Quantcast
Utah

Same-sex marriage decisions in other states argued in Utah case

Comments

Return To Article
  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    April 28, 2014 5:47 p.m.

    Zero rational from the "State" ...

    There are only three states that do NOT have anit-gay lawsuits in progress.

    Please provide a logical answer to this question: "How does my gay marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?"

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 28, 2014 6:34 p.m.

    @MoNoMo 5:47 p.m. April 28, 2014

    Please provide a logical answer to this question: "How does my gay marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?"

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

    That's an easy one to answer. My husband and I have been married almost 45 years. Your gay marriage does not affect our straight marriage in any way. We're the only ones who can enhance or diminish our marriage, and we work all the time to keep it going strong. We're the only ones who can affect our marriage.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    April 28, 2014 7:06 p.m.

    Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. No man can be a wife, no woman can be a husband. No man can be a mother, no woman can be a father. Not in any state and regardless of how laws may be changed by vote, by legislation or by judicial decision.

    Not accepting someone else’s lifestyle does not equal hatred and intolerance. We show, all should show, compassion, respect, and kindness to everyone—including people with whom we disagree. It is not hatred or intolerance to work for and uphold societal standards and morals.

  • Kouger Lehi, UT
    April 28, 2014 7:14 p.m.

    @MoNoMo
    "How does my gay marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?"

    Answer: It does not - and should not - because one is a marriage, the other is not.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    April 28, 2014 7:14 p.m.

    Please provide a logical answer to this question: "How does my gay marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?"

    Straw man argument... Gay marriage doesn't hurt my marriage but that's not why I am against it.

    Gay marriage is about normalizing an immoral behavior. Further, children deserve to be raised in a home with a mother & a father. Gay marriage will open the gates to gay partners adopting children which will deprive these children of a Mother or a Father.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 28, 2014 7:19 p.m.

    "Here, none could contend that Utah's marriage definition is designed to have or actually has a disparate impact on men or women as a class," Schaerr wrote.

    Yeah that's all well and good, but it has a disparate impact on gay people as a class.

    @El Chango Supremo
    "Gay marriage will open the gates to gay partners adopting children which will deprive these children of a Mother or a Father."

    Utah allows single people to adopt so this argument can't be used by Utah without acknowledging a double standard.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 28, 2014 7:26 p.m.

    "How does my gay marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?"

    It diminishes the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. Trying to change the definition to include homosexual couples diminishes the sanctity of it, as Rocket Science points out.

    Can I, as a man, ever become the Queen of England?

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    April 28, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    Schnee...

    Whatever the law currently is regarding adoption, married heterosexual couples should get priority so that the child will get the next best thing which is being raised by their biological parents.

    I don't by the argument that the gender of a parent is irrelevant. Mothers & Fathers bring very different qualities to the parenting table that the other can't adequately replace. This isn't rocket science, this is common sense. If I lost my dad, a woman can't replace his role.

    It's also simple, common sense that men & women belong together biologically. It's the way we're made.

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    April 28, 2014 7:59 p.m.

    Being Gay is not even a marriage. A marriage is between a woman and a man. No matter how people will try to justify it, it is not going to work. Marriage is just like burgers and fries, one can't go without the other. Fries cannot fulfill what a burger does, and vise-versa. It goes the same way with a man and woman. A woman will never be a man and and man can never be a woman. That is why a man is for the woman and woman is for the man. So no to gay marriage.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    April 28, 2014 8:28 p.m.

    Gay marriage does not diminish my straight marriage. It does worse. Gay marriage hastens the moral decline of our nation which will bring about the judgments of God. Those judgments will adversely affect all society including me and my spouse and my children. Gay marriage advocates don't seem to get that it is all about preserving traditional Christian values in an increasingly godless society.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 28, 2014 8:36 p.m.

    Again it befuddles me that in this state where Polygamy was the norm a one time, that people can talk with a straight face that Marriage is between a man and a woman? There are so many children raised by people that don't conform to the Man/Woman perfect marriage!

    The question as asked if gay marriage affects the right for straights to marry? It does not.

    So stop with the judgmental morality that many Christian churches do not adhere to anymore. It's getting boring.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 28, 2014 8:38 p.m.

    @Rocket Science;

    Accept our "lifestyle" or not, you don't get to tell us who we may or may not marry. That is not your right. Discrimination is based on some level of dislike no matter how you slice it. Dislike is just another form of hate. It is absolutely intolerance to deny others the legal benefits you enjoy - and there is nothing immoral about LGBT couples forming. Nothing.

    @Kouger;

    Wrong.

    @El Chango Supremo;

    Bigotry is immoral and you seem to be okay "normalizing" that behavior.

    @Riverton Cougar;

    The only people who diminish the "sanctity of marriage" are you heterosexuals who are married and cheat on your spouses.

    @BlackDiamond;

    Say yes to marriage for LGBT people.

    Utah's arguments are completely nonsensical and discriminatory. Marriage equality will be the law of the land, even Utah.

  • excellence25@hotmail.com Smithfield, UT
    April 28, 2014 8:48 p.m.

    There is perhaps not a hotter issue today than the issue of same sex attraction and marriage, and under normal conditions I would offer an explanation . However, due to the idiocy of this type of thinking I am relegated to silence.

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    April 28, 2014 9:25 p.m.

    Ranch Hand:

    Do you think siblings should be allowed to marry? parents to children?

    The state does tell people who can & can't marry?

    1. consenting age
    2. opposite sex
    3. not closely related
    4. not currently married to another

    How can we argue that one should be thrown out and not the others?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 28, 2014 10:44 p.m.

    @serious
    "Do you think siblings should be allowed to marry? parents to children?"

    Not if the state can provide rational, legitimate reasons to ban such marriage.

    The problem for gay marriage ban is that the state can not give rational reason for such law, their arguments have not prevailed, not even once since SCOTUS Windsor ruling.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    April 28, 2014 11:03 p.m.

    What is the rational reason why an adult man should not be able to marry his adult sister if both are sterile? What is the rational reason that that two brothers or two sisters should not be allowed to marry? If biology is not a rational reason to allow or deny marriage, what is?

  • arand Huntsville, u
    April 29, 2014 6:16 a.m.

    The solution is simple. Just give Gay couples the same legal rights, just don't call it marriage. Call it Gay union or anything you want. Is that too much to ask from the Gay community. Both sides have to be willing to give a little on this one. Protesting, holding, up signs and getting in each others faces will only increase the animosity on both sides.

  • Darmando Parker, CO
    April 29, 2014 6:38 a.m.

    Article IV of the constitution, and the much more often cited, and almost as important to the argument, 14th amendment to the constitution, place overwhelming weight on the side of marriage, same gender and opposite gender, as a civil right to be protected by the federal government in all states of the union.

  • LibertyInLaw Provo, UT
    April 29, 2014 7:16 a.m.

    @MoNoMo

    "How does my gay marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?"

    Your same-sex relationship by itself would not affect any marriage between a man and a woman. The effect comes when the state changes the definition of marriage in order to sanction your same-sex relationship. Laws teach something about what society values, and changing laws changes how people think. No-fault divorce laws passed in the 1970's had drastic effects on how people thought about marriage, and divorce rates skyrocketed.

    No one lives in a vacuum. Changing the legal definition of marriage matters to everyone, every man, every woman every child. It is absolutely foolish to think we can change the most fundamental unit of our society and think it won't have repercussions.

  • Brown Honeyvale, CA
    April 29, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    Same old pro-gay statements from the same old commenters on this site. Really folks, do you just seek out headlines so you can propagandize with your comments? Maybe if you were to read the briefs you would understand the pro-marriage stance...not one of discrimination but one of protecting children. Or don't children's rights matter? I really wish the anti-Christian hate speech and attacks would end.

