Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Utah — Defending marriage at the Supreme Court

Comments

Return To Article
  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 2:03 a.m.

    " an irrational law whose purpose was to single out a group of their fellow citizens for unfair treatment (as if the laws of virtually all known human societies that have treated marriage as a male-female union were a vast conspiracy of exclusion). "

    It's pretty clear what the purpose of the constitutional amendments in a flurry around the turn of the century was about... preventing same-sex marriages.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    June 5, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    "Utah is unique in its commitment not only in word, but also in deed, to preserving the ideal that children deserve to be raised by a married mother and father."

    How can Utah make the claim that we only support traditional marriage when there are an estimated 37,000 polygamists in the state? Long ago we wisely decided to quit enforcing bigamy laws.

    Isn't it a little ironic that the state with the longest history of untraditional marriage should be so vocal in defining "traditional marriage"?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    Utah isn't defending "traditional marriage." If they were defending traditional marriage then they'd be defending polygamy. After all, that was the "traditional marriage" here in utah. If they were defending marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, then why haven't they imprisoned and/or taken away state benefits from the polygamists?

    What the state is doing is defending the irrational fear of gay marriage. They are upholding discrimination against gays. They'd rather treat them as inferior citizens than as equals.

    This is, no matter how you slice it, an irrational and ultimately, losing position.

    I'm guessing it's smoke and mirrors too. Most utah politicians know where this is going but are giving the impression that they're doing "everything" in the power to fight it so they aren't attacked in elections for it.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 5, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    This article started with promise.

    And then I read: "federal district court judge ruling that a state’s marriage amendment should be invalidated based on guesses of how a majority of Supreme Court justices might vote..." That is misleading and inflammatory and caries the implication that Judge Shelby used intuition instead of education, training, and experience in reaching his conclusion. It also implies numerous other Federal Judges are professionally incompetent.

    Much worse, the article closed with, "Utah is unique in its commitment...to preserving the ideal that children deserve to be raised by a married mother and father."

    State boosterism aside, the writer is going to protect children by classing thousands of children being raised in Gay and Lesbian families as undesirables who may be tolerated and pitied but who do not deserve respect or legal protections. Then, to add insult to injury, his wording includes the children of all single parents in the same class of undeserving children.

    You cannot protect all children by harming some children, or "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    June 5, 2014 8:22 a.m.

    I wonder if this writer really thought out what he/she was inferring.

    They say that in our legal system both sides of the argument deserve a rigorous presentation. Does this apply to the indigent? Does the state of Utah fully fund qualified lawyers for those people who do not have the adequate funds to defend themselves before a judge and jury? The state is willing to spend millions on what appears a losing proposition in its prohibition of same sex marriage. Is the state willing to spend that and more to make sure no innocent person goes to jail?

    I think this is a somewhat self-serving assertion by the writer, and one that legal aid advocates ought to pick up upon.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    I agree with the writer; Utah's case should be the one. This is the state most in need of a hard lesson about a religious majority imposing its views on other U.S. citizens who share the same geographic space. We need to learn that it is unjust to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    "Utah is unique in its commitment...to preserving the ideal that children deserve to be raised by a married mother and father."

    Riiiight, that's why a single person can legally adopt a child according to state law. Married people or a single person can adopt, BUT NO GAYS!!!!! Kinda pops that balloon don't it?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    Duncan: "...Utah is unique in its commitment... to preserving the ideal that children deserve to be raised by a married mother and father."

    The state, echoing this sentiment, has based its entire case on the "conjugal view" of marriage, making the procreative element of marriage the predominant policy purpose. The state and its allies at the Sutherland Institute dismiss as irrelevant the "revisionist view" of marriage that puts a premium on the love and affection of the partners. "[M]mainly about adult romance," says Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson, quoted in DesNews; "adult-centric selfishness," writes Sutherland's Paul Mero in the Tribune.

    Section 30-1-1(f) of the Utah Code prohibits procreation for certain marriages. Can anyone at Sutherland answer these questions?

    1. Is there any way to interpret 30-1-1(f) as anything other than a state acceptance and endorsement of the "revisionist view" of marriage as valid policy?
    2. Would Sutherland back a repeal of 30-1-1(f) as inimical to the state's interest in the "conjugal view"?
    3. Would Sutherland support invalidating the marriages performed under 30-1-1(f)?
    4. If the "revisionist view" is acceptable for cousins, why isn't it acceptable for same sex couples?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    Re: "There are . . . reasons to believe that Utah’s case would be the best and likeliest [case for Supreme Court consideration]. First, Utah is making a robust defense of its law."

