Quantcast
U.S. & World

Supreme Court teases out implications of Prop 8

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 12:28 a.m.

    Lets look at previous court cases on Prop 8. By our own Deseret news.

    **’Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News – 02/07/12

    ‘"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

  • ticoloco Tooele, UT
    March 27, 2013 12:42 a.m.

    I agree with some of the Judges, it will be a terrible thing to allow gay married, the consecuences in the future will be terrible, from my point of view Man And Woman is the best for our future generations to survive,I don't feel it will be good allowing this. Look Holland they did it and now their goverment think has make their sociatity distance.
    Allowing this will bring a terrible caos.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    March 27, 2013 4:49 a.m.

    Its good to see the Supreme Court has slowed the excited anxiety level of Left Wingers who think the supreme court should be building in more to the Constitution than what is there. The left wing thinks marriage is civil? right? but that is far from reality and basis of constitutional bill of rights.

    Marriage is not a right or entitlement, we have law and order limiting entitlements to be fair and equal, singling out people and to finance lifestyle is inequality of the rights and that makes this case unconstitutional and not a matter for the supreme court to render any decisions or omission or contradiction to our christian based governemnt. If the supreme court does render any decisions, it cannot limit or expand the bill of rights for any reason.

    Civil laws and entitlements are state and local government based law and order.

    The left wingers think the constitution is the property of the governemnt when the truth is its the property of the people. The left wingers are in this with contempt for greed and money and tax fraud which casts a lot of doubt in convincing anyone this is a civil rights issue.

  • Fern RL LAYTON, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:59 a.m.

    There are many reasons why religions have a right to be involved in marriages, and some very good reasons why government should be involved.

    Some of the reasons why marriage should be a government issue, are:

    1. Determining responsibility for illegitimate births, and child-support.
    2. Assuring that women who bear children do not need to bear an unequal burden of the responsibility for providing for them.
    3. Assuring that women who have chosen motherhood are not disadvantaged as they mature beyond their fertile years.
    4. Assuring that the burden of birth control does not rest primarily on the woman involved.

    These are reasons for heterosexual marriages but not for same-sex marriages.

    If society turns away from traditional marriage and toward same-sex marriages, there should be an over-all "Man Tax" issued to compensate women for their biological disadvantage where childbirth is concerned.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    March 27, 2013 6:59 a.m.

    It appears that this SCOTUS is gutless and afraid to act, just like this CONGRESS. It is THEIR JOB to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the states...

    There is really only one way out for the Supreme Court, since they deigned to take these cases:

    The only Constitutional question here is 'equal protection under the law'. The only way they come out with a win-win is by declaring that Civil Unions would provide relief for LGBTs from financial discrimination in Federal benefits, Insurance benefits, etc., so if approved by a state, they will be recognized by the Federal Government. However Marriage as an institution is basically religious, offers the same legal benefits as Civil Unions, but should be only administered by a religious institution, pastor, priest or other clergyman. So then Justices of the Peace, Judges and Ship Captains would only offer Civil Unions.

    Really, any other decision is unfair to either side.

    No, I don't believe in Same Sex Marriage. But I could at least agree to this legal outcome. What are the chances out SCOTUS has the guts or wisdom to come to this conclusion?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 27, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    The argument that people will just stop having kids because gays can marry is absurd (ticoloco).

    How much longer are we going to have to wait for equality?

    Marriage is between the couple being married and nobody else. Fern, if you get to vote on gay marriages, can we vote on straight ones? That would only be fair.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 27, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    Some of the language used in this thread is just plain silly. "Man and Women marrying is the best for our future generatons to survive"..really. You seem to not reckognize that a lesbian women could in fact produce a natural child through insemination..just like many hetrosexual couples..but the point is how many of these gay marriages do you think there are going to be. The gay population is somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the poplation..that's it.

    "If society turns away from traditional marriage and toward same-sex marriages"..come on by allowing up to 10 percent of the population to marry that are not allowed to now socity is not turning away from traditional marriage..in fact nothing will happen to traditional marriage. Everyone who wants to marry someone of the opposite sex will be able to do so, and there will enough little rug rats running around to overpopulate the world and ruin a dinner in any fine restaurant in Utah, many times over.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 27, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    Pagan,
    what is the point of quoting a left wing jurist from a frequently overturned court and how the DN reported the jurist's decision? It does not prove anything.

    the fabricated "right" of gays to marry will eventually trample the real and constitutionally defined right of freedom of religion. We are seeing that already in Obamacare and in other cases where religious business owners are forced to cater to gay couples or go out of business despite strongly held religious beliefs to the contrary. Churches that refuse to recognize gay unions will be denied buildling permits or zoning requests or other matters requiring civil actions.