  • Abinadis friend Boise, Idaho
    April 29, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    Marriage was created in the first place because man and woman had families and someone had to stay home and raise them. Benefits were given to help them if one should die and the other could get benefits because they were not
    able to work while the children were young. I cannot see why a same sex couple could have children without adopting other children.
    Why can't they have another union that is not called marriage do just as well?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 29, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    Marriage is a civil contract creating a legal relationship between two legal strangers, giving certain benefits, rights, responsibilities, and remedies.

    Siblings, and parents and children, have a defined legal relationship that precludes marriage.

    Children are not able to legally consent to civil contracts, including marriage.

    Animals, plants, and inanimate objects are not able to give legal consent for any civil contract, including marriage.

    Legalizing polygamy will regulate it, giving protections, benefits, and remedies, making it less likely to be coercive or abusive. Polygamy will require a different legal structure because it includes multiple consenting adults, which will complicate the legal situation.

    Same-sex marriage will allow same-sex couples to get married. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 29, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    arand says:
    "Just give Gay couples the same legal rights, just don't call it marriage. Call it Gay union or anything you want. Is that too much to ask from the Gay community. "

    Yes, it is too much to ask. LGBT couples marrying has no affect on you. None. Besides, Amendment 3 prevents your solution anyway (you wanted to give us nothing initially, now you're offering "civil union" but we're going to win marriage rights).

    @El Chango Supremo says:

    "What is the rational reason why an adult man should not be able to marry his adult sister ..."

    Marriage creates a familial bond where none previously exists. Hence there is no need to marry your mother, sister, father, brother in order to create that bond.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 29, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    Serious says:

    "Do you think siblings should be allowed to marry? parents to children?" (familial bond already exists).

    The state does tell people who can & can't marry?

    1. consenting age (Rational)
    2. opposite sex (Irrational)
    3. not closely related (Rational)
    4. not currently married to another (Rational)

    How can we argue that one should be thrown out and not the others? (Do you see how one of your situations is not rational but the others are?)

    @LibertyInLaw;

    It is absolutely foolish to think marriage of LGBT couples is going to have "repercussions" other than we'll be married.

    @Brown;

    Denying LGBT marriage does absolutely nothing to "protect the children". Nothing.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    April 29, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy who is usually the "swing vote" on the U.S. Supreme Court has made this issue very plain. It is a matter of the "voice of the people" as seen in the state system to decide the morality of that particular state. Charles Krauthammer has weighed in also on this subject. He believes that it is the "mood of the country" to allow gay marriage. However, the basis of this must come from the people and not from individual judges. The courts are there to enforce the law. They are not there to "makes the laws". This is the duty of the people. This issue for Utah looks bleak in light of what happened with Proposition 8 in California. Nevertheless, implications are there for other issues such as education. The U.S. Constitution states that education is a "state function". The current administration believes that it is the right of the federal government. This dovetails with the current issue because it would appear that "common core" is only one more way of reeducating the "young people" to the acceptance of gay issues.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    April 29, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    Not one good argument against same sex marriage here, again. Some say it will destroy the country (does not that Beck dude say God whispered in his ear something to that effect?). Some say it is just icky. Some say children will suffer. Some employ the vacuous use of the slippery slope argumentation. And lastly, some just use religion.

    If history shows us anything, it shows us these arguments are the last resort of those who know the argument is lost. I find smoking icky, but grant others the right to pursue this habit. I avoid the logic of people who claim God whispers in their ears, as this is usually a sign of mental illness. I listen to professionals who know that children are not harmed by same sex parents. And even most fools know the slippery slope form of argumentation is logically invalid.

    Most young adults, regardless of their faith traditions, recognize these arguments are devoid of anything but pure prejudice and are logically devoid of reason. I think it is time that we listen to the youth.

  • brotherJonathan SLC, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    Civil Union/Gay Marriage.
    Those words have the same meaning.
    Marriage definition:
    the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
    Constitutional in principle, civil unions must have the same legal rights, between them, as a marriage does. Those rights spelled out in a legal contract, as a marriage.
    This the true goal of same-sex marriage. If it is then let the laws reflect the truth:
    Marriage definition can't be same-sex, there is civil unions, which should have the same legal benefits under laws; like tax, or social security/health and retirement benefits.
    Those rights being protected just the same as a marriage partnership offers. The difference would actually have the opportunity to define this new partnership as prenuptial agreements do for marriages. Specific rights would be in writing and understood by both partners.
    This distinction protects the rights of both groups' beliefs. Constitutional laws protect the rights of personal beliefs.
    By this compromise between both parties a just solution can be achieved.
    Defend the rights of both sides of this issue with fairness. If you agree with my assessment make it known with your voices.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    If the 10th is looking for some anti SSM evidence to weigh, they need look no further than at some of the comments on this story. It's obvious the love thy neighbor crowd isn't present. I think the level of intolerance displayed by these comments is both sad and disturbing. Especially when the actions of others would have absolutely no effect on the lives of those who protest the loudest.

  • brotherJonathan SLC, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    Why must it be called a marriage? It is a civil union. Allowing other citizens the right to chose for themselves what lifestyle they would embrace is not the same as teaching their choice as a recommended way of life to your children. So we walk a delicate path of protecting individual rights of choice and defending our own right of choice in our schools and other places of gathering.
    Tolerance for others rights with respect for our choice when it comes to teaching our own children the principles of a happy fulfilled life, obeying the commands of our conscience. Because of the fact that children are impressionable and do not have founded psychological beliefs in experience and outcomes, we who have the responsibility to nurture and guide belief structure have the ultimate say in what should be and not be taught as a viable lifestyle for them until they are adults. Homosexual partnerships without science intervention cannot produce offspring, this is the facts. So nature has female and male as a parent structure and is the natural means of raising young humans to adulthood. Beyond those facts this is fairly new territory, protecting freedom of choice for both.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    Re: "How does my gay marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?"

    It diminishes its value. It makes it less worthwhile. It makes it less holy, less special. But, most of all, it attempts to legitimize acts, a perspective, a lifestyle that are universally acknowledged -- at least among objective, unbiased, and unselfishly un-self-interested observers -- as inimical to the family and its many benefits to our society and to the individuals that comprise it.

    LGBT Americans are as entitled as other Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But that pursuit is limited, by law, to activities not harmful of the rights of others.

    Real people bear LGBT no ill will in their pursuit of protection of pecuniary rights. But, their unfair, scatter-shot, oppressive, confrontational, ultimately unconstitutional approach is extremely dangerous to the rest of us.

    Its focus is not limited to protection of acknowledged rights, but on creation of new rights.

    Those new rights amount to thought control and a very real threat to our Constitutionally protected right to disagree with their odd, minoritarian definitions of virtue and decency.

  • brotherJonathan SLC, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    The constitutional cure: Civil Union (Marriage) license/ Marriage License. If both have the same power under law but show the difference in the meaning of the word marriage. That way we don't have to change dictionary meaning and protect the beliefs of those that base religious faith on its meaning. Now we are arguing over nothing.
    Rights are preserved.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    If it seems familiar....it is:

    1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

    2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

    3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

    4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

    To the religious arguments, do us all a favor and stop using religion as a moral fig leaf for your naked prejudice.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    @Brown 7:22 a.m. April 29, 2014

    Let me correct your comments and make them accurate:

    Same old anti-gay statements from the same old commenters on this site. Really folks, do you just seek out headlines so you can propagandize with your comments? Maybe if you were to read the briefs you would understand the pro-gay-marriage stance...not one of discrimination but one of protecting children. Or don't children's rights matter? I really wish the anti-gay hate speech and attacks would end.

    Okay -- fixed.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 29, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    Kouger says that a gay marriage is not a real marriage.

    Many religions would agree with you. The Catholic church says a validly contracted marriage lasts forever, and that my 35 year long marriage is not "real" because in the late 1970s, my husband and I were each of us was divorced from our former spouses. But we have freedom of religion in the US, and each of us have civil rights, even if some churches don't agree. America is not Iran. Neither is Utah.