    Along those lines, the Supreme Court's selection of the case[s] to consider will likely telegraph its punch. If it's Utah's we would appear to be in good shape, though Chief Justice Roberts' history of solid conservative reasoning -- until it really counts -- is still a little scary.

    The Court has ruled LGBT is not a suspect class, so strict scrutiny analysis won't apply. It's unlikely to discover some new right to perversion in the penumbra of another disused constitutional provision, so heightened scrutiny is also off the table. And, since great deference to a state's determination as to what constitutes its important interests is still the law of the land -- liberal and LGBT bleating to the contrary notwithstanding -- normal-level scrutiny would also clearly support Utah's constitution.

    So, if the Court asks for briefs and arguments on Virginia's case, we should expect an adverse, doctrinaire, liberal outcome.

    Utah's? Not so much.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    I agree with the statement "Having both sides of a lawsuit adequately represented is crucial because it ensures the Supreme Court will be able to hear all relevant arguments before making a decision that will impact the laws of every state and the fundamental unit of society."

    I believe this is crucial in order to put this issue to rest. No matter the outcome, we need resolution to the issue with both sides of the arguement well represented.

    The question in my mind is that if the SCOTUS rules against SSM, will the LGBT community respect that? Doubt it.

    But... if the SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, the same group will expect the other 95% of the population to respect it.

    And to those who point out the polygamy contradiction I would point out that Utah does NOT recognize plural marriages and treats polygamy as a cohabitation condition. The state of Utah treats same sex cohabitation exactly the same.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 5, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    Given Utah's history of projecting it's influence into other states on this issue and the absolute bumbling, unoriginal legal representation that Utah has put up so far, I sincerely hope Utah gets it's chance to be the first state to lose soundly at the SCOTUS level.

    Indeed, for all the reasons this author notes, it will be sweet justice when Utah sets the precedent that undermines their codified discrimination.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    When Utah loses this case, will I get a refund on the money they took from me in this endeavor?

  • tellitstraight Hurricane, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    Alright. I'll agree that a child benefits from having a father and a mother to raise him or her. But if Utah truly believed in the advantages of this arrangement, then why are the family courts and laws typically biased in favor of mothers? If the situation arises in which the parents have separate homes, shouldn't the children be afforded as equal time as possible in both? That's not practice in Utah, so it's difficult to believe that there's an ideal with any teeth. Or are we just touting this in order to fend off challenges to marital laws?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    "The question in my mind is that if the SCOTUS rules against SSM, will the LGBT community respect that? Doubt it."

    No, and they shouldn't. Civil Rights should never depend on a vote. Just because separate but equal was sustained in past rulings doesn't make them correct or just.

    "But... if the SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, the same group will expect the other 95% of the population to respect it."

    Civil Rights should never be determined by a mob. Mormons of all people should understand this. Remember in Missouri when the mob determined that Mormons couldn't own land or businesses? Remember when an activist governor and mob declared it legal to exterminate Mormons?

    If 95 percent of America declared Mormon marriages and families to be illegal, would you accept that? Would you respect their ruling?

    The bottom line is, preventing gay marriage from happening is discrimination. Allowing and recognizing gay marriage isn't. How does gay marriage affect you or your family? How does gay marriage infringe upon your rights?

    Please enlighten the rest of us in your next post.

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    I believe that children benefit from having a mother and a father raise them. Does anyone disagree? I believe that this is the ideal setting for raising children. I believe that this ideal deserves to be honored and promoted by state and federal governments, (with things like tax benefits.)

    Same-sex unions and families deserve a legal status and protections from discrimination.

    I don't believe that we should be promoting same-sex unions on equal footing with marriage. I believe that we should promote the ideal. I believe that we should protect all parents and families.

    I propose that specifically addressing rights and protections that same-sex couples should have is a better solution than redefining marriage.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 5, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    Several posters have told us that polygamy is legal in Utah. Is that so? Is polygamy legal? Can a polygamist get a marriage license to marry a plural wife? Polygamy was outlawed in 1890.