    Left-wing dogma trumps religious rights every day in the Disunited States Of Obama and the left wing fringe

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    March 27, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Pagan; What is your point? I thought the purpose of a newspaper was to report the news. What does quoting a quote from an old article have to do with whether this article is acurately reporting this news?

  • Fern RL LAYTON, UT
    March 27, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    No matter how you look at it, same-sex couples do not have the same issues to deal with that straight couples have. They don't have to deal with birth control or accidental pregnancies.

    What does the LGBT community want? If there is some degree of happiness connected with having a "married" label, then they could be "married" by some person who would perform the ceremony without the legal involvement. If they want legal advantages that were designed to help compensate women for some issues that apply to traditional marriage relationships, then they are unfairly trying to dip their hands into a limited pot.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    March 27, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Rush Limbaugh has commented that Justice Anthony Kennedy is the "swing vote" and wants to send the case back to the Ninth Circuit which declared the voters unconctitutional. The problem with this for conservatives is that this would esentially overturn Proposition 8 which was a validly conducted referendum of the people of California. The bottomline, whether for or against, is that the legislative process would be overruled by the thinking of "nine lawyers" or maybe eight if this is the case that Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself. It is plain that it is the will of the people to allow some type of accomodation in regard to gay relationships. However, the question is whether you do this with "one sweep of the law". The legislatures have to decide this issue since that is the way our system of government works. The U.S. House of Representatives would never pass this in its present form. The justices by 5-4 will never pass this in its present form. Legally, they should uphold. In actuality, they will probably follow the lead of Kennedy and take the easy way out which in reality will overturn only in California.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    Fern,

    Most of your comments are taken care of by laws other than the marriage law. Child support laws and custody laws are in effect whether or not the parents are married.

    If a gay couple is raising children (if you listened yesterday, there are about 40,000 children being raised by gay couples in California), and one of the partners stays home with those children, should he/she also be compensated with social security benefits of the partner who goes to work?

    Why do you want to treat the children of gay parents differently than the children of heterosexual parents? Don't you really think that all families raising children (2 parents, one parent, gay parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) should have the legal benefits that can best help raise these American citizens? Do we not want the best we can offer for all children?

    What some here seem to be forgetting is that gays are having and raising children right now. They are not waiting for the government to allow them to marry and be a legal family. They are making their own families with or without us.

    I say we support them with legal marriages.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    I learned something on this issue by reading all of the major space devoted to it in the media. Most know now that only nine States sanction gay marriage. For me that fact alone is enough for the court to steer clear of making any sweeping change at this time. What I didn't realize that another eight States sanction civil unions. Added together that means 17 states now allow gays to formalize their relationship. Further numerous polls say that over 50% of the population now favor gay marriage and that those under 30 years of age favor it by nearly 80%. Was it the Constitution or the Bible that enshrined the admonition: "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" ?

    PS. The ruling of the California courts ARE significant if the Supremes deny the proponents of Prop. 8 standing and refuse to decide the matter. In that case, gay marriage will be legal in California (number 18).

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    @RanchHand
    "How much longer are we going to have to wait for equality?"

    Probably forever: Because regardless of marital status; XX is not equal to XY
    Facts can be annoying to dogma

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 27, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Can't believe this is even and issue. Truth be known, 99.9% of gays were not born that way as it's an addictive behavior.

    Is this about rights, or gaining benefits?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    worf,

    How many gays do you personally know? Did 99.9% of them tell you that they are addicted to gay relationships? Or are you letting your opinion of them cloud your judgment and, without any research, lumping all of them under what you think is fact? Can you cite a study that supports your claims? If not, be careful.

    This is about rights and gaining benefits AND being treated as equal citizens of the United States. Do you believe in the constitution? Have you read it - Especially the 14th amendment? How do you square your comments with our divinely inspired document?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 27, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    @ FERN
    Churches in the U.S. have NEVER had full control over marriage. Everyone who wants to get married needs ro get a marriage license provided by the state. Sometime some marriages need/want to be dissolved. Then those couples don't go to church, but they appeal to the state that control the binding powers of marriage.