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    April 29, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    Polygamy was 'not' the norm. It was accepted, but practiced by a very small percentage. Marriage is a religious 'rite' not right. Always has been and should be protected under the 1st amendment. However, belief that people have the freedom to choose their own path also exists. The only way that this situation can be fairly resolved without stomping on the rights AND beliefs of others is to allow legal coupling for 'civil unions' but setting any and all legal applicable rights as equal to that of marriage.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 29, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    This isn't about the children, and protecting the children. That's a separate issue entirely in law. This is about bigotry, and the unwillingness of some to live their own lives in as moral a manner as they like, while others do the same.

    Also, separate but equal has been tried in the USA. It doesn't work, and it won't work here.

    At the end of all this money being spent and hand-wringing by opponents, gay marriage will be the law of the land. It is the only position that logic and rationality bring one to. Those who oppose it will someday be remembered the same way that those who opposed racial civil rights are remembered.

  • ODannyBoy Sandy, Utah
    April 29, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    @arand: Big problem.

    Utah Amendment 3 says -

    Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
    (1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
    (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

    so - give a little? Not much room, is there.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 29, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    Marriage has always been about inter-family alliances, inheritance, and rights of survivorship. In that past in most cases the people may not even have known each other before marriage. Daughters were married off to the sons of other families along with a dowry.

    A "traditional marriage" was never about "love", although it would form later in many cases. Getting married for love is a very new idea in human history.

    Also, the religions adopted marriage as another rite. Marriage existed long before the churches managed to pull it in.

    I can't really believe that the opponents are down to arguing for "separate but equal" and the definition of a word that is secular in origin.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    Until two men can conceive a baby together, the conclusion that homosexuality is normal and natural just doesn't hold water.

    That said, you probably are entitled by the US Constitution to the right to "pursue" your "happiness". One day, we will all learn what we are entitled to and what we are NOT entitled to by an authority much higher than the US Constitution. Until then, my goal is to love and show compassion, if not agreement, with all of God's children. The rest will be ferretted out by Him...

  • LibertyInLaw Provo, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    @USU-Logan

    "The problem for gay marriage ban is that the state can not give rational reason for such law"

    Not true. The state, and many others arguing to preserve marriage, have given plenty of rational arguments. The problem is not lack or argument but prejudice towards those arguments. Many SSM advocates are not interested in rational argument, only name calling and shutting down debate through intimidation. Too many have bought into the notion that equality means sameness and that this ideal of equality should trump everything else.

    The issue in the marriage debate is really "what is marriage". If marriage is just about the needs and interests of adults then there is some logic in allowing SSM. But marriage is more than that - it is the fundamental unit of society. Thousands of years of history and the vast majority of research shows that children do best when raised by their biological mom and dad. It is unreasonable to think redefining marriage as an institution will not impact our society.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    @Brown,

    I totally agree with your comments. I would add one point: many in the Gay community don't want us to raise the issue of God's will or traditional morality because that would bring into question their immoral behavior. If they can remove God and morality from the equation then they can argue that there is nothing that sanctions their immoral behavior. That is why they want to remove God and religion from the discussion in the public square. America was founded on principles of faith in God and on morality, yet the Gay community wants to erase that foundation and history from the history books. We must stand up NOW for morality and for the place of faith in God and his commandments in our society. America was founded on more that the action of activist judges who may only be interested in man's law and ignore God.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 29, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    @ Brown "Maybe if you were to read the briefs..."

    I have read the briefs. I want was is best for the U.S., for the LDS church, for my married brothers and sisters, for my 14 nieces and nephews, for my GLBT friends and family. Until three years ago, I believed civil unions for gay couples and marriage for straights was the best. As I have followed the debate I've realized that complete marriage equality is best.
    Legally/constitutionally, I really don't understand how anyone can argue against legalizing same-sex marriage. Read the majority and dissenting opinions on Lawrence v. Texas to understand that Americans have a fundamental right to engage in same-sex relationships and laws cannot be designed to discourage or inhibit this right.
    Read Loving v. Virginia to understand that Americans have a right to marriage and the state cannot limit who they can marry without a rational basis. Read the Utah court briefs and listen to the hearings and the brief from Michigan and other states to understand that there is no rational basis. Rational, according to law needs to be more than religious or moral disapproval.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    April 29, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    First, the letter writer needs to review what is required constitutionally for a gov't to meet the barriers of rational basis and heightened scrutiny. The explanations he gave are not correct.

    Second, after years and years of back-and-forth on this subject it is very heartening to me to see that conservatives still have no valid arguments which will hold water in the court of law. I am quite overjoyed reading these posts because most, if not all, of those who oppose SSM still don't grasp the concept that their personal moral convictions literally are given zero credence in the court of law. When you cut through all the noise, every single reason conservatives have for opposing SSM can be distilled down to one thing: personal moral objection. And with that as their only justification, they will surely continue to lose.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    Tooele, UT

    Well said, you speak the TRUTH! I would add that the Gay agenda exemplified in the SSM cause will in fact remove the right of freedom of speech as they did with the CEO recently who they pressured to resign because he gave a little money in support of proposition 8 in California. Their position is that we may have freedom of speech but that there are "consequences for how we use that freedom". In other words, if we disagree with them and openly express our disagreement they will make our lives miserable and cause harm such as pressuring employers to fire us because we "discriminate". Well they discriminate against our Christian beliefs by attempting to stop us from invoking morality or God in the public square. We need to wake up to the harms that the same-sex marriage agenda brings to society before we totally lose our freedom of speech.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    April 29, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic

    Thank you for your entire 8:28 comment.

    @Demiurge

    Thank you for your 8:54 comment...

    "...I can't really believe that the opponents are down to arguing for "separate but equal"...".

  • DEW Cougars Sandy, UT
    April 29, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    Here we go again. Do we Straight people teach anything to same gender couples? How about this, can same gender couple can bring new born child to the world? Adoption doesn't work because they are not part of your biological DNA! I didn't think so.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic
    Orem, UT

    You said and I quote "To the religious arguments, do us all a favor and stop using religion as a moral fig leaf for your naked prejudice".

    To you we say - NO WE WILL NOT STOP using our freedom of speech to disagree with you. We have every constiutional right to express our religious opinions in the public square. With what authority does the Gay community presume to tell us to leave God and morality out of the discussion?

  • KTC John Wetumpka, AL
    April 29, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    Those who favor same-sex marriage draw heavily upon an analogy to the eradication of slavery and its vestiges, such as the prohibition against interracial marriage. There is a stark difference between interracial marriage, which incidentally involves a man and a woman, and same-sex marriage. Morality was clearly on the side of abolishing slavery and its vestiges. Morality is clearly not on the side of establishing same-sex marriage or diminishing the divine institution of hetero-sexual, father/mother marriage. Same-sex marriage is an obstacle to the great eternal plan of family happiness and joy. Those who say or believe that allowing others to practice same-sex marriage does not hinder them are naïve and unrealistic. An entire civilization that permits same-sex marriage will be adversely affected. It is absolutely foolish to believe we can change the most fundamental, stabilizing unit of society and not expect dramatic adverse changes to that society. The resulting ills will permeate all facets of society, and I don't feel that I need a scientific study to prove that proposition to my mind.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    April 29, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    @DN: 'Schearr argued for rational basis, meaning the plaintiffs must prove Utah's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. Tomsic says the judges should use "heightened scrutiny," under which the state has the burden to prove the law should be upheld'

    This is not accurate, as there is no 'burden of proof' at this stage of review. The 10th Circuit will determine whether, as a matter of law, Utah’s SSM-ban is unconstitutional, even when all factual questions are assumed in favor of Utah.

