Great to see people sticking up for good morals and families, especially
innocent children!Keep the good work.Pope Francis and
Prophet Monson and I all agree on this issue. Nice to know I stand with them!
"A society can have but one understanding of marriage: It is either a
uniquely man-woman institution, or it is not. Because man-woman unions are
unique in their ability to produce children, maintaining the man-woman
definition reinforces the child-centric view of marriage."I like
that! Here's to gender and marriage complementarity!
It might have been nice if the article included a link to the filing. If anyone
is interested, you can find a copy by googling
"13-4178-Utah-Opening-Brief".It's basically just a
rehash of the "tradition" and "religious basis" arguments. In
other words, nothing new or compelling. Tons of rationalizations with
questionable "facts" that are easily refuted. Especially of note is how
Utah's laws are uniformly cast "in the best interests of the
children." Considering Utah's stats and various laws on the books that
completely ignore the welfare of children, they might as well have teed it up
and handed a driver to the plaintiff's attorneys.I'm
guessing Schaerr doesn't want to win at the 10th Circuit, so he can bill
for an appeal to SCOTUS. If it comes to that, though, Utah should find someone
with more intellectual rigor.
The state's arguments fail in a spectacular way. What about those thousand
of Utah children being raised by same sex parents? Are they not entitled to
the same legal protections? If marriage is all about child rearing, how can
the state discriminate against same sex families and yet allow elderly
heterosexual couples to marry? Utah is leading the way to our having same sex
marriage legalized nationwide. What a wonderful irony!
Nope, that isn't going to work.Nothing new, therefore same judgment.
The Gay lobby answers these arguments witha)what about the elderly
who can't have children, will they be banned from marriage too? obviously
not because it isn't about the children. b) 14 amendment is
about equal treatment. So if you treat person a one way, by granting him a
marriage licence then you must treat person b the same way by granting him that
same marriage licence irrespective of religion, race, ethnic background or
sexual orientation. I'm no a fan of SSM but I can't yet
see how we will win the argument in the courts when more and more judges are
siding with the gay lobby by accepting both of the above arguments.
Marriage as child-centric? I suppose that makes my marriage a sham since we
didn't have children? What about all those couples who can't have
children? Perhaps we should only allow those who are fertile to marry? Since
my mother re-married at age 76 her marriage too is a sham? I find the reasoning
specious at best and illogically at worst.
Well said. Thank you for defending marriage as was instituted by a loving
There are no new arguments being made - these arguments have failed before and
there is no reason to believe they will not continue to fail.
D.O.AWith this as their ($2 million) argument, it is obvious that
Utah doesn't even expect to win.They are sending a message to
the faithful that they tried, at least, to defend their principles.Regards,Iconoclast
"Millions of Utahns who accept these traditions understand marriage and
sexuality as gifts from God, designed not principally for the gratification of
adults, but to provide an optimal setting for bearing and raising
children"I really wonder if the attorney was able to say that
with a straight face.This is the same argument again (at least what
the reporter is bothering to report. It is time to drop the religious bigotry
and advance our society. I'm sorry, but just because "everyone else
does it this way" does not make it right. Most of the religions mentioned
do not allow contraceptives. Others have questionable views on non-believers.
More people need to read Christopher Hitchens.
Talk about beating a dead horse. Utah needs to get into the present century.
This is nonsense. It doesn't protect anyone's "religious
freedoms" to prevent others from marrying who they want. If a law was being
proposed saying YOU MUST marry someone of the same sex, you'd have a point.
It is NOT your religious freedom to in ANY WAY interfere with someone
else's life. Until the religious right gets that through their heads, they
will continue to lose members and influence. You live YOUR life and let others
live as they wish!
WOW. That's the State's argument? We're going to lose in a big
way. Seems a first year law student could have prepared a stronger argument than
this. Truth, honesty, and equality are all working against the State so we
throw out the "children" defense? Where are Utah's leader's
on this issue? People who know and respect the U.S. constitution? We're
throwing millions of dollars away and we're going to defend it being say
it's all about the "children".
If we really want to "save marriage", get rid of no-fault divorces.
If they are so worried about children why are single people allowed to adopt in
Utah? Sociological studies have shown time after time that children do best in a
two parent home, whether those parents are gay or straight. So if we really care
about the children.....
The Utah Attorney General's office did a national search for outside
counsel and he is being paid millions and millions of dollars.This
is the best he could come up with? I hope the taxpayers can get their money
back when the Court laughs him out of the building.
In the book, Mere Christiantity, C S Lewis begins by describing the importance
to society that the definition of words like Christianity or marriage actually
convey accurate information to the reader about what the term means. To go from
a fact based definition to one that generalizes a feeling regarding the
definition is to destroy the meaning of the original work. I was struck that
this is exactly what is happening in this legal batter to refine what Marriage
means.Gay and Lesbians relationships are different from
society's centuries old definition of marriage. To provide a different
term to define that relationship (civil union)seems perfectly fine for a State
and its citizens to acknowlege. "A society can have but one
understanding of marriage: It is either a uniquely man-woman institution, or it
is not. Because man-woman unions are unique in their ability to produce
children, maintaining the man-woman definition reinforces the child-centric view
I find it rather unbelievable that Utah is actually going to try to use these
same old exhausted canards as a legal construct against equal rights for all
citizens. These are essentially the identical constructs used in the original
Shelby Ruling. Does the state think these tired, specious arguments are going
magically gain legal traction?Several million Utah tax dollars...
wasted. I am sadden that this money could not have been put toward
actual good use, like say... feeding Utah school children, instead of shaming
them and throwing their lunch away in front of them.Priorities,
Utah. Please find them.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.Thank you to the state
of Utah for defending these values.
For all those griping about a "$2MM pricetag" get your heads out of the
SSM crowd talking points. The fees are capped at under $500,000, if you
happened to pay any attention to the selection process six weeks ago. And if
you think the state's lawyer is doing this for financial gain, you should
have also read the memo to his firm why he was taking this anre withdrawing from
the firm. He believes this is an important case for society and to defend his
religious beliefs from erosion by judges like Shelby who clearly overstepped.
I'm hopeful Shelby's ruling will be overturned, but regardless,
standing up for morality and Judeo-Christian values that benefit society will go
"Utah has the constitutional authority to define marriage...."------------That statement is at the crux of this issue, all
motivations, logic, statistics, etc., aside. Does Utah, and other states,
indeed have that authority and others similar to it?The fact that
this issue continues to be debated so long after the country was formed tells me
that we're in for this kind of debate for a long, long time.By
the way, I'm in favor of retaining the traditional definition of marriage.
But, I hate to admit I suspect the advance of homosexual "marriage" is
only part of an ongoing weakening and corruption of marriage and part of a
general decline of our civilization.
CALL ITa beautiful blue sky or "out ot the blue",name
it marriage as the legal support for being in love for life or "or unite
anything that is loving",address society with reasons for child
centered safety or "raise children by the state even anybody just
available" ?Misunderstanding : children need parents, not
parents need children !(if you have none, that is no reason to call your
marriage off)Well I guess this is not about reasons for marriage but
reasons for wishful thinking.No matter what they would define as
being good to children, it is only to be understood by the mind and orientation
of those who want to understand what looks good to them.The results
are in the social accepted time frame of our generation, there is no truth or
untruth, it is all what they want to hear, being in charge of legal levels as of
the people that follow their way of perception. They will continue
to understand what they want to understand. It is not religious dominance,
but forceful philosophy on others.They will not give it up, until all of
the children have lost confidence in any adults.
Of course it is.It's a no brainer.
I find it demeaning that they're using children to define marriage. So
because my husband and I have none, what does that mean? Is our marriage not as
valid as that of people who do have children? Should we ban people who are
parents from getting divorced while their children are still minors, because
what's best for them is *so obviously* having both opposite gender parents
in the home. If we can't force two people to stay married and
one man or one woman is capable of raising a child, or of a woman is allowed
(gasp) to become a single parent in this state, doesn't it follow that
having two parents, even if they are of the same gender, would be better than
having one if they are in a loving and committed relationship? One of my
daughter's friends in elementary school had gay parents. The little girl
didn't have glowing eyes, tentacles... she was just ordinary with ordinary
little girl concerns. People need to get the hell over themselves. It
doesn't hurt me to let others be happy, but it wounds to be told my
childless marriage is worth less.
I'd add the following two points:1- Most major national
associations of doctors and psychologists say they support same-sex marriage.
They do so *because* doing so is good for children. Families lead by same-sex
couples do in fact raise children, and it would be better for the children if
those households if their parents were allowed to marry. So when a real family
with real kids asks for equal protection under the law, it just is ironic and
unconvincing to argue that they shouldn't be granted those rights because
of the abstract fear that doing so will make marriage an adult-centered
institution rather than a child-centered onee.2- The "religious
freedom" argument seems exactly backwards. Many churches and religions have
the conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. How does
it promote religious freedom to make it illegal for a Unitarian Universalist
minister to marry two members of her church that want to marry?
From a societal perspective (not a religious one) there are many, many, many
marriages where children are not involved. Also, the bearing of children is
declining in popularity across the board. I find this a hard pressed argument in
a court of law based on current societal positions. If this is the
bases of their argument, it can be (unfortunately) easily combated as has been
proven in past briefs to appellate courts (such as California, DOMA, etc.). They
need to build as their bases of argument the fact that the Supreme Court, in
DOMA's majority opinion, made precedence that the federal government does
not have authority to rule on state marriage definitions and that Shelby stepped
beyond his authority in overturning a state constitutional amendment defining
marriage between a man and a woman. They need to reference to prior appellate
decisions regarding this and they need to build upon both the common law and
constitutional law which binds that authority to the states.From
there they can then further fortify their position with truths concerning the
People who say "what about childless marriages?" are missing the
point.When a man and a woman marry, even if they do not or cannot
have children of their own and even if they don't adopt, their marriage and
commitment is part of a broader social pattern. No man is an island; this
isn't just about them and their kids. Their commitment reinforces the
institution of marriage in a way that makes others more likely to form stable
families where children are reared with a mother and a father.Every
homosexual "marriage," along with every other cohabitative sexual
relation which is not a committed marriage between a man and a woman, weakens
the cultural institution of marriage and societal expectations on the subject,
and thus makes it less likely that others will rear children in stable homes
with a mother and a father.
Iconoclast wrote: "They are sending a message to the faithful that they
tried, at least, to defend their principles."This was my thought
as well. But doing it on the taxpayers' dollar makes Utah look like a
Thanks Utah... setting the stage for a national definition of marriage. When
the first "Temple worthy" gay Mormon shows up at the Pearly Gates and
demands that the church honor article 12 in the articles of faith "12.We
believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in
obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." That's when the real fun
No where in the Constitution of the United States of America is anyone given the
right to define word meanings. The First Amendment freedom of religion implies
that an individual may choose for himself but may not force others to accept his
definition. I take this to also mean that government cannot impose its
definition on individuals. Government can regulate its benefits or
punishment according to its definition so long as such regulations do not
conflict with other parts of the Constitution. Government cannot use a
definition for its actions that discriminates against people in a prohibited
manner. I believe that the best place to rear children is in a one
man, one woman family, economically able to provide a reasonable environment.
Beyond that arrangement, I would prefer a government home where the children are
very well cared for and even become proud of their special status. I don't
think that exists at present, but it could.I would place polygamy,
Gay and other abnormal families to be the worst place to rear children.
Well, there's nothing new here. It looks like an appeal that will get
thrown out so I'd like to thank Governor Herbert and Attorney General Reyes
for using our tax dollars to help potentially get same-sex marriage nationally.
From the brief: One of the State's arguments is that it has no obligation
to justify its exclusion of same-sex couples from the definition of marriage.
