Quantcast
Utah

Gay, lesbian couples sue Utah for right to marry

Comments

Return To Article
  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 25, 2013 6:34 p.m.

    I admire these couples for their commitment and courage. The most powerful action that any oppressed minority can take is to stand up and speak out against that oppression. I sincerely hope that everyone in your lives is proud of you!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 25, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    Make the tax payers responsible? Dishonesty accompanies gay couples. Just pathetic.

  • Normal Guy Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:01 p.m.

    Proud to be a Utahn where the law says that only a man and a wife constitute a family and yet where I see gays and lesbians respected on a daily basis.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    With luck, after the Supreme Court decides the cases that are being argued this week, these couples and all gay couples throughout the country will be able to marry.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:16 p.m.

    Re: "The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare the Utah law unconstitutional under the due process and equal protections clauses of the 14th Amendment . . . ."

    This groundless, vexatious lawsuit will be quickly thrown out under current law.

    The US Attorney should strongly consider applying for monetary sanctions in this case, certainly against any lawyers involved, and against plaintiffs, as well, depending on their level of legal training and sophistication. This would compensate the legal system for this clear and deliberate waste of time and resources, particularly in this federal circuit.

    Once the Supreme Court rules on its two gay-marriage cases this term, any future suit will be so clearly disingenuous and vexatious as to require application of sanctions. But current law is sufficiently clear on the issue to warrant sanctions as a deterrent to such disingenuous legal blather.

  • Engineer22 Provo, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:23 p.m.

    I find this kind of lawsuit curious. To my understanding, if the Utah State Constitution has been amended to define marriage, then they aren't challenging a particular law, they're fighting the actual State Constitution. I don't see how a federal appeal will help either, because (at least according to every civil marriage I've been to) the justice/bishop/pastor/etc. will say something to the effect "By the authority vested in me by the State of , I pronounce you..." you get the idea. The authority comes from the state, not the federal government.

  • CPA Howard Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
    March 25, 2013 7:23 p.m.

    I wonder if Contrarius feels the same way about Polygamy? If you have 3 consenting adults who want to enter in to a committed relationship and want to enjoy all of the same benefits as a married couple, why should state law prevent it. The anti-polygamy were pasted in the past when it was considered deviant behavior, just like homosexuality. If we are going to rewrite the marriage laws, lets rewrite them to cover all types of marrige between consulting non-related individuals.

    Personally, I believe the that marriage should be between a man and a women and it should be decided by a vote of the people. If a couple has been married and moves to a state where it isn't recognized, they made that choice and I'll assume it was an informed choice.

    If I get a conceal and carry permit in Utah, I know it won't be recongnized in California; and I'll have to abide by California law.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 25, 2013 7:24 p.m.

    ??

    These couples are fighting for their rights. Where is the dishonesty in that?

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:24 p.m.

    Stand by for an avalanche of support for gay marriage by the very well organized gay activists.

    However, despite their sincerity and enthusiasm, the laws of nature are not subject to repeal. They can call it anything they want, but marriage is truly one man and one woman, no more, no less, and no other permutations.

    If homosexual "marriage" must be allowed, then so must polygamy and bestiality-- after all some people think these are "marriage" too.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:26 p.m.

    These couples are courageous trailblazers. Worf your post does not make any sense.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    March 25, 2013 7:26 p.m.

    Care to elaborate Worf? By itself, your statement makes little sense. I even reread the article to find anything related to what you wrote in your comment, and it still made no sense.

    As for the article, good for them. Gay and Lesbian couples exist. Many raise children. Excluding them from the benefits of marriage provides no societal benefit. In fact, in really only creates harms. If marriage is for the benefit of children, the children of same-gendered parents will benefit as well. Couching this as a religious freedom issue is mostly presented backwards. If anything, the laws against marriage equality present a violation to the First Amendment as there are many churches who want to perform these weddings but are prohibited by the state. Likewise, the First Amendment provides cover for any church that doesn't want to. A church can no more be forced to marry a gay or lesbian couple than they could be forced to marry a member not of their faith.

  • james d. morrison Boise, CA
    March 25, 2013 7:40 p.m.

    My 5 year old daughter is asking why she can't marry her cousin.

  • james d. morrison Boise, CA
    March 25, 2013 7:42 p.m.

    Everyone already has the same, equal right to get married. Anyone can get married to one other person of the opposite sex. There is nothing prohibiting them from doing that.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 25, 2013 7:49 p.m.