    Some who believe in SSM are telling us that they will disobey a Supreme Court Ruling that upholds Utah's Constitution. They say that they believe that they are above the law. Isn't that what the gay/lesbian activists have been saying all along? Haven't they been telling us that 2% of the population can dictate to the 98% what marriage means and that their "feelings" about sex means that they are protected under the 14th Amendment? Do they receive the same wage as everyone else? Do they drive the same car as everyone else? Do they receive the same grade in school as everyone else? If not, they we are all fundamentally unequal. Do they expect to use the 14th Amendment to force equality in wages, in school, in cars, in clothes? But, they want the 14th Amendment to justify their feelings about sex.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    June 5, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    I'm so proud that our state is defending our vote to have marriage be between a man and a woman. I'm happy that our representatives are willing to fight the good fight. They are suppose to represent the will of the people. Regardless as to if we win this case, I'm glad to know that we are least tried to defend the 'Will of the People.' Go Utah!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 5, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    A mean spirited, petty waste of state resources.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 5, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    The last poll I saw found that 59% of Americans now support same sex marriage. So the argument that you are just defending the will of the majority is not valid.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 5, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    @Clarissa: "I'm so proud that our state is defending our vote to have marriage be between a man and a woman. I'm happy that our representatives are willing to fight the good fight. They are suppose to represent the will of the people."

    Clarissa - I can only hope that on Sunday mornings you are equally vocal in supporting Gov Lilburn Boggs and his efforts to represent the will of the people not all that long ago.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 5, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    Name ONE same sex marriage supporter that does not support traditional marriage......

  • Heilig St. George, Washington, UT
    June 5, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    @The Real Maverick "The bottom line is, preventing gay marriage from happening is discrimination. Allowing and recognizing gay marriage isn't. How does gay marriage affect you or your family?"

    Response, part 1:

    First off, we all need to recognize that all people are owed dignity and respect. We are grateful that much of the prejudice and mean-spirited attitudes we witnessed in our youth have diminished significantly. We also recognize that there is a long way to go. Nevertheless, changing the definition of does bring consequences with it. No one can foresee exactly what those consequences will be on society; change happens slowly, almost imperceptibly, but change does happen.

  • Heilig St. George, Washington, UT
    June 5, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    @The Real Maverick

    Response #2

    Here are a few specific changes that have started to occur:

    Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a new law into effect on Monday afternoon affording students confused about their “gender identity” a host of new rights, including the ability to use either a boy’s or girl’s restroom and either locker room. The legislation, Assembly Bill 1266, authored by Democratic State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco, allows students in grades as young as kindergarten to use “facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.” Ammiano’s spokesman, Carlos Alcala, told The Blaze on Monday afternoon the bill would even permit high school males who say they identify as females, to use a woman’s locker room. Also, religious believers must violate their conscience or have civil claims brought against them. Take Cynthia Gifford, who rents her farm for private events. She has gay employees and once hosted a birthday party for a young man with lesbian parents. She is clearly not prejudiced. But Gifford is now being sued because she politely declined, for religious reasons, to host a same-sex marriage.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    June 5, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    SCOTUS will have an herculean task coming up, in ruling on the definition of marriage. Shall it be the traditional one man/one woman? Or, shall it be a plethora of other conceivable marriage combinations involving people who love others? (polygamy, same-sex, incest, siblings, other close relatives, children, parent/child, and you name it.)

    The only guidance and direction the Court has to rely on in coming to a decision (and should be limited to) is the US Constitution's 10th and 14th Amendments. The 10th gives states the power and authority to make marriage laws. And the 14th says that states are to apply state laws equally.

    In Utah, marriage is limited to man/woman. And in Utah that law is applied equally to all citizens of the state. In Utah anyone can marry. Anyone. Provided they meet certain conditions included in the law: One person who is not already married, who is of marriageable age, of the opposite sex, etc. That's it. The law applies equally to ALL State citizens. Period. The equal protection requirement of the 14th Amendment is met.

    I wish the Court success.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    If Utah is so committed to ensuring that every child is raised by a married mother and married father, it follows that children of single mothers and single fathers need to be removed from their homes and placed with married couples. I am hoping that Dan Liljenquist will submit this bill for consideration during the next legislative session.

  • Heilig St. George, Washington, UT
    June 5, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    @The Real Maverick

    Response #3: This list is from another commenter.

