human relationships will require legal recognition of marriage as well... such as polygamy, adults marrying kids even of the same gender, group marriages such as two guys and five ladies... or vice versa."

    I'm really tired of hearing this old claim over and over again. It simply isn't true.

    Here's the truth:

    Some people are already allowed to marry men. Other people are NOT allowed to marry men. The distinction is based solely on gender. That is called "gender discrimination". Gender discrimination is unconstitutional. Therefore, marriage discrimination is unconstitutional.

    NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners. NOBODY is allowed to commit incest. Therefore, there is no discrimination. These laws ARE constitutional.

    If you'll try for once to use logic instead of religious dogma, you will be able to see the difference very easily.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 25, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    @ Lane Myer. Nice try but totally inaccurate!

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Gay marriage is not equal to straight marriage for roughly the same reason a toaster is not an aircraft; a dog is not a cat; a tuba is not a hose.
    It isn't the same, simply because it isn't (which is obvious to anyone paying attention).

    Those who compare gender to skin color merely prove they are not smart enough to tell the difference between pigment and genitals (as a society we no longer have colored bathrooms, but we DO discriminate between genders – hence men’s and women’s bathrooms, sports teams, etc – because gender matters)

    I am homosexual - yet I don't need straight social convections to validate my life, nor do I need pretense of equality as a bully pulpit. I am not the same. Since a very low percentage of actual gay couples in areas where marriage or unions are allowed actually do get married (and most are lesbian couples - not gay men) and considering that (according to San Francisco State University) more than 50% of gay couples openly confess to not being monogamous- with spouse approval; my position is not as radical as gay activists (aka bullies) would have everyone believe.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 25, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    @Counter Intelligence --

    "a very low percentage of actual gay couples in areas where marriage or unions are allowed actually do get married"

    When gay marriages were legalized in Washington, more than 800 gay couples got married THE FIRST DAY. And if you look at video of the waiting lines, you'll see that a very high percentage of them were men, as well.

    If you don't want to get married, then don't. But people who DO want to get married deserve to share the same rights and benefits as every other married couple in the nation.

    "as a society we no longer have colored bathrooms, but we DO discriminate between genders – hence men’s and women’s bathrooms, sports teams, etc – because gender matters"

    Gender matters in SOME things -- where safety or strength play a part. Nonetheless, gender is irrelevant in the context of forming committed relationships -- and therefore discrimination in areas which depend on committed relationships, as opposed to strength or safety, is unconstitutional. For a related example, consider age discrimination. Age matters in some contexts, yet age discrimination is also specifically disallowed in constitutional law (refer to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act).

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    Contrarius: In regards to your position about how it is 'unconstitutional' for someone to marry their cat, I have two questions. Why would I feel secure in any 'constitutional' opinion when the SCOTUS can change the constitution on whim, including who or what constitutes 'marriage'? If, in fact, we were living under the constitution, states would have the say on what constitutes a 'marriage' or not. We aren't! Given your opinion, however, why would I feel secure in believing that SCOTUS won't redefine marriage as between plants and humans 10 years down the road? Sorry! Considering that 30 years ago Homosexuality was considered by most as deviant and an affront to civilized society, a person would have to be delusional not to believe that 10 years from now any form of marriage will be acceptable.

  • Sank You, Doctor Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Counter Intelligence

    That is the argument you would put in front of the Supreme Court? Really?

    Having had both a heterosexual marriage and lived in a homosexual relationship for years, I can tell you that there is not much difference. We go to work. We raise our kids. We worry about finances. We go to church. We take care of our housework and yardwork. We have friends and family that we love and cherish.

    The main difference is that a homosexual couple in Utah must spend over $5,000 to receive 5 of the benefits of a $50 marriage license. Can you tell me how that squares with the 14th amendment? Is that treating each citizen equally under that law?

    Just because you do not want to be equal does not mean that homosexuals should not be equal per our divine constitution. Just because you believe something does not mean that by our laws it is correct or just.

    It does not matter how many gay couples want to wed. As long as there is one couple not treated equally under the law, it is unconstitutional, right?

  • Pat Salt Lake , UT
    March 25, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    Lets hope the Supreme Court is not swayed by public opinion but rather the rule of law.