    Engineer,

    State constitutions can be struck down if provisions are passed that violate the federal constitution under the supremacy clause. The defendants are claiming the Utah constitution violates the 14th amendment.

    Also, the "power vested in my by the State" is not in reference to states as in UT, AZ, etc., but the State as the government body.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:17 p.m.

    @CPA Howard
    ...If you have 3 consenting adults who want to enter in to a committed relationship and want to enjoy all of the same benefits as a married couple, why should state law prevent it.

    =================================

    It shouldn't. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, who or how many is none of my business. The only "stickler" with polygamy is it can make things like inheritance a mess, as long as there is a legally sound plan in place for such, it's none of my business.

    1) I wouldn't want someone to be able to vote on MY marriage, why should I have be able to vote on someone else's?
    2) What my neighbor does in his bedroom generally has no affect on what goes on in mine.
    3) A common argument against gun control laws is that the "bad guys won't follow them"...will keeping same sex marriage off the books do anything to lower rates of homosexuality?
    4) If you believe same sex marriage is a sin, don't seek one. Part of Freedom of Religion is that others have an equal right to practice, or not practice your religion. I practice mine by personal choice.

  • Engineer22 Provo, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:19 p.m.

    Claudio,

    That is definitely your interpretation. Every civil marriage ceremony I've ever been to has said, to the effect, "by the power vested in me by the state of Utah, Ohio, Kentucky, etc." If 'State' were referring to a governing body as a whole, wouldn't it make more sense for it to say, "By the power vested in me by the US government"? It says state. It means state.

    The first section of the fourteenth amendment says in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    I'm not a lawyer nor an expert on the constitution, but if we're throwing around opinions and interpretations, I'll contend that a law and a state constitutional provision are very different things.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 25, 2013 8:39 p.m.

    To CPA Howard and DN Subscriber --

    The issues of polygamy, incest, and bestiality are entirely different than the issue of gay marriage. Here's the short version of why that is:

    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.

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

    Further, in re bestiality and children: neither children nor animals are capable of giving informed consent. Consent is a fundamental component of all contract law. It can not be removed from our legal system. Therefore, children and animals will never be eligible for signing marriage contracts.

    Further, in re polygamy: unlike gay marriage, polygamy has very practical dangers. Women have always had less power in society than men; therefore, it is easy to take advantage of/subjugate/abuse women in polygamous relationships -- as we have seen repeatedly in polygamous sects. Gay marriages have no such proven, concrete dangers.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 25, 2013 8:54 p.m.

    Engineer,

    It's not my opinion. There are ample cases that SCOTUS has overturned state constitution provisions from taking effect. The prop 8 issue being debated tomorrow and Wednesday falls in that category.

    Why did you take issue with my clarification of "state?" It didn't disagree with what you posted in response. I wasn't claiming the US Gov't was the "State" referred to, I was clarifying that it didn't mean "state" exclusively as we refer to state. It's leagalese.

    Sorry you decided to take offense to my comment. I was merely trying to answer your presumed honset questions with the information I have as a legal expert. I guess you'd prefer to remain in the dark if it doesn't conform to your beliefs.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:00 p.m.

    @ DN Subscriber

    Just like homosexual marriage, polygamy should be allowed so long as all the entering parties are consenting adults.

    Bestiality will never be legal for the simple reason that an animal is not a consenting adult, and can't sign a marriage license....

  • Supporting LDS Church Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:55 p.m.

    Pahoran had power authorized by the people. He judged righteously to protect the people's freedom to control their government. The King-men stirred people up against the righteous so much that they actually thought they were entitled to govern others.

    Choosing unbelief and sin only ever produces a satisfaction that can not last. We've been given direction on what choices will bring forth happiness and good fruit. Not only have we been given this that we might believe it, but we have the testimony of all those who choose to live it as evidence that the plan of happiness is real. God's plan and commandments are designed to bring us to the happiness that He knows. The design is to share such splendid joy.

    This issue is a sad one. Not only do those struggling not feel the love and help being offered to them, but those who are really bitter are pushing an agenda that will not coexist with freedom. In the end, happiness is only found through living righteously. The choice to live righteously or not is already protected in this free country. This issue isn't about protecting rights, but overpowering democracy.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:56 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "This groundless, vexatious lawsuit will be quickly thrown out under current law.

