Quantcast
Utah

Same-sex couples can't file joint tax returns in Utah

Comments

Return To Article
  • BYR West Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 7:45 p.m.

    Discrimination!

  • Bryan Syracuse, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 8:25 p.m.

    That's a pretty obvious announcement. The Constitution of this state specifically prohibits the recognition of same sex marriage.

  • dwidenhouse Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 8:34 p.m.

    Yes. It is discrimination. So are speed limits, minimum drinking age, and job interviews. Speed limits discriminate against those that want to go faster. The drinking age discriminates against young people that want to drink alcohol. Job interviews discriminate against those that don't have the proper education for the job. ALL LAWS DISCRIMINATE. However, discrimination is justified if there is a compelling interest. Young drivers can cause more accidents. Alcohol can impair vision and rational thought processes. Companies need qualified individuals to do the work or it won't get done. In this case, taxes are used to encourage heterosexual couples to marry and have children. Believe it or not, heterosexual couples are the best environment in which to raise children. Humans develop best within this type of family environment. This is not to say that homosexual couples cannot raise good children or cannot contribute to society. However, the heterosexual family is the best option. The state is simply encouraging the best option. Justified.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 9:07 p.m.

    And, Utah does not allow polygamists to file as a married couple. Nor people in love with farm animals.

    Utah laws are good on these issues, it is federal law and those of some other states that are badly flawed.

    It a same sex couple wants a break on their income tax, they are free to move to a state that grants it. Just as with people who do not want to pay income tax at all and move to other states for that tax policy. Freedom of choice is wonderful.

  • Utahwoody Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 9:43 p.m.

    And the Utah war on equality continues.

  • Thriller Saint George, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 11:39 p.m.

    Where's the line? If the only marriage prerequisite is love, then it gets messy quickly.

    Polygamy should then be legalized. That's just multiple people in love.

    Incest too right? Two adults in love.

    Why does there even need to be an age limit? You can't tell me a 17 year-old can't feel love until their 18th birthday and then suddenly it changes. There shouldn't be an age limit. If an 18 year-old man is in love with a 17 year-old girl, they should be able to get married too right? Same deal for a 20 year-old man and a 15 year-old, as long as they're in love. Same for a 30 year-old man with a 12 year-old, right? 12 year-olds can feel love, many girls can even have children by that age.

    Heck, animals are capable of love, people should be able to marry their pets too right?

    It's a slippery slope, somewhere we need to step in and decide what's best for society. We've known for a long time but now people are trying to change it. Be careful what you wish for, you may not like the results.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 11:52 p.m.

    I look forward to the day when Utah is forced by law to get over itself.

  • mtf1953 Berkeley, CA
    Oct. 10, 2013 11:54 p.m.

    And how many years ago was it that Utah didn't allow its white residents to marry its black residents? Eventually Utah will once again be brought into the modern world kicking and screaming. It's only a matter of time.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 2:03 a.m.

    Again I say, gays and lesbians are free to marry in the state of Utah, just so long as it is with someone of the opposite sex.

  • Jil York, SC
    Oct. 11, 2013 5:14 a.m.

    Utah, thank you for standing your ground!!!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 6:34 a.m.

    U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 1

    "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

    Utah's Amendment 3 violates the US Constitution. This is going to get intersting.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    @dwidenhouse;

    Speed limits aren't discriminatory because they apply to ALL drivers equally. Drinking ages aren't discriminatory because when the children reach adulthood they CAN start drinking if they want, and they apply to ALL minors, not just a subset of minors.

    If you're going make comparisons, the least you could do is try to make legitimate comparisons.

    @DN Subscriber 2;

    Polygamists are able to file jointly with their LEGAL spouse. Gays who are married in states where it is legal, are just as legally married as you and your spouse, and a polygamist and his first wife.

  • cuscoln Santa Fe, NM
    Oct. 11, 2013 6:51 a.m.