Its only obligation is to show that its definition advances its stated
interests. Wow. That's like saying, "Slavery advances our interests
in furthering the state's economy, so we don't have to justify the
fact that it deprives some humans of their liberty."
@Prodicus: It's you who's missing the point.You
can't define my marriage. We live in a free society, not under Sharia Law
or Puritan Dominion. Only my wife and I can define our marriage, just as any
couple can. I didn't marry my opposite-sex wife to be part of a
"broader societal pattern." I married her because I love her and wanted
to live with her and share our lives together. We both knew, when we married,
that we weren't going to have children, partly for medical reasons. We
also knew that getting married was the only way to build a unified life
together, financially, legally, and responsibly. I can't
imagine any reason to deny this to any other committed adult, consenting,
unrelated, unencumbered pair, be they religious, nondenominational,
interdenominational, mixed-race, or same sex. Our marriage is unaffected by
other marriages. We've outlasted the dozens of failed marriages
accumulated by a handful of prominent Conservatives.
If Utah cares so much about children and sees heterosexual marriage’s
existence as only to support them, why does it permit divorce for married
parents? Why doesn't it require that unmarried parents wed? Why
doesn't it allow gay couples with children to wed? Why doesn't it
restrict infertile couples and those who don't desire children from
marriage? Why doesn't it require childless couples to divorce? Why
doesn't it require couples whose children have reached age 18 to divorce?
Etc., etc., etc. Since it doesn't, in ALL these cases, its arguments in
opposition to gay marriage are weak at best, and specious at worst. Good luck
with all that. And welcome to 2014 where equality prevails over the very short
reason it’s really against marriage equality, i.e., "We hate
If Utah cares so much about children and sees heterosexual marriage’s
existence as only to support them, why does it permit divorce for married
parents? Why doesn't it require that unmarried parents wed? Why
doesn't it allow gay couples with children to wed? Why doesn't it
restrict infertile couples and those who don't desire children from
marriage? Why doesn't it require childless couples to divorce? Why
doesn't it require couples whose children have reached age 18 to divorce?
Etc., etc., etc. Since it doesn't, in ALL these cases, its arguments in
opposition to gay marriage are weak at best, and specious at worst. Good luck
with all that. And welcome to 2014 where equality prevails over the very short
real reason it’s against marriage equality, i.e., "We hate gays."
It is very interesting to watch history repeat itself. Each time the
participants in the drama believe that the outcome will be different. We are
more enlightened then they were. Where others have tried and failed, we will
achieve the impossible and build a society centered on self.
I've always maintained that the arguments against same sex marriage but
Wow! Did this one ever fall short. Wasn't Matlock available?
The state of Utah could, if it wanted to, set out to identify ALL situations and
couplings where an "optimal child-rearing environment" is unlikely to
exist, and then forbid --in law-- marriage to any of those groups and in any of
those situations. -- If optimal child-rearing were the actual goal. The state could, if it wanted to, reference "vast amounts of social
science research" to name and then demonstrate the undesirability of certain
groups as potential parents. In this brief, it ignores ALL other groups and
situations -- (which are much more common) -- and zeroes in on ONE single group
of potential parents --(which are much more rare)-- and bars them alone from
Anything to denigrated gay and lesbian Americans. Is this a way to run our
Iconoclast, you win a cookie. That is exactly what is happening.
I thought states had unique and logical reasons for marriage laws. Not so,
Utah.UTAH: "Redefining marriage as genderless..." ?Individuals in different-sex and same-sex couples have a gender. Being
married to someone with the same or different gender does not make a marriage,
"genderless."UTAH: "Redefining marriage
as...adult-centric" ?Utah grants a license to two adults, not to
adults and children. Not to any couple because they promise to have children.
And same-sex couples have and raise children.UTAH:
"child-centered meaning and purpose of marriage" ?Let's hope
no one thinks they are getting a license that permits reproduction by the
state.UTAH: "Because man-woman unions are unique in their
ability to produce children, maintaining the man-woman definition reinforces the
child-centric view of marriage." ?!One man married to one woman
is not the only ("unique") way to "produce children." Nor does
it guarantee ("reinforce") a child-centered view of marriage. Otherwise
the state would not be permitting divorce to married couples with children, nor
allow unmarried people to adopt, nor step-parents.Utah is destine to
lose the case, if it rests on this type of reasoning.
@MoreManI've honestly never understood this concern. For example,
i'm not LDS. So if a family member or friend is getting married I
can't go watch the ceremony. The LDS church is allowed to do this under the
law. When I got married even if I wanted to they wouldn't let me(a man)
marry my wife(a woman) in the temple, even though we were allowed to marry by
law. The mormons are already allowed to exclude anyone they want from marrying
in their temples. Why would gay marriage be different?
Quaker, your motivations in getting married and whether you intended to have an
impact on society or not is irrelevant; you have such an impact, a large impact
that society takes a legitimate interest in. Other marriages affect yours
materially every day- every moment you deal with any other people or with their
works. To pretend otherwise is to pretend there is no such thing as society and
that every man is an island.That some marriages fail is not an
excuse for further eroding the institution by other absurd innovations.Utah's Amendment 3 isn't "sharia law" or
"theocracy," it's how a supermajority of citizens in our republic
expressed their right to participate in determining what kind of community they
will live in. Overthrowing the will of the people to protect imagined
"rights" not found anywhere in the Constitution is tyrannical. The faked
imaginary document Shelby claims gives him justification to institute despotic
rule-by-judiciary has nothing to do with the Constitution we approved in the
statehood process nor with any Amendment passed since that time.
The SSM argument is just the latest attack on the Constitution by stretching and
inserting meanings not originally intended by the framers. The 14th Amendment
allows equal treatment under the law because a homosexual male has the same
ability to marry within the opposite gender as does a heterosexual. The same
constraints against marriage to a minor child apply equally to both, as do the
constraints against marriage to a horse, or a dolphin, or a fence post. it even
applies to constraints against marriage to multiple partners. Why do people
refuse to see that parallel? I imagine Lot asked the same questions.I also
imagine the attorneys are also not limited to presenting only a single argument
in defending States Rights.
What is the definition of insanity?
Bravo Mr. Shaerrer and Team!Your defense resonates loud and clear
with time honored truths of morality and common sense. Same-sex marriage related
laws would result in social chaos and I believe would back fire in mirad ways
that the gay community doesn't like to talk about. They attempt to paint a
picture that all is well in states that have caved to their one-sided demands -
the reality is all is not well!The comments by so many gay
contributors here demonstrates a fear reaction as they see that the state of
Utah and the majority of the people are simply not willing to accept their
one-sided arguments when they fail to recognize the concerns, needs or rights of
the many who stand on the other side of this historic debate.
The best color for the sky is blue.However, life and our universe are
diverse in all forms. Diverse does not equate bad.Sadly, many individuals
fear the unknown.Time to join the 21st century and experience good people
everywhere. One may realize one has been silly and sheltered after learning how
wonderful "diversity" in our world can be.
@ Schnee " Well, there's nothing new here. It looks
like an appeal that will get thrown out so I'd like to thank Governor
Herbert and Attorney General Reyes for using our tax dollars to help potentially
get same-sex marriage nationally."Schnee, I was thinking exactly
the same thing.It brings me back to Albert Einstein and his
definition of insanity:" Insanity: doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results."Another point: I
find ironic that Utah defends so-called "traditional marriage" so
vehemently, forgetting, that for Utah to be accepted as a State in the Union and
for the LDS church to keep its property., Utah had to give up polygamy, at least
officially. In reality there are two predominant traditional type of marriages
"What about those thousand of Utah children being raised by same sex
parents? Are they not entitled to the same legal protections?"What about the thousands of single parents? Shouldn't they be entitled
to the same legal protections? I've known individuals who have lived with
a parent basically their entire life. Why shouldn't they be entitled to
the same legal protections? It's ok to have standards.
It's perfectly rational to say that traditional marriage is the normal and
healthy model that society wants to foster and put its stamp of approval upon.
There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates recognition of homosexuality
as equal to normal sexuality -- the sexuality that is the reason we are all
I'm proud of what is Utah is standing for. God commanded that marriage is
between a man and a woman. Whether they are able to have children or not. We
don't have people who have a disability break the law just because they are
different. If someone was born blind there is nothing we can't do about
it. Same thing goes to those who can't have children. God created them
that way. Stop gay marriage, and who cares if its the new century. God laws
never change. Just stop it.
Marriage is not a basic human right. Marriage, in this context, is a legal
status that is granted certain benefits by the state. This argument shows the
state's interest in defining marriage for the benefit of society.The issue is whether the federal courts can trump the voter's of a state
in their right to decide what definition of marriage they want to promote.To those asserting that nothing new is argued, thus the same result
should be expected, notice that the SCOTUS granted a stay on performing new
marriages where the other courts did not. The SCOTUS did not agree with the
decisions of the lower courts.
@Prodicus"Utah's Amendment 3 isn't "sharia law" or
"theocracy," it's how a supermajority of citizens in our republic
expressed their right to participate in determining what kind of community they
will live in."Sharia law and theocracy are often backed up by a
supermajority of citizens in their nations expressing their right to participate
in determining what kind of community they will live in.@Meckofahess"They attempt to paint a picture that all is well in
states that have caved to their one-sided demands"Looks alright
to me. Maybe that's why support for it rises most dramatically in states
that get it, they quickly see it's no big deal.
Because when their tax exempt status is challenged by their own words (Article
12) I'll bet you see continuing revelation fast. The church already allows
openly gay members, who tithe, and are celebate. If they want to be afforded
the same blessings and live for time and all eternity in a committed
monogamous/celebate (albeit ICKY in your eyes) marriage, the church is going to
have to bend. The issue about blacks and the priesthood is but one great
My husband and I were not able to have children, nevertheless, there was a
chance that I might have been able to get pregnant, but it didn't work. We
could have adopted, but for many reasons, we felt it would not be for the best.
I thing I was proud of was the example of happiness and was able to let my
students see. I also am an example to my nieces and nephews. Getting married
when you are older is also setting a great example for children. Also, Sarah did
get pregnant at 90!
Many of us don't believe in your god, and we don't go to your church.
The constitution's first amendment states that we're not subject to
governance by either. Don't like gay marriage? Marry someone (or a few) of
the opposite sex. Fine for you to abide by your faith's'myths, but you
won't be imposing them on the rest of us by force of law. As I'm sure
you'd appreciate the same courtesy by any other religious majority.
@SoCalChrisI'm not sure if I understand your question about single
parents, but I want to address it. Currently a single parent has custody and
parental rights to his or her child. Gay parents are asking for the same
rights.Currently there are thousands of families in Utah with children in
the home and a loving couple of the same sex at the head. The state of Utah only
allows custody and parental rights to one of those parents. The other parent,
even though he or she may have raised the child from infancy, cannot legally
adopt the child and has no parental rights or legal protections. The state
of Utah wants to make sure gay parents are always, at best, single parents with
a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend. How is this better for children or society
than having two legal parents, even if they happen to be of the same sex?
@ProdicusIt might be helpful to understand how our government works
before you go around touting how the 10th circuit’s decision against
Amendment 3 is “legal” or not. One of the primary purposes of the
judiciary branch is to weight the legality of state and federal laws against the
constitution. Even if a majority of a state (or nation) wants law
“x”, if that law is found to be in contradiction to the constitution
then that law is deemed unconstitutional and illegal. They did not overstep
their bounds, they did not break any laws, they did exactly what our
constitution and laws demand. Our constitution is not based on the will of a
“god”, it is based on equal human rights.I am however
exceedingly curious as to how allowing gay marriage impacts our society in a
negative way and more specifically how it impacts your family. Since history is
full of examples of societies accepting and denouncing same sex attraction with
varying results to the longevity of those societies then I would love to hear
your well researched opinion on how allowing same sex marriages would harm our
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman since Adam and eve. If we
start redefining things, where will it end? We have rules and laws to avoid
chaos and that is exactly where this country is heading if we allow the loud
voices of a few to persuade us to change what is right and make it wrong! I will
stand up for traditional marriage!