    The US Attorney should strongly consider applying for monetary sanctions in this case, certainly against any lawyers involved, and against plaintiffs, as well, depending on their level of legal training and sophistication. This would compensate the legal system for this clear and deliberate waste of time and resources, particularly in this federal circuit.
    "

    Prop 8 has made it to the surpreme court based on this argument... it's really not groundless.

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    March 25, 2013 10:01 p.m.

    Contentious oppressed minority ?I do not see that . Why because the voice of the majority is being silenced by the media threats and law suits. We are only allowed to speak if we agree with the few. I will not be silenced I say we all have a right to stand. Stand for something or sit through every think. We can not be afraid anymore. We are losing what this country was founded on. God land should heed God's law. We should not be silenced any longer

  • snowman Provo, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:07 p.m.

    All adults have the right to marry but they have to follow the law.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:10 p.m.

    Since when are civil rights dishonest? Maybe in the mind of the bigoted.
    I hope they win. Utah & conservatives are once again on the wrong side of history.

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:35 p.m.

    The problem with allowing gay marriage isn't so much about rights, but is a slippery slope. I for one am all about allowing civil unions. There is a big difference between the two, but isn't there a big difference between being heterosexual vs. homosexual as well? If we were to allow gay marriage, what happens when those who are religious and have a certain belief system are not willing to perform a gay ceremony? Will they be prosecuted for discrimination? Will churches who do not believe in these types of ceremonies be stripped of their rights? If you believe it won't happen you are indeed fooling yourself.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:43 p.m.

    "...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

    ...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

    We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

    Whether or not this is politically sensitive or correct, the end result is going to be the same. This country is now in a new fixation with the gay marriage issue while behind the scenes, the nation is falling apart fiscally as well as morally. This is the new bandwagon to jump on, it's true. But it will have ugly, unforeseen consequences.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 25, 2013 11:13 p.m.

    Come on people! Sue Utah? Where do you think Utah would get the money from? The tax payers.

    Why make people pay for your wants?

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 26, 2013 12:29 a.m.

    @worf --

    "Come on people! Sue Utah? Where do you think Utah would get the money from? The tax payers.

    Why make people pay for your wants?"

    Sueing the state (whatever state you live in) is a time-honored tradition, especially in civil rights cases, under the 14th Amendment. This is one way for people to have their voices heard, when they feel the state is acting unfairly or against the US Constitution. And remember, these people are taxpayers, too.

    A few recent cases from the last couple of years include:

    1. CA -- treatment of non-English speakers
    2. FL -- voter purging process
    3. AL -- anti-illegal immigrant law
    4. VT -- nuclear power regulation

    There's many many more examples out there.

    There's nothing "dishonest" about people sueing the state. They are simply fighting for what they perceive to be their rights, as every US citizen has the right to do.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    March 26, 2013 12:31 a.m.

    Worf, they're suing for marriage rights, not for money.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 12:46 a.m.

    @worf
    You want to complain about legal costs? Then stop supporting laws that violate the constitution.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    March 26, 2013 12:51 a.m.

    "I want to marry my cousin!"
    "I want multiple husbands!"
    "I want to marry my dog...AND my cat!"

    Can you people give us a break? The question is about two consenting adults who want their union recognized. Nothing more than that.

  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 2:28 a.m.

    I have stated it once, I will state it again: marriage is not a right, it's a privilege. And all Men and Women are created equal--but that doesn't mean their desires should be equal too.

  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 2:37 a.m.

    Wouldn't the easier solution for this couple be: move to a state that has already legalized gay marriage and save your time and the time it will take for the case to be processed and rejected?

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    March 26, 2013 4:15 a.m.

    We. need to heed the words in mosiah 29:verse 25-26 .the voice e of the many should be

    the law o the land

  • windsor City, Ut
    March 26, 2013 5:17 a.m.

    A1994--"But it will have ugly, unforeseen consequences."

    Ugly true--

    --but only unforeseen by the increasing numbers being duped, and who are being convinced to blithely stick their heads in the sand.......

    Many can see the sad and ugly consequences loud, clear and easily.

  • Gemini Australia, 00
    March 26, 2013 6:02 a.m.

    Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't live in Utah but I do know that the state is predominantly LDS and that they have a high concentration of Christians with such laws. Now you would think people would stop moving to Utah and trying to change it's laws about marriage, alcohol, etc., knowing full well before they get there that these laws are in place. If you want these types of "freedoms" and I use the terms loosely, then why not move to a more liberal state which favors your beliefs?? You can't go into a Muslim country and try and change their laws! I agree, all people should have certain liberties and rights across the board whether homosexual or heterosexual, but you move to Utah because you enjoy the lifestyle, the people, the laws - move if you don't like it. Simple! Marriage is ordained of God between a man and a woman. It is written in the constitution by good faithful men. If you want to be together as a homosexual couple, good luck to you, but marriage is for a man and woman. You can call your union something else.