    Since the Utah tax form does not ask the sex of the person(s) filing the return, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be enforced.

  • wendell provo, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    This is simply not news to those of us who are in same-sex marriages living in Utah. I married my partner a few weeks back in California, and we were well aware that we would not be allowed to file joint state income tax returns. We really don't care about that however since we are able to file a joint federal return and receive many other federal benefits due to being married. The most important benefit to us is that my husband can now apply for a so-called Green Card and will no longer need to hope that he might be approved for an extension to his visa. We have been together for 4 years, are as happy as can possibly be, and we got married simply because we are in love, but I am grateful to a country that recognizes the validity of my marriage, even when the state of Utah does not. God Bless America.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    Well Mrs. Wendell, congratulations on your marriage to your husband. Are you going to be having children soon or will you wait to get pregnant? When you get pregnant I think that you will appreciate that people are standing up for giving special benefits for couples who have a good likelihood of having children. Raising children is a lot of work and it is only fair that the people who are sacrificing to bearing and raising the next generation of model citizens and taxpayers should get a little help from all the rest of us who will benefit.

  • wendell provo, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    @WRK

    Since you seem to be so eager for gay people to marry straight ones, I have some gay friends who want to get married. Would you be opposed to them marrying your daughter?

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    @dwidenhouse --

    "So are speed limits, minimum drinking age, and job interviews."

    Nope.

    I am constantly amazed at the number of people who don't understand the legal concept of discrimination.

    Here's one legal definition: "In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes."

    Speed limits, etc., are not discriminatory because: 1. they do not distinguish one class of people **arbitrarily**; and 2. there is a **reasonable distinction** between the favored (law-abiding) and disfavored (non-law-abiding) classes.

    In contrast, denying gay marriage does distinguish arbitrarily, since there is no reasonable reason for denying gay people their right to marry. Therefore it is discrimination in the legal sense.

    "Believe it or not, heterosexual couples are the best environment in which to raise children. "

    Believe it or not, 1. all the professional groups of child development experts in this country disagree with you; and 2. child rearing is a red herring anyway, since people can raise children with or without marriage.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Why doesn't DN carry any life stories about our LDS gay brothers and sisters? Or perhaps, a story about a family like the Montgomery's from Bakersfield CA? There remains much ignorance among LDS church members and DN readers such that we ought to do a better job of educating.

    Didn't Christ teach us to leave the 99 and reach out to the 1? In contrast, our church leaders are shielded from the 1, and surrounded by the adoring 99 wherever they go.

  • wendell provo, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    Thank you for writing, and I'm not sure if referring to me as Mrs. Wendell was a mistake or an attempt to be funny. I am a happily married man who happens to have the most wonderful husband on the earth. To answer your question, I am not positive if we are going to have (adopt) children or not. I already have 5 children, but my husband does not and he would really like to. If we do decide to, we will probably go to an orphanage in Latin America and adopt a couple of 3-6 year old boys in order to give them a better life here in America.

  • Ace Farmington, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Ranch: This will get interesting, but not because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. While states do have to respect each other's laws, you have to remember that each state only has jurisdiction over its own territory. Example: Utah has outlawed gambling. But that Nevada casinos have to refuse service to Utah residents under the Full Faith and Credit clause. Utah's laws extend only as far as its own borders (and the same applies to other states).

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi marriage is not about getting pregnant, it's about love. I feel sorry for folks who are married because of the children or because they got some one pregnant.

    So in your world an infertile or aged couple should not be allowed to marry?

    Utah's going to be forced to grow up and treat folks as their savior told them.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    @Thriller --

    "If the only marriage prerequisite is love...."

    Fortunately, "love" (love/desire/attraction/commitment) is NOT the only prerequisite.

    A type of marriage must pass TWO tests before it is legalized: 1. the love test; and 2. the test of the harm principle.