@BlackDiamond"God commanded that marriage is between a man and a
woman...." ----Both believers and non-believers can get
marriage license from government. Even though marriage has religious
significance to some people, it does not to others, it is a matter of law, not a
matter of religion.And even if talking about religious freedom,
according to Wall Street Journal, there are already more then half young
evangelical Christians supporting SSM, the number is even higher among mainline
protestants, and WSJ is hardly a liberal media. So for those believers who
support marriage equality, how about their religious freedom? Basically, Schaerr would argue it is OK to reject one religious view and to
codify another religious view into Utah's constitution? And he believes
that is not against 1st amendment establish clause? How can state of Utah hire
such a lawyer with big bucks?
To "cocosweet" you never finish raising children. Since your MOTHER is
76, that means that she has children, and is still giving them advice and
raising them. Granted you don't live with her, but she is still a parent
and is raising children.To "get her done" I hate to tell
you, but the idea of gay marriage being ok is an ancient Roman idea. Those
supporting it are not even up to this millenium.To
"Noodlekaboodle" you are wrong. Studies out there show that children
raised by same sex partners end up sexual messes because of risky behavior and
experimentation. Overall not very healthy for the emotional development of
children.To the rest of you who support SSM. Where does it end? If
a man and 3 women want to be legally married, will you give them the same
support? What about if 2 men and 3 women want to be leagally married, will you
support that? How can you limit marriage if you define marriage by love?
@ MoreMan: Blacks and the priesthood is a totally different thing than same-sex
marriage. To compare the two is completely disingenuous.Marriage is
defined in scripture. Read Genesis. There is no altering of God's Law for
political expediency or to comply with increasingly disturbing societal changes.
Blacks holding the priesthood was never scriptural. It was a policy that was
consistent with 19th century society. As true civil rights advanced, the
Prophet appealed to God and was given an answer. Members who
struggle with same-sex arttraction have full fellowship in the Church as long as
the live the Law of Chastity. But what happens when someone in that situation
engages in homosexual - or any other sexual - behavior outside of marriage?
Excommunication.SSA and homosexuality are two different things.
Acting out sexually is always a choice. Celibacy is not fatal.....
@Prodicus: If, as you say, my wife and my reasons for getting married are
"irrelevant," than perhaps so are everyone's. (You should look at
your laws. Utah Code Title 30 Chapter 1 sets forth the law of marriage.
Nowhere in there is any stated "reason" or "justification" or
"societal benefit.")There being no reason for marrying,
there can be no reason for not marrying. The State can still set forth
requirements regarding age, competence, consent, consanguinity, and
unencumberedness, as well as filing fees. This case comes down to
the restrictions set forth on the parties who are prohibited from consenting to
be married to each other, and whether those are Constitutionally justifiable.If you believe in Traditional Marriage, you should look up Common Law
Marriage. From preChristian Rome until 1563 for Catholics and 1753 for
Anglicans, marriage "...was accomplished by consent of the parties to live
together. No forms were required, and no ceremony was necessary." (-- from
an online legal dictionary. Links prohibited by DN. Just google the text.)So much for any religious underpinnings since the dawn of time.
The law does not deny anyone a fundamental right "to marry". All people
are afforded the exact same opportunities to marry. Marriage is defined as a
union between one man and one woman. This is not about equal rights, this is
about a few people trying to redefine marriage.If we allow marriage to be
redefined then where does it stop? If a Father wants to marry his own daughter
and they are both consenting adults, What is to stop them from being allowed to
marry as well? If we are redefining marriage then why not allow polygamy?
civilized society is built upon the laws given to us by God, like it or not. If
we start disregarding the Laws of morality that have stood since the beginning
of time then where will it stop? If we bend the rules for some it will
undoubtedly lead to the changing of other rules as well. If society has no rules
and laws of morality to stand on than it will not stand at all.
I was frankly stunned that Utah made the claim that preventing"religious
and social strife" was a reason for outlawing Gays marriage. You
will find the same argument in cases supporting segregation in the South in the
60s. I suspect the lawyers responding to this brief will point to this as proof
that the law was based on "animus" against Gays, not what's best
@MeckofahessYou said, "Same-sex marriage related laws would
result in social chaos and I believe would back fire in mirad ways that the gay
community doesn't like to talk about."Would you care to
explain a few of the "mirad" ways that laws to protect simple rights of
citizens (such has the ability to decide on medical treatment of a loved one)
would "back fire"? I would also love some references to studies that
support your beliefs.Also.. you might want to be careful about your
"majority" comments. Our society is becoming more accepting and less
bigoted. Personally I can only hope this is happening because people are
starting to wake up to the fact that religion is little more than a fantasy, but
again... that is just me. Read for yourself about the changes in Utah's
views on same sex marriage. Just takes a simple Google search, "utah
support gay marriage poll".
@keepamericafree“Marriage has always been between a man and a
woman since Adam and eve.”Except for that pesky revelation
about polygamy. Oh and all those ancient times when it wasn’t… but
I guess if you treat the bible as “what really happened in history”,
then I guess you’re right. It really is a pity that so little of it
actually aligns with reality.“if we allow the loud voices of a
few to persuade us to change what is right and make it wrong”Let’s go back to slavery! Child labor! Women treated worse than
property!!! All of those movements started with a minority. Each
struggled greatly to gain enough support to change the minds of those
less… enlightened… to see how unfair and barbaric they were.
@ AzazaelYOU SAY: "Marriage is not a basic human right."Supreme Court disagrees at least 14 times in cases since 1888.YOU
SAY: "Marriage, in this context, is a legal status that is granted certain
benefits by the state."The legal status - marriage - is granted to
couples as benefits, but more importantly, obligations and responsibilities -
two things you do not talk about.The state regulates divorce, child
support, custody, marriage of people already with children, inheritance,
property distribution and taxation. Lots of obligation and responsibilities
there.YOU SAY: "This argument shows the state's interest
in defining marriage for the benefit of society."There are lots
of benefits for married couples AND for society, whether any couple has children
or remain childless. The State has an interest in both benefits to individuals
and to the state. It also has obligations and responsibilities expected of
married couples and by the state to children and their parents - like
schools.Interests of the state, benefits AND obligations, apply to
individuals, regardless of gender, or if a married couple has children.Marriage is a basic human right (with lots of obligations) to society, if it
is to remain a society for everyone.
"Many of us don't believe in your god, and we don't go to your
church."And many of us don't share your beliefs either.
This may come as a shock but we are entitled to vote and participate in the
process just like you.I do not support denying anyone employment,
housing or the right to live with who they want. Some of us believe, however,
that it is in the best interest of society and children to defend traditional
marriage.Legitimate peer reviewed studies back up our point of view
even if they are not politically correct.
State brief: "A society can have but one understanding of marriage: It is
either a uniquely man-woman institution, or it is not."Faulty
premise, faulty conclusion. There can obviously be multiple understandings of
marriage. There are many historic family structures and many purposes of
marriage. Procreation is one, but so is the enhancement of social well-being by
supporting stable, loving relationships. Marriage in the past has been used to
transfer wealth and power between families and to effect international
diplomacy.The state's case boils down to the
"optimality" argument-- that the sole purpose of marriage is to
facilitate procreation and that kids do best with a married mother and father.
This has been repeatedly debunked in this forum over the past two months. Too
bad the state's attorneys don't read the DesNews comment threads.
Here, again, for their benefit:1) Utah marriage law itself rebuts
the premise that the ONLY policy purpose of marriage is to facilitate
reproduction by requiring certain couples to be infertile in order to marry.2) Children of gay couples are excluded from the benefits of having married
It's understandable why many are flustered for the sake of preserving
rights. However, LGBTs can have relationships without the government defining it
as marriage. Who is the gov't, trying to take over our personal lives? Our
nation was For The People, meaning the government should have no say in our
relationships. There's nothing wrong with Utah securing the traditional
family unit. Their main motive is to Protect the Children. Of course, not
everyone can have children. That's a given. The reason our government ever
supported the family was for the chance for couples to bear and raise children.
Yes, people adopt and create families. Some will never bear children. Fact is,
Lgbts will Never be able to have children as it's Not Natural, but
Heterosexual couples have a Chance. LGBT aren't as equipped without both
parental roles in the home. Children need a father and a mother. We hear: Wake
up, Utah! Your morals are ancient and have no place in society. Let's see
how well this adaption of same-sex parenting effects future generations. The
traditional family unit has been proven to be the most ideal setting for
@ RedWing: "To compare the two is completely disingenuous." ??? This
comment is the definition of disingenuous.I can list a least dozens
of direct parallels. Here are a few ... Both referred to as doctrine by
many leaders.Both said to get cred from Genesis.Both claimed to have
impact on life before or after this.Both were/are PR flashpoints for the
LDS church. Both hurt missionary efforts. Both hurt whole classes of
people because of genetics. Both reflected the political battles of
their time. Both restricted rights to a class of people.Both
vehemently defended on religious grounds. Both counter-intuitive to
rational, pure charity.Those who question the doctrines, vilified. Both overturned ... etc., etc.
@LeslieDFThank you for your thoughtful direct reply. I had not considered
the state’s role in the obligations of marriage.If the Supreme
Court has determined that marriage is a basic human right, all the more reason
for legislators to be clear about what constitutes a marriage. Or, as
@Salamankero notes, for the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of
those definitions, thereby defining marriage.Marriage, in this
debate, is a legal status granted benefits, obligations and responsibilities by
the state. As such, the state has an interest in defining marriage. The
arguments presented by Schaerr demonstrate the state’s interest in
defining marriage as between a man and a woman for the benefit of society.I like your point that these benefits and obligations apply regardless
of whether a married couple has children. It answers so many comments that seek
to undermine a man-woman definition of marriage by citing childless marriages.
I know gay people and I love them. I also believe that people should live their
lives according to their own will.This includes my choices. I should
be free to say I believe the gay lifestyle is wrong and never intended by God,
and that the judgement of God foretold by ancient prophets will come upon us if
the traditional family breaks down. I have the right to say that. It is not
hate, it is acting according to my beliefs. I will defend this.Thank
you Utah for taking the time to spent the 2 million to protect my rights too. It
is the right thing to do.
Many of those voicing protests about the State brief seem of the mistaken
expectation that the State's defense of traditional marriage should be
introducing us to some new territory. As if the promotion of traditional ideas
ought to be presented with a Hollywood-style theatrical flair, neon lights,
celebrity, and glittery hyperbole. Sorry to disappoint such hopes, but common
sense would indicate that the traditional marriage position has no such appeal.
The "same old" ideas that characterize tradition ARE traditional, by
definition. The burden of proof would seem to lie with those who propose to
transform marriage into some spiffy new playtoy. Let opponents of tradition
show how and why their ideas are any improvement over time-proven ideals and
universal values. Civil law was instrumented with just such a basis.
I am opposed to gay "marriage". However, the biggest threat to
traditional marriage, according to Matt Walsh, is divorce. I happen to concur.
Maybe we should focus there.
Marriage is such a wonderful thing, and all should be able to enjoy it.
Unfortunately, a small group wish to "un-define" marriage. This is not
about everyone having equal protections - everyone already has the opportunity
to marry someone of the opposite sex. That very small group chooses instead to
change the definition to be "between same-sex individuals", which most
people do not accept as the definition. Utah citizens have spoken
clearly - Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. All are welcome
@ Snapdragonyou wrote: "I should be free to say I believe the
gay lifestyle is wrong and never intended by God. . . "and "I have the right to say that. It is not hate, it is acting
according to my beliefs."You DO have the right to say that. You
just did. And I would vigorously defend your right to say those things. But you
do NOT have a right to be free from criticism when you say those things. This is
where you and many others get confused.