  • KTC John Wetumpka, AL
    March 26, 2013 6:33 a.m.

    There is an intrinsically procreative purpose for marriage, and the legal definition of marriage should be framed from a child-centered perspective. Marriage exists to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable, parental unions for the sake of responsibly producing and rearing the next generation. A genderless concept of marriage focused exclusively on the attachment of the two parties is essentially unconcerned with procreation. Our common sense tells us that God speaks to us through the natural design of our bodies which He created. He created both the male body and the female body. Those who choose to act out their gay or lesbian inclinations do so in obvious contradiction to the anatomical design of their physical bodies. It is biologically impossible for any two same-gender persons to carry out the great commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. It is biologically impossible for any two same gender persons to create families, the fundamental divine mandate for the rearing of children on earth.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 26, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    @ james d. morrison: Good news for your daughter - when she is an adult, if she still wants to marry her cousin, she can - provided they cannot have children.

    But I am curious - what does a 5 year old wanting to marry her cousin have to do with gay marriage? Have you been discussing the issue with her?

    And, sorry to disappoint - there is nothing unique or special about a 5 year old wanting to marry a relative - most children to through that stage. She will probably at some point decide she wants to marry you. This changing in affection and the general inability of children to understand the finer aspects of reality are why children are not allowed to enter marriage specifically or other contracts generally. When she is 14 and wants to get married to the boy down the street, you can give permission for that marriage. If she still wants to marry her cousin when she is 14, well, we know there are social harms associated with closely related individuals reproducing together, so unless one or the other is infertile, they will have to wait until they are past their child bearing years.

  • wendell provo, UT
    March 26, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    While I have very serious doubts that the lawsuits being discussed here will be successful, I do pray for the day that my partner and I will be able to marry and truly be one. Mark my words...It will happen (hopefully soon) and after the births of my children, it will be the greatest day of my life.

    As a former member (not a disbeliever), and one who is very careful about not disparaging the institution, I do find it ironic that if it were not for the efforts of the LDS church, Prop 8 most likely would have failed and therefore would not be before the Supreme Court today. Basically, the efforts of the LDS faithful have brought us, in no small way, to the cusp of hearing that marriage equality in this country may actually become a reality.

    I am

  • Jazzledazzle Provo, UT
    March 26, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    Regardless of your religion, if you believe in the Bible it talks about a woman cleaving to a man. Thus, man and woman, not woman and woman, or man and man. Yet, everyone is on this train of supporting same sex marriage. Not to mention, it takes a man and a woman to make a child, does it not? You and I would not be here today if our parents were of the same sex? Is that not a fact? Just a couple things to consider huh?

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    March 26, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    While we're at it, if we are allowing everyone to marry who they love, let's let polygamy come back to town. Many people love more than one person. Many people (although I feel it's a psychological problem) actually feel a love for animals.
    Shall we allow people to become polygamists or to marriage to animals legal? It's the same concept. If you want marriage equality, you have to accept this premise...and I don't think that most people do.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    March 26, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    Simplicity is indeed a virtue: 'Marriage' is between a man and a women. Americans, get on board to the future!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 26, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    The question that I have is if there is such a thing as a civil union with "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2", and there is marriage where there is a "Husband" and a "Wife". The argument is that a civil union is inferior to a marriage. OK, if that argument is correct, and gays are allowed to get marriages, then who is the husband and who is the wife? Well, of course, that is not possible, so the marriage certificates will be reworded to replace "Husband" and "Wife" with "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2". So no one will be getting married, and only civil unions will be allowed.

    So traditional marriages which are powerful tools for fighting the feminization of poverty and childhood poverty will be eliminated and replaced with the inferior civil unions.

    If you don't like traditional marriage, then don't get one.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 26, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    @ Gemini
    Australia, 00:

    You hit the nail on the head. People moving into Utah wanting to change things.