    1.If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his
    child out of school, and because of it is ridiculed, is he
    harmed?
    2.If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions
    refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes
    bankrupt, is he harmed?
    3.If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its
    religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone
    hurt?
    4.If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on
    Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own
    computer, and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?
    5.If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship
    service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is
    the congregation harmed?
    6.If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social,
    and financial retribution, are they harmed?
    7.When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are
    labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing
    fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "So, if the Court asks for briefs and arguments on Virginia's case, we should expect an adverse, doctrinaire, liberal outcome.

    Utah's? Not so much."

    Why would Supreme Court justices rule differently based on where the appeal comes from?

    @Samson01
    "The question in my mind is that if the SCOTUS rules against SSM, will the LGBT community respect that? Doubt it.

    But... if the SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, the same group will expect the other 95% of the population to respect it."

    Should pro-lifers be respecting the ruling on Roe vs Wade? I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with disagreeing with a Supreme Court ruling within reason (threatening abortion providers is uncalled for).

    @Mike Richards
    "Some who believe in SSM are telling us that they will disobey a Supreme Court Ruling that upholds Utah's Constitution. "

    How would one disobey a ruling that says the state doesn't recognize marriage?

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 5, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    @Roland Kayser if the majority of people stopped believing in gravity what good would that do? Some people either think our maker does not care one way or the other, similar to Lucifer offering to save us all, It was not forced obedience but universal salvation he offered regardless of what we did, Or he does not exist if that was the case then there would be no need to worry about any kind of morality.

    Thing is rights from our creator our not up to a vote from his children and if everyone disagreed with an all powerful God would still be wrong. He only gives us commandments for our benefit. He does not change his opinion with the majority of people. His course is one eternal round and he never did accept or never will same gender marriage.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 5, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    @higv

    Thing is he's your creator, not mine. Neither he nor you get a vote on the civil rights of ALL Americans.

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    Same-sex marriage is not a civil right.

    Courts have held that marriage is a civil right. Marriage has always meant the union between a husband and a wife. That has always been the definition. That was the definition of marriage when Loving v. Virginia affirmed that marriage was a civil right.

    Calling same-sex marriage a civil right presupposes a redefinition of marriage.

    There is no precedent for same-sex marriage being a civil right. Legally marriage has not yet been redefined. So, as of today, same-sex marriage is not a civil right.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 5, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    This issue is driven by two worldviews that currently find home mostly in one party.

    Religion – which is a bit complicated because people have to dig out obscure Bible passages to support their aversion, whereas other religions have found that the teachings of Jesus (who never said one word about homosexuality) lead them to a marriage equality view.

    We should note that this same (Bible passages) approach was used by Southern slaveholders (who found many more passages supporting slavery than you can find against homosexuality) to justify their institution.

    The 2nd worldview is conservatism itself which is little more than a gut reaction against change in general, especially when the change is to something that’s been around a long time.

    I guess a 3rd view could be termed the “yucky” factor, but many people (me included) have come to realize this is no moral justification for denying fellow human beings basic rights.

    The point of this is to suggest that opponents of SSM have made surprisingly few moral arguments (which in no way is synonymous with religious arguments) in defense of their views.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    June 5, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    About 15 percent of Washington DC. high school students identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or questioning, according to survey data that city officials released Wednesday. Those students are far more likely than their heterosexual peers to report being bullied at school, and they are more likely to miss class because they’re afraid of being beaten or harassed.Are you listening Mormons?

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    June 5, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    Dream on!

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    June 5, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    Since the Supreme Court ruled last June that the federal government cannot deny benefits to married gay and lesbian couples, judges in 14 states have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage. No courts have ruled the other way since a district court in Nevada in November 2012.

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    June 5, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    @my_two_cents_worth- yes, He is your Creator, too, whether you accept Him or not.

    Tyler D:the only reason the Bible passages are obscure to you is because you don't spend enough time studying them.
    The Bible does not support slavery- it only recognizes its existence without advocating for it. Homosexuality is specifically condemned in both Old and New Testaments.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    June 5, 2014 3:08 p.m.

    "Civil Rights should never depend on a vote. "

    This is what the proponents of SSM do...they define their cause in the shroud of civil rights. And it has worked. The best way to win an argument is to control the language.