Mr AG. This is all you got?I have to revise my previous
statements, your not only going to lose huge, Your gonna get creamed.
@1978;You do not have the right to vote on the civil rights of
anyone.@All of you claiming "god says".I
don't give a rip what your god says and I'll fight you tooth and nail
if you try to force me to adhere to your god's will. We are not a
theocracy and I will defend the freedom to choose who I am with and who I choose
@Richness: As a child growing up, the highlight of my week was the visit to or
from my grandparents. While we often felt our parents tended to take us for
granted, we never doubted our grandparents were there just to love and dote on
me and my sister. Every couple, whether straight or gay, has parents. If they
have a child, that child gets grandparents! If only the churches would quit
trying to get families to ostracize their gay children, more children of gay
parents would have access to loving grandparents. Plus, marriage creates more
grandparents for children!Your thinking, mired in traditional sex
roles of mothers and fathers, is quaint. My wife and I share duties and talents
without regard for whether they're masculine or feminine. Computers,
mechanics, cooking, home repair, cleaning, sewing, art, music, fishing and
sports are not restricted to one gender or another. The choice for
Utah is not whether or not gay/lesbian couples should have children. Those
families already exist and will continue to form. The question is whether those
children should have the security that marriage provides them, their parents and
Utah's premise is that recognition of marriages of same-sex couples will
have an adverse impact on a range of desired outcomes, such as increased births,
more stable families, more and longer-lasting marriages. Regardless
of truth/falsity of this premise, for the purpose of Shelby's summary
judgment analysis he assumed all that is true, as will the 10th Cir.So the question on appeal is whether Shelby erred, as a matter of law, in
finding that Amend 3's exclusion of a single class of couples (same-sex
ones) from the benefits of secular marriage is not rationally related to Utah
achieving those desired outcomes (or conversely, avoiding declines in them),
when Utah's law recognizes the marriages of all other classes of couples
that have the identical (if not worse) adverse impact on Utah's desired
outcomes. These classes include infertile couples, second/third marriages
(track record of divorce), couples where one or more are known physical or
emotional abusers, have untreated mental illness, or can't hold down steady
employment. Binding precedent says this is not rational.Utah's
brief barely skims the surface as to why Shelby might be wrong in this regard.
Personally, I think the trivializing of marriage is coming from those who insist
that civil unions are just fine and that they don't need marriage. @Snapdragon"I should be free to say I believe the gay
lifestyle is wrong and never intended by God"Of course you can
(though technically the DN moderates comments and since it's their page
there's no free speech right that anything typed here actually is allowed).
Here's the thing though... "I believe the gay lifestyle is
wrong and never intended by God, and that the judgement of God foretold by
ancient prophets will come upon us if the traditional family breaks down. I have
the right to say that. It is not hate"others have the right to
disagree with those claims.
@ OWENseriously???...I don't think I have ever
encountered such a spin from truth as your list. Sad part is that several people
actually thought you had some real facts.
Here is the problem that I see with the State's argument that marriage is
to help raise children and to give the best environment to children possible,
ie, a mother and a father:Gays are not forbidden from having or
raising children without marriage right now. Many gays (especially in Utah) are
raising children. Over 200,000 children are in gay households in the USA. If
we keep gays from marrying, it is NOT keeping them from having children or
adopting children. This will continue whether or not we allow gays to marry.The people that are being harmed by keeping marriage between opposite
sexes are the children of gay couples! They are the ones not being given the
most stable environment possible - just because there are those in the state
that want to either protect a word or feel that their beliefs are more important
than those children. It might be optimal to have both parents, but it is not
realistic. These facts will not change just because we banned gay marriage.Can anyone dispute this counter argument? Why are we treating those
children so poorly? Why don't we care about those families? Are we that
selfish and stubborn?
"man and woman"?Why hasn't the State gone after the
polygamy ruling? They seem very disinterested in it.Curious to the
Ranch said : I don't give a rip what your god says and I'll fight you
tooth and nail if you try to force me to adhere to your god's will. We are
not a theocracy and I will defend the freedom to choose who I am with and who I
choose to marry.1. This here is not about what god is saying, but
what legislature will in the near future2. to be forced to adhere to
god's will is against the true and living God, contradiction3-
we are not a theocracy, but if we would you could still count on your voice4. freedom ... to choose who to marry, no and yes, if it is a legal
ceremony you cannotYour speech is one of upset rather than logic to
the facts.And before you have to fight to the teeth, you may choose to
I can see why Schaerr is such a successful lawyer. Traditional marriage allows
for "accommodating religion freedom". How do you counter that?
With the argument that religions shouldn't have freedom?"Redefining marriage as a genderless, adult-centric institution would
fundamentally change Utah's child-centered meaning and purpose of
marriage"Beautiful argument. No one can counter that, they will
have to ignore it or accept it.
I am not a lawyer, but even I can see the glaring holes in the states arguments.
I truly think they want to lose.
@ Owen:Read Genesis. God joined Adam and Eve, and thereby ordained
marriage as between one man and one woman. This is not a negotiable thing. The
church in the 19th century believed that blacks could not hold the Priesthood.
Further revelation - when it was asked for - led to this position being
changed.Science changes its position all the time without being
questioned or attacked. I remember when Pluto was a planet, and dinosaurs were
lizards."Both hurt whole classes of people because of
genetics."No genetic proof of homosexuality has been found. The
entire human genome has been mapped without finding the "gay gene".
This myth still gets propogated to the point that even otherwise intelligent
judges parrot is as fact. I guess it proves that if you say something enough
times people will believe it.Thousands and thousands have overcome
same-sex attraction and live happy lives. One of those inconvenient facts the
LGBT try to hide.....
Utah legislators don't want children to be raised in non-traditional
families which undermine the LDS stance on homosexuality. The possibility of
gays and lesbians actually turning out to be good parents is terrifying to State
legislators, most of whom are LDS. This concern also fuels anti same-sex
marriage laws in other areas where politicians, and the people who vote them
into office, are opposed to same-sex marriage due to religious beliefs.The government is clearly taking sides in a theological debate here, and oddly
enough this government intrusion into religion is promoted by many of the same
people who buy into conspiracy theories about how government is the biggest
threat to religious freedom.This issue isn't about protecting
children, it's about keeping them indoctrinated, and if that means more
kids are raised in single-parent households, or as wards of the state, then so
be it, just as long as they're not raised by gays.
I find the people who support what the state is doing very interesting, and I
think you should stay in your little bubble of a world. Life changes and
progresses, when Utah wanted to be a state the church gave up their polygamous
lifestyle, then they allowed blacks into the church, long after they were given
their freedom from slavery. I find it sad that I know people who
will not let their children play with others because they are not of the same
religion. God did not create us to be like this, you want to look at the
history of it, your religion is an infant compared to others, but you feel that
you are the standard of tradition. So get on your high horse and
ride out of here, change has come, embrace it or stick your head in the sand,
because at the end of the day we all get to face our maker, it is then when we
will all be judged on how we lived our lives, I choose to treat EVERYONE the
same, even those who stand on the side of the state.
@ JJ1094 ... the two issues have nearly identical political/religious histories.
And will have the same outcome. Probably on the same time line, meaning the
policy change will follow the rest of the nation by about a quarter century.
Unless we make the mistake of canonizing political statements as doctrine. Then
it will take ten years longer. Nonreligious question though: since
when did "the ideal" become "the standard" for law. I might be
able to find data that support my ideal would be that everyone attend a church
three hours every Sunday, one parent would be dedicated full-time to his/her
child, that cigarettes didn't exist, that people in the
"10-item-or-less" line obeyed the rule. But we don't have laws for
@Salamankero in UtahYou said and I quote "you might want to be
careful about your "majority" comments. Our society is becoming more
accepting and less bigoted". I suggest you had better be careful about
saying such things as "religion is little more than a fantasy". You may
take comfort in what a few dubious polls say - remember that people often vote
differently than how they answer a poll question. Moreover, if you
think you can remove God and faith from our society it is you that is living the
Lovely Deseret,Do the saints in Massachusetts have religious
freedom? Are they able to worship as they see fit or has gay marriage changed
their beliefs?Please tell me how you can want to treat the children
of gay couples as less than other children. Their parents will have to pay more
taxes than other parents - just because they must file as single. To be
able to put these children on some health insurance plans, the children need to
be step children or adopted by the working parent. Some children will be
without health insurance without their gay parents marrying. To receive a
fraction of the benefits and privileges that a $40 marriage license affords,
these gay couples must pay thousands of dollars to a lawyer to draw up papers
that gives them a little assurance that their children are under the
guardianship of the other parent, inheritance rights, and medical rights to
their spouses. All those monies are kept from going to their children, their
childrens college funds etc. Do you really care about these
children or is it more important that your beliefs are enshrined in law?
@LovelyDeseret;"I can see why Schaerr is such a successful
lawyer. Traditional marriage allows for "accommodating religion
freedom". How do you counter that? With the argument that religions
shouldn't have freedom?"---And what about our
religious freedom? That doesn't matter to you, does it. (Hypocrisy at
The law does not deny anyone a fundamental right "to marry". All people
are afforded the exact same opportunities to marry. Marriage is defined as a
union between one man and one woman. This is not about equal rights it is a
fight to redefine marriage.If we allow marriage to be redefined then where
does it stop? If a Father wants to marry his own daughter and they are both
consenting adults, What is to stop them from being allowed to marry as well? If
we are redefining marriage then why not allow polygamy? civilized society is
built upon the laws given to us by God, like it or not. If we start disregarding
the Laws of morality that have stood since the beginning of time then where will
it stop? If we bend the rules for some it will undoubtedly lead to the changing
of other rules as well. If society has no rules and laws of morality to stand on
than it will not stand at all.
Society does not need two same sex parents raising the children of the future.
The very laws of nature created two sexes, male and female, joined together, and
only then, can life be created. No need to challenge the very laws of nature for
selfish reasons. Give the children a chance.
Red Wings: Thousands and thousands have overcome same-sex attraction and live
happy lives. One of those inconvenient facts the LGBT try to hide.....----------------BYU tried aversion therapy to change students (who
volunteered, btw) to overcome SSA in the 60's, and 70's and 80's.
If you want to look up their results, it turns out that .005% changed. And the
few of the thousands treated who changed actually became unattracted to anyone,
rather than becoming heterosexual. These are members who wanted to change so
bad that they allowed BYU to send electric shocks to their genitals to change
their attractions. Some took medicine that would make them vomit when they
became aroused. All in an effort to try and make them opposite attracted.After years of failures, BYU stopped their program and related to the
Brethern that SSA could not be changed by this method. These students had
fasted, prayed, talked to their bishops, and truely tried to become what they
felt they were supposed to be. When they couldn't change,
depression set in along with self-loathing. More than a few suicide attempts
were recorded.Where are those thousands of changed people you were
@ RedWingsRedwings: "Further revelation - when it was asked for
- led to this position being changed."Baccus: May be is time to
start asking about this issue.RedWings: "Thousands and thousands
have overcome same-sex attraction and live happy lives. One of those
inconvenient facts the LGBT try to hide....."Baccus: Where are
they? I am LGBT and LDS, I went through electric shocks, and other
"reparative" treatments to cure me of my homosexuality (I was Chaste and
Devoted )I know many, many people living double lives. Also, the LDS
stop promoting reparative therapy a while back. The LDS Church has been honest
enough to understand that homosexuality is a "natural trait" The problem is NOT homosexuality. The problem is one of self and societal
acceptance.God our Heavenly father has no problem with his LGBT
children. He blesses our lives everyday as much as he blesses the lives of his
heterosexual children. There are thousands and thousands of LGBT and
LDS, and many from all religions who can testifythat God has nothing
against us. The limited ones are only a group of individuals who "project
and attribute to God" their own faults.