  • ExecutorIoh West Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    Despite the assertions from so-called "experts," it is easy to see the social harm that comes from gay marriages. Experts claim that there is no negative impact on children, common sense clearly demonstrates otherwise. As teenagers go through puberty, they need the guidance of a loving parent of the same gender more than anything. It takes far more than love though. A teenage girl with two gay parents and no mother will have difficulties in the maturation process. A gay father cannot sympathize or even truly understand what a teenage girl is going through with her first period. With this absence, it falls to the schools or society in general to raise children. The same situation occurs with a boy and two lesbian parents, though with less emotional impact. Opposite gender parents are essential to the healthy physical and emotional states of children. Ask teenagers in those situations and they will admit concerns. Watch homosexual families and it is clear that something is missing. Any "experts" that claim otherwise have an agenda and truly don't care or understand the impact on children.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 25, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    @banderson --

    "SCOTUS can change the constitution on whim, including who or what constitutes 'marriage'?"

    Nobody is redefining marriage, any more than universities were "redefined" when women started being admitted -- or any more than elections were "redefined" when blacks started being allowed to run.

    Removing discrimination is not redefinition. Allowing gay marriage is simply an acknowledgment that the essence of the institution -- and in the case of marriage, that essence is love and commitment -- transcends gender as much as it transcends age, or religion, or race, or ethnic group.

    "why would I feel secure in believing that SCOTUS won't redefine marriage as between plants and humans"

    Because plants can't consent. Informed consent is a fundamental component of all contract law. It can't be removed from our legal system. But discrimination **can** be removed. One step at a time.

    @ExecutorIoh --

    "Experts claim that there is no negative impact on children, common sense clearly demonstrates otherwise."

    You are simply wrong. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and multiple other medical and scientific groups all support gay marriage.

    "Common sense" once told us that the world was flat.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Thank goodness we don't live in a theocracy.

    @ExecutorIoh;

    "Common sense" isn't proof of a thing, nor frankly, is it all that "common".

    @Pat;

    Do you mean the "rule of law of the Constitution" or the "rule of the majority"? The two are not the same thing, nor is the latter actually the "rule of law".

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 25, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID
    @ Lane Myer. Nice try but totally inaccurate!
    •9:28 a.m. March 25, 2013

    ==========

    Mountman,
    You realize Lane Myer gave you the BIBLICAL scripture as to why Sodom was destroyed.

    You realize you are arguing with the Bible, not with Mr. Myer?
    [No, I didn't think you did.]

    I call yours nice try, but totally inaccurate.

    Score:
    Lane Myer - 1
    Mountanman - 0

  • Pat Salt Lake , UT
    March 25, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    Ranch Hand - What I mean is that I hope the US Supreme Court will not be swayed by politics and national public opinion polls in deciding these cases, but rather by Calif case and statutory law re initiative, referenda, etc, and Federal and Constitutional case and statutory law as applicable. It is my understanding that laws banning same-sex marriage do not rise to the level of strict scrutiny (like race discrimination) nor even mid-level scrutiny (like gender discrimination).

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    March 25, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    If you can't say no to gay marriage, you won't be able to say no to anything in life; and why stop there, why not have polygamy next, the "super smart elite" attorneys in our country (Obama, Clinton, Biden, Schumer, Harry Reid) should all say today they are all for polygamy too, why favor the number 2 in marriage and discriminate any higher number of people in a marriage?? They only support something when it gets above the 50 percent approval mark. The Bible is more important than a law degree and popularity. Prophets speak a higher law than the Constitution. Thank you Al Gore and John Kerry for being the last smart Democrats to keep the faith, and not change with the wind.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    March 25, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    The three big enemies of life ( media, Hollywood and universities) are entities none of us should ever fear since they are all lacking in leadership and unity, unable to ever speak as one consistent voice.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    March 25, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    The Bible (or religion) aside, what do your own moral intuitions tell you on this?

    And for those who think this cannot be done (i.e., we must consult our holy books to know right from wrong), please consider what the Bible says about love on the one hand and slavery on the other; and how it is you know one is a "higher" teaching than the other.

  • dustman Nampa, ID
    March 25, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    I still don't know why the LDS church is so involved in this.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 25, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    We live in historical times, I'm looking forward to tomorrow and Wednesday's hearings by the SCOTUS on Prop 8 and DOMA.

    On this paper there are several comments against SSM. These comments I'm sure are well meaning for what the writers perceive to be the good of society.

    What I don't understand and would like to understand, is why those against SSM don't use secular reasons to support their claims.Is it possible they don't exist?

    Another thing I don't get, is the fallacy that "Marriage" is a religious contract.
    In most countries around the world, the only valid marriage is the one signed in the Court House. People who want a religious ceremony have a "symbolic" marriage at a church of their choice.