    I reject the idea that SSM is a civil rights issue. Thus I ask the question about the LGBT community respecting a negative outcome on this case. No...they wouldn't because they have convinced themselves that SSM is akin to the civil rights battles fought in our history.

    This should be the crux of the decision the SCOTUS should give us. Is SSM (not marriage as we traditionally define it) a civil right?

    If the courts decide that it is, I personally would respect that decision because it was vetted thoroughly by the highest court in the land. Notice the word respect. I would still disagree with the ruling but respect it. (ie...Roe vs Wade)

    If the courts decide against SSM then I would favor some arrangement to allow same sex couples legal rights through civil unions.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 5, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    liberal larry:
    "How can Utah make the claim that we only support traditional marriage when there are an estimated 37,000 polygamists in the state? Long ago we wisely decided to quit enforcing bigamy laws."

    And not so wisely, the courts seem to be deciding that bigamy will soon return... along with SSM. You can't have one without the other else the courts would be engaged in discrimination.

    "Isn't it a little ironic that the state with the longest history of untraditional marriage should be so vocal in defining 'traditional marriage?'"

    You can blame that situation on the federal government who passed the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 signed into law on March 23, 1882 by president Chester A. Arthur, declaring polygamy a felony. The government may well have to scrub that law.

    Samson01:
    "And to those who point out the polygamy contradiction I would point out that Utah does NOT recognize plural marriages..."

    With approval of SSM, polygamists may soon be able to emerge from the shadows and legitimize their marriages.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 5, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    @kiddsport

    "He is your Creator, too"

    Can you provide proof of that? How do you know that my creator is not Queztalcoatl, Zeus, Jupiter, or the Flying Spaghetti monster? Until you can deliver compelling evidence of this god you claim is my creator "his" position on my rights, our secular country, and its secular founding document are irrelevant.

    @Samson01

    "I reject the idea that SSM is a civil rights issue."

    You can reject all you choose, it changes nothing. The court has stated marriage is a fundamental right. They did not caveat their opinions in their decisions.If it makes it to the Supreme Court (doubtful IMHO) they will rule not on whether SSM is a right but rather on whether the state can establish "rights" that are exclusive to one group of people over others.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 5, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again.

    Of all the States in the entire Union, Utah should be the very last one saying anything about the importance of defending "traditional marriage". One of the biggest reasons the Mormons were persecuted, even killed in some cases, forcing them to leave the country and seek refuge in what was then Mexico was the fact that Mormons were not practicing the traditional marriage the state is fighting so hard for today. Statehood was withheld from Utah because non traditional marriage was being practiced in the state.

    There is massive irony in an article like this stating Utah has some special responsibility to make sure children are raised in a traditional marriage because of the unique religion here. When it was that same unique religion that fought so hard to keep it's right to have children raised in nontraditional marriages. When in fact nontraditional marriage is still a part of the belief system - men can still be married to multiple women but only one can be alive at a time.

    In reality Utah has a unique reason to keep quite.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 5, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    @kiddsport

    Homosexuality is mentioned seven times in the Bible – five in the OT and two in the NT. The two NT passages are from Paul (not Jesus) and unless you also agree with his blatant misogyny, they are easily discounted (especially since Biblical scholars think they were likely directed at Roman “parties”… those crazy Romans).

    The OT passages are mostly conflated with hospitality and pagan worship practices, and given the importance the Religious Right places on this issue today (compared to, say, some of the Ten Commandments) they are obscure.

    Regarding slavery – really, you need to read the book. The Bible goes far beyond simple recognition – see Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 as two of many shining examples of Biblical morality.

    And even if simple recognition was all it did, how is it that one of the easiest moral questions in history (made much harder by religion) is never once answered correctly by God or his prophets? Is it really so hard to see that treating human beings like farm equipment is morally bad?

    The history of slavery debates in the 1800’s is illuminating on this subject.

  • kishkumen American Fork, UT
    June 5, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    What makes Utah's AG and the writer of this absurdity-filled editorial think The US Supreme Court will even hear this case? The federal judges along with the appeals courts have all ruled consistently on the topic.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 5, 2014 4:50 p.m.

    The Real Maverick:
    "The bottom line is, preventing gay marriage from happening is discrimination."

    And similarly, preventing polygamy is discrimination. Same with any other type of non traditional loving relaitonships such as marriage of siblings, close relatives, father/daughter, mother/son, and on and on...