    Playing offense, Schaerr must persuade 10th Cir of two things: 1) rational basis should apply, and 2) singling out gays to exclude from marriage is rationally related to Utah’s legitimate interest (ex. promoting child-centric marriages), in light of no similar exclusions for infertile couples, sex-abusers, drug/alcohol addicts, etc. Playing defense, Schaerr must counter Kitchen’s position that intermediate scrutiny applies, only because it will be that much harder to prevail at trial, if remanded.

    Schaerr is playing Twister and Whack-a-Mole simultaneously as district courts keep striking down SSM-bans for slightly different reasons.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 29, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    To BrotherJonathan with support from ODannyBoy: Though not of the persuasion I basically agree with your statements concerning civil unions. Speaking only for myself I think most of those effected would be fine with having their rights conveyed that way. I think way to much emphasis is put on the word marriage and it's definition. The problem with your scenario is the amendment itself

    Utah Amendment 3 says -
    Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
    (1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
    (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

    Even if everyone was fine with your civil union concept the amendment would still have to be struck down because of item (2). "No other domestic union, however denominated" specifically excludes civil unions, partnering or whatever other name you care to call it by. "Or given the same or equivalent legal effect" precludes granting the rights gained in a marriage to said union. If it had been left with only item (1) in it I think compromises could have been reached. As it is, that is not possible.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 29, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    @LibertyInLaw
    "The state, and many others arguing to preserve marriage, have given plenty of rational arguments."

    Did those so-called "rational arguments" ever prevail in court? NO, they have been refuted in courtroom over and over again. In NJ, in NM, in OH, in UT, in OK, in KY, in TN, in VA, in MI, in TX, in IN, and will be in OR, PA....., not to mention they already failed in MA, CT, CA and IA in the past.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    @Meckofahess
    "With what authority does the Gay community presume to tell us to leave God and morality out of the discussion?"

    Oh it can be in the discussion, and can even be a motivator for your own personal support, but it cannot be the sole basis for creation of laws, because that would violate the establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment, and would be as unconstitutional as attempts to incorporate pieces of Sharia Law on the basis of it being Islamic teachings. There needs to be a secular reasoning for the law (that's why murder and robbery are illegal, it violates the rights to life and property).

  • AerilusMaximus Berryville, VA
    April 29, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Mosiah 29:26-27

    26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

    27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 29, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    @KTC John
    Under you view, how could a gay or lesbian person live a moral life?
    I suppose you would say they could remain celibate or marry an opposite-sex spouse.
    Those are both very hard, maybe impossible options. People of particular faith may pursue those options and have a right to. If they do, they should do it willingly and completely aware of what that entails.
    Our law cannot and should not compel gay people to be celibate or marry an opposite-sex spouse. If you tried to compel this, you would end up with broken people and broken families.
    There are many good, moral gay people who feel the same desire you do to commit to one person for a lifelong partnership. They want to be a part of their community and extended families and many want to raise kids. Many want to be part of our churches.
    It tears me up to see how we exclude and try to frustrate good desires and push these people to the fringes then try to legislate to make sure they are permanently characterized as fringe/other/immoral.

  • AerilusMaximus Berryville, VA
    April 29, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    @ Schnee

    Religious discussion can and already is in laws as it is. Laws are put in effect all the time that discriminate against all sorts of life styles.

    So why not against the homosexual life style? Is it because you have a lot of media support that believes that your life style should be acceptable?

    It is one thing to tolerate a persons life style and another thing completely to authorize it.

    “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”
    ― Henry Ford

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 29, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    I still don't understand why we must declare gay civil unions equal to marriage. A gay couple is not the same as a hetersexual couple. They are different.

    The only thing that is the same is that they love eachother. Declaring that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage is like declaring apples are the same as oranges. Both are fruits, but that is about where the similarities end.

  • RPrice Dallas, TX
    April 29, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    Same-sex unions are not capable of conferring the same benefits on men, women, children and society as the marriage of a man and a women does. A brief comparison of the norms of both traditional marriage and same-sex unions illustrates just how hazardous and toxic same-sex relationships will be to marriage as an institution.

    Norms of Marriage:
    Monogamous
    Man and Woman
    Child-bearing
    Both parents are related to their children
    Exclusive (fidelity, loyalty)
    Permanent (commitment)
    Formally and legally sanctioned
    Romantic love brings them together
    Shared household, benefits, etc.

  • RPrice Dallas, TX
    April 29, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    Norms of Same-sex couples:
    *Gay female couples are mostly monogamous
    *Gay male couples are Polyamourous (The norm for gay male couples is to be in an open relationship. Furthermore, research has found that gay couple relationships last longer when they are open. Put another way, their relationships are shorter when their relationships are based in sexual fidelity. This means that gay male relationships are inherently unstable. Fidelity among gay couples is the exception. Research has found that typically only gay male couples with HIV have exclusive sexual relationships.)
    *Man and Man, or Woman and Woman
    *Cannot bear children
    *Only one parent can be related to the child
    *Are not exclusive (open relationships)
    *There is no fidelity (open relationships)
    *Lack of fidelity undermines loyalty
    *Are inherently incapable of *permanence* because of their open relationships, with the exception of having HIV or gay female couples
    *Romantic love brings them together, but so does convenient, casual, anonymous hook-up sex—which is not the equivalent of love, but is rather based in lust
    *Share a household, benefits, etc.
    *Marriage is legally sanctioned in a dozen states, but constitutional amendment defines marriage as between a man and woman in 30 other states

  • Mlawrence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    That children deserve to be raised in a home with a mother and a father is irrelevant. And here is why. We already have children and gay and lesbian couples will continue to have and to raise children married or not. Building families is a human right and not subject to public discourse or opinion. If we dropped Kitchen V Herbert tomorrow and let Amendment 3 stand, we will still have and raise children and our families will continue to thrive and grow. However our families will be harmed by the government sanctioned discrimination that is being promoted by those who falsely claim to be pro-family and pro-children. The number of children being raised in gay and lesbian families will not change when Amendment 3 is overturned. What will change is the protections and security that all families deserve. Second parent adoptions for parents who have raised their children from birth for example. Social Security and insurance benefits for all families. Those who oppose these cannot take the moral highroad you are wrong.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    April 29, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    When the older "diverse frightened" generations pass on, the younger generations who now exhibit open minds and open hearts, will prevail and be the norm. Younger people already embrace diversity and do not exclude individuals for the reasons older generations are famous for.
    Just look at the two individuals who have recently been at the top of the media's list.......the elderly Nevada Rancher, and the elderly owner of an NBA basketball franchise.
    How out of sync, cruel, and bigoted they appear, just as those do who are fighting against SSM.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    April 29, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    USU-Logan: "Did those so-called "rational arguments" ever prevail in court?"

    Just because a court disagrees with an argument does not make it irrational...

    Courts are falling in line with the current of society. Today, anyone who opposes gay rights is a "bigot" or worse (simply read the posts here to see this). Judges are people and, like it or not, they are influenced by what others may say about them.

    The gay rights bully machine is operating at peak efficiency on society right now, and it will ultimately be to to detriment of everyone's freedom....

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    KTC John

    Wetumpka, AL

    "Those who favor same-sex marriage draw heavily upon an analogy to the eradication of slavery and its vestiges, such as the prohibition against interracial marriage. There is a stark difference between interracial marriage, which incidentally involves a man and a woman, and same-sex marriage."

    Here is a quote from Mildred Loving: "Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights."

    In case you don't know who she is, think Loving v. Virginia and the end of racial barriers for whom you could marry.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 29, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    Re: "Even if everyone was fine with your civil union concept the amendment would still have to be struck down . . . ."

    Well, that's not actually true -- but let's address your argument about civil unions.

    One may make a cogent, if not compelling argument, that civil unions are necessary to preserve the inarguably valid pecuniary rights of LGBT.