    Just as with any other law, interested parties must show whether the law/right/privilege being proposed causes a significantly increased risk of harm. For instance, drunk driving is illegal because it creates a significantly increased risk of harm compared to sober driving.

    In the case of gay marriage, nobody has been able to demonstrate that allowing gay people to marry will cause a significantly increased risk of harm to anyone.

    In contrast, polygamy and incest both DO cause significantly increased risks of harm.

    Therefore gay marriage should be legalize. Polygamy and incest should not.

    And so on.

    @WRK --

    "gays and lesbians are free to marry in the state of Utah, just so long as it is with someone of the opposite sex."

    'Blacks and whites are free to marry, as long as they marry someone of their own race.'

    This argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work now either.

  • dwidenhouse Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    @ Ranch

    Thank you for pointing that out. I do appreciate it. I apologize if my point was not clearly stated previously. The basic point that I am making is this: laws discriminate against certain behaviors. Behavior is different than a characteristic. A schizophrenic may have a certain behavior, but that person is not defined by his or her behavior. A criminal may have a certain behavior, but he or she is not defined by his or her behavior. Homosexuality is not a disease nor a state of being. It does not define a person. It is a behavior. This is why the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day-Saints encouraged a non-discrimination policy in housing, employment, etc. People that have homosexual feelings are still people.

    No state can make laws against a state of being (race, gender, etc.). However, a state can prohibit certain behaviors (such as with speed limits and drinking age) if they are not the best for society. As I stated before, the state is merely promoting that form of family and behavior which is best for children and society as a whole.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    as usual lots of confused comments on this topic from both sides.

    this could be solved by legalizing domestic partnerships but because part of the country went forward with their social agendas pushing for extreme social changes, those parts of the country that don't want those changes will now dig in their heels and so these sorts of disparities will occur until one group is forced to capitulate. that's too bad, because it ultimately leads to greater civic distrust when it could've easily been avoided with a more patient and reasoned approach.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    @dwidenhouse --

    "a state can prohibit certain behaviors (such as with speed limits and drinking age) if they are not the best for society."

    And here's an essential point: nobody has been able to demonstrate that gay marriage causes ANY substantial harm to society.

    "the state is merely promoting that form of family and behavior which is best for children and society as a whole."

    Baloney.

    First -- as I mentioned earlier -- every reputable group of child development experts in this country SUPPORTS gay marriage. They recognize that kids grow up just fine in gay-led homes.

    Second -- as I also mentioned earlier -- the issue of child-raising is a red herring when applied to gay marriage. Millions of people raise children without the benefit of marriage every day. Denying gays the right to marry therefore wouldn't protect any children from anything. In fact, denying gays the right to marry HARMS children by denying those children ALREADY being raised in gay-led homes the benefits of marriage.

    Third -- do you really want to "promote" gay people entering into straight marriages? You'll be promoting unhappy and unstable unions, and an extremely high divorce rate. Does that really benefit society?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    Dwidenhouse
    However, the heterosexual family is the best option. The state is simply encouraging the best option.
    KJK
    If we are wanting to only promote the best options, we should disallow marriage and their tax benefits for sterile/infertile couples, senior couples since they can't produce kids; people who are drug users, felons, child molesters, etc… since they’d be less than ideal parents and raise less that optimum kids. We could also deny/revoke marriage to welfare recipients since they too are less than optimal nor contributing to society. The enemy of the "good" is not the "bad", it’s the "best".

    Contrariusier
    polygamy and incest both DO cause significantly increased risks of harm.
    KJK
    Polygamy between consenting adults causes no more increased risk of harm than many other legal marriages. Incest only presents increased harm to possible kids. Couples with Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia or several other inherited diseases should, per your logic, likewise be denied marriage because of increased risks to potential children. Women over 40 are also much more likely to have Down Syndrome kids. Should pre-menopausal women over 40 be banned from marrying due to "significantly increased risks of harm"?

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    @Kevin J. Kirkham --

    "Polygamy between consenting adults..."