Id marriage is a right then I suppose that all those singles out there who never
got a marriage proposal could sue others for not marrying them. Marriage is not
a right no matter who says it is. It comes to some but not others. If you decide
to live the gay lifestyle, select a partner of the same gender, it should then
make you ineliglble for marriage. Unless you then change your ways and choose to
marry someone of the opposite gender. It's so simple. Why can't
people understand that. If gays choose to live the gay lifestyle it
will come with some consequences. If they choose to adopt a child, it will
result in that child not having one parent they should and deserve to have. It
also will result in a confused and emotionally hurting child at some point once
they realize they will NEVER have a mother or father. Consequences of the
choices adults are making!
Offering a marriage certificate to two women raising children won't change
the result of the choice these two women have made- that of hurting the child by
virtue of their relationship. It's impossible for a child to grow up in a
home with two mommies to not at some point feel jypped and then long for a dad.
That is unless the women lie to the child telling them that they don't need
a dad and two moms is just as good. Flat out lie! Hopefully the state will wise
up and not allow singles or homosexuals to adopt. To stand firm with the
traditional definition of marriage will hopefully discourage MORE homosexuals
from bringing children into their homes to raise. It was a mistake for the state
to ever allow it to begin with. I hope that law is repealed along with the
effort to maintain amendment 3.
These lawyers are digging themselves in deeper and deeper into a hole. The fact
that they are showing preference to one citizen over another is just wrong. The
US Constitution clearly provides equal rights for all citizens. You know those
pesky words of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I am not going to
waste time on the issues of due process and equal protection. We have many
great posters who have addressed these issues. I want to go right to these
lawyers own words regarding our prized religious freedoms..."state's interests in accommodating religious freedom and preserving
social harmony in the state"My church and faith accepts and
marries gays and lesbians and their families. These amendments clearly violate
my faith. No where in the 1st Amendment is the word "majority" tied to
religious freedom. Please I hope the lawyers for these couples are going to
draw that distiction so we might...just might one day have social harmony...and
not just for the majority.
@LovelyDeseret["Redefining marriage as a genderless, adult-centric
institution would fundamentally change Utah's child-centered meaning and
purpose of marriage"Beautiful argument. No one can counter
that]I'd counter it by pointing out that Utah doesn't have
a child-centered meaning and purpose of marriage. There's no requirement
that a couple have children, there's no requirement that parents of
children get married. There's nothing keeping the infertile or elderly from
getting married. There are even some marriages Utah only allows if they're
infertile (that between cousins). There's nothing even stopping single
people from adopting (so the notion of children needing to have two parents of
opposite genders is already disagreed with in Utah law elsewhere).
@Azazael"I like your point that these benefits and obligations apply
regardless of whether a married couple has children. It answers so many comments
that seek to undermine a man-woman definition of marriage by citing childless
marriages."Pointing out a fact neither undermines, nor elevates
a position. That my aunt and uncle never had children did not undermine my
parents' marriage. Nor does mine. That married friends of my parents were
childless did not perplex or confuse me, or them.And love,
commitment - the fulfillment - was obtained in giving by the adults to each
other and to us, children, not in withhold or restricting love through marriage
as some form of ownership, achievement or prize.The state never
guarantees marriage results in better adults - it can hope. The state does help
ensure success or failure for children - their interests and the state's
interests. A state policy of promoting marriage only for couples who might
accidentally have children is preposterous. That certainly undermines
"traditional" marriage. Is that license reward or pardon, or
punishment?Have yet to see any difference in outcome for children
that depended on the gender of their parents (biological, adoptive, step,
foster, or even stand-in).
It's just the same arguments we have been hearing forever, I really
don't think we will win this one. I AGREE that a traditional family is the
best environment to raise a child, but I'm sorry the argument doesn't
hold up in any logical way and most likely won't hold up in court either.
In my opinion we only have two ways to argue it, on moral grounds,
and on the ground of state's rights. Since we most likely can't win a
moral argument in a court, since we don't all subscribe to the same
religion or morals, nor should we force those on others anyway. Therefore the
only logical path forward is to argue state's rights. We probably need to
start accepting the fact that gay marriage is here to stay. Stop living in fear
and focus on strengthening your own family and your own children, that's
what you should be doing anyway.
TO Heavyhitter:The fees are capped to $500k for round 1. They know
full well that this will go all the way to SCOTUS and the state, when all is
said and done, will have spent well over $2mil. Get your head out of your own
misunderstanding of the situation
@jcobabe: "Many of those voicing protests about the State brief seem of the
mistaken expectation that the State's defense of traditional marriage
should be introducing us to some new territory."That's
because Schaerr et al are essentially using the same flawed straw man arguments
that have already been thrown out in various courts. They are virtually the same
arguments that resulted in the Shelby decision. How can any reasonable person
expect this to end differently?Sorry, Utah, but this will be like
leading lambs to a slaughter. I am stunned that the state is going to allow such
tripe to be again presented as their main defense... they have done NOTHING to
improve their legal footing!"Tradition" is not a basis for
legal argumentation. You will simply lose this one."Procreation" is not a factor in allowing two individuals to marry."It's for the children"... please. The Appeal to Emotion or
'argumentum ad passiones' is a logical fallacy, not a basis for
@ RedWings"No genetic proof of homosexuality has been
found."Which gene is the hetero gene?"Thousands
and thousands have overcome same-sex attraction..."Google tells
me the U.S. population is about 316 million. LGBTs generally make up 5% of the
population, which comes to about 15.8 million people. Even if your statement
had any basis in fact, you would have a LONG way to go. BTW, gay
conversion therapy is a religious crock, is outlawed in a few states already,
and has been rejected by mainstream healthcare professionals since at least
2000.Thank goodness scientists are more concerned about discovering
what's true than protecting what they'd prefer to believe. If they
weren't, we'd still believe homosexuality is evil and same-sex
attraction can be "cured."
I am a Mormon woman who can understand both view points. A family has so many
different definitions that seriously the argument to only allow a man, woman and
children to be the sole-definition of said family is Ludacris (single parent
families, grandparents raising children, aunts and uncles raising nieces and
nephews and the list goes on.) Also as a Mormon we believe the only marriage
that matters in the eyes of God is the celestial marriage, between a man and
woman is in the temple. The eternal family unit is the man, woman and their
children whether they are their blood offspring or adopted. Same sex
couples who already have children are going to continue to cohabitate in that
manner whether a piece of paper saying they are married or not is produced.
There's no law that would take their children away from them nor should
there be. This is more detrimental to the child than just allowing their same
sex parents to be married. Cont...
Absolutely its best that children have a mother and a father. So why before gay
marriage became an issue, didn't the powers that be in Utah work to ensure
that children who adopted are adopted by mothers and fathers? There is nothing
in Utah law now and never was to prevent children from being adopted into other
arrangements. All along there are children who could have had mothers and
fathers, who were adopted into other arrangements.Instead the powers
that be here go out of their way to make life difficult for gay people by
denying them benefits of marriage, (taxes, visitation, inheritance etc.) without
offering a suitable substitute such as domestic partnership. Denying marriage to
gay people does nothing to help traditional marriage. Who ever believes this is
like a sheep, reflexively believing what they hear without thinking the issue
out for themselves.
cont. from previous comment....However, the US Government gave states the
power to define marriage, so it is a states law decided on the state and
it's people. Whether the law is recent or old matters not, it was put into
place by the state and it's people. If it were the US Government's
decision on defining marriage, all states would allow same sex marriages, and
not all do. Maybe it's just a matter of time, but what's the since in
voting on any state matter if the US Government can just come in and overturn
it. So from my previous comment and this one I can see both sides.
The State is right to defend its definition of marriage. But to base their case
on "best for the children" means they will be stalemated in court due to
conflicting empirical evidence produced by various research teams on child
outcomes in same-sex and hetero-sex households. The state of Utah
should have based its legal argument on something far deeper: that marriage is
the unique social expression of commitment between the two halves of humanity.
Marriage is *the* social recognition of the interdependence of the two halves of
humanity, not only in reproduction but in all important affairs of humanity. As
such, same-sex unions not only do not fulfill the purpose of marriage, they
negate that purpose.But Utah male politicians do not see that
equality between the sexes is the deeper purpose of marriage, and so they will
never be able to craft the legal argument that would bypass the stalemate on
child outcomes. That is very sad; they are setting themselves up to lose. They
owed the cause of marriage a better defense than this.
@Lane Myer.005% changed huh? That means that if only one person
changed that 20,000 students participated in the study (roughly the enitre
population of the school at a given time during that era). Please cite your
Look, this is so simple it is amazing people can’t see it on both sides.
Just give Gay couples the same rights as non-Gay couples just don’t call
it marriage. This will keep religion out of it. I don’t think there is a
religious teaching on the planet that recognizes marriage with other than a man
and a woman and to do so, steps on the rights of those who have those religious
beliefs whether right or wrong. This is why we have separation of church and
state. What this judge did was try and blend the two and it is against the
Constitution plain and simple.
@ BlackDiamondNot everyone believes the same way you do. Believe it
or not, many people don't even believe in your god, and that is perfectly
fine. You are free to live your life any way you see fit, however you are not
free to force your standards upon anyone else.
@RedWings "No genetic proof of homosexuality has been found. The entire
human genome has been mapped without finding the "gay gene". This myth
still gets propogated to the point that even otherwise intelligent judges parrot
is as fact."No genetic proof of HETERO-sexuality has been found
either. So once you solve your own mystery science question first, then you may
have basis to judge and condemn homosexuality.
(child-centered meaning and purpose)E N D L E S S items would add
up a list to what nature is providing the child with, such as starting with
breast feeding for the immune system and perhaps ending with the role playing
model of a mother and a father.The LGBT community could not even come
close to what they would be lacking in comparison to what nature has to offer to
children with a father and a mother provided.It does not help to
read the child-centered institution of marriage as a failure by posting divorce
or childless families.With child-centered is meant, that two natural
parents have more medical and psychological pre-determined properties to sustain
the huge demands of child growth and development.Nothing a gay or
lesbian partner would ever be able just to imagine.The intolerance to LGBT
does not happen, it comes by the design of mother nature.People do like
their neigbors, but nature cannot create a substitute for its own design.This here is all about misreading science. Sorry.
The state argues that traditional marriage households are the optimal
environment for raising children and that the state has an interest in the
welfare of children. But yet, the state allows many (most) other child rearing
households. It seems the state is much less interested in promoting the optimal
environment bests interests of children via traditional marriage than they are
in preventing same-sex marriage.In addition, the state allows
same-sex couples to raise children. The state merely forbids the marriage of
those same-sex couples who are raising children. I fail to see how a child is
better off with unmarried same-sex parents than with married same-sex parents.
The state certainly strongly encourages opposite-sex couples to marry for the
benefit of children and society. We should be encouraging same-sex couples to
marry for the same reasons.
So, Ranch, Lane, do you deny that people have overcome same sex attraction or
are you claiming that no such thing exists. You will need to be careful here
because there are a lot of us that have personal knowledge of such. Spin away,
if you must.
@ LovelyDeseretYour religious freedoms are completely untouched. Our
freedom FROM your religion on the other hand.....Children are not a
requirement to get married. You can be married and choose not to have children,
or you can be unmarried and have many children....That wasn't
hard to counter at all, and I'm not even a lawyer.