    It's happening in Colorado, and here in Texas, as people promote liberalism in their home state, then leave when it doesn't work.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    March 26, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    I am sick and tired of people claiming "rights" when wanting to do whatever their carnal nature leads them to. There is an abundant amount of scientific research that has determined that homosexuality is the result of a sexual addiction rather than the various reasons (excuses) that people give to it. A number of gays have gone through therapy in which they live normal heterosexual lives, marry someone of the opposite gender, and have children. The majority of them never act out on their tendencies. Why is that never reported? Part of the problem is the false narrative that pervades the media that aids to the problem in our society. We need to have an honest debate about gays and their so-called "rights" without having thrown at us as being bigoted or homophobic.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 26, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    @coleman51:

    "Part of the problem is the false narrative that pervades the media in our society".

    Creating false images?

    A tactic used in the last presidential election.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 26, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    @TOO --

    "let's let polygamy come back to town."

    The issues of polygamy, incest, and bestiality are entirely different than the issue of gay marriage. Here's the short version of why that is:

    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.

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

    Further, in re bestiality and children: neither children nor animals are capable of giving informed consent. Consent is a fundamental component of all contract law. It can not be removed from our legal system. Therefore, children and animals will never be eligible for signing marriage contracts.

    Further, in re polygamy: unlike gay marriage, polygamy has very practical dangers. Women have always had less power in society than men; therefore, it is easy to take advantage of/subjugate/abuse women in polygamous relationships -- as we have seen repeatedly in polygamous sects. Gay marriages have no such proven, concrete dangers.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    Contrarius can you tell me exactly when marriage became a constitutional right?

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 26, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    @Flashback --

    "Contrarius can you tell me exactly when marriage became a constitutional right?"

    I never claimed that it was one. The "constitutional right" being violated here is the right to freedom from discrimination, which applies to all legal privileges and immunities enjoyed by US citizens.

    US Constitution, 14th Amendment, section 1:

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

    Notice that says ANY law. "Any" law means it applies to marriage laws just as much as to anything else.

  • Moabmom Moab, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    ET Bass said "Utah & conservatives are once again on the wrong side of history".......better to be on the wrong side of history, than the wrong side of eternity. Men can rewrite laws and give certain groups more "rights" at the expense of the rights of others undermining the family unit, people can pat themselves on the back because they think they are "more tolerant" than others, and praise perversion as a "civil right" till the cows come home. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it noble and it certainly doesn't make it righteous. God's Word is clear, both old and new testament, on marriage being between a man and a women and on homosexuality as an abomination in His sight. Choose wisely whom you will serve, the whim of popular culture and those who seek to undermine society and traditional family values or God. The dustbin of history is full of societies that have rejected God's plan and His laws. .

  • Kjirstin Youngberg Mapleton, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    In all of the debate, pro and con, I feel I must say that just because the "ideal" may be a righteous man and woman who will marry, take their vows seriously, and raise upstanding children who will contribute to society, it is not always the case. Many relationships have men who feel superior to their wives, and treat them as subservient slaves. This teaches the sons to do the same to women they marry, and it carries on for generations. This is far from ideal.

    Some male and female marriages are not healthy for a variety of reasons. Children raised in these families pass on these tendencies. If I were a child being raised by, say, an abusive alcoholic and an enabler, would it be better for me to stay in that family because they were a man and woman, or to be adopted by a loving couple of the same gender? I'd pick the latter.

  • ender2155 Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 26, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    @Coleman You know very well no such studies exist (at least in the last 30 years), so please stop trying to pretend they do. And even leaders in the ex-gay movement admit that people can never be truly straight but can only repress their feelings.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 26, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    So far only a few people have touched on the Constitution and laws of the US.

    Lets look at the the US constitution and see what is going on here.

    The 10th Ammendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Since the US constitution does not define marriage as a right, it is left to the States or the people to decide.

    The Utah Constutition Ammendment 3 reads "1.Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
    2.No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    So according to the US constitution, the states decide what marriage rights are to be. Utah, California, and other states have defined marriage in their states.

    Since the Constitution does not define marriage, whatever the states decide is the law, and have the constitutional right to say so.

    Can those that support gay marriage explain why their desires are more important than the Constitution?

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    March 26, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    @ amazondoc:

    By your own logic, incest should be legal:

    Some people are allowed to marry the person they love. I am not because the person I love happens to be my cousin. The distinction is based solely on biologial relationship. That is "biology discrimination". Biology discrimination is unconstitutional. Therefore laws against incest are unconstitutional.

    If my cousin and I are concenting adults, why can't we be married and celebrate our love and have the state sanction our family? How are incest laws any different from the sodomy laws?

    (BTW - I am NOT in love with my cousin. This post is for illustration purposes only....)