    OK. So make the argument. In the state legislature. Let legislators listen to all voices. Then, they're free to craft new law -- including a repeal of the necessary provisions of Amendment 3 -- that accomplishes the objective and protects all stakeholders.

    That's the way the legislative process is designed to work. America stands for the Rule of Law. It accomplishes it by adherence to the Constitution.

    Not by vesting unelected, doctrinaire, self-interested jurists with unfettered authority to legislate public policy, in the name of "judicial review."

    That's the primary objection most conservatives have to current LGBT rights debates -- they're being held in the wrong fora, between the wrong parties, with the wrong arguments, and under an extremely dangerous interpretation of the proper role of judges in the process of governance.

  • Beaver Native St. George, UT
    April 29, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    I have read studies that show that indicate that the average gay relationship lasts a much shorter time than the average relationship between a straight couple. Gay marriage opens the way to adoption of children by gay couples. Most people would agree that children deserve to be brought up in stable relationships, and having both men and women role models is important in the emotional development of children. We hear lots about the rights of adults in this country, but few consider the welfare of children when discussing those rights. I believe that most children were much happier and more emotionally sound before the days of short-term relationships. I believe what children need in this country is a man and a woman in the home who love and respect each other and are committed to making the relationship work. While some of the values held in the past may not have been right, for the most part need to return to the values of the past for the benefit of the children. At the same time, however, we need to show genuine love, compassion and tolerance towards others regardless of who they are or what they believe.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    April 29, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    @ El Chango Supremo "It's also simple, common sense that men & women belong together biologically. It's the way we're made".

    It may be the way you were made which only you can determine, but it is not the way I was made.
    Each of us can only determine who we are, not other people. Civilization is learning more about its differences and similarities, especially the younger generation. Through our communication networks, people are becoming more educated about not only who we are, but also that many speculations of the past simply are not true.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    April 29, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    Tiago wrote:
    "There are many good, moral gay people who feel the same desire you do to commit to one person for a lifelong partnership. They want to be a part of their community and extended families and many want to raise kids. Many want to be part of our churches."

    On that subject, there is a new book out that is causing considerable fundamentalist panic because the author, a gay evangelical Christian, argues for the integration of gays and gay relationships into Christian faith communities. One would expect that view from those who consider themselves progressive Christians, but not from an evangelical. Remarkably, the author affirms the full inspiration and authority of the Bible, while making the case for re-interpreting scripture to embrace an understanding of homosexuality that simply was not possible during the time the ancient book was written.

    (DN probably does not allow book names or authors, so I'll not include them, but it shouldn't be too hard to track them down).

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 29, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    Meckofahess, I'm sure I'm not going to change your mind, but...I am going to assume you get your concepts of morality from the Bible. But throughout the books of the Bible, there are passages endorsing slavery. Human sexuality is infinitely more complex than slavery. Morality wise, slavery is a no brainer. Now if the writers of the Bible got slavery --something pretty simple--so wrong, what are the chances that they got something more complex right?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal, I totally disagree with you. When the legislature was passing the legislation to put Amendment 3 on the ballot, all these arguments were brought forth. They would not listen to anyone but Gayle Riszika (sp?) and passed the toughest law they could. Gay advocates tried to get the second part taken out which does not allow any kind of legal arrangement between gay couples, but the church gave its approval and Amendment 3 passed with 66% of the voters voting for it.

    Because of it being an amendment, the legislature cannot just repeal any part of it. It must be put in front of the people again.

    The legislature cannot even pass a non-discrimination bill affording gays the right to work and housing, let alone put another amendment on the ballot for another change to Utah's constitution.

    Gay couples are using the constitution to resolve what they believe (and has been determined so far) to be an unconstitutional attack on their right to a privilege that other americans are enjoying: the benefits and legal privileges of - Marriage. It was set up in the constitution to go to unelected judges so the the majority cannot rule over a minority.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 29, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    For procuradorfiscal: Your statement "Let legislators listen to all voices. Then, they're free to craft new law -- including a repeal of the necessary provisions of Amendment 3 -- that accomplishes the objective and protects all stakeholders." is incorrect. They can craft proposals for the ballot but amendments to the constitution can only be accomplished by a vote of the people.
    Here are the two ways.
    Via the legislatively-referred constitutional amendment process:
    An amendment can be proposed in either chamber of the Utah State Legislature.
    A two-thirds vote is necessary in the state legislature to place a proposed amendment before the state's voters.
    Votes on proposed amendments must take place at general elections.
    If more than one proposed amendment is on a ballot, the amendments must be placed on the ballot in such a way that voters can register their opinion on them separately.
    (This is how Amendment 3 was created.)

    Via a constitutional convention:
    A ballot question about whether to hold a convention can go on the ballot if two-thirds of the members of the state legislature vote to put it on the ballot.
    Votes on whether to hold conventions must go on a general election ballot.

  • sfcretdennis Nice, CA
    April 29, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    TO: RanchHand Huntsville, UT @Rocket Science; You say"Accept our "lifestyle" or not, you don't get to tell us who we may or may not marry. That is not your right. Discrimination is based on some level of dislike no matter how you slice it. Dislike is just another form of hate. It is absolutely intolerance to deny others the legal benefits you enjoy - and there is nothing immoral about LGBT couples forming. Nothing"

    We hate not, we choose to follow God's law, if you not like talk to him, we follow God's law sin is wrong.You don't see people who believe in living together before marriage screaming people of faith hate them, or anything ells that is a sin. You are the only one screaming hatred. We as a God fearing people are asked too speak out agent sin, but you have a God given right to sin if you like and he well judge you on judgment day but don't expect or force us to say you are right and God is wrong well never happen. I fear not you but fear the judgment of God.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 29, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    @RPrice
    @Beaver Native
    You both make the argument that gay people are especially promiscuous and unable to establish committed, long-term relationships. You are welcome to share your perspective and believe you when you say that the gay people you know fit that stereotype.

    I can only offer my personal experience as a counter example. I have met hundreds of GLBT people. I met them on my mission, at BYU, at firesides, on online support groups, at work, and in my YSA ward. They are some of the warmest, most loving, loyal, strongest people I know.

    Some of them have decided to pursue same-sex relationships, but the vast majority continue to hold on to the values they learned in the church. They are looking for people who share those values and want to commit for life. One of my closest friends is married to his partner and adopted a baby recently from a family member who could't take care of it. I know many partners who have been together for decades.

    You don't know me or my friends. When you judge without knowing, that is called prejudice.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    @Aerilus Maximus
    "So why not against the homosexual life style? Is it because you have a lot of media support that believes that your life style should be acceptable?"

    Oh I'm not worried about my life style being considered acceptable. After all, I'm straight; that's always been acceptable and always going to be acceptable.

    @Redshirt
    "Declaring that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage is like declaring apples are the same as oranges"

    They're both marriages/fruits.

    @RPrice
    "Norms of Marriage:
    Monogamous
    Man and Woman
    Child-bearing
    Both parents are related to their children
    Exclusive (fidelity, loyalty)
    Permanent (commitment)
    Formally and legally sanctioned
    Romantic love brings them together
    Shared household, benefits, etc."

    All of those except "man and woman", "child-bearing", and "both parents are related to their children" are possible with same-sex marriage though I see from your second post that you just want to stereotype.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 29, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    To "Schnee" they are only the same in a very broad and generic sense. It is like saying that a man and woman are the same. Are they really the same?

    If apples are the same as oranges, why can't I juice an apple the same way as an Orange. They are both fruits, and according to you are the same.

    Why can't I start an orange orchard here in Utah? You said that one fruit is the same as another?

    Why can't I cross pollinate an orange with an apple, they are both fruits?

    It seems that declaring 2 dissimilar fruits to be the same doesn't work in nature. Neiter does declaring gay marriage the same as hetersexual marriage make them any more the same than declaring apples the same as oranges.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 29, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    @RedWings
    "Just because a court disagrees with an argument does not make it irrational..."