@Ann Amberly "Marriage is *the* social recognition of the interdependence
of the two halves of humanity, not only in reproduction but in all important
affairs of humanity. As such, same-sex unions not only do not fulfill the
purpose of marriage, they negate that purpose." I'm trying
to find that definition or requirement in any state civil marriage law. Do you
have a civil law statute citation or court case to support your claim? How
are opposite sex couples and their unions negated, when a same-sex couple
marries. How does this purported "negation" specifically manifest
itself or how can it be measured or documented as evidence?
Does anyone know what percentage of marriages produce children? Notice, my
question is not what percentage of "married people" have children. For
example, if a man and woman are married and have a child together, and the man
is previously divorced twice with no children and the woman was divorced once
with no children, the percentage for them would be 40 percent.My
hunch is that about 25-30 percent of all marriages produce children.
Well, the state is going to lose for sure if this is the best they got.
They've already used the "marriage is for procreation" argument
which was readily shot down by the lower courts. Repackaging that message
isn't going to make a difference. The 14th Amendment is at issue here. If
gay marriage is legalized, it will be done under the 14th Amendment, so why
isn't the state arguing points that deal directly with the 14th amendment
rather than these emotional pleas? Part of the problem is that big money is
involved. Most people may not know that the 14th amendment was written to give
freed black slaves equal rights, but almost immediately after its passage,
corporations filed lawsuits asking for equal protection under the 14th
Amendment. Since that time, the federal courts, including the Supreme Court
have set hundreds of precedents that "corporations are people" with
rights of citizens under the 14th amendment. This expansion of the 14th
amendment was the doorway to allow for gay marriage. Utah won't argue to
redefine the 14th amendment because that would ruin the power of big corporate
money over politics.
@ O'reallyMarriage is a right, according to the SCOTUS many
times over. However, it is still an option, not a requirement. Just like owning
a firearm is a right. However, we are not all required to own a gun. I see it is your opinion that being gay should disqualify someone from
marriage. The question is WHY? They are consenting adults, why can't
same-sex couples participate in marriage and receive its benefits too? Neither
you, or any lawyer, has put together a reasonable answer to that question that
will hold up in court. Your religious beliefs don't matter because we are
not a theocracy. Also, "The children" argument is destined to fail
because divorce is still legal, and infertile and elderly couples are allowed to
marry all the time. Plus it is legal, and common, to have children outside of
wedlock. So with that in mind, why shouldn't SSM be legal?
@andyjaggy & nellie83;The 10th amendment, the "state's
rights" amendment, prohibits states from violating Federal Laws (prohibited
to them); the US Constitution is the ultimate Federal law and the 14th amendment
of the ultimate US law is violated by amendment 3 to Utah's constitution.
States do not get to violate the rights of (any) US citizens. The majority does
not get to violate the rights of (any) US citizens."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."@arand;Separate is not equal. There are also many religions
that support same-sex marriage.
@Mike RichardsTwo reasons why the kids argument doesn't work for me,
these couples already have kids. It's not illegal for a gay couple to have
a child, but we won't protect those kids legally the same way children of a
straight couple or single parent are protected. That makes sense, punish
children because you disagree with their parents. The other is that studies(I
really wish I could link, but if you google the topic you can find what i'm
talking about) show that factors like a 2 parent household(kids are a lot of
work) quality of education, and financial stability are the main factors that
can predict a kids future. When you look at this issue arguing it will hurt the
children is easily reputed by research.
@ Karen R.Actually, according to God, homosexual relationships are an
abomination. Though it may take work, a homosexual person can change and become
heterosexual, which is the only marriage and family type God will accept, no
matter what the laws or the professionals say.
The LAW doesn't give a hoot about what is supposedly best for the children.
It's about how the legal term is and will be defined.It's going to be as simple as that. Don't be pulling on the
heart strings of justice. Justice doesn't care.
For those who claim that they don't believe in the same God that I believe!
It is that same God that created this earth and you and I. Whether you believe
in it or not, I'm sorry but he does live and he did created man to marry a
woman. If he did not in the first place there will not be any you or I. And
christians that support gay marriage, that does not mean we're going to
change the law. Wrong will always be wrong even if everyone is doing it. Right
will be right even if no one is doing it. Freedom comes when we are obedient to
the law. Imagine what would happen to everyone if people change every single
law there is. Stop trying to break the law. Stop gay marriage.
Its hard to believe the argument that it is all about the children, when the
State is dead last in the nation when it comes to spending per child.
@Chris A re: "Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period."Regrettably that kind of argument simply did not pass constitutional muster
(due process and equal protection) when folks claimed that "Marriage is
between people of the same Race." While your argument looks
great on a bumper sticker, beyond that there just is not any constitutional
I'm hetero, married 20 yrs with 3 kids. No one has yet explained to me how
a same sex marriage will endanger my kids. Furthermore, if a same
sex couple is already raising a child, how will allowing that same sex couple to
marry endanger the child they are already raising? In fact, I would
prefer my kids to know that the same sex couples who are living together are
married as opposed to knowing the same sex couples who are living together are
not married. It reinforces in my kid's minds that couples living together
should be married. Society benefits when couples marrying rather than just
shacking up. We should be encouraging those types of committed, married
relationships in all couples, both hetero and same-sex.
@ Coach Biff" You will need to be careful here because there are
a lot of us that have personal knowledge of such"Please do
enlighten us. I'm sure you have data to corroborate your certitude. You may
like to share your information with many churches who have been changing their
practice and advice regarding Sex Therapy, because they see that is not working
for them or those who follow this therapy.
How about arguing that the gender basis does not deprive anyone of equal rights?
Any person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. One man and one
woman is everyone's right.
I just love all the petty and childish arguments on the forum that basically say
that my god is better than your god or my god allows this or my god allows that.
Humans have sunk to such a low and sorry state that they can't even debate
with each other without hiding behind the robes of the gods they can't even
"Traditional marriage is the best place to rear children, Utah appeal
says"Er, OK. (Snicker)
Coach Biff states that he has personal knowledge of people who have
"overcome same-sex attraction.Avenue states that "Though it may
take work, a homosexual person can change and become heterosexual."I'm not sure of all the context or nuance behind those claims. Without
nuance and context, I can only see those claims being hurtful to this discussion
and especially to anyone dealing with SSA.For nuance, I'd encourage
Mormons to google LDS Voices of Hope and watch the videos. These are faithful
Mormons dealing with SSA--some celibate, some married to the opposite sex, but
none of them claim to have changed orientation or "overcome" SSA. They
just learn to deal with it. You'll see that people at the healthiest places
in their lifes recognize it as a reality and aren't trying to change
orientation, but instead focus on how to live with what they have.
It's ironic that the same DN edition that features this headline also
features a headline about a Utah stepfather who tortured and killed his stepson.
Let's say that "Traditional marriage is the best place [sic] to raise
children" -- or even rear them. Many have pointed out variations like
single biological parents and single adoptive parents rearing kids. There are
gradations of what is "best" and "worst" in anything. The
state's argument in this case is weak.
We paid $300,000 EXTRA for this??? Gonna LOSE BIG TIME!!!! The state is NOT
currently banning gay couples from raising children. The state is NOT banning
single moms from raising children. The state is NOT banning single dads from
raising raising children. The ban on gay marriage does NOTHING to assure that
children have a mom and a dad. It's the silliest thing I've ever
heard. I'd flunk a 7th grade student for presenting such a bogus argument
in a junior high civics class.
So let's see... We've already got thousands of gay couples in Utah,
legally raising children together. Amendment 3 does NOTHING to stop them from
doing so. So how does defending amendment 3 make certain these children in
existing gay homes will suddenly get both a mother and a father in the home?
This defense team is worthless. Gay marriage is coming back to Utah, very soon.
The state of Utah is creating a bunch of second-class citizens with this
defense.Single moms = Second Class CitizensSingle dads = Second
Class CitizensChildless Marriages = Second Class CitizensChildren of
Single Moms = Second Class CitizensChildren of Single Dads = Second Class
CitizensAdopted Children = Second Class CitizensGays = Second Class
CitizensWe'll have more second-class citizens than first class
Traditional Marriage in the United States = A person making a legal long-term
commitment to the love of their life. Gays (LGBTs) just want the right to have a
traditional marriage and the 14th amendments says they must be given that equal
Its nature!! Children need a mom and a dad.. Traditional Marriage
Traditional marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Hummm interesting for
Utah to have this definition. I was through the second wife of George Q Cannon
and the third wife of Joseph Silver. Where was ONE MAN ONE WIFE???? Thank
heavens that was the trend in Utah at that time or many of us in Utah would not
be here! Kind of hard to negate history isn't it?
Maybe we all agree that a traditional marriage is the best place to raise
children for social and religious reasons. But that isn't the problem here.
The 14th amendment is in place and part of the highest law in the
land, the constitution. You need to show why it is then OK to discriminate and
not give access to several hundred rights and privileges that hetero couple have
compared to those 'civil unions', including the right to adopt
children. And it seems that this presentation isn't quite there. For me the answer is to just distinguish between the two with words, ie call
one 'marriage' for hetero and the other 'SS marriage' for
the gays with equivalent licences and rights before the government. But the
courts aren't listening to me. Plus after that we could also do the same
with polygamist marriages, those who don't involve under aged girls of
@Red Wings ...read Genesis yourself (even though it is figurative). Where in any
of the creation stories does gender play a role? The Gods (all male?) use their
awesome power to command the elements. To create physical bodies for all
animals, including humans. We assign our personal limited understanding to
eternal processes far beyond our understanding. Why would we assume mortal
biological processes apply throughout eternity? Both the first man
and the most perfect man who ever lived were created by processes we can't
comprehend. Eternal gender may be essential for some reason. Eternal plumbing
may not be essential.
@ BlackDiamondI think you would be happier in the Middle East.
I'm sorry to tell you, but in the USA we are all free to live however we
want. It's all well and good that you believe so strongly in your God. But
the rest of us (thankfully) don't have to; nor do we have to abide by his
laws. We are ruled by The Constitution, not the Bible..
I read the full appeal and found the arguments to be eloquently presented and
quite compelling. I think it is a bit sad that so many SSM proponents are so
quick to dismiss the concerns about what is best for the children and treat it
like it's some kind of a joke. As stated in the appeal- "children are
the most vulnerable members of society, and the least capable of protecting
their own interests." I've seen a few posters ask the question of how
does SSM affect me? I encourage you to read the full appeal as it goes into
great detail of how this does indeed affect you and society as a whole.
@Lane Meyer,To answer your questions.The Catholics in
Massachusetts lost some of their religious freedoms. For example their adoption
agencies shut down. Catholics are being sued for not being accommodating to the
LGBT lifestyle. Utah doesn't want this to happen. This is all well
documented. If this is new to you, you are refusing to see the other side of the
issue.In places where gays are marrying, marriage is diminishing.
Less children are with their biological parents. Utah doesn't want that.
The brief spends a lot of time and energy trying to show a statistical advantage
to opposite-sex ("traditional") marriage over same-sex ("gay")
marriage.There's one problem with this.We
don't make laws that affect individuals based on group statistics. Inner-city black youths have statistically poor college graduation
rates. Do we cut them off from college aid? No, some individuals will
excel.Many Asians and Native Americans lack a gene for properly
metabolizing alcohol and have a bad reaction. Do we ban entire ethnic groups
from purchasing such beverages? No, that's impermissible
discrimination.Many Northern European Jews are lactose intolerant.
Should we forbid them buying pizza? Ditto.Even if straight couples
were statistically better at parenting than gay couples (a refutable
proposition, but okaaaay...), banning gay couples from marrying is impermissible
discrimination, since some could still be better parents than some straight
couples.There are many identifiable statistical variations between
groups in America, but under our Constitution, we must treat all people as
individuals, on their individual merits.The State is simply making a
case for the opposite, for discrimination based on group membership.