    The USSR had godless marriages that were fully accepted all over the world. Marriages in China are civil contracts, in Cuba there is no valid religious marriage. However, they are still valid marriages.

    Personally, I hope soon I can have a religious marriage in a church that supports it. Being raised as an LDS is sad I will not be able to do it in the faith of my family.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    March 25, 2013 3:51 p.m.

    Mountanman: In other words, your God, correct?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    @wrz
    "All other combinations of marriage will doom this country."

    Massachusetts doesn't seem doomed. Utah pre-1890ish didn't seem doomed.

    @Mountanman
    "The same God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for what you are supporting."

    I can't speak for everyone but I'm pretty sure we all oppose attempted rape of angels (or really any rape). Also we believe offering daughters to rapists is immoral but that's what Lot, the one allegedly moral guy in the city did. Are you sure you really want to use this story as your moral argument?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 25, 2013 6:04 p.m.

    @ExecutorIah

    Friend,
    I'm glad that you express your concern for children. More than that, I think your concerns are valid. We live in a society in which our kids are exposed to perhaps too much unfiltered information. The family should be the main source of strenght and values for the next generation.

    You express that somehow, gays parents are lacking, ""With this absence, it falls to the schools or society in general to raise children". Well, that concept is nothing new. It takes a village.

    Nobody claims that gay parents are perfect or even better than heterosexuals. However, statistics may show you that gay parents seem to be more sensitive to individuals needs of children. They are not trying to force their children into stereotypes.

    Besides,most children facing Juvenile courts are children of heterosexual parents. Most teen suicides related to homosexuality take place with children of heterosexual parents.

    I share your concern for children. But we, all parents, homosexuals and heterosexuals, face the challenges of growing children. Hopefully, relative and friends, school and society can provide all of us with the support we need when confronted with the challenges you mentioned and others that are lurking around.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    ExecutorIoh: "A gay father cannot sympathize or even truly understand what a teenage girl is going through... Opposite gender parents are essential to the healthy physical and emotional states of children."

    And yet the law allows divorce, which results in children not having the full gender complement of parental modeling and support, and the law allows single parenthood (indeed, the pro-life movement insists that single pregnant women must bear a child even if the father is absent). The "two parents of each sex is optimal for child welfare" argument fails because the law allows many suboptimal family arrangements. Whether or not it is true, for the argument to be persuasive, you must demonstrate that gay parents are worse for children than all other legally sanctioned family arrangements.

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:08 p.m.

    @atl134--There are several very solid arguments that are not religion-based. The DesNews won't allow us to post links, but if you are really interested in this topic, you owe it to yourself to search for: marriage facts harvard law school. You will find an exhaustive treatise on the subject published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Yes, it's written by an attorney, but since we're talking here about legal arguments that's what you get. It is readable by laymen and worth the effort.

    There is also an excellent article published a couple of weeks ago (also not from a religious standpoint) by Doug Mainwaring, a gay man. To find it, search for: i'm gay and i oppose same sex marriage mainwaring.

    There is an important distinction to be made here. Most of the truly salient arguments are not AGAINST same-sex marriage, but rather FOR traditional marriage, for maintaining what has worked well for millennia in rearing and safeguarding children.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:15 p.m.

    @Pat;

    So, you're saying that you prefer mob rule over the Constitution of the United States?

    Article 4 Section 1:

    "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

    --- GLBT Marriages are "public acts, records." Is your marriage recognized when you cross state lines? So should the marriages of GLBT couples be recognized as well - or yours shouldn't (equal treatment).

    The 1st Amendment:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    --- The God I believe in doesn't care about the genders of a couple in a marriage. Your religious beliefs do NOT trump any other's.

    The 14th Amendment:

    "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..."

    --- GLBT Americans are citizens as are you and are entitled to the "privileges or immunities of citizens". Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule. Freedom applies to ALL Americans.

  • CPA Howard Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
    March 25, 2013 7:38 p.m.

    I hope the court sends it back to Congress and California. DOMA was passed by Congress: and if current members of congress no longer agree with DOMA, introduce a law to repeal the law. If members of congress who believe DOMA is wrong and aren't willing to stand up for their belief, then the Gay lobby should find a candidate who will commit in public to support their position and work to get them elected.

    The people of California put this on the ballot and a majority voted for the law. If the Gay lobby doesn't like the law, put an initive on the ballot to repeal the law.

    I wish the Gay Lobby would stand-up and take their case to the people and let the people decide. Please don't compare this to slavery, because it's not the same. In most states civil unions are permitted, which grant you all of the same rights as married couples. If the reason you want it recognized is for the tax deduction (loophole), then change the tax code.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 25, 2013 8:02 p.m.