    Sure it does. Many many scientific studies, court decisions, UN documents, etc., all document myriad harms from the practice of polygamy.

    As one judge put it:
    -- "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial,"
    -- "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."
    -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

    "Incest only presents increased harm to possible kids."

    Nope.

    You have both the issue of kids, AND the issue of harm/coercion/undue influence with one of the spouses (especially offspring).

    "Should pre-menopausal women over 40 be banned from marrying ..."

    Older women have at MOST a 3% chance of producing Downs babies. In contrast, sibling marriages have roughly a FORTY percent chance of producing defective offspring. That's a whole different ballgame.

    Out of space, but other diseases are similar.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi;

    That was rude of you.

    @dwidenhouse;

    If you're so interested in what's best for children, you should prevent drug users, murderers, molesters, abusers, etc. from marrying; but you don't, which makes your position hypocritical.

    @ace;
    Is your marriage valid when you cross state lines, or are you suddenly single when you travel around the country? Gambling doesn't affect one's status. States need a valid reason to deny similarly situated citizens the rights they afford other citizens.

  • dwidenhouse Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    @ Contrariusier

    Thank you for your comments. I understand entirely that an argument against same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior in general may sound unfounded. There may be no professional evidence to support those claims of mine. The majority of people may believe that same-sex relationships or marriage is perfectly acceptable. You bring up many valid points.

    However, there are studies that say just the opposite of those studies which you have used. You can find a study to prove or disprove almost anything. People that agree with same-sex relationships will quote studies that support them. People that disagree with those relationships will quote studies that support the negative effects. Referring to what professionals have said can be a never-ending battle of one study vs. another. Then what is true? As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, I know that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This truth is being challenged by these professionals and childhood development experts. Each person has the agency to believe what they want to believe. When the majority of the people believe in same-sex relationships, I'm sure the laws will change.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    Oct. 11, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    So... the only time right wing conservatives love complicated tax codes is when it hurts gay people? Got it.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 11, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    @dwidenhouse --

    I just want to say -- I disagree with your viewpoints, but I love your attitude. Good job. :-)

    "there are studies that say just the opposite of those studies which you have used. "

    Where? Please name them.

    "You can find a study to prove or disprove almost anything."

    Not really.

    And the experts -- the people who are familiar with allllll the studies, and who make it their life's work to study and help children -- those people agree that children grow up just fine in gay-led homes.

    "Referring to what professionals have said can be a never-ending battle of one study vs. another. "

    Not when all the professionals agree. :-)

    "As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, I know that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. "

    You mean that your religion TELLS you that.

    And guess what -- this isn't a theocracy. Your religion doesn't get to dictate the laws of the country.

    "When the majority of the people believe in same-sex relationships, I'm sure the laws will change."

    The majority of the US population **already** supports same-sex marriage. And yes, the laws are changing.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    dwidenhouse says:

    "As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, I know that marriage should only be between a man and a woman."

    ---

    Sorry, you don't "know" that, it's simply your belief. You can believe whatever you desire, what you can't do, is force others, not of your faith, to adhere to your belief system. If you believe marriage is between a man and woman, that is how YOU should live. You don't the right to deny gay couples the legal benefits that you receive.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 11, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    "Let us assume, for sake of this argument, that homosexuality on any level is a sin. Making gay marriage illegal does not un-gay people, so it saves no one. Jesus said that thinking an action is the same as acting upon it, so even if a gay person does not ever engage in homosexual sex, it would not matter. So this anti-gay position, which perceives homosexuality as an unforgivable sin, changes nothing.

    The Bible is very clear that there is only one unforgivable sin, and it's not homosexuality. The fact is that we are all born incapable of living a sin-free existence...