    Regarding yesterday's hearing on Prop 8. I don't think we had anything new. The judges asked questions in their 'devil's advocate fashion" to probe the various parties.

    Scalia as usual, having politics and no justice in his mind asked "since when SSM is unconstitutional?" I would answer: since the constitution was written. The difference is that we as a nation were not culturally prepared and/or aware to deal with this issue. However, as Judge Ginsburg has expressed (paraphrasing), the constitution should be able to expand and include those who by neglect or ignorance were not protected by it.

    I wouldn't read too much in these hearings. The questions not necessarily represent the thought of the judges. The only remark I would consider seriously is Judge Kennedy's about the 40,000 children of gay parents in CA.

  • Red Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    If we redefine marriage then does that include Polygamy?

    Or is that still bad?

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    March 27, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    I can't even believe we are having this debate. Where has this planet gone?

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 27, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    Worf -- "Can't believe this is even and issue. Truth be known, 99.9% of gays were not born that way as it's an addictive behavior."

    Homosexuality isn't "addictive" any more than heterosexuality is. Unless you truly believe that being gay is just that much more pleasurable than being straight?

  • byufan1993 Provo, , UT
    March 27, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    Pagan

    Oh wait a second... You only quoted one court case. How is that fair? twisting some facts there?

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    March 27, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    @Grover

    "...Was it the Constitution or the Bible that enshrined the admonition: "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" ?...".

    Subterranean Homesick Blues sung(?) by Bob Dylan enshrined the admonition...

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    One has to decide if Marriage is a religious institution or a government institution.
    If it is religious only the God of each religion would have a say in the issue.
    If it is governmental then we ask What business is it to the government?
    Keeping things simple: Making new tax payers is the only legitimate interest of the government.
    Then the government has interest only in potential breeding pairs.
    Benefits are granted in marraige to keep breeding pairs together.

    No other issue matters. Not equal treatment, not love, not a desire to raise children, not a fainess issue, not rights, nothing.

    Breeding pairs is normal to the goverment interest.

    If you aren't a breeding pair but you want to produce taxpayers, they don't need to encourage you so the government would have no interest.
    Homosexual couples who have children are a free bonus to the state.
    Providing benefits to non-breeding pairs has no value to the state.

    In it's simplest form this is the state interest in this issue. Many will find this heartless.
    It is non emotional.

    Being a couple in love is wonderful, beautiful, joyful and of no interest to the govenment.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    The great thing about this debate is that citizens are actually thinking about Whether God exists, what does the Constitution really say about the proper role of government, etc., all of which will create division until those issues are decided. Since God does exist, and since our government has far exceeded its bound for over 80 years, the repercussions will be awesome. Treating Gays with dignity is one thing, allowing them to destroy the fabric of society is quite another. Gay marriage advocates can come up with all the heart warming stories they want, God will still hold them, and those who side with them, accountable for standing against His plan. Those who stand for the truth will assailed as a bigot, including eventually God, but it will be for not. Citizens will have to decide who and what they stand for if they want America, the standard for all nations, to continue as a beacon for freedom and liberty.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    "Making new tax payers is the only legitimate interest of the government."

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

    I think you are looking at this too narrowly.
    Marriage is also about inheritance, and social security (keeping elders out of poverty).

    Can you imagine the courts loads if there was no marriage law stating that the spouse inherits their partners fortune? We would have to double the judges, courts, and time spent deciding these cases. Right now, legal spouses have over 1100 federal benefits that they enjoy because of their legal marriages. Do you think that they only deal with those couples who have children? NO. They deal with socail security, medical privileges, not having to testify against your spouse, etc.

    The government has many reasons to have an interest in marriage. Your defination suits your argument, but is blantantly false.

    If the government were only trying to perpetuate new tax payers, why would they grant a marriage license to older, infertile couples? Why would they allow couples who do not want to have children a marriage license?

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    Oh for goodness sake! Is there anyone else in America that took my comment as serious other than someone from St. George. I guess I should be thrilled that someone from Dixie would catch my Dylan quote...you do however remember that Shakespeare said: "the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls!"

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    March 27, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    Are we really ready to say it is a "right" and hence a duty of govt. to allow/promote same-sex marriage? We have had heterosexual marriage for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is barely a decade old anywhere on the planet. The simple question is, are we sure we really know what we are doing and are ready to "fix" something that does not appear to be broken? Do we truly know all of the consequences?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    One court case and we want to talk about fair?