    I agree. But what if there is more than one court disagree? In fact, since Windsor’s ruling, courts in NJ, NM, OH, UT, OK, VA, TX, TN, MI, IN all rejected those arguments. The winning streak for SSM in courtroom remains unbroken, not to mention previous wins in MA, CT, CA and IA court.

    And BTW, is there any court agree with your argument? If there is not even a single time, not even a single court, is on your side, can you still claim that argument rational?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 29, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    MoNoMo: "Please provide a logical answer to this question: 'How does my gay marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?'"

    It won't hurt current straight marriages. But, in the long haul it will mean the eventual demise of the institution of marriage. Legalizing SSM will mean that all other companion associations such as polygamy, incest, close relatives, father/daughter, mother/son, sister/brother, cousin/aunt, children, you name it... will also have to be legalized for the same reason... discrimination. Allowing one aberration of marriage (SSM) and not all others will mean the anti-discrimination provision of Amendment 14 will be totally nullified and meaningless.

    USU-Logan: "The problem for gay marriage ban is that the state can not give rational reason for such law..."

    The rational reason is that marriage will eventually disappear resulting in social chaos... see above.

    Darmando: "... 14th amendment to the constitution, place overwhelming weight on the side of marriage, same gender and opposite gender, as a civil right ..."

    If so, the Amendment should also provide overwhelming weight on any other type of marriage combination... see above.

  • kvnsmnsn Springville, UT
    April 29, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    Utefan60 posted:

    =Again it befuddles me that in this state where Polygamy was the norm a one
    =time, that people can talk with a straight face that Marriage is between a man
    =and a woman? There are so many children raised by people that don't conform to
    =the Man/Woman perfect marriage!

    Utefan60, what reason do you have why gays and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry while heterosexual triples should not? Try to get a law passed that allows two or three adults of any gender combination to get married, and I would support that law. I'm not saying I want polygamy to come back to the LDS Church; I don't think it ever will, and I don't want it to ever come back. I just want vindication. I want the US government to admit it erred in dragging the LDS Church kicking and screaming away from its own alternate sexual lifestyle.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 29, 2014 1:00 p.m.

    @wrz and others
    "The rational reason is that marriage will eventually disappear resulting in social chaos..."

    Oh, yes, the sky will fall! don't you think that argument is getting old?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 29, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    @JBQ:

    The courts ARE enforcing the law: The US Constitution (supercedes ALL State Constitutions) guarantees Equal Protection to ALL US Citizens - even LGBT Citizens.

    @brotherJonathan:

    I don't know where you got the idea that Constitutional Law allows you to force others to live by your "personal beliefs".

    Additionally, separate is not equal.

    @procuradorfiscal:

    --- Oh brother. Only you can do that to your "marriage" - nobody else can.

    @CDL;

    What about religions that are find with SSM? Their 1st Amendment rights don't matter?

    @USAlover;

    One day we'll all be dead. The end. It'll all be over. No "higher authority" to answer to.

    @Meckofahess;

    Zeus considers your worship of another god "immoral".

    @AerilusMaximus;

    Quoting fiction does not advance your position. (I find "religious lifestyles" objectionable but tolerate them).

    @RPrice;

    You don't know what you're talking about.

    @Beaver Native;

    You don't know many LGBT couples, do you. I've been with my partner longer than some of my siblings were in their opposite sex marriages.

    @sfcretdennis;

    If you "chose to follow god's law" you would treat others as you want to be treated. Your god has no standing in civil matters. Sorry.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    April 29, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    Stormwalker:
    "Siblings, and parents and children, have a defined legal relationship that precludes marriage."

    SSM legalization will change that in order to comply with anti-discrimination provisions of the 14th Amendment.

    "Children are not able to legally consent to civil contracts, including marriage."

    Which, of course, is discrimination against children.

    "Animals, plants, and inanimate objects are not able to give legal consent for any civil contract, including marriage."

    How do you know my horse can't consent... it speaks sign language not unlike someone who' may be deaf-mute.

    "Same-sex marriage will allow same-sex couples to get married. Nothing more, nothing less."

    Wrong. It will mean all other relationship combinations where love exists to also be legalized.

    Ranch:
    "Marriage creates a familial bond where none previously exists. Hence there is no need to marry your mother, sister, father, brother in order to create that bond."

    Marriage also provide a myriad of legal benefits which could be enjoyed by marriage of the combinations you cite.

    Besides, gays/lesbians don't need marriage to enjoy the bonds you reference. Just live together... not unlike fathers, mothers, and children do. Problem solved.

  • Mlawrence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    If tomorrow morning we withdrew the lawsuit Kitchen v Herbert, stopped the proceedings, and let Amendment 3 stand, gay people would still have children. We would continue to form our families, and our family structures would continue to thrive. Creating families is a human right not subject to public policy and discourse. Gay and Lesbian people already have children and will continue to have and raise children—married or not—because our families are not predicated on marriage because marriage—until recently—has been withheld from us.

    That children deserve only to be raised by a biological mother and father is a spurious claim rooted in questionable social science. In attempts to validate their claim, opponents have unwittingly attacked single parents, children of divorced parents, couples who choose not to have children and adoptive families with children. These opponents of equality have launched an attack on a huge percentage of the population; and they have become so convinced by these misleading claims of potential catastrophe that they have sacrificed, so to speak, their own character within the community, which mostly sees them as fanatics filled with animosity and desperation.

  • Mlawrence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    @Lane Myer Mildred Loving supported marriage equality.

  • Aephelps14 San Luis Obispo, CA
    April 29, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    There is a lot of commentary about a gay couple being unable to provide all the needed attributes to raise a child. In all honesty, my husband and I do not fall along the stereotypical qualities often assigned exclusively to each gender (within the LDS church) and I know many other couples that do not as well. I sought out someone who would create balance in our relationship, not someone who had those randomly assigned qualities. If I had, our marriage would not function. Taking this into consideration, perhaps it is best to not use this argument for why gay individuals should not be able to adopt children. They seek out partners who complement them and create a greater whole just as a heterosexual does. I cannot see any viable reason that they would make "lesser" parents. This argument is speculation only. The Proclamation on the Family does not assign attributes to genders, only roles (and even those are subject to prayer and family situation). Children need a family and gay individuals are just as capable of creating one because they are just as capable of loving their children.

  • Neanderthal Phoenix, AZ
    April 29, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    Lane Myer: "Gay couples are using the constitution to resolve what they believe (and has been determined so far) to be an unconstitutional attack on their right to a privilege that other Americans are enjoying: the benefits and legal privileges of - Marriage."

    Gays/lesbians are completely wrong if the think they can't marry... just follow the law... pick someone who's (1) of age, (2) mentally competent, (3) not closely related, (4) not already married, (5) not the same sex, (6) not your pony or a flower, etc.

    Some say not allowing SSM is unconstitutional, citing the 14th Amendment. That Amendment requires equal protection under state law. State law, get it? State law [The Feds (SCOTUS, etc) have no authority to define marriages]. And Utah State law provides that all can marry provided they meet the requirements, as above. So, you gay people, go out and find someone to marry. Making sure they are not your same sex, not already married, of marriageable age, not closely related (such as father, mother, brother, sister, aunt cousin, etc.). Go for it. And stop complaining and bellyaching. It's not rocket science.

  • RPrice Dallas, TX
    April 29, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    @Schnee&Tiago
    The norms I listed are the lived reality of the majority of gay male couples. They are fact. Research--surveying and asking hundreds of gay male couples--has revealed that open relationships are the norm. Here's the kicker: Open relationships last longer than closed relationships. Which means--open or closed, gay relationships do not last. They are inherently unstable. Tiago's gay LDS friends are the exceptions--the outliers.