    Jesus, never said anything about homosexuality, was adamantly clear on divorce. He said that if a man divorces his wife for a reason other than adultery or fornication, the divorce itself causes her to commit adultery, and any man who marries her after that commits adultery also. Yet how many times have you heard of people petitioning the government to outlaw divorce?"
    (Neal Wooten)

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    Contrariusier
    Many scientific studies, court decisions, UN documents, etc., all document myriad harms from the practice of polygamy.
    KJK
    The Canadian judge looked at the polygamists in question. They are an insular group that are secretive and use intimidation to protect the group. They treat women as 2nd class and attract men with similar views. The other big polygamist group, Muslims, view women similarly.

    If polygamy were legal and the LDS church asked me to take a 2nd wife (a widow with kids perhaps), would marrying her cast a voodoo spell over me causing me to become abusive to women and children? If not, how is polygamy INHERENTLY harmful?

    Contrariusier
    ...the issue of harm/coercion/undue influence with one of the spouses (especially offspring).
    KJK
    isn't that also true if the husband is much older or much wealthier? Should those marriage be outlawed?

    Contrariusier
    Older women have at MOST a 3% chance of producing Downs babies. In contrast, sibling marriages have roughly a FORTY percent chance..
    KJK
    Tay-Sachs & cystic fibrosis can have upto a 25% transmission rate. Sickle Cell, like many others, can be 100%. Should disease carriers be prevented from marrying?

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 11, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @Kevin --

    "The Canadian judge...."

    As Justice Baumann noted, "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

    I've got multiple studies on polygamous unions from a range of countries and religions. I've got NO studies finding that polygamy is benign overall.

    "would marrying her cast a voodoo spell..."

    No voodoo necessary. ;-)

    Polygamy thrives in societies which abuse/neglect/oppress women. In contrast, there are vanishingly few -- approaching zero -- polygamous households in non-opprressive societies and cultures, as opposed to literally millions of such households in oppressive situations.

    You, personally, may or may not be capable of carrying on a non-oppressive polygamous marriage. But your personal individual benign plural marriage couldn't come close to outweighing the millions of oppressive ones out there.

    Similarly, you might be able to drive drunk and get home safely -- but that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legalized. Remember that the harm principle addresses the RISK of harm, not the CERTAINTY of it.

    More on incest later!

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 11, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    @Kevin --

    "isn't that also true if the husband is much older or much wealthier? "

    No.

    Nothing approaches the influence of a parent who has raised a child. And even with siblings, it is difficult to come close to the influence of an older sibling on a younger one.

    In the case of much older or much wealthier spouses, those spouses have met their counterparts **as adults**.

    "Tay-Sachs & cystic fibrosis..."

    Again, we're talking about different ballparks of risk here.

    Roughly only 1 out of every 250 people in the US carry the Tay Sachs gene. There is a very small chance that one carrier will happen to marry another carrier, and the gene is often carried through many generations without ever being expressed. In contrast, ALL sibling marriages have that 40% chance of producing defects.

    Similarly, only 1 out of every 30 people in the US carry the cystic fibrosis gene. It's very unlikely that two carriers would happen to marry, and that 25% chance doesn't pop up unless they do. Additionally, they usually don't know that they have until it's too late. In contrast, ALL -- 100% -- of sibling marriages have that 40% chance.

    Out of room again!

  • dwidenhouse Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    @ Contrariusier

    I agree with you that those are my beliefs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints does establish doctrine and we can choose to believe it or not. I have chosen to believe it. Since it has been brought up and I don't want to seem like a cop-out, please visit for your desired study: New Family Structures Study.

    However, I do not expect this to convince anyone. People will pick holes in all research. People can disagree with us. We may be the minority. We may be pressured to agree with the rest of the world. However, I can say that I know what is true. If you want to know how members of this Church can say that they know, go ask the missionaries. They will tell you.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    I have a sister who in her late teens stated to my parents, my siblings and anyone else who cared to hear that she was adamant she would never bear children. She's now in her mid 50's, has been legally married twice and has never had children. The state of Utah never once questioned her nor anyone else I know about their desire to bear children before granting a heterosexual marriage license.

    Making an argument that the state allows only hetero marriages as a benefit for child bearing is a bald-faced lie. There are plenty of hetero couples who are incapable or have no intention of ever bearing children and yet are allowed and even encouraged to marry.

    Gay people are going to have gay relationships whether we allow them to marry or not. Society will benefit by encouraging gays to marry in that marriage encourages committed, long-term relationships. We should be encouraging marriage relationships with gay couples for that same reason that we encourage straight marriages among straight couples.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 3:48 p.m.

    Contrariusier
    I've got multiple studies on polygamous unions from a range of countries and religions. I've got NO studies finding that polygamy is benign overall.
    KJK
    Polygamy currently thrives only in societies that denigrate women. That doesn't mean that polygamy causes men to be abusive. There is no voodoo spell. If it were allowed in the Western countries that value women, then there would be many who would practice it. polyamory is a growing phenomenon that emulates polygamy. Let adults choose.

    Contrariusier
    ...it is difficult to come close to the influence of an older sibling on a younger one.
    KJK
    What if the woman was older? What about twins? What about adopted kids with no genetic commonalities? What about 1st cousins?

    Contrariusier
    Roughly only 1 out of every 250 people in the US carry the Tay Sachs gene..Similarly, only 1 of every 30 people in the US carry the cystic fibrosis gene...In contrast, ALL -- 100% -- of sibling marriages have that 40% chance.
    KJK
    So? Should laws be passed that require medical exams and outlaw known carriers to marry in order to eliminate the risks...100% with Sickle Cell and diseases? 100% is a LOT bigger than 40%.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    Oct. 11, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    @ Contrariusier: I love your posts and I agree with them. I live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal and I am a strong ally of same-sex marriage. I was born and raised in SLC and raised Mormon, but I cannot and will not adopt the attitude of being self-righteous.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 5:25 p.m.

    @dwidenhouse;

    I'm an RM. Born and raised in the LDS church (I left at 32).

    As a former missionary, let me give a shot at your comment: A burning bosom doesn't constitute knowledge, it simply validates one's belief. Prayer makes one feel good, but it doesn't provide knowledge.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 12, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    @dwidenhouse --

    "New Family Structures Study."

    That study actually found differences between stable and unstable families -- not between gay-led and straight-led families.

    Keep trying.

    @Kevin --

    "Polygamy currently thrives only in societies that denigrate women. "

    Right. And that's a very important point.

    Polygamy correlates nearly 100% with oppressive societies and cultures. Cultures that espouse equal rights for women universally decry polygamy.

    Guess why.

    "That doesn't mean that polygamy causes men to be abusive."

    So what?

    The important point is that polygamy covaries with oppression. It doesn't really matter which is causal. We can't eliminate all oppression immediately, but we *can* keep one of its more obvious symptoms illegal -- and we know that polygamy makes oppression even worse in those oppressive cultures (remember, I've got lots of studies), so it's a good symptom to squash.

    "What if the woman was older?"

    It doesn't matter which sib is older. They still grew up together and will have strong influence before the age of consent.

    "adopted kids..."

    I don't think their marriage would be illegal, but many would think it's questionable.

    "1st cousins?"

    They're legal in most places.

    Out of space again!

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 12, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    @Kevin --

    "Should laws be passed..."

    You're still talking about different ballparks of risk -- and now you're also talking about different ballparks of invasiveness.

    You'd have to test every single person in the country, and you'd have to test them for every single genetic disease known. That would require incredible expense, and would invade the privacy of several million citizens.

    Even if you were willing to go that far, you still wouldn't need to ban carriers from marriage. The farthest you would need to go is banning carriers from marrying EACH OTHER.

    Which is what we do with incest. We only ban relatives from marrying EACH OTHER. And we don't need any testing to prove the risks.

    "100% with Sickle Cell..."

    No.

    Less than 10% of blacks in the US carry SCT. Much less in other races. Again, you'd have to test every person in the country in order to prevent carriers from accidentally marrying each other.

    And even if one carrier DOES happen to marry another, the possibility of homozygous offspring is still only 25%. Not 100%.

    SCD occurs in 1 out of every 500 black births.

    Genetic defects occur in 1 out of every **3** incestuous births.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    KJK
    "That doesn't mean that polygamy causes men to be abusive."

    Contrariuserer
    So what? The important point is that polygamy covaries with oppression. It doesn't really matter which is causal.

    KJK
    Sure it does. Whether credit cause debt or people in debt demanding credit doesn't mean that credit should be outlawed. Let people be free to make their own choices and punish those who abuse others.

    KJK
    "100% [possibility] with Sickle Cell..."

    Contrariuserer
    No.

    KJK
    Yes. Depending upon what type of carriers the parents are, the kids CAN have a 100% chance of getting it. The same is true for many other diseases. If your goal is to protect children, then everyone marrying should take blood tests to see if they are carriers for many diseases and if their collective risks would result in the kids having a high probability of disease, then they shouldn't marry.

    If one/both of the incestuous couple has been sterilized, there is no reason for forbidding marriage. Not every family has power trip issues that you described. Let adults be do as they wish as long as they aren't objectively harming others.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 13, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    @Kevin --

    "...doesn't mean that credit should be outlawed. "

    It is illegal to own drug paraphernalia.

    Does paraphernalia cause addiction?

    Nope, of course not -- but it makes it easier to use drugs and is closely correlated with drug usage.

    By making paraphernalia illegal, we simply remove one tool from the drug user.

    Similarly, by keeping polygamy illegal, we simply remove one tool which makes oppression of women easier.

    "the kids CAN have a 100% chance of getting it. "

    Nope. From the CDC website:

    "If both parents have SCT (if both parents are carriers), there is a 25% (or 1 in 4) chance that any child of theirs will have SCD."

    "If your goal is to protect children..."

    You are assuming that one goal -- protecting children -- overrides every other consideration required for living in the real world. But the Real World requires that we balance our goals with things like expense and privacy rights.

    "If one/both ... has been sterilized... "

    Again, we can't pass laws based on one or two isolated cases. We base them on the increased RISK of harm overall, not on the CERTAINTY of it in every single possibility.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 6:37 a.m.

    @wendell
    Since my daughters are all oppossed to gay marriages, I don't see that as an issue.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    @ Truthseeker
    Do you not listen to the talks of the leaders. They are reaching out to the 1 by helping them to see that they can be made whole through the love of Christ and have a fullfilling life with a partner of the opposite sex.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    @Contrariusier
    Can you prove how polygamy causes harm. Since it is recognized in other nations, by your argument, it should be recognized here.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    @WRK --

    "Can you prove how polygamy causes harm. "

    Here's a few resources for you to start with. There are many studies available, but comment space is limited!

    1. UN Report of the Human Rights Committee (HRC) 2007-2008 -- polygamy is "a practice which is an affront to women’s dignity and is incompatible with the Covenant" and "highly detrimental to women's rights"

    2. UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) -- "Polygamy violates the dignity of women. It is an inadmissible discrimination against women. Consequently, it should be definitely abolished wherever it continues to exist."

    3. Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children -- this is a 280 page tome with tons of details and references for you to peruse -- free on the net.

    4. Polygyny as a Violation of Human Rights Law -- part of a research report by the Canadian Department of Justice -- this also has a lot of references.

    5. A Comparison of Family Functioning, Life and Marital Satisfaction, and Mental Health of Women in Polygamous and Monogamous Marriages -- just one research study out of many

    I can provide quite a few specific studies as well, if you're interested in more.

  • Hank Jr Draper, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    Why should they get special treatment? This isn't Obamacare.