    @AceroInox

    You wrote: "There is an important distinction to be made here. Most of the truly salient arguments are not AGAINST same-sex marriage, but rather FOR traditional marriage, for maintaining what has worked well for millennia in rearing and safeguarding children."

    My dear friend, then we should unite our efforts. You see, NOBODY is against heterosexual marriage. Because as you say, it has worked for millennia ( worked well...that is arguable)
    LGBT are FOR marriage, so much, that we would like to enjoy the same protection, rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy with the spouse/partner they love.

    Many of us have children and we love them very much. SO much that we would like to give them the same protection that children of married couples enjoy.

    We are not asking to deprive anyone of their ability to marry. We are asking to expand that ability.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:20 p.m.

    CPA Howard;

    Can you guess why rights are called rights?

    We shouldn't put rights up to a majority vote in this country; your own rights may be the next set up to someone's vote. How would you like it if gays got to vote on heterosexual's marriages?

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    @Baccus0902: I gather you did not read either article. At the very least read Doug Mainwaring's piece. I've voiced many of the same concerns he does, but having lived it, he has more credibility.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 25, 2013 9:30 p.m.

    @Contrarius:
    "I'm really tired of hearing this old claim over and over again."

    I'm really tired of hearing over and over the claim that certain people are not allowed to marry. Everyone can marry. The only criteria is that you marry someone of the opposite sex. And it applies equally to ALL, so there's not discrimination, whatsoever.

    "Here's the truth: Some people are already allowed to marry men. Other people are NOT allowed to marry men. The distinction is based solely on gender. That is called 'gender discrimination.'"

    I'd call it foolishness. Because that's what it is.

    Here's some more foolishness similar to yours... some people can bear children (women) others can't (men). That's called gender discrimination.

    "NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners. NOBODY is allowed to commit incest. Therefore, there is no discrimination. These laws ARE constitutional."

    Oh you foolish soul. Multiple and 'incest' marriages are governed by law. Laws can be changed. If the law (DOMA) is changed allowing same sex marriage, it can (and should) be changed for any other combination of marriage dreamed up by the participants. Else you have discrimination.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 12:57 a.m.

    @aceroinox
    I'll be rather busy with assignments and classes this week so I think I'll hold off on reading the 50 some page document until I have more free time this weekend.

    @CPAHoward
    "Please don't compare this to slavery, because it's not the same"

    I'd compare it to interracial marriage. Mostly because it involves marriage, bans, and the idea that everything is equal (after all white people could marry someone of the same race and black people could marry someone of the same race). Plus...

    @wrz
    "If the law (DOMA) is changed allowing same sex marriage, it can (and should) be changed for any other combination of marriage dreamed up by the participants. Else you have discrimination."

    ...interracial marriage opponents used the same slippery slope logical fallacies.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    March 26, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    As I have said in previous posts relating to this issue - this boils down to treating all consenting adults “Equally” - no more and certainly no less.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 26, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    @ AceroInox

    I just read the suggested article.

    What a sad and insecure man.

    You see, as a devoted LDS young man, I had to question and think, pray, fast, go to my churh leaders, see psychologists, I even subjected myself to reparative therapy (electric shock and others).

    I was engaged to marry. However, I made the decision that I wouldn't marry unless I was cured. I wouldn't deceive the mother of my future children.

    I found out that There is no cure because there is no need.

    Mainwaring is a repressed soul, he equates homosexuality with sex. I have been with my partner for 31 years. I must admit that sex is important, but not the most important part of our relationship.

    Mainwaring's article is summed on this sad statement: "My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen."

    He doesn't dare to kiss his son, why not? French, Italian, Arabs, Latins, we are all crazy kissers. We may be macho oriented, but we love our families and express it with filial hugs and kisses.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 26, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    ‘Supreme Court set to hear gay marriage arguments’

    They may hear, but they don't listen. It's already been voted against.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 26, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    I tried to post this comment last night, but it seems to have gotten lost. Trying again!

    @aceroinox --

    I did read the Mainwaring article.

    First he says that denying children the right to grow up with parents of both sexes is "evil". He says this despite the fact that he himself adopted a child while he was married, and **then got divorced** -- thereby denying his OWN child the right to grow up with both his parents.

    Then he criticizes gay marriages because gay couples are unable to have biological children within the marriage. He says this even though he himself adopted a child.

    Can you get much more hypocritical than that??