    The gay community, lead by Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage, knows this is true. They declare not only that it is normal and natural, they believe that legalizing SSM will lead to the entire institution of marriage adopting these same standards.

    Is instability good for children? Forty years of social science research practically shouts that instability among heterosexuals is very very bad for children, women, and society. It is only logical to believe that instability among homosexuals will yield similar negative results.

    Here's a sampling of what instability does to children: higher rates of poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, teenage promiscuity, school failure, being sexually and physically abused, mental health problems, higher infant mortality rates, and more.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    Mlawrence

    Salt Lake City, UT

    @Lane Myer Mildred Loving supported marriage equality.

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

    That's shy I quoted her.

    She believed in it along with Cora Scott King: ""I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," Coretta Scott King. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 29, 2014 2:36 p.m.

    Mlawrence nailed it.

    In attempts to validate their claim, opponents have unwittingly attacked single parents, children of divorced parents, couples who choose not to have children and adoptive families with children.

    Maybe not so unwittingly as the conservative party consistently attacks these groups too, through legislation, their radio representatives and good folks like the Eagle Forum.

    The tent getting smaller.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 2:40 p.m.

    Neanderthal, I would believe you that you know that the Feds can't stop a state from defining marriage, but we have Loving v. Virginia where the SCOTUS decided that they knew better than Virginia. No. The 14th does not apply to only state law.

    Even though the law was equally fair to both sectors (black and white) and both could marry someone as long as they married someone of the same race, the SCOTUS said that it was unconstitutional under the ...14th amendment.

    Please explain to me what the difference is between allowing all to marry as long as they meet state requirements as Virginia had allowed (and you say is constitutional), and the ruling on Loving v. Virginia that states that "marriage is one of the fundamental rights" afford to all Americans to marry the person they choose.

    Doesn't this make your argument fall apart? You may say that at least it was man-woman, but I can tell you that Mildred Loving was very much in favor of gay marriage. She did not understand why any state would keep two people who love each other from being allowed to marry.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 29, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    @RPrice
    I never realized how weak and easily influenced the hetero community is.

    RPrice said: "They declare not only that it is normal and natural, they believe that legalizing SSM will lead to the entire institution of marriage adopting these same standards."

    So if I say, the the Hetero Community is led by Fred Phelps, does that make what he says, true for all hetro folks?

    RPrice said: "Is instability good for children? Forty years of social science research practically shouts that instability among heterosexuals is very very bad for children, women, and society. It is only logical to believe that instability among homosexuals will yield similar negative results."

    So give them the stability of a Family, seems they should get the same chance to Succeed or FAIL like heterosexuals do, or do homosexual relationships need to meet a higher standard than yourself?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 29, 2014 2:52 p.m.

    Re: "A two-thirds vote is necessary in the state legislature to place a proposed amendment before the state's voters."

    Exactly.

    And that's the process the law requires people to use.

    Not some dangerous, illegal, unconstitutional kluge-together, that involves forum-shopping for unethical jurists, corruption of the judicial process, the law, and the Constitution, and the setting of very, very dangerous and irregular precedents.

    Had the LGBT community followed the example of women suffrage activists, this issue would likely now be settled, with many fewer ruffled feathers -- on both sides -- and LGBT would be enjoying what I would suspect most actually want -- protection of their rights within an understanding and, to one extent of another, supportive community.

    Instead, the overreaching, in-your-face radicals have muddied the water and polarized the issue to the extent we will never have peace or universal buy-in on this issue, regardless of the outcome of their addled, in-your-face approach.

    I can't believe most LGBT would prefer a never-ending, abortion-issue-type outcome over a settled, accepted, women-suffrage outcome.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 29, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    @RPrice
    I understand your point, but resist being characterized based on averages since I am an individual. I am a member of the "gay community" and neither Andrew Sullivan nor Dan Savage is my leader.

    My views on relationships come from my upbringing and what I have seen be successful for my family and friends. My parents have been married 47 years. All six of siblings are married. If I commit to someone it would be for life. Whether they are in the majority or not, there are a lot of gay people like me with "traditional" or "conservative" values about faith, fidelity, and family. I encourage you to welcome them in your church and in your family, but I can't force you to do that. I will fight for their legal right to follow their conscience and make the commitment of marriage though. My understanding is that is a fundamental right that they can no longer be denied in America. I think that is a good thing.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 29, 2014 5:23 p.m.

    It is very hopeful when the comments of those opposed to SSM draw far few likes than those for it. Fundamentally, those opposed have no rational argument at all. Not one that isn't based on fear - fear of a deity, fear that their own marriage will be devalued, fear that children will become gay (I guess), fear that the sky will fall.

    In reality, where SSM exists, it came with a barely a ripple in the lives of everyone else.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 29, 2014 6:55 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal, five Supreme Court justices threw out DOMA, because it violated the US Constitution. Are these five all unethical jurists? Does a judge become an unethical jurist when s/he disagrees with you?
    I have no clue as to what you mean when you compare women suffrage and gay marriage equality. Women were not content with halfway measures, [imagine something like advisory ballots, which indicated their preferences but carried no weight, or having their votes be worth three-fifths of a man’s vote]. You think that gays should be content with civil unions--instead, they have the audacity to demand equal rights. Do you also think that blacks should have been content with the separate but [allegedly] equal schools, drinking fountains, or restrooms?

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    April 29, 2014 7:27 p.m.

    gambling is against the law in utah. but is legal in nevada. what another state does in not germane

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 29, 2014 8:35 p.m.

    Hosea 8:7 "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up."

    Amnendments 3 could have allowed civil unions while preserving marriage as a religious term and practice.

    But that couldn't be allowed. You had to make sure gay couples had nothing - no protection, no rights, no respect.

    Legally, you planted wind and now, a decade later, you are reaping the whirlwind.

    Harvey Milk said: "Every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends if indeed they are your friends. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in. Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and all."

    We came out. We stayed out. We are visible.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 29, 2014 8:50 p.m.

    Actually, mrjj69, it is. See the "full faith and credit" clause.

  • Neanderthal Phoenix, AZ
    April 29, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    Lane Myer:
    "Neanderthal, I would believe you that you know that the Feds can't stop a state from defining marriage, but we have Loving v. Virginia where the SCOTUS decided that they knew better than Virginia. No. The 14th does not apply to only state law."

    The 14th says... 'nor shall any STATE deprive any person .. within its (STATE'S) jurisdiction the equal protection of the (STATE) laws.' The fed has no 'laws' re marriage so the 14th must refer to STATE law only.

    And Utah's laws say all, ALL can marry provided they meet certain requirements (and I think you know the requirements). That seems like equal protection under the law to me.

    "Please explain to me what the difference(on the Loving case)..."

    You need to direct that question to SCOTUS. It made the ruling.

    Also, you need to explain, if SSM is OK'd, why not all other relationship combinations who share love such as polygamists, father/daughter, mother/son, sister/brother, close relatives, groups of friends, people already married, teens, sub-teens, ponies, roses, etc. (well, you can forget the ponies and roses for now).

  • Brown Honeyvale, CA
    April 29, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    @Demiurge

    No, you are wrong. The pro-gay propagandizers seek out headlines, make their pro-gay comments and tell their friends to go on-line and like each others posts...the rest of us have to go to work during the day to support our families. :) (I know this for a fact!)

  • Brown Honeyvale, CA
    April 29, 2014 10:49 p.m.

    @Utefan60 posted:
    --"There are so many children raised by people that don't conform to the Man/Woman perfect marriage!"

    Why don't you go and talk to those children (even those who have grown up) and ask them if they wished their family was one with both a Mother and a Father? What would those children say? Just because there are things that occur in society doesn't mean they are in the best interest of children or that children would choose that lifestyle if they were given the choice.