  • Web Geek Lehi, UT
    March 26, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    amazondoc said: "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."

    Women can bear children but men are NOT allowed to! That's gender discrimination! Men should be able to bear children, too!

    That's what your argument sounds like. You are arguing against nature. Men and women are physically different. You can scream about it all you want, but you can't change that fact.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    @ Jazzledazzle

    The ability to have children is not a requirement for marriage.

  • solsticelight Newport, OR
    March 26, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    It is my humble opinion that this is part of the big picture. There are people having children that SERIOUSLY can not/should not be parents. I know many gays and lesbians who are wonderful, loving and caring people who have great jobs, lovely homes and high moral standards. I would much rather see them married and insured and raising children than crackheads on food stamps and welfare who let their kids run wild with boogers on their face and full diapers. I'm talking about things I have seen, not TV shows, but on my own block. I have "Aunts" in Washington who own a massive apple orchard. They have employees, boats, nice cars, four wheelers... I wish I was raised by them! My next door neighbor is a lesbian and she rocks! Get to know who you are talking about before you judge! This is Gods balance... good people who can raise the children of the fallen! We should be embracing them en mass! It is time to do away with archaic notions of right and wrong, and recognize that God is changing the world to fit our needs.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 26, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    @RedWings --

    "By your own logic, incest should be legal:"

    Nope. Anti-discrimination laws apply to members of **protected group**, which are usually minorities. You are not a member of a protected group.

    Incidentally, "protected groups" usually include members of established religions whose beliefs are intrinsic to their religion, or groups who can not change who they are (gender, race, ethnic group, age, sexual orientation). "I feel like marrying my sister" doesn't qualify in any of those categories.

    Now, if you want to go out and establish a religion that specifically espouses incest, then you might start getting somewhere. But you would still have to fight against the known biological consequences of incest.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    March 26, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    Since I got ten recommendations, I will further comment on this issue. In the first place, research does indeed exist stating that same-sex attraction falls under the area of sex addiction since the same biological processes are are work and the results are the same. Second, I would like to discuss the legal issues involved. The gay rights community argue that that their constitutional rights are being violated under the civil rights statutes when they are not allowed to marry. While marriage has always been a state issue rather than a federal one, if it is allowed to fall under civil rights statute, then we create a special class Temple marriages could take place if gays are not allowed to marry in the Temple. If the LDS church resists, they could conceivably lose their tax-exempt status. Under that scenario (a very real one) anyone who wished to marry in the Temple will be denied (only sealings would take place) and no deductions for charitable or missionary service will be allowed. The question then remains, whose rights are then violated?

  • QuercusQate Wallsburg, UT
    March 26, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    I understand the viewpoint of straights who are uncomfortable when thinking about gays and their intimate relations; as a lesbian, I feel the same way when I think about intimate straights. Perhaps it would be more informative to think in terms of what is right for a couple. It is wrong for a straight person to have gay relations, just as it is wrong for a gay or lesbian to have straight relations.

    It's not quite as simple as my statement above, because there are also people who could fall in love with either gender, but the point is that love and loyalty are what validate a relationship and marriage, not gender.

    Apart from that, there are thousands of children of gays and lesbians who are currently the innocent victims of society not allowing their parents to marry.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    March 26, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    From a Network release

    In a historic oral argument on a challenge to state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the Supreme Court indicated Tuesday that it might not strike down such laws.

    The justice whom many observers view as the swing vote in the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, voiced worry at one point during the argument that proponents of same-sex marriages were asking the court to issue a decision that would “go into uncharted waters.”

    After the oral argument, Pete Williams of NBC News reported that it seemed “quite obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court is not prepared to issue any kind of sweeping ruling” declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
    Williams said there seemed to be “very little eagerness” from any of the justices to “embrace that broad a ruling.”

  • QuercusQate Wallsburg, UT
    March 26, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    Coleman51, I know a number of faithful lesbian couples who have technically been celibate for years. Being gay or lesbian has nothing to do with "sexual addiction."

    In addition, there is no threat of anti-gay churches being forced to marry gays; freedom of religion is already strongly protected under the Bill of Rights. Why hasn't the LDS Church ever been sued to let blacks (before '78) or women or Catholics have the priesthood? It's because they have every right to discriminate as a religion. I believe your argument is typically called a "red herring."