    Where is the factual context of using your faith to oppress others? No facts there. Only belief.

    But I am used to the double-standard that only ONE side has to provide facts.

    Here you go:

    'Judge Ware Denies Motion To Vacate Decision OVERTURNING Prop 8' - By Barry Deutsch - Family Scholars - 06/14/11

    To be clear, to even GET to the Supreme court, cases must be vetted through many lower courts.

    Just like some can post on the Deseret news.

    But fail to do a Google search about the topic they complain about.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 27, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    @Twin Lights --

    "Same-sex marriage is barely a decade old anywhere on the planet. "

    This is not true. The ancient Roman and Greek civilizations both encouraged homosexual relations -- and at least two Roman EMPERORS are known to have married men. Homosexual relations were also encouraged in some cultures in the Far East -- for instance, in Samurai culture.

    If you're really interested in more historical details about same sex relationships in history, one good place to look is the book _Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe_, written by John Boswell.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    @My2Cents

    "Marriage is not a right or entitlement, we have law and order limiting entitlements to be fair and equal, singling out people and to finance lifestyle is inequality of the rights and that makes this case unconstitutional"

    So you think they ruled wrong in Loving vs. Virginia? And no, don't give me that "that made everything equal" thing because everyone was equal before that too (in that they could marry someone of their own race) just like a lot of people on your side argue now (in that they could marry someone of the other gender) and will still be equal in that regard with same-sex marriage (in that they could marry someone of either gender).

    @ticoloco
    "Man and Women marrying is the best for our future generatons to survive"

    Actually, to continue the species marriage doesn't matter, only procreation. Besides, gay people are gay. Banning them from same-sex marriage isn't going to make them start having sex with the other gender. So if you aren't getting kids out of it anyway then it really makes no difference.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    @banderson
    "Since God does exist, and since our government has far exceeded its bound for over 80 years, the repercussions will be awesome. "

    I'd argue that suppressing rights by instituting religious-based law on the nation is what is exceeding its bounds.

    @Twin Lights
    "The simple question is, are we sure we really know what we are doing and are ready to "fix" something that does not appear to be broken? "

    50% of marriages end in divorce and we have a group of people who want to marry but can't. That seems like a broken system to me.

  • cptbronco Boulder City, NV
    March 27, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    "the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that prevents gay couples legally married under state law from receiving a range of federal benefits afforded to straight married couples."
    I hope this is not what the Court is considering. This is a false premise! The Defense of Marriage only defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It no way tries to take away federal benefits, or the rights of any individuals. If same-sex couples want to enter in to a legal union, that is fine, just don't call it marriage. That term is reserved for a union of a man and a woman. It is simply a matter of definition, and should be decided on that same merit. I don't think it will be, and I am not for a law that takes away from an individual's choices. But I am in favor of the Defense of Marriage!

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    @Lane Meyer

    I noted this is the arguement in it's simplest form.
    It is not blatanly false.
    Marriage benefits do cover a wide range of issues but underlying all of them is the issue of preserving the nuclear breeding family.
    Inheritance and Social security are actually good examples.
    Giving fertility tests or cutting people off for age or desire to not have children is making law to the exception rather than the rule.
    The argument stands.
    Sorry you can only see it in an emotional way to preserve your argument.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 27, 2013 11:46 a.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.

    California, like Utah and several other states, excercised their Constitutional given authority and has defined marriage.

    If the Supreme Court rules against, or allows the 9th circuit ruling to stand against Prop 8, then that has greater ramifications than just gay marriage.

    If the supreme court rules against does anything besides rule in favor of Proposition 8, then that means that the States are no longer protected by the 10th ammendment for defining the rights of citizens within their state. It will also show that the people cannot determine what their rights are.

    Is good to take away Constitutional authority given to the states?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    SLCWatch.

    Don't be surprised when, like Loving v. Virginia, we have a reversal of all the anti-gay marriage laws that have passed. There is something called the constitution, and no matter why the amendment was written, the 14th amendment will not allow you to discriminate against citizens who are simularly situated.

    In other words, since we allow older couples and infertile couples to marry, we MUST allow gays (who are simularly situated in a much as they cannot create children) to marry. You cannot treat citizens who are alike differently - unless there is a valid harm that would occur with treating them the same. That is not a harm to one's beliefs, btw.