@Two For FlinchingA portion of the State of Utah's argument is
that religions are being forced out in states such as Massachusetts. Churches
are being sued etc. No more adoption agencies. Utah wants to avoid
the destruction of religious freedoms that are currently happening in other
states and countries. If this is all new to you, you are selectively
picking the arguments that you want to hear instead of opening your mind to what
is really going on.
Other thoughts on the brief - I am stunned that they argue as a point in their
favor that the majority of religions in the state oppose SSM. “So,
Justices, we not only want to be allowed to continue to discriminate against
LGBTs, we also want the federal government to disregard the rights of those
religions that don’t agree with us.”They follow this up
with, in effect, “If you find anti-SSM laws discriminatory, soon
religious-based institutions and religious people may not be allowed to
discriminate against LGBTs.”Religion’s capacity to
distort and disable the reasoning faculties of even the most gifted never ceases
to amaze me.@BlackDiamond “Freedom comes when we
are obedient to [God's] law.” Disturbingly Orwellian…
Great brief Mr. Schaerr, the best part was about how same-sex marriage has led
to the deconstruction of marriage in Europe, along with earthquakes, floods,
famine and sectarian wars among nations.
@Berkeley reader:"What about those thousand of Utah children being
raised by same sex parents?"Seems those children can continue to
be raised. What does the lack of a piece of paper in an album have to do with
@AllBlack:"14 amendment is about equal treatment."What's so unequal about a marriage law that says all can marry provided
the marriage is between one man and one woman?If the law goes beyond
one man/one woman marriage arrangement, then any combination of marriage such as
polygamy, sibs, close relatives, etc., would also have to be legalized. Do the
citizens of Utah want that? I don't think so.@cocosweet:"Marriage as child-centric? I suppose that makes my marriage a sham since
we didn't have children?"How is it that two married to each
other can have children?"Perhaps we should only allow those who
are fertile to marry?"Marriage is reserved to those who have the
sexual configurations to have children. Two men can't. Two women
can't. End of story.@FT:"Seems a first year law
student could have prepared a stronger argument than this."Why
don't you write the 'stronger arguments' on a piece of paper and
send it to the state attorney's office? And while you're at it, post
it on this thread.
If the SSM crowd believed in freedom, they would not force their beliefs on
everyone else, including children. They could live and let live. But they have
the need to prove to themselves that their relationship is equal, which is
fallacy because it isn't, and they take the rest of society hostage to do
it, including taking children hostage. I am not saying that people aren't
equal, but SS relationships are definitely different than man/woman
relationships, in a way that makes them not equal. The relationship is not
equal, no matter how many judges or laws try make it so.Truly the
government should be smaller and less intrusive in our lives, our religious, or
lack of religious lives. Then SSM wouldn't be an issue. We would truly be
free to live as we feel is best.
@samhill:"Does Utah, and other states, indeed have that authority [to
define marriage]..."Indeed it does per the US Constitution
Amendment 10. Defining marriage is not listed as an authority of the federal
government. Even SCOTUS tells us that the federal DOMA was unconstitutional.@a bit of reality:"How does it promote religious freedom to
make it illegal for a Unitarian Universalist minister to marry two members of
her church that want to marry?"The problem is... if that
Unitarian Church refused SSM they may well lose their tax exempt status.kiddsport @ 10:50 a.m.: Excellent points. This is all the state
attorneys need to win the argument.@kiddsport (10:50 a.m. Feb. 4,
2014)Good post. Your points are all that's needed for Utah
attorneys to win the case.
Laws should be made by the people, most people don't want, it is simple.
Why try to force it down the majorities throats......why do gays even want to
get married. They have the same rights anyway......just be happy, or cant they
be happy. IDK. Just thinking aloud......They honestly don't think they will
stick it out without a religion holding them together. You know something to
hope for and strive to have in the next life. I guess I, and 2 million Utahn
just don't get it, call us crazy.....
@TsovQuaj, unfortunately what you read does not square with ANY main stream
medical, psychological, sociological organization.. That alone will prove to be
problematic for the State of Utah.For example: The American Academy
of Pediatrics states:"Extensive data available from more than 30 years
of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have
demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health
despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have
demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their
relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and
security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by
the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for
same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the
health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens
families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children
should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths
to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and
foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their
Anyone who suggests that marriage has 'always' had the same meaning
displays a lack of knowledge about the history of the range of contractual legal
arrangements that have been called by this name -- including the practices of
their own great grandparents for many readers of the Deseret News. It is an
elementary sociological truism that family structures are products of economic
forces; they are negotiated social formations in which survival activities and
reproduction are located. This desperate strategy of laying claim to an English
word that can refer to a multitude of contractual arrangements and insisting
that it must be narrowly construed according to a definition provided by
someone's god or prophets or scriptures will find no purchase in the
courts. People of Utah unite, you have nothing to lose but millions
of tax dollars in a hopeless campaign against the civil rights of fellow
@Cinci Man 6:31 p.m. Feb. 4, 2014How about arguing that the gender
basis does not deprive anyone of equal rights? Any person has the right to marry
someone of the opposite sex. One man and one woman is everyone's right.--------------------That's the same argument tat was
made before LOVING v VIGINIA handled the issue in 1967 only, then, the argument
was about marrying someone of the same race. Guess what -- it didn't work.
Thank you AG for hiring this law firm, Utah's law is surely going to be
overturned. Love it.
The appeal states,"This is an issue that ought to be determined
by the state and not the federal government," Adams said. "That alone,
in my mind, is worthy of pursuing."This is a great argument. Mr.
Shelby overstepped his authority in this one to have even started this mess.
In other news, no one is outlawing divorce... contrary to New Testament
If, as the state suggests, the state's paramount interest is seeing
children “raised by their biological mother and father within a stable
marital union,” what's to become of the National Guard? Is it no
longer to be open to married enlistees? For, nothing will debilitate a
household faster than the death of one of the parents deployed overseas. For
that matter, how can you even have parents deployed overseas, away from their
children for years at a time, and still meet the state's supposed paramount
interest? And, what about other occupations with high mortality rates? Are
parents to be banned from those dangerous occupations so as to preserve them to
raise their biological children? Firefighters, miners, fishermen, lumberjacks,
helicopter pilots?Is the state also planning to massively increase
unemployment insurance and the welfare system to make sure every family with
children is adequately supported and housed? For, if the state
takes the usual GOP laissez faire approach to family support and married worker
safety, then its supposed justification for marriage discrimination is just
another grandiose fabrication which the Court should dismiss.
Why do all gays think that this is a done deal, that Utah is "wasting their
money". Gays, Please dont show your arrogance, that is not going
to make people favor you or your case. This quote is a good one. And
was solved by the state."This is an issue that ought to be
determined by the state and not the federal government," Adams said.
"That alone, in my mind, is worthy of pursuing."This is a
great argument. Mr. Shelby overstepped his authority in this one to have even
started this mess.Gays, think about the other side. Lets say that
most Utahns are for Gay Marraige, and it is passed by a majority vote, and is
made legal, by law. Then some judge comes in and changes the law based off his
understand of the meaning of the law, not the letter of the law. Or what the
people want. How would you feel???????
"The state's arguments are flawed and will ultimately fail because the
U.S. Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among American
citizenship."Unions between men and women are procreational. In
most instances, they are able to procreate and bear children. Other
relationships are non-procreational. Two gay men living together, someone
living with his aunt, a brother and a sister even if they don't live in the
same house, everyone at the Acme widget family.If we take one
specific type of non-procreational union and give them marriage benefits, then
we have to extend those benefits to all non-procreational unions. When my
mother dies, I want to get her social security benefits. I love my mother. Why
are two gay men professing love to one another of more value than me loving my
mother?The reason that I should not get my mother's social
security benefits is because my relationship with my mother is not
procreational. It therefore, does not need any special benefits from society
like a marriage between a man and a woman.
To those of you using the case of Loving vs. Virginia to compare that case to
SSM, you are lying. In Loving vs. Virginia there were laws that stated that
interracial marriage was a punishable offense. There are no laws preventing
SSM. If 2 gays found a preacher to perform a marriage ceremony for them today,
the government would not care and cannot do anything legally to them.
Good luck with that argument. It's failed multiple times before. But
maybe it will work this time.
Let democracy work ...allow the people in each state to decide the marriage
issue by their vote...instead of a single activist judge.
@REALLY-WOWReally? The SAME rights? Let me clarify a bit...People who are
LGBT CAN still get fired and denied services in Utah. That's why a few of
the senators are pushing for the anti-discrimination bill. How do I know? You
may ask....well let's just say from personal experience! I was almost
kicked out of several High Schools and other services for being Bisexual.
@RedShirtCalTech: Nice try, but totally, unequivocally, absolutely wrong. Utah
Code 30-1-15 (2): " Any person who knowingly, with or without a license,
solemnizes a marriage between two adults prohibited by law is guilty of a class
A misdemeanor."@Tekakaromatagi: No one is changing the
"type of union." It's still only two, unrelated, adult,
consenting, legally unencumbered individuals. No, you can't marry your
aunt, or your uncle. Sorry. Besides, you're already related to them for
inheritance purposes. Marriages establish a family relationship where there
wasn't already one.@1AallTheWay: The proEquality supporters are
more than willing to take that risk. America: Majority rule, but minority
rights. Maybe you'd be happier in Russia, Uganda or Nigeria? No pesky
individual rights for gay people.@ReallyWow: Surely you can't
believe that "gays have equal rights" already, without marriage. They
don't even have hospital visitation rights, or the right to plan their
loved one's funeral. The law makes them complete strangers at times like
those, and hostile blood relations can step in and be vindictive and
exclusionary to the partner.
To "Dark Horse" people that are ugly, middleclass, straight, have
tatoos, lazy, smelly, or whatever can still get fired or denied services in
utah. What is the point of making yet another anti-discrimination law? Now it
just makes the government the thought police.Depending on your job,
I could see some concerns with having a bisexual person in a school. Did you
think about that? Would you put a pedaphile in an elementary school?To "Testimony" tell me what law prohibits SSM? Yes they cannot do
something that is prohibited, but where is the prohibition? What part of the
Utah code states that it is illegal for 2 gay people to get married?Nice try, but you missed the part about there not being a prohibition to gays
@ Dark Horse@REALLY-WOWReally? The SAME rights? Let me clarify
a bit...People who are LGBT CAN still get fired and denied services in Utah.
That's why a few of the senators are pushing for the anti-discrimination
bill. How do I know? You may ask....well let's just say from personal
experience! I was almost kicked out of several High Schools and other services
for being Bisexual.Yea, and I can be fired or denied service if I
choose drugs, and kids can be kicked out of high school for drugs and many other
things, It is all about choice, and please don't say you didn't choose
to be gay. ha.@Testimony - oh I see, for those rare occasional
hospital visits. ok????? Plan a funeral??? huh. really. talk with the family, it
should be what they want too, not just you...any others?????
Perfect. The constitution is a a thing now. That's just fine. Now back away
from the State-militia only argument: dead horse. Ha. (I thought it was outdated
and whatnot. Did you know they had slaves too???)Everyone! Listen!
Now that proponents of human rights, and all things good and holy (expression)
are using the constitution as a basis for extending human rights to everyone,
perhaps the whole constitution should be followed.Also: On behalf of
everyone: Men may now marry men and lets get rid of the fed. Thank
you and good day!Close();
Lovely Deseret,Catholic did NOT lose their right to run their
adoption agencies. They CHOSE to close them rather than fund them totally by
church monies (like the LDS do) and not take state funds to help them. If they
take state funds, they must serve all the citizens of the state, which, believe
it or not, includes gays. It was their choice to not continue. Why
didn't they want to continue to serve like the LDS adoption agencies do
with just their own funds is a question that they will have to answer.You cannot discriminate using funds collected from law-abiding, tax paying
citizens that you just do not think are worthy (per your church beliefs). That
is unconstitutional, btw.Marriage in Massachusetts has not changed
since gay marriage was introduced. It still has the lowest divorce rate in the
nation! We can't say that about Utah and that is a fact!