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 26, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    Marriage is a contract between two people. Nothing more, nothing less. It should be a binding contract, but it is a contract none the less. It is a word that everyone is hung up on. The word is marriage. Anyone can make a contract with another person. There is no discrimination if one wants to enter into a contract with someone else. Just don't re-define the meaning of marriage when you are talking about a contract.

    BTW, the slippery slope on this is, polygamy. Descrimination happened to some of my ancestors when polygamy was banned. But some of you say that there isn a right to polyg marriage. How can you argue that its not a right to marry who or what you want when you apply it to homosexual marriage and not a polyg one?

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    March 26, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    Let's get the record straight. I know of numerous therapists who do indeed treat gays, including lesbians. In those cases when there is a desire to change, gays do indeed go through a 12 step program which is the same as those who are going through addictions. Throughout recovery, they have support groups and during recovery, they indeed get married to those of the opposite gender and have children. This is well documented and occurring at this time. Also, under the civil rights laws in which gays are appealing, there are indeed punishment for those who don't comply with the law. The so-called rights of gays would create a litany of laws for their "protection" which would make void all marriages that don't fall under the law. Temple marriages would of necessity have to be done away just like they do in certain countries and only sealings would take place in our Temples. Our tax exempt status would be jeopardized as well under the same litany of new laws. Then, the only ones who would be discriminated against are those who wish to practice their religion by marrying in the Temple and their giving charitable donations.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    March 26, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    Same sex marriage will never happen in Utah. The Church will never allow same sex marriages in the Temple.

  • Jazzledazzle Provo, UT
    March 26, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    @ Two for Flinching

    You missed the point....

    If God intended man to marry man or woman to marry woman, why does it say otherwise in the Bible and why can they not procreate. I know some women are not fertile, but by nature it takes a man and woman to make a baby and you know that full well.

  • Jazzledazzle Provo, UT
    March 26, 2013 5:45 p.m.

    Funny how the LDS church always makes its way into the gay/lesbian conversation. As a faithful member of the LDS church I will boldly say that our church is one of the few churches with a spine that will stand up to this issue. Many other religions believe it, if they believe the Bible, but will not stand against it.

    The article is not talking about the LDS church here, it is talking about couples suing Utah for the right to be married. So those of you that want to bag on the LDS church, do it somewhere else. It is not relevant here.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 26, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    Re: Jazzledazzle

    As a faithful member of the LDS Church, I find no problem with those of varying views discussing them on this forum. If you don't like it, don't read it.

    If the purpose of marriage is simply to procreate, then marriage licenses should be denied to couples who are unable to have children, due to infertility/sterility or old age or their own decision to not have kids. Seeing as most, if not all rational people would agree that such a proposal is ridiculous, the argument that marriage is entered into for the purpose of procreation is moot.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 7:57 p.m.

    @Moabmom
    "better to be on the wrong side of history, than the wrong side of eternity. "

    Whose plan was it exactly to force everyone to follow the church's rules while the other plan involved free agency?

    @Redshirt1701
    "Can those that support gay marriage explain why their desires are more important than the Constitution?"

    Because we argue that what the Constitution upholds same-sex marriage based on the 14th Amendment. If you really believe your position then you must believe the court got it wrong in Loving vs. Virginia.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:37 a.m.

    @worf 9:09 a.m. March 26, 2013

    @coleman51:

    "Part of the problem is the false narrative that pervades the media in our society".

    Creating false images?

    A tactic used in the last presidential election.

    ------------------

    You're right. Romney did that all the time. Fortunately the people were able to see through him, and sent him packing.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 27, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    To "amazondoc" using the arguements that the gay marriage groups are using, then yes incest should be legal. Why should the government restrict who you can love and what you do in the privacy of your bedroom?

    To "Flashback" actually the marriage of 2 people is not a contract between just those 2 people. In a traditional religious sense, it is a contract between 2 people and God. In a more secular sense, it is a contract between 2 people and the state where the state promises certain protections if the couple remain married.

  • Guy Smiley of Utah St. George, UT
    March 27, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    There is no such thing as marriage when the partners are of the same gender. It is against God's intent when he created us.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    "My 5 year old daughter is asking why she can't marry her cousin."

    Perhaps if you are going to use an absurd example to try and attack gay marriage you should choose an example that ISN'T ACTUALLY LEGAL in 25 states, including Utah.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    March 27, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    @amazondoc

    You seem to forget that not too long ago homosexuality was also illegal in the United States and arguments comparable to what you have suggested to say that polygamy will always be illegal were presented to make homosexuality illegal.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 27, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    @zoar63 --

    "You seem to forget that not too long ago homosexuality was also illegal in the United States and arguments comparable to what you have suggested to say that polygamy will always be illegal were presented to make homosexuality illegal."