    What would you argue in front of a court to keep gays from marrying? What would be your legal reasoning? Tradition, beliefs, and wanting to keep things as they are are NOT reasons that a court would accept. Do you have studies, expert witnesses, and facts to back up your side of the argument?

    Or is this your religious belief? If so, please keep it, embrace it, but it cannot and should not be a part of our laws.

  • patriot vet Cedar City, UT
    March 27, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Marriage used to be a religious institution, administered by clergy, granted and withdrawn (divorce) by the clergy. But it is NOT a religious institution anymore.

    Today it is a legal status granted by the State and withdrawn (divorce) by the State. Anyone wanting to perform a marriage ceremony must have legal standing from the State to do so. Religion is not part of the process.

    I'm active LDS, and I know that the Church's role is parallel to the State The Church has no legal jurisdiction related to marriage or divorce.

    The whole delimma of same-sex marriage has turned into a religious debate, when in fact marriage is not a religious institution. It is a government-run institution.

    Same-sex couples should be given the same civil priviledges the rest of us responsible adults have.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    March 27, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    Plainbrownwrapper,

    Yes, the ancient Roman and Greek (and some other) civilizations were okay with homosexual relations (at least at times) but that is not marriage.

    However, (as I understand it) marriage was not legally recognized except between man and woman. As to the two emperors (Nero and Elagabalus?) what they did/proclaimed was one thing, what would have been legal is another. Seriously, who would stand up and tell Nero he was wrong and live to tell the tale?

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    @Lane Meyer

    Don't jump to conclusions. You have assumed things about me you do not know or understand.
    This is strictly legal.
    My argument is to present the only legitimate reason for the government to get involved in marriage is to produce tax payers.
    Historically the government only got involved to follow the religious culture of each country but that is not a legal reason to be involved. So religion is left out.
    The 14th amendment argument does not apply-They are not simularly situated. Old heterosexual couples can and do get pregnant. Infertile couples can and do change and they can not be denied that possiblity. Homosexual couples can not without resorting to someone of the opposite gender to intervene and thereby negate the biological imperative.
    You relied only on valid harm. Actually the reasoning in marriage is a valid positive...how would extending benefits to homosexuals benefit the state. It does not.
    I have stated the legal argument. All law to this point has supported that fundemental concept...why should it change with no benefit to the state.
    I have thought long and hard why the government should have a presence. Other than this there is none.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 27, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    Article IV
    Section 1
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, ...

    (Marriage is a 'public record').
    Section 2
    1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    (Marriage qualifies as "privileges and immunities).

    Article [I]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    (Many religions believe GLBT couples should be allowed to marry, what about their Religious Freedom? Laws can't favor any specific god)

    Article [IX]
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    (Marriage, and other rights do NOT need to be specifically enumerated).

    Article XIV
    1: ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

    (Prop-8 & Amendment 3 = Unconstitutional).

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    Why don't we just let same sex couples get married? End the whole debate and give over the cake. Then the debate ends and we go on with our lives. Let the LGBT sit over in their corner and the rest of society can sit over in theirs.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 27, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    @SLCWatch --

    "Actually the reasoning in marriage is a valid positive...how would extending benefits to homosexuals benefit the state. It does not."

    Of course it does.

    Many gay couples are already raising children -- for example, more than 40,000 of them in California alone.

    Marriage encourages family stability. Gay marriage would encourage family stability in gay couples -- thus providing more children with stable homes. And stability is a very important component of successful child rearing.

    Many groups of child-development-related experts -- including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, AND the American Psychological Association -- have all come out in **support** of gay marriage.

    The AAP's new position statement declares, in part: “There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "“ ‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development".

    People who think children are important should ENCOURAGE gay marriages, because marriage encourages stable families -- and THAT benefits society.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 27, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    Equal righta, or government benefits?

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    March 27, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    The article actually misstates the issue when it says the Court is considering whether gays and lesbians will have the right to marry. Gays and lesbians do have the right to marry--as long as they marry members of the opposite sex. This has always been true. The issue is whether people--regardless of their feelings of sexual attraction--have the right to marry persons of the same sex. Marriage law is, in a very real way, already equal. This is not to denigrate the feelings of gays and lesbians or to dismiss the importance of same-sex marriage to them; it is only to point out that we're talking about a universal right to marry a person of the same sex, and that one's "sexual orientation" need not enter into the equation, legally.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    March 27, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    I find it strange that Supreme Court Justices are arguing about how long Gay Marriage has been around rather than the fundamental issue of whether the States can define marriage to exclude same sex couples. What happened to all the "strict constructionists" on the Court?