    "How does gay marriage affect you or your family? How does gay marriage infringe upon your rights?"

    Ditto for any other marriage arrangement.

    CHS 85:
    "Name ONE same sex marriage supporter that does not support traditional marriage..."

    Name one who supports polygamy. Or a grandfather/10YO granddaughter marriage.

    Alfred:
    "In Utah anyone can marry... Provided they meet certain conditions included in the law: One person who is not already married, who is of marriageable age, of the opposite sex, etc."

    That's right. And in Utah you can't marry your pet dog, bicycle, sibling, mother, father, uncle, aunt, a child, etc.

    And you can't engage in polygamous marriages. Wait a minute... polygamous marriage is covered in federal, not state law. Since SCOTUS overturned a federal anti-gay marriage law (DOMA), shouldn't it overturn a federal anti-polygamy law as well?

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 5, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    @Samson01

    "They have NOT decided that Same Sex Marriage is a fundamental right."

    Nor have they decided that only heterosexual marriage is a fundamental right.

    "What part of my opinion that the SCOTUS needs to rule on this do you disagree with?"

    All of it. The case is not about whether marriage of any stripe is a right but whether the state can grant "rights" to one group of consenting adults while denying them to another group of consenting adults.

  • molecman South Jordan, UT
    June 5, 2014 6:06 p.m.

    Same-sex marriage should not be legal because voters said it shouldn't. Marriage is not an inherent right (neither is having a drivers license). Recognition of same-sex marriage should not be forced upon me by a federal judge. It should be up to the will of the people.

  • molecman South Jordan, UT
    June 5, 2014 6:23 p.m.

    Children deserve the promoted ideal of being raised by a mother and father.

    Marriage is not a fundamental human right.

    Voters approved that marriage is only recognized between a man and woman.

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    June 5, 2014 8:38 p.m.

    Our country has no cultural norms, we are morally bankrupt, America is disintegrating. It was a nice run.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 5, 2014 9:35 p.m.

    @My2cents worth proof is the last thing anyone wants of a creator. They don't want someone to come up with proof because they don't want to believe God exists. Even if they saw him would still deny him. Taunt believers, they don't know so we can't. For those looking for harm with ssm they are not too concerned with harm if provided in abundance, they just hope no one finds it so they can easier defend there positions.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 5, 2014 9:52 p.m.

    @molecman: "Same-sex marriage should not be legal because voters said it shouldn't."

    We are a Constitutional Republic, not a mobocracy. In part, the Constitution and the Constitutionally mandated Federal Courts are charged with protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    "Marriage is not an inherent right (neither is having a drivers license)."

    Marriage is legally recognized contractual relationship between two adults that confers over 1,200 protections and benefits on the couple. The Supreme Court has ruled fourteen times that marriage is a fundamental legal right.

    "Recognition of same-sex marriage should not be forced upon me by a federal judge."

    You don't have to recognize same-sex marriage. However, you do have to follow the law of the land or face legal repercussions. Once the Court rules SSM is legal, there will be remedies for cases of discrimination, just as there are remedies for cases of racial, sexual, or religious discrimination.

    "It should be up to the will of the people."

    The Constitution says it is a matter of law, and that unconstitutional laws should be overturned.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    June 6, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    So Bill Duncan would prefer that children already being raised in same-sex partner households be, in effect, raised by a single parent? Is that "ideal" better than having two legal parents? He would prefer that they not be a legal family with the benefits and protections marriage affords?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 6, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    "Utah’s robust defense of its law..."

    Robust? Ha ha ha ha ha.

    Should we "defend" unconstitutional laws that DEMAND we treat some citizens as lesser? As beneath others? Doesn't the US Constitution prevent such?

    "Utah’s was one of the first decisions by a federal district court judge ruling that a state’s marriage amendment should be invalidated based on guesses of how a majority of Supreme Court justices might vote on state marriage laws. "

    Um, no. Utah's law was invalided, not based on guesses of the SCOTUS, but because it is unconstitutional.

    "Utah is unique in its commitment not only in word, but also in deed, to preserving the ideal that children deserve to be raised by a married mother and father. "

    Has Utah outlawed divorce yet? No? Some commitment. The ONLY thing preventing SSM does it prevents LGBT couples from marrying. It does absolutely nothing at all to further children being raised by a mother and father. Nothing.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 6, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    @kiddsport;

    Adultery is specifically condemned in the bible too, but I don't see you working to deny adulterers the right to re-marry. Fornication is specifically condemned in the bible, are you working to deny fornicators the right to marry? No? Why the hypocrisy?