    At the time that homosexuality was illegal, the majority apparently also thought that homosexuality was learned rather than an inborn trait. We now have a greater understanding of some of the biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals -- both in the human species and in other species -- through which it has become apparent that orientation is indeed a biological phenomenon and not a choice.

    In contrast, polygamy is still a choice -- and not an orientation.

    Therefore, the arguments used to justify one will not justify the other.

    In addition, polygamy has known, concrete undesirable effects, especially because women have always had less power in society than men. Therefore, it is easy for them to be mistreated in polygamous relationships. No such known, concrete undesirable effects exist for homosexual relationships. So, once again, we see that the two situations are not comparable.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 28, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" actually for some, loving multiple women is not a choice. It is a natural instinct for most men. For men, the choice is being married and staying married to just 1 woman.

    Your arguments against polygamy only show that you do not understand much of the modern polygamist movement. Outside of having multiple wives, they act, look, and dress no different than the rest of the world. Thier children have the choice to follow in polygamy or not. The women actually have more power because there is always somebody home to care for the children.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 28, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    Redshirt -- "for some, loving multiple women is not a choice. It is a natural instinct for most men. "

    Go ahead and try that argument in court. You'll be laughed out of the courtroom.

    Also remember that men are NOT a minority. "Protected groups" are by definition minorities in need of protection from the majority. You say "MOST men" -- which removes them from the minority category.

    "Outside of having multiple wives, they act, look, and dress no different than the rest of the world. "

    The multiple recent court cases against polygamous sects within the US prove something very different. Uniformly, the women and children have been subjugate and/or abused -- including coercing very young girls into having relations with sect leaders and/or with whomever those leaders chose.

    Note that it is not necessary for anyone to prove that **every** polygamous sect operates in this manner -- only that there is a high risk of them doing so. And as court cases have already shown, that high risk does exist.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 28, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" you are wrong. Just look to Canada for what allowing Gay Marriage will lead to.

    From the UK Guardian "Polygamy in Canada: a case of double standards", shows that the polygamists not only did not get laughed out of court, but have started legal proceedings much like the gays did 10 years ago.

    You should also read "Same-sex marriages give polygamy a legal boost" in the Washington Times. They state that "legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy."

    Again, seems like history and legal experts agree that opening the door to gay marriage will lead to polygamy.

    You should watch the show "sister wives", that is more how the mainstream polygamists act.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 28, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    @Redshirt --

    "You should watch the show "sister wives", that is more how the mainstream polygamists act."

    Oh yeah, fictional cable TV shows are SUCH reliable sources for real-life education. Really.

    " Just look to Canada for what allowing Gay Marriage will lead to."

    Hmmmm. Stable, prosperous society. Sounds okay to me!

    "polygamists not only did not get laughed out of court, but have started legal proceedings much like the gays did 10 years ago."

    Actually, they (the Canadian polygamists) **did** essentially get laughed out of court. Judge Bauman ruled against them.

    From the NYTimes article reporting his decision:

    "Robert J. Bauman, the court’s chief justice, found that 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. "

    People can sue all they want -- that doesn't mean they will ever win in court.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 28, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" I hate to tell you this, but "sister wives" is a reality show. That means that the people are filmed in their natural environment without a script. You are confusing it with "Big Love".

    I have known some polygamists that are in the Salt Lake area, and unless you were told that they are polygamists, you would never be able to pick them out.

    Apparently suing does work, look at the gay marriage advocates. They keep suing anybody and everybody who stands in the way of their adgenda.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    March 28, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    @plainbrownwrapper

    "People can sue all they want -- that doesn't mean they will ever win in court."

    Another argument that was used before homosexuality was decriminalized.

    I am afraid that once the definition changes there will be no excuse tp prevent polyggamists from legally getting married unless you wish to create a new group who are having their cvil rights as well as religous violated.

  • ExecutorIoh West Jordan, UT
    March 29, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    The problem is that they are not really challenging a state law, they are challenging the state constitution. The challenge to try to find the state constitution "unconstitutional" is a tough fight. The equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment isn't strong enough to overturn, which is considered a state sovereignty issue.

    The Supreme Court also hinted earlier this week that they will likely leave the gay marriage "experiment" up to the states to decide. In a couple of months, this will likely all go away.