    As for that Harvard Law paper you referenced -- it hinges on the argument of reproduction within the marriage. The paper has been thoroughly debunked in other publications -- and the reproduction argument has been countered many times in DN's own comment sections as well.

    In essence: many straight couples can not or choose not to reproduce, but that doesn't make their marriages any less valid. Unless you want to outlaw all non-productive straight marriages, you can't legitimately use that argument against gay marriages.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 26, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    @wrz --

    "I'd call it foolishness. Because that's what it is."

    Nope. Insulting a logical argument won't make the logic go away. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to have logic on your side as well. And right now, you don't.

    Fortunately, I'm sure that the Supreme Court justices understand the concept of discrimination very well. And they're quite good with logic, too.

    Arguments beginning today! I can't wait to read some of the transcripts!

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    March 26, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    The fact that this revolting law suit is even being heard by the Supreme Court proves the steady decline of America continues.

    America, America, oh, how the mighty have fallen....

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    The Caravan Moves On
    Enid, OK

    I am sure that is what the South thought when we did away with segregation laws.

    In fact, this makes me proud to be an American. It is truely what we represent: Freedom for everyone, even those who are not like us and do not believe as we do. If I remember correctly, that is why many came here in the first place. Good to know that we still hold dear to those values!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 26, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    This issue is not for the Supreme Court, but individual states.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    March 26, 2013 5:16 p.m.

    bandersen, I think we can be quite certain that the idea of anyone who is not old enough to buy a xylophone factory isn't likely to be able to marry, in most states, any time in the distant future. Okay, so they aren't likely to buy a xylophone factory. But consenting adults who can sign a contract should be able to sign one to marry whichever other consenting adult who can also sign a contract they wish, should they not? Is that so hard to comprehend? And frankly, if three people who can all sign a contract want to get married, does that hurt you? I don't see people marrying cats anytime soon. For one, they can't sign anything. And it's easier to buy a xylophone factory.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 26, 2013 6:16 p.m.

    @Contrarius:
    "Nope. Insulting a logical argument won't make the logic go away."

    You need to have a logical argument to have it insulted... which you don't.

    "Fortunately, I'm sure that the Supreme Court justices understand the concept of discrimination very well."

    There is no discrimination in our marriage laws... Anyone can marry provided they can find someone of the opposite sex to marry. This applies to all, ALL citizens. No discrimination there.

    "And they're quite good with logic, too."

    They are quite good at dodging the issue as we can see in the Obamacare ruling.

    "Arguments beginning today! I can't wait to read some of the transcripts!"

    I think you'll be disappointed with the outcome.

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    March 26, 2013 6:37 p.m.

    @kargirl:
    "I think we can be quite certain that the idea of anyone who is not old enough to buy a xylophone factory isn't likely to be able to marry, in most states, any time in the distant future."

    The eligibility to buy a xylophone factory is a function of law. If the law can be changed re same sex marriage, it can be changed for buying factories.

    "But consenting adults who can sign a contract should be able to sign one to marry whichever other consenting adult who can also sign a contract they wish, should they not?"

    You got that right. And they shouldn't have to be consenting adults since such a requirement is discriminatory.

    "I don't see people marrying cats anytime soon."

    To the best of my knowledge, there is no law against it. And if there were, it can and should be changed. I'm quite positive there are people who want to marry their cat for a number of reasons including leaving it a fortune upon death.

    "For one, they can't sign anything."

    Who's saying you have to sign something? That too, is discriminatory and can be changed.

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    March 27, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    @ Lane Myer - "Salt Lake City, UT, 2:27 p.m. March 26, 2013 - I am sure that is what the South thought when we did away with segregation laws. In fact, this makes me proud to be an American. It is truely what we represent: Freedom for everyone, even those who are not like us and do not believe as we do. If I remember correctly, that is why many came here in the first place. Good to know that we still hold dear to those values!"

    Values? What "values" are you talking about Lane?

    Sadly, Lane, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is not a "value" to call evil, good. Time, and truth, will prove those on my side correct.

    How long, Lord, how long?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    March 27, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    @The Caravan Moves On – “Values? What "values" are you talking about Lane?”

    Freedom, equal protection under the law, that we are free to believe what we want and live our own lives as long as we’re not harming others. I actually thought Lane was pretty clear about it.

    The rest of what you said strikes me as simply… well, sad. What “evil” are you talking about?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:13 p.m.

    @The Caravan Moves On;

    Bigotry and discrimination are evil. You are calling it "good". Love and commitment are good and you're calling it "evil". You really need to apply your scriptural references more appropriately.