@ 1A-all the wayThank you for your sense of humor! That was
precious!Enough laughter for now, let me explain something to you
Dear 1A.When you address us as GAYS, you are doing something very
insulting and yet very honest in expressing the way you see us. You define us
only by our sexual orientation. You forget that we are human beings as you, men
and women, sons and daughters, uncles and aunts, teachers, lawyers, policemen,
soldiers, etc. in other words regular, typical members of society.You wrote:"Gays, Please dont show your arrogance, that is not going
to make people favor you or your case"1A; when we were children
we wanted society to favor our case. Most people are changing and they are
favoring "our case". However, at this moment we are looking for the
justice system and the law of the land to favor our case.1A you are
free to continue having your perspective about us and anything else you want. I
don't think we are being arrogant, I think is more like, we are are fed up
of your bigotry and we will not take it anymore.
When are we going to stop trying to legislate religious views into law. The
founding fathers were very specific in separation of church and state. Laws
should not restrain the free expression of religion, but one groups religious
views whether majority or not should not be legislated to infringe on any
citizen's right to self expression or equal protection under the 1st and
14th amendments to the constitution. I am LDS and do not believe that SSM is
decreed of GOD, but that being said, I don't plan on marrying a man, but if
I had other views I would want them protected just as soundly.
@Testimony:"For that matter, how can you even have parents deployed
overseas, away from their children for years at a time..."They
have skype don't they?A larger issue... how is it that God, who
rarely shows himself, manages to run the affairs of His children on earth? I think this SSM thing should be approved... which would mean I could
marry my sister, brother, aunt, uncle and the mother of the girl next door.
I'm starting to get excited anticipating what this all can mean to my
happiness and welfare... Just think, I could be the recipient of several spousal
social security death benefits. I can hardly wait!!
I read the appellate brief, and am astounded at how poorly written and argued it
is. I have read and heard better legal arguments from first-year law students.
The money going to the attorneys hired by the State of Utah is being wasted.
@MissPiggie: Before you go on your big marriage and murder spree, perhaps you
should know that you can only collect one survivor benefit from Social Security.
I also think you're having trouble with this whole "same gender"
concept. Your aunt and uncle are the same gender as you? Curious. Oh, and
incest? Those laws are not going anywhere.@RedShirtCalTech:
You're just playing at being obtuse, right? I cited you the law that says
it's illegal for anyone in Utah to conduct the wedding, even just a church
service. The rest of Utah's anti-SSM laws simply make it unavailable and
treat them as not married under any circumstances, even if married elsewhere.
They would be subject to state fraud charges for truthfully claiming married
status such as on tax filings. See 30-1-2 "Marriages prohibited and
void."Here's something interesting: The traditional Quaker
wedding doesn't involve an officiant, only witnesses. The couple
essentially officiates their own wedding, both of them violating Utah Code
30-1-15. That's a criminal violation.
Constitution King is confused about who is making some people second class
citizens. The first class citizen children will have a mother and
father committed to each other and to the raising of those children.Those who conceive children without preparing their family with a father and a
mother to raise them, are the ones creating second class citizens. The marriage
law just aims to give incentive for people to do the right thing with regard to
their children, for the good of children and of society as a whole. In cases where children don't have parents that want to or are capable of
raising them, society can give them first class care only by giving them to a
mother and father, committed by marriage, to raise them. Placing
children in a home that offers less than a committed mother and father is making
them second class citizens.
Christian 24-7Murray, UT"Placing children in a home that offers
less than a committed mother and father is making them second class
citizens."---Can't WAIT to read the article tomorrow about
you organizing a "freedom train" to bring all the children of unwed
Chicago mothers to Utah, for adoption into mormon homes.Or maybe it
will be all the children of divorced families in the Bible Belt, where phony
morality results in poor contraception and forced marriagesIt
won't be from Massachusetts, the State with the longest record of marriage
equality and the very lowest divorce rate.
To "Testimony" no, you quoted the utah law that says that you can't
perform a marriage that is prohibited. There is nothing stopping the gay couple
from calling themselves married.Do you wish to try again. Find me
the law that says that if 2 gay people declare themselves married that they will
be put into jail?
One thing: How do truckloads of orphans from chicago or other examples of
society failing an excuse for anything?It's a good emotional
argument to try and lump all "heterosexuals" together to say something
to the effect of "Don't talk about Marriage because some woman got
pregnant before and wasn't married".Just because there is a
whole subculture of the united states that is gang run and worships the material
better than anyone with money, that happens to have 70 percent of kids out of
wedlock doesn't mean that SSM is more valid. I am not saying that SSM is
right wrong or blah but how do these points even help. Yes, kids are
born into terrible situations but that shouldn't be an argument for SSM
being legal. Like I said, it's a good emotional argument that appeals on
the surface but further examination exposes.
History shows us that marriage is not defined by those who are excluded.
Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex convicted felon abusers to civil
marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in the institution that
traditionally did not allow them to marry. There are no Interracial marriage
licenses. There are no felon marriage licenses. There are no non-procreative
marriage licenses. By being allowed to participate and/or strengthen the
existing institution, there is only one marriage license for all. Nothing
appears to have been re-defined. Even "traditional voting" was not
re-defined by allowing women the right to vote. The
"redefinition argument" appears to require further thought, and testing
for a rational basis in fact.
@Lane MyerAnd all of the other LGBT posters who comment and press
like on each other's comments. I am still waiting for the proof or source
material for the post dated Feb. 4th at 3:30 p.m.I went to BYU
during the 1980's and received my M.S. in 1988. I was fairly well
connected as to what was going on there and never heard a word of this.
one of the crux issues that seems somehow lost in so much of the divisive
discussion, is that all marriages between a man and a woman are not havens for
children. I can't remember the last child abuse case I read about involving
same sex couples. And, not all gay relationships and/or heterosexual
relationships are loving and committed relationships. Marriage is a long term
commitment of two people to be monogamous with each other and to be afforded the
legal protections that engenders.
@LovelyDeseret;"The Catholics in Massachusetts lost ... their
adoption agencies shut down".-- False. The Catholics CHOSE to
shut down, you can google the truth written by a former board member of Catholic
Charities of MA."In places where gays are marrying, marriage is
diminishing."-- Not the gay's fault. Blame educated
women."Utah wants to avoid the destruction of religious
freedoms..."-- And in doing so, you're violating OUR
religious freedom.@Snapdragon;The 14th Amendment.
My husband and I were unable to have children. The assertions of the appeal
mean that:1) since we wouldn't have been the biological parents, we
shouldn't have adopted children.2) since my marriage could not
produce children it is no more a "traditional marriage" than a same-sex
union. 3) if Utah marriages are meant be "child-centric," the
thousands of same-sex couples having and raising children participate in much
more legitimate marriages than I do with my 30+ years so-called legal Utah
marriage.If Utah marriage truly were child-centric, the State would
outlaw divorce in heterosexual marriages with children. That more Utah
marriages end in divorce than the national average (see Deseret News 01/05/13)
belies the State claim of child-centric marriages. If Utah marriage were truly
all about the welfare of our children, our first priority would be outlawing
divorce in traditional heterosexual marriage or at least carefully screening
heterosexual couples to ascertain if their marriages would end in divorce. Once
we had accomplished that, we could turn our attention to denying gay couples
their civil rights.
Holy guacamole, now Gays are comparing outlawing divorce to justifying gay
marriage....Really.... Anytime you try to justify something it is wrong in the
first place...and they think Utah does't have a good argument against SS
marriage.....wowHERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE. Laws are Laws, Laws come
from the values of the people. Until Utahs' values change about gay
marriage, IT SHOULD NOT BECOME LAW.
@Really-WowOK...your ignorance REALLY shines through. Did I choose to be
something unpopular in the state of Theocracy ridden Utah? No. Did I CHOOSE to
be bullied and made obscene comments to? No. I also think you should read my
comments closer I'm not homosexual, I'm bisexual big difference.
@Lane MeyerYou side stepped and misrepresented my argument and then
came up with an answer based on what you wanted me to write instead of what I
wrote. It seems to me that the LGBT community is simply screaming at
the State of Utah, ignoring our arguments and dismissing our fear of religious
persecution and litigation. I don't expect you to agree with
the people of Utah, but I do ask that you actually listen to our arguments and
concerns, instead of pretending like we don't have any and shouting at us.
People in here are screaming like kids for icecream,what a tender debacle
of misunderstandings.My confusion added is to start screaming for change
of subject.What about putting the whole legal matter on experimental
test run for a couple of years, say within some county or age-related probing.
Would not hurt anyone ?Those who want their icecream right now, you
may wonder about some real issue then !
@1A As a heterosexual, happily married woman, I recognize that laws are
laws. I also recognize that not all laws conform to the Constitution of the
United States. No matter how many voters and how many laws in Alabama tried to
keep Black children out of their Whites-only schools in the 1950s & 60s, it
was unconstitutional bigotry and SCOTUS declared it to be so. No matter how
many voters and how many laws in Utah today try to keep the rights,
responsibilities, respect and benefits of marriage unattainable for same-sex
couples, it is unconstitutional and will be found to be so by SCOTUS. What
appears to be shouting to you is a minority segment of our society that has been
silenced and harassed for centuries trying to be heard by those with closed ears
and closed minds. No one I am aware of wants to force your religion
or any other religion to perform marriages for those they deem unworthy. What
they do want is for our government to give them equal protection and opportunity
under the law to lawfully marry the consenting adult they love.
@ LovelyDeseret: Catholic adoption agencies in MA are still performing
adoptions - what they are not doing is acting as a state agency placing children
in state custody into foster and/or adoptive homes. The interesting thing about
that, is that they were placing children in homes headed by same-sex couples
until a newspaper article brought that to the attention of the Diocese, who told
them they needed to stop. Once they no longer agreed to abide by the contract
they had with the state of MA, MA stopped using them as a resource to place
children. You can still do a private adoption through Catholic
adoption agencies in MA, just as you can through LDS adoption agencies in MA.As for your claim that marriage and reproduction rates are declining in
areas where same-sex marriage is allowed - well, those declines started long
before same-sex marriage was an issue. So unless same-sex marriage has a time
machine so that it can retroactively affect marriage and birth rates, there is
not only not a causation there, there is not a correlation.
The only "junk science" is that used by the pro-homosexual lobby. They
are the ones who have for years been gaming the results of studies. The clear
indication of broad studies using accepted sampling methods is that children
fair best when raised by their biological parents in a stable relationship.The way to make this most likely is to define marriage as a man/woman
The issue is the form of marriage, not individual marriages. Thus for marriage
to be focused on children, marriage needs to be in a form that produces
children. I am beginning to think some people just refuse to even try to listen
to what others say, which is why this debate has been so vicious.
People ignore the fact that the man/woman definition of marriage is built around
principals of minimal interference. It is built around creating a form of
marriage that moves towards the goals the state has identified. Shelby dismissed
the state's stated goals, and did not admit that it had shown these were
its goals.The state does not have to deny any other class, because
the way the state defines marriage the only controlling issue is if people are
male and female or not. The state has not chosen to define other classes in
marital law. To insist it has to address these other classes in defining its law
The -problem with the racial comparison is that there is no easy definition of
race. The fact that Virginia used different schemas to define Native American
(must be at least 1/16th) and African-American (and identifiable African
ancestry) goes to show that race is not definable.On the other hand.
gender is definable. It is also central to all functions of marriage, and part
of the common law definition of marriage. On the other hand, laws against
inter-racial marriage were a fairly recent innovation. For the first 40 years of
colonial Virignia they had none.