Quantcast
Opinion

Drew Clark: On marriage dispute, the choice for federalism has gone from compromise to opposition viewpoint

Comments

Return To Article
  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2014 12:51 a.m.

    "State-by-state disputes will be messy. But conflicts about fundamental values are best reconciled through politics, and through the mediating institution of federalism."

    To make this assertion stick Mr Clark must demonstrate that the states are more enlightened than they were during the Jim Crow era (without Federal intervention Jim Crow would be alive and well).

    I don't think the writer can make the case. For example, regardless of how one feels about Obamacare, he must be dismayed by the southern states' refusal to participate, being perfectly willing to see large portions of their populations do without local hospitals. Federalism at its worst.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 22, 2014 1:50 a.m.

    "This social, moral and political dilemma appears to be a classic lose-lose scenario."

    Why?

    When gay people can legally marry, their families are strengthened and protected. Their children are better off. Society is better off.

    Straight families are not changed or diminished. Children born to married men and women continue to receive the same legal rights and protections they currently enjoy.

    Sounds like a win-win. Who loses?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 22, 2014 2:09 a.m.

    Perhaps marriage laws could be changed to a reciprocity system, like that used for professional licenses.

    Each state would have its own marriage laws, and the marriage would only be recognized within that state. Some states might enter into reciprocity agreements, where they mutually recognize marriages, but it would not be required. A couple married in one state and moving to - or even traveling through - another state would have to determine if there was marriage reciprocity in place. If so, they could apply for a temporary or permanent license in the new state. If there isn't reciprocity the couple would not be legally married until they established residency and applied for a license in the new state.

    Until they married on the new state they would be considered legal strangers who may be cohabiting but have no rights or protections - like same-sex couples in Utah now.

    Seems like a reasonable solution under the circumstances. I, for one, would be happy to lobby hard to keep Ohio from recognizing any marriage that had ever been performed in Utah. I am sure citizens of other states would join that effort.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    June 22, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    The problem with this argument is that a gay couple moving from a "free" state to another state who does not recognize their marriage, loses their previous status due to animus. Their children are placed in limbo. They are seated in the back of the legal bus yet again. And it throws out the current notion that being married in one state makes you married in another.

    Given that same sex marriage is legal in 19 states, and is recognized by the federal government for virtually all benefits, rights and responsibilities, how can you ever have "federalism" (whatever that means to people these days) regarding same sex marