Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Overstepping authority

Comments

Return To Article
  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 2:19 a.m.

    Actually, Mr. Anderson's original letter was right. While there's not a constitutional amendment regarding marriage, many previous Court decisions clearly enshrine marriage as a right, and the fourteenth Amendment applies that right to the states. Judge Shelby ruled correctly.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 5:42 a.m.

    Oh for Pete's sake!

    The US Constitution also doesn't say that inter-racial couples have a right to marry, either. For that matter, it also doesn't say that couples who are blue-eyed have a right to marry.

    Would Mr. Livermore argue that states may therefore ban those marriages without worrying about judicial intervention?

    The fact is that the right to marry _has_ been identified as a basic right of citizens, and thus state laws that deny that right to citizens are unconstitutional.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 6:41 a.m.

    Let me help you out, Greg: This IS explicitly stated in the US Constitution:

    Amendment 14:

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 13, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    Has SCOTUS held that marriage is a fundamental right? Yes.

    Please explain how sexual orientation has any bearing on this at all.

    Please explain how mixed-race marriage is also protected under this right if the Constitution doesn't specifically mention it either.

    Please explain how sexual orientation differs from skin color when neither are chosen.

    Please explain how certain religions' beliefs about homosexuality can be codified into law without violating the Second Amendment and threatening their own religious liberty.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    I sure wished we had "judical tyrants over-stepping authority" to stop Gov. Lilburn Boggs Extermination Order.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    For those insisisting that "States" are the supreme authority regarding "marriage",
    Please explain one stays married
    moving from State to State,
    withour proper legal recognition?

    What if Texas or South Carolina desides not to recognize Mormon marriages in Utah?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    The fact that gay marriage is no mentioned in the Constitution is irrelevant. The real issue at hand is personal freedom and most people will agree that personal freedom is in the Constitution.

    How can anyone who argues that a person may operate his private business operation according to his personal beliefs and at the same time that a person does not have the right to operated his own life according to his own personal beliefs?

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    It is pretty simple concept for marriages "going over" state lines.

    Unless the state law specifically states it does not permit a certain type of marriage (polygamy, gay marriage)it is recognized as a legal marriage. Why? because there is an interstate compact between all states that signed on to this.

    AS for you Mormon marriage (which I really surprised that you don't know this by your moniker name), There is no such thing as a Mormon marriage. The Church as the authority of the state to marry couples, which all church has this right. What they do have is Temple "Sealing's".

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    I've also heard the argument of State issued Driver's Licenses...

    If that be the case,
    Anytime you move you must re-new your license within 90 days of the State to which you now reside.

    Is that what you want to see happpen with Marriage Licenses?
    Getting re-newed or re-licenses each and everytime you move?

    Silly.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    Who is going to protect me against those who demand special privileges because of the way that they think or the way that they feel? They expect me to read their minds. They expect me to treat them as a lady when they have full facial hair. They get offended when I hold a door for them, just as I would hold a door for any woman, whether that woman is my mother, my wife or my sister.

    The 14th Amendment says, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.", yet they deny me equal protection when they demand unequal protection. They demand that additional penalties be applied to any crime that they "think" singles them out, yet they they demand that they have full access to our schools, to our scout troops, to our churches, and to our government to teach our children their ways. They call those of us who respect the Doctrine of our Creator, homophobic. They accuse us of hate speech as they parade naked through the streets of California.

    What "equality"?

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    @Sam Blue Ranch

    We also have a constitutional right to be secure in our own property. Yet the law requires that I pay more for my health insurance while someone else pays less for the same insurance. You can call this a lot of things, but you can't call it equal protection. In this case we allow other societal values to trump the 14th amendment.

    If a state amends its own constitution by popular vote to define marriage in a way that protects any children potentially born to a union, why may this not also trump the 14th amendment? It's one core value against another.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them. Our rights come from our Maker. All people, without exception, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether a right is enumerated in the Constitution does not matter.

    Who can argue that denying someone the right to choose, be with, and commit to a partner of their choice isn't a breach of their right to pursue happiness?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    If we're actually paying attention to the truth and subsequent details, marriage was first recognized as a right under the COTUS by the SCOTUS in 1888. Gun ownership for an individual was not recognized as a right by the SCOTUS until 2008.

    Marriage is far more established and, if judicial activism exists here, it is the 5-4 decision in DC v Heller from 2008.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    You know,
    It's easy preaching this day-after-day in the Deseret news, in Utah.

    Try taking your message to those who you think need it most.

    [i.e., SFGate, San Fransico Chroicle, or the San Fransico Examiner.]

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    to define marriage in a way that protects any children potentially born to a union

    Will someone please explain this to me? I keep seeing it over and over again, and it makes no sense to me at all. How does same sex marriage relate to protecting any children? The two issues are completely separate.

    Whether you allow SSM or not, you still will have single parents, lazy parents, child abuse and neglect, parents who throw their children away, dumb parents, parents who don't value education, parents who don't value their children - all the issue we currently have with children not living in "loving homes with a mother and a father."

    What is the world changes regarding this issue if we allow or don't allow SSM?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    LDS Liberal, Your grave concern has been noted. Thank you.

    -----

    What is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Where does your right to stop life from beginning end and society's right to promote life begin? Anyone can clearly show irreparable harm to society if everyone started living as same-sex couples. There would soon be no population. No one would be bold enough to tell us that society would survive without reproduction. No one would be bold enough to tell us that zero population is good for a non-existent society, yet those who advocate same-sex unions reject the harm of preventing life in their quest for "liberty" and their pursuit of "happiness".

    There can be no liberty without life. There can be no pursuit of happiness without life. Life cannot be created in a same-sex "marriage".

    When does personal liberty trump life? When does one's personal pursuit of happiness trump life?

    Our creator gave us life. He gave us all liberty. He told us the rules to achieve happiness. Without life nothing else can be accomplished.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    I still think you don't know the difference between gay and trans... and they aren't looking for special privileges. You could marry a guy too if you wanted. You don't have any use for that privilege? Well neither do they when it comes to marrying someone of the opposite gender.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    Anyone can clearly show irreparable harm to society if everyone started living as same-sex couples

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

    Will never happen. I like girls way to much to be attracted to a guy. Just who I am. I believe I can speak for the vast, vast majority of all humanity when I asy that. That argument does not work. Nature has done a pretty good job to ensure we are wired to be attracted to those of the opposite sex (I never even had to make a decision about which gender I prefer).
    ===========================
    Life cannot be created in a same-sex "marriage".

    No, it cannot. It also cannot be created in some hetero marriages. My parents are well beyond their child bearing years, and all of my brothers and sisters are now adults. Guess we no longer have to recognize that marriage.

    Unless...maybe marriage is about love, and having children is a product of that love in some marriages. Otherwise, if it was only about kids, we could simply have the State pick a partner for us at a reasonable age and then we could go make kids.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    In-vitro fertilization exists. Even if everyone were in same-sex marriages, there could still be continuation of the species. Besides, your argument is a strawman since the vast majority of people would still be in opposite-sex relationships anyway. Do you really think banning same-sex marriage is going to result in gay people having opposite-sex marriages?

    But really what you're criticizing is women. They're the ones that have to actually give birth, and you're the one calling people who don't have kids selfish. Yeah, how dare they not want to go through something that you'd never have to deal with yourself?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Anyone can clearly show irreparable harm to society if everyone started living as same-sex couples. There would soon be no population. No one would be bold enough to tell us that society would survive without reproduction.

    ====

    Reality check:
    1. Homosexuals account for >5% of the population, so 95% of us remain straight.

    2. Even IF your world of make-believe became reality and somehow everything were swithed 180 degrees -- i.e., 95% was gay, and only 5% were straight -- I imagine that the remaining 5% of the males could still do a pretty good job of pro-creating.

    3. You stated: "Life cannot be created in a same-sex "marriage"".
    Using uyour own met and measure --
    I know you are an older gentleman, how can you possibly now justify your own marriage?

    4. I got married for love and committment, not for sex.
    I think these people are just trying live their lives the same way.

    5. BTW -- I'm sure you have already read the statement from the LDS Church about being civilized [tolerant] toward your brothers and sisters.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    Mike Richards,

    You apparently think that if SSM is outlawed, gay people will say, "OK, we give. We'll stop being homosexual. Time to marry someone of the opposite gender and have a big family so the human race doesn't die out."

    Look, I've been heterosexual all of my life. Gay people being allowed to marry won't change that.

    Straight people have been getting married and having children since the beginnings of civilization. Gay people also being allowed to marry won't change that, either.

    SSM is something that will affect (maybe) 5% of the population. The rest of us will just choose their family sizes and go on with our lives, the same as we always have.

    You really need to find some better argument than these...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    Darrel,

    Can you show us that if everyone practiced heterosexual marriage that reproduction would stop?

    You made an absurd claim about your parents. By definition, if you have parents, they "reproduced" and you are one result to that "replenishment. On the other hand, had they been same-sex advocates and if they had practiced same-sex "marriage", you would not be here to demand "equality".

    That is the crux of the problem. Those who are demanding "equality" are denying "equality" for the most helpless among us, the unborn. Those who advocate same-sex marriage are telling society that their right to live in a same-sex relationship and to call it marriage so that they can consider themselves "equal" have made those demands at the expense of those who have no voice to plea for "life", "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness". They not only deny "marriage" to those without voices, but they deny "life".

    So much for "equality". So much for "equal protection under the laws".

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    Mike Richards. Always enjoy your posts. They help me prepare lessons by giving a preview of what some participants may bring to the discussion. You state "Our creator gave us life." I agree, but how? My limited mortal brain cannot conceive the process. The figurative stories of our faith tradition all have the Gods harnessing their awesome power to command the elements. Only non-canonized speculation brings gender into the discussion.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    The 2nd Amendment is just as open to interpretation as the 14th amendment. I could easily argue that the 2nd amendment applies only to members of a "well-regulated militia." I won't, but I could. The 14th amendment requires everyone to be treated equally. No state can refused to do that. And I could easily argue that equal treatment is denied to same-sex couples in Utah.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    "yet they deny me equal protection when they demand unequal protection. "
    "What "equality"?"

    Good heavens. Obviously you don't understand equality.

    "Anyone can clearly show irreparable harm to society if everyone started living as same-sex couples. "

    I'm just sitting here in stunned silence. Absolutely stunned silence. I think my mouth is probably hanging open. Really? THIS is the argument you have? This. Okay, I'm not even going to explain the problems with this.

    "When does personal liberty trump life? When does one's personal pursuit of happiness trump life? "

    In context it seems you are talking about giving birth. Having children. So the answer to your query would be "since forever."

    When do you think anyone else EVER had a legitimate right to force someone to have a child? Yes, my personal liberty, my pursuit of happiness, or for whatever reason, or no reason at all, trumps my, or anybody, having to have a child.

    Good heavens!

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    For that matter, the Constitution refers to no marriage rights of any kind. Just because it is not specified, like the right to bear arms, does not mean many rights do not exist. Most rights are implied. The original Constitution did not make any reference to the legality of slavery. It did not refer to discrimination or segregation based on race. The 9th Amendment to the Constitution does state that the rights of the people are not limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It would be virtually impossible to actually list all human rights and anticipate those which would come up in the future. Opponents of same-sex marriage claim marriage laws are a state power, though there is no reference to that specific power anywhere in the Constitution. And remember, the 2nd Amendment specifically refers to a state power to have a well-regulated militia. Opponents to marriage equality even pushed for and got DOMA, a federal law, passed. Though states have powers not delegated to the federal government, the 14th Amendment denies states the right to deny due process and equal protection under the law to all citizens.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    Mark,

    Who is forcing you to have children? That is not the argument that Mike Richards is making. He is making the same argument that every government in every State has made about smoking. Because smoking MAY hurt a small part of society, smoking is banned except under very limited conditions. If you smoke, your feelings don't matter. Government has decided that your "right" to smoke doesn't matter when society MAY be harmed. Is zero-population harmful to society? Is pretending that just because only a few people "smoke" that the right for society to protect themselves against those who would destroy society if everybody smoked is unconstitutional?

    When a portion of society demands special rights, that if found acceptable and lived by all society, would destroy that society, then why does society NOT have the right to limit that right? How much poison does society have to accept in its drinking water before society has the right to outlaw that poison? No one has the right to cause society to self destruct. If "smoking" is bad, then stopping population is worse.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    @Nate;

    You're asking that your "union" be treated "special" above the unions of others based on some "potential" harm? Get real. You first have to prove that there is harm before you can deny others the same privileges you enjoy.

    You are not required to let LGBT people into your home. Your property is safe. However, when you open your property to the PUBLIC (i.e., run a business from it), then that property is subject to "public accomodation" laws. You may not exclude some of the public because you don't like them.

    Popular vote does not trump the 14th Amendment to equal treatment by the government. If you don't want to treat LGBT equally in your home or church, go for it. If you don't want to treat them equally in your business, get ready for complaints.

    @MikeRichards;

    Equal protection laws cover you too. You do have a sexual orientation you know.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "Those who are demanding "equality" are denying "equality" for the most helpless among us, the unborn."

    Okay... I get pro-lifers... but you're proclaiming equal rights for those BEFORE conception? If a woman chooses to only have one child is she denying equality to other potential children she could've had? What if she only has three? Or let's pick an extreme example, what about high school girls who aren't pregnant; are they denying equality too?

    I've read a lot of outlandish comments before but yours has left me the most floored. Just... just do us a favor... nobody wants to see your idea of an "equal rights movement", keep that in the bedroom.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    @Mike Richards who stated:
    "Life cannot be created in a same-sex "marriage".

    =======

    So if that be the case,
    if that is how YOU define marriage [ability to pro-create]

    Using your own met and measure --
    and being well in years,
    how can you possibly justify your own marriage now?

    Please answer the question.

  • Spoiler Alert Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    I humbly propose that we place before a vote Amendmnet 3A)

    1) The sole purpose of marriage is the conception and rearing of children

    2) Any and all relationships that do not meet the aforementioned purpose, cannot be, nor never will be a marriage. To be considered a marriage, the couple must have produced at least one child within the last 18 years. Failure to do will result in the marriage contract becoming forever null and void.

    That way we can vote on everyone's marriage.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    There is no marriage clause in the Constitution protecting SSM. The 14th amendment granted equal protection to interracial marriages,(between a man and a woman) not to SSM. Judge Shelby had to come up with a new definition for marriage to nullify Utah's amendment protecting traditional marriage. That is the definition of an activist judge; he makes laws instead of ruling on existing law. He also trashed the majority opinion of the Supreme Court granting states the right to define marriage.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    The second amendment isn't exactly as clear as the author is pretending it to be either. Nowhere does it explicitly state that people have the right to own handguns. Many people simply read it to mean that states have the right to maintain a militia and keep that militia armed, and that the National Guard fulfills that role. However, there is a long history of interpretation that establishes the second amendment to mean private ownership separate from militia membership. Therefore, a judge would be correct in overturning such a law.

    Likewise, there is a long history of interpretation that establishes marriage as a fundamental right. Therefore, the judge did exactly as he should.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    @VST;

    The 10th Amendment;

    “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.”

    States are *prohibited* from violating the US Constitution, thus, the 10th amendment also covers the 14th amendment, which prohibits states from violating the rights of US citizens and requires them to provide equal protection of the law.

    @Sal;

    The 14th amendment reads: "ALL persons...", not just inter-racial persons.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    Smoking?!

    "Because smoking MAY hurt a small part of society, smoking is banned except under very limited conditions"

    WHAT are you guys talking about?!

    First of all to say that smoking is banned except under very limited conditions is. . . Well it shows a serious disconnect from reality.
    Anyone can smoke as long as they are of age. They cannot smoke in some areas where if affects others. But other then that, light up! Have you not noticed how there is a smoke shop on just about every corner. And you can light up no mater what your sexual preference is.

    Zero population growth would arguably be a good thing. Oh wait, you are sold in ponzhi schemes, aren't you?

    Nevertheless, there is absolutely no serious people that would EVER think we are going to achieve zero population growth in the foreseeable future. And if that is the argument you guys have reverted to concerning gay marriage, you have NOTHING.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    Re: Sal

    "There is no marriage clause in the Constitution protecting SSM." There is also no marriage clause in the Consitution protecting any marriage, including your precious hetero marriage.

    "The 14th amendment granted equal protection to interracial marriages,(between a man and a woman) not to SSM." Reread the 14th Amendment and try to understand what it states. Nowhere does it mention "marriage". The 14th Amendment grants equal protection to all citizens and applies the Consitution to the states. No state can enact a law contrary to the US Consitution.

    "Judge Shelby had to come up with a new definition for marriage to nullify Utah's amendment protecting traditional marriage. That is the definition of an activist judge; he makes laws instead of ruling on existing law." Once again, you are incorrect. Judge Shelby did not create a new law. He stated Amendment 3 was in violation of the US Consitution. That is not creating a new law. He did not come up with a new definition of marriage.

    "An activist court is one which makes a decision you don't like." Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    Ranch
    The 14th amendment states:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

    this is the section that everyone talks about.

    So did you happened to see this part of the 14th amendment? "without due process of law;"

    So the state has the right to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States if they use due process.

    Second, "equal protection of the laws", do you know what protection means? It means " the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts, and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law."

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Jan. 13, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    I'm desperately trying to see the logical progression between allowing gays to marry and heterosexuals no longer producing children. N. Can anyone map out this hypothetical chain of events for me?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 13, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    Mike --
    Smoking?, seriously? -- you're going to resort to using that as an example?

    OK. You are free to smoke in your home, and in your bedroom.

    So why do you keep insisting getting into anything else people do in their homes and in their bedrooms?

    Talk about trampling a person's "Constituional" right to privacy!

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Jan. 13, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    @ mike Richards, you wrote: "Who is going to protect me against those who demand special privileges because of the way that they think or the way that they feel?:/i>
    -----

    Are you not demanding special privileges not available to others? By denying SSM, you are implicitly trying to make opposite sex marriage a special privilege.

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Jan. 13, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    VST, the 14th amendment trumps the 10th, just as the 21st amendment trumps the 18th amendment, the 12th amendment trumps Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and the 17th Amendment trumps Article I, section 3, of the Constitution.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    @Confused;

    Due process does not mean take it out for a "majority vote". Due process is an examination of the Constitutionality of the law.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    @Ranch

    You misread my meaning. It is this: wealth redistribution schemes such as Obamacare violate the principle of equal protection. (The law harms one man in order to do good to another.) You are willing to allow this, because you believe that a higher purpose is being served which has been established by the voice of the people.

    I say the same thing about Utah's definition of marriage.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 7:15 p.m.

    Not true cavetroll; in order to rule against Amendment 3 using Amendment 14 he had to cite the interracial case showing that the Constitution upheld interracial marriages. Based on that ruling in that case he re-defined traditional marriage to include SSM. He could not show that Amendment 3 violated the Constitution without re-defining marriage to fit his opinion.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:00 p.m.

    The state overstepped its authority when it started regulating marriage through licensing. The case that should go before the supreme court is the churches suing for freedom from state regulation of their religious rights to practice their religious rites.

    This judge is one in a long list of those who have overstepped their authority.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    @GZE "Will someone please explain this to me?"

    Children prosper best when their biological parents stay together and rear them. Marriage doesn't guarantee this, but promotes and incentivizes it. Society has no stake in the question of whether a gay or lesbian couple stays together.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    Nate,

    The number of children being raised without both their biological parents in their home is not going to change one iota whether SSM is legal or illegal. You think a happily married straight couple is going to put a child up for adoption because that child can or cannot be adopted by a same-sex couple?

    You want more children in homes with two biological parents? I suggest you shift your focus to doing something about the divorce rate or the number of children in foster care.

    Society has a stake in all our marriages; or it does not - depending on your point of view, I guess. Everything that makes a hetrosexual marriage of value to society makes a SSM valuable.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    @GZE

    "The number of children being raised without both their biological parents in their home is not going to change one iota whether SSM is legal or illegal."

    Exactly. You make my point. Therefore, the state has no interest in this matter.

    "I suggest you shift your focus..."

    You don't know anything about my focus. The article we're commenting on at this moment is about same-sex marriage.

    "Everything that makes a hetrosexual [sic] marriage of value to society makes a SSM valuable."

    Everything except its ability to independently produce children...which is the only thing that makes it any of the state's business.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    Nate

    Did you see all the pictures of gay couples with children being married? I did. Utah has the highest percentage of gay couples raising children out of all 50 states, even without gay marriage.

    It is estimated that 7 million children are being raised by gay couples in the US. Why shouldn't these children have the same stable home that is afforded to children of opposite sex couples? Why shouldn't their parents be able to use the family option for insurance? Why shouldn't they be able to file their taxes jointly and use the money that they would have had to pay in taxes to insuring that their children be taken care of? Why should they have to spend $5k to go to a lawyer to get 3-5 of the 1000 privileges and benefits that a $40 marriage license gives to them?

    Why are you making these children less than other children? Why not support ALL families of all shapes and sizes?

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    @Lane Myer "Did you see all the pictures of gay couples with children being married?"

    Yes. In those pictures are a bunch of great kids who will likely grow up with one or both of their biological parents missing from their daily life. The voters of Utah are tolerant of such arrangements, but have decided not to incentivize them.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 2:36 p.m.

    Re: Sal
    Judge Shelby did not redefine traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is defined the way you want it to be. But does "traditional marriage" include polygamy? After all, Abraham, Solomon, Joseph and Brigham did not practice monogamy or what you consider "traditional marriage." Judge Shelby simply stated the right to marriage includes same sex couples and is not soley the province of hetero couples.