    @Samson01;

    Reject away, that's your right. BTW, you'd have to overturn Amendment 3 in order to allow civil unions anyway. Judge Shelby already did that work for you.

    @molecman;

    Mormonism shouldn't be legal because the majority of Missourians said it shouldn't. Do you still support the will of the majority?

    @higv;

    We want proof, you just can't provide any.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 6, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    @higv,

    "They don't want someone to come up with proof because they don't want to believe God exists."

    So, you have no proof. I then must insist that you keep your belief and your deity out of my civil rights.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 6, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    Alfred
    In Utah anyone can marry. Anyone. Provided they meet certain conditions included in the law: One person who is not already married, who is of marriageable age, of the opposite sex, etc. That's it. The law applies equally to ALL State citizens. Period. The equal protection requirement of the 14th Amendment is met.
    KJK
    That's what those who opposed mixed marriages said 50yrs ago said too…they just added race to the list.

    Molecman
    Marriage is not a fundamental human right.
    KJK
    The Supreme Court case (Loving) which threw out race as a legit restriction on marriage disagreed -
    "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

    There is no objective reason justifying sex as a restriction either and therefore SSM bans are unconstitutional.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 6, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    @wrz

    Here's my original posting: "Name ONE same sex marriage supporter that does not support traditional marriage..."

    ...and here's yours

    "Name one who supports polygamy. Or a grandfather/10YO granddaughter marriage."

    Many SSM supports don't see a problem with polygamy between CONSENTING ADULTS. Your other argument is just too juvenile to argue against.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    June 6, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    Re: my_two_cents_worth

    I would love to continue the dialog but the dnews posted (as evidenced by your quotes) and then un-posted my comment.

    Don't think they liked what I had to say...lol

    I guess I can post my opinion if it agrees with theirs.

    ...all lower case...

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 6, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    Kevin J. Kirkham:
    "That's what those who opposed mixed marriages said 50yrs ago said too…they just added race to the list."

    If SCOTUS is going to remove SSM and race from the list of marriage no-nos, to be fair, it must remove all other impediments to marriage as well, such as polygamy, incest, mother/son, father/daughter, etc., else the court will have authorized discrimination.

    CHS 85:
    "Many SSM supports don't see a problem with polygamy between CONSENTING ADULTS."

    I've seen none on their threads.

    "Your other argument is just too juvenile to argue against."

    Typical comment from those how have no argument.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 6, 2014 3:53 p.m.

    @wrz – “If SCOTUS is going to remove SSM and race from the list of marriage no-nos, to be fair, it must remove all other impediments to marriage as well, such as polygamy, incest, mother/son, father/daughter, etc., else the court will have authorized discrimination.”

    Not really… they can simply invoke the Harm Principle, which is fundamental to moral questions (assuming they’re not already convinced on constitutional grounds).

    Most other potential marriage combinations entail varying degrees of harm, something that is difficult to impossible to find with respect to SSM.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 6, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    Kevin J. Kirkham:
    "That's what those who opposed mixed marriages said 50yrs ago said too…they just added race to the list."
    wrz
    If SCOTUS is going to remove SSM and race from the list of marriage no-nos, to be fair, it must remove all other impediments to marriage as well, such as polygamy, incest, mother/son, father/daughter, etc., else the court will have authorized discrimination.
    KJK
    As long as it's done between consenting adults, I have no ethical problem with it. My religion may reject it, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. If i were rich and about to die, I'd have no problem marrying my sister so she could inherit my money without having to give half to the feds. Polygamy is biblical and approved by God in the Bible and never condemned.

    CHS 85:
    "Many SSM supports don't see a problem with polygamy between CONSENTING ADULTS."
    wrz
    I've seen none on their threads.
    KJK
    Why shouldn't a single mom be able to marry into an existing family? her kids deserve a father. She might be able to be a stay-at-home mom too. Everyone wins.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    June 10, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    @RanchHand

    "We want proof, you just can't provide any."

    God has provided plenty of proof that He exists. Just look around you. Life is not a coincidence. Nothing like this happens accidentally. You have no proof that a Supreme Creator does not exist, and therefore, cannot provide any.