  • Conservative Cedar City, UT
    March 27, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    Mr. Bugg, marriage law is NOT equal. You can't marry your sister or other close family members. There are age restrictions. There are restrictions related to being able-minded. Within our lifetime there were prohibitions related to interracial marriage. So, marriage is not equal for all people. That said...the time has come to cancel the prohibition against same-gender marriage. It has no medical or social standing any longer.

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    @Lane Meyer

    I laud your social belief in rescuing the shattered lives of almost 40,000 children of broken biological relationships in California and millions throughout the country. The professional organizations you named support you. How many of them support taking children from loving, caring biological parents so that they can be raised with a loving, caring homosexual couple? Of these new couples how many will produce more children? There would be a zero net increase. You are talking about loving caring relationships that can only raise the results of failed relationships. But we digress from the legal argument. The state has an interest in proper child rearing but there is no advantage to the state to give children to homosexual couples over heterosexual couples with all other things equal. You are basing the strength of homosexual couples on the basis of a "better than nothing" premise. Benefits to support child rearing can be conferred in legal means with out resorting to marriage benefits. So I repeat, how does granting marriage benefits to homosexual couples benefit the state by increasing tax payer numbers?
    Would it not be more in the states interest to strengthn biological families?

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    March 27, 2013 3:37 p.m.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Nothing codified as "law" can change that fact. Its a law of a much higher institution...God.

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    March 27, 2013 4:00 p.m.

    @Vladhagen
    "Why don't we just let same sex couples get married? End the whole debate and give over the cake. Then the debate ends and we go on with our lives..."

    Ok, sure. Then we can have 2 types of "marriage" - - traditional/correct marriage (between a man and a woman), and modern/incorrect marriage (between man and man or woman and woman..or whatever and whatever)

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 27, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    @SLCWatch --

    " How many of them support taking children from loving, caring biological parents"

    This is known as a "straw man", aka "red herring".

    Nobody is talking about taking children from ANY "loving, caring" couples -- straight or gay.

    Marriage increases stability -- whether it's a straight marriage or a gay one. Stability helps kids.

    "You are talking about loving caring relationships that can only raise the results of failed relationships."

    Yes! Loving, caring gay relationships can help minimize the damage from failed straight relationships. Very good point. Gay adoptions actually help to make up for some of the problems caused by straight divorces, straight unwed mothers, and straight abusive parents. Thanks for bringing that up!

    "there is no advantage to the state to give children to homosexual couples over heterosexual couples"

    This isn't an either/or question. Thousands of children grow up in foster care and orphanages because NOBODY wants to claim them. There isn't any shortage of kids needing loving homes -- there's plenty to go around!

    "Benefits to support child rearing can be conferred in legal means with out resorting to marriage benefits. "

    But marriage supplies additional stability -- which we already know is incredibly important to kids.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    March 27, 2013 4:55 p.m.

    Amendment 10

    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.

    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. "

    So what part of the Constitution do we consult when debating gay marriage?
    It looks like there are two conflicting amendments here. The only logical solution is to repeal one or the other.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:59 p.m.

    To Lane Myer: Your comments were absolutely senseless. Why should innocent children be brought into a family of two women or two men as parental guidance? Well, let's see..who is going to play the father role? There should never be a question in this. These children deserve to be raised in a normal environment...not be subjected to the perverted way of homosexuals. It's not right and that is not the way it was meant to be. Those children deserve to be raised by a loving Father(man) and Mother(female).

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 27, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    @NT;

    Thor disagrees with you.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 27, 2013 6:54 p.m.

    @suzyk --

    "Those children deserve to be raised by a loving Father(man) and Mother(female)."

    When gay couples adopt children, they are not stealing those children from happy heterosexual homes. Adopted children come from places like broken homes, abusive parents, and single mothers. Whether or not these children "deserve" to be raised by a father and mother, that simply isn't happening. Thousands of kids grow up in foster care and orphanages because NOBODY wants them. There aren't enough good homes out there to fill the need.