    Your argument doesn't work and, like gay marriage, doesn't think about the desires and choices children would make if given the choice. It seems the only "rights and choices" you all are concerned about are your own selfish desires.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 30, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    @Brown: "Why don't you go and talk to those children (even those who have grown up) and ask them if they wished their family was one with both a Mother and a Father?"

    My Dad was a draftsman by trade and a mechanic and carpenter by hobby. He loved to fix things and rarely owned a machine he didn't have ideas on improving. I hated every second I was forced to spend in the garage helping him, hated the expectation that I not only had to learn to do that stuff but had to like doing it.

    I wasn't supposed to really like cooking and writing, wasn't supposed to enjoy playing with certain toys or reading certain books. I especially wasn't supposed to prefer playing with the girls in the neighborhood instead of the boys.

    I love my dad and I do appreciate that he taught me how to do certain things, but I didn't need the years of misery trying to conform to standards that did not ever fit me. I wish I had known some gay adults as I grew up, so I could have seen choices earlier.

  • Equal Rights Straight Riverton, UT
    April 30, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    I have read through the comments regarding same sex marriage and I am appalled by the bible thumpers who use religion to interfere in other person's lives. Your gay marriage will have no effect on my marriage or anyone else's. With the divorce rate in Utah, I wonder how many writers have left a family to start over again with another mate. If the time should come that any of my grandchildren or great grandchildren should announce they are gay and in love. I want them to have the same rights as the rest of us to marry and find happiness. It is an equal rights issue, and not a religious issue. What you do in your life with your religion is none of our business. Just as your meddling in others lives based on your religious beliefs, is a crime in this country. Separation of church and state was placed there just to combat people like you.

  • Nungwa WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 30, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    @Arand

    Separate is not equal

    @BigBubba

    The sky is not falling.

    @Brown

    I've read all the briefs. I'm embarrassed for the State. They have no rational basis and are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. All they've managed so far is a mangled sow's ear.

    No child ever born has been guaranteed a specific parent set. Marriage isn't really about children in the first place, but if you really want to go there, fine. Regardless of when marriage equality is extended in all 50 states, LGBT couples will continue to have children. They are allowed to adopt in all 50 states.

    In Utah, LGBTs can adopt if they are NOT in a committed relationship. This not only defies logic, it flies in the face of the State's argument "for the sake of the children."

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    April 30, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    @Brown

    Why pro-gay marriage comments have more likes than the other side? You can try to make your theory sound like “fact”. What you can not change is the reality that the tide has turned, and majority of American people are now supportive to SSM. Young people are generally pro-marriage equality in the first place, and many older people have evolved on this issue too, from opposition to neutral, to even support gay marriage.

    What happened on this message board is just a reflection of current social reality.

  • Nungwa WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 30, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal

    Which of your civil rights would you like to put up for popular vote?

    Equal protection under the law and due process of law are Constitutionally protected for good reason. It ensures that the will of the many will not trample the rights of the few.

    Each and every one of us in some way is part of a minority. It may be race, it may be gender, it may be religion, it may be sexual orientation. It is something to bear in mind when we are about to be cavalier with the rights of others.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 30, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    Taking optimal parenting rationale to a logical conclusion, empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians can marry while excluding all other heterosexual couples. The absurdity of such a requirement is self-evident.

    Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households. Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption Institute.

    It’s quite simply not the gender of the parent that’s the key, but the quality of parenting that’s being offered.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 30, 2014 5:38 p.m.

    @ Brown re: "Your argument doesn't work and, like gay marriage, doesn't think about the desires and choices children would make if given the choice...."

    Where do you propose to codify your "Parental Fitness Test?" Would you exclude convicted felons of horrific spousal and child abuse, or lay out the red carpet for them as long as they were opposite-sex couples in civil marriage law?

    Civil marriage law has nothing to do with adoption or assisted reproductive law. So all you are doing preventing people from getting married, but not from having or raising children. Does this make sense to you?

  • Beaver Native St. George, UT
    May 1, 2014 12:01 a.m.

    I based my previous comments on studies. I don't know how many gay people I know. I don't worry about whether those I associate with are gay. I didn't switch specialists when I found out he was gay. I didn't care. I continued to go to him for several years and only quit when I moved 390 miles away. While I do have my feelings about long-term relationships, those same feelings apply to those who enter into marriage not committed to making the relationship work. While I recognize that a marriage cannot work when one spouse is not committed to making a relationship work, it's up to each individual to be committed to make it work from their end, except in the cases of abuse or their partner's infidelity. Yes, I do care about stable relationships and what children are taught. It's about children's right for a stable environment and having both a male and female in the home who love them and are there for them. You can call that prejudice. I don't.

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    May 1, 2014 12:45 a.m.

    @ mrjj69 "gambling is against the law in utah. but is legal in nevada. what another state does in not germane"

    Exactly, lets assume your own marriage is not recognized in Nevada, and you travel there to Gamble, have a few drinks and see a show where know one will notice.

    Your spouse has a heart attack and is rushed to the hospital, except you cannot approve medical treatments, make end of life decisions, visit your loved one or find any information on his/her condition. Why? Because you have no legal relationship to your spouse in Nevada. Like you say, what another state does is "not germane."

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    May 1, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    @ Beaver Native " I do care about stable relationships and what children are taught. It's about children's right for a stable environment and having both a male and female in the home who love them and are there for them. You can call that prejudice. I don't."

    You don't target opposite-sex convicted spousal and child abusers with your anti-civl marriage animus, ONLY same-sex couples. This is called prejudice or bigotry.

    Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households. Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption Institute. Its not the gender, but quality parenting.

  • Beaver Native St. George, UT
    May 1, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    fact-based,

    In revising to bring my comments to less than 200 words, I unwitttingly deleted some aspects, including an indication that comments about stable relationships and making marriage work except in the case of infidelity or abuse applied to all relationships, be they homosexual or heterosexual. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    I have read about the studies you refer to and do believe that abuse is more prevalent in heterosexual relationships.

    I am appalled by the "try it for awhile and see if it works" attitude that prevails in traditional marriagess today.

    I also have read studies that indicate that in heterosexual relationships, most teenage boys connect better to their mothers while most teenage girls connect better with their fathers. I understand that women are naturally more nurturing, but I haven't been able to understand why girls tend to gravitate to their fathers - perhaps because I never had any daughters. I have read also that children are more well-adjusted in relationships where both birth parent are in the home, but I imagine results of such studies depend on the criteria used in defining "well-adjusted". I believe the criteria used in those studies are basically correct.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2014 2:55 p.m.

    Keep saying "a marriage is between a man and a woman" Say it over and over again, maybe it will come true. It seems to me the anti gay marriage argument boils down to "its our club, and we don't want them in it". Not a real compelling reason.

  • Bronco181 Provo, UT
    May 5, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    Listen, This coming from someone LDS/Christian God knows there is sin out there. Not one of us is perfect. We are all sinners. But those obstacles out there will and have strengthened us. They strengthen faith. If you are so worried about gay marriage ruining your belief, your faith must not be that strong to begin with.

    I personally don't believe homosexuality is a sin. However, I do believe the world is facing bigger Goliath's. But all of you should know you CAN'T fear man. Although the future seems tougher our children are stronger. So you can argue your fear of what is to come, or continue letting things carry as they do knowing you're faith along with others stands unshaken.

    No-one is taking away our faith, we can still carry on testifying our beliefs. But what hypocrites would we be if we were to take away another's belief. This would only show that our standards are lower than the rest. Don't be afraid of what men can do, your faith cannot be unshaken.

  • hilary nottingham, 00
    July 20, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    childred are very understanding. If brought up by decent gay couples, not much of a problem. They will, however, be subject to obvious and subtle abuses by some of their peers as they grow. Lets get this straight, some heterosexual couples make their childrens lives a living hell. The drive towards the end of this argument in Utah is this, Eternal Marriage in one of the Temples, lets have this out in the open NOW. This is when the trouble will really start.