    Many groups of child experts have endorsed gay marriage. They realize that STABILITY is incredibly important for children -- and marriage increases stability, whether the marriage is gay or straight.

    The position statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics reads in part: “There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "“ ‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development"."

    People who think children are important should ENCOURAGE gay marriages, because marriage encourages stable families -- and THAT is what helps kids.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    The 14th amendment should be rescinded. Also, the argument in favor of allowing gays to adopt is just another destraction and ploy from reality. the reasoning goes something like this: First, we must get everyone to accept gay marriage as something good and moral. Second, make it sound like those who disagree are bigots. Third, skip all the details of history regarding the evils attendant to the gay lifestyle. Fourth, exclude God's opinion on the issue. Fifth, try to get everyone to believe that gay marriage is about equality. On and on it goes! It is futile to write here. Those who choose evil cannot be convinced to accept a concept that they have absolutely rejected. The only thing left to is defend marriage as the Lord stated and stand firm on family issues. Gay marriage is one of satan's best counterfeits for the Lord's definition of it.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 28, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    @banderson --

    "First, we must get everyone to accept gay marriage as something good and moral."

    Not necessarily. I don't accept that being a Republican is "good" or "moral" -- but I recognize a Republican's right to have the same legal protections that I do.

    "Second, make it sound like those who disagree are bigots."

    Not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot, but a large percentage of them are. One sign of that? The number of people who change their minds when they find out that a loved one is gay. It's hard to remain bigoted against a family member.

    "Third, skip all the details of history regarding the evils attendant to the gay lifestyle."

    WHAT details of history??? The Romans and Greeks did just fine, for a thousand years EACH, enjoying the "gay lifestyle". What are these "details"??

    "Fourth, exclude God's opinion on the issue."

    This isn't a theocracy. Your God isn't my God, and my God isn't everyone else's God. Your God doesn't get to "win" just because you say so.

    "Fifth, try to get everyone to believe that gay marriage is about equality."

    It **is** about equality.

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    March 28, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    "Conservative" wrote, "Mr. Bugg, marriage law is NOT equal. You can't marry your sister or other close family members. There are age restrictions. There are restrictions related to being able-minded"

    All of those laws are applied equally. No one can marry siblings. No one can marry under the legal age. Everyone is held to the same standard. As a matter of law, the restriction to marrying only members of the opposite sex is also applied universally--equally. Everyone is held to the same rule, regardless of their sexual feelings.

    My original comment is meant to point out that this is a debate about SAME-SEX marriage, and not necessarily about marriage between homosexual persons. If the states, or the nation, decide to grant the right to marry persons of the same sex, that right will apply to everyone, regardless of their feelings of sexual attraction. So if someone wants to get his fishing buddy better health insurance, he can marry him, and then maybe wait until he meets a nice girl before divorcing his husband.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    March 28, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    amazondoc: If I found out a relative was gay it wouldn't change my opinion one bit. Thats like saying God will change His mind about the Ten Commandments because His children don't want to obey them. How foolish! Doesn't mean He stops loving them or helping them turn from their evil ways. It wouldn't matter in a thousand years what kind of reasons that are abundantly evident that show the deviance of said lifestyle, anyone that won't listen is not going to hear! Whether you believe in God or not, I believe in the Constitution and limited government, which clearly means that the federal government shouldn't be involved in this anyway. I would prefer chaos over state sponsored perversion. I'm prepared for both! So,go ahead, see where it leads you.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 28, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    @banderson --

    "If I found out a relative was gay it wouldn't change my opinion one bit."

    I never said you would. I said that a lot of people do.

    I'm still waiting to hear about all these "details of history regarding the evils attendant to the gay lifestyle" that you were so excited about earlier. What details did you have in mind? Please be specific -- thanks!

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    March 29, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    NT,

    I did not know God was a member of the Supreme Court, and in the US House, or Senate, or in the Whitehouse...

    Until America officially and formally votes God into one of those key positions, then he has no more say in the making or enforcement or interpretation of law than anyone else.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 30, 2013 7:16 p.m.

    @RanchHand 1:11 p.m. March 27, 2013

    You left one thing out -- the US Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) which states in part:

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

    Marriage is one of the unenumerated rights protected by Amendent IX (which you quoted). Racial discriination in Loving is equivalent to sexual orientation discriination in the current case. This case should persuade if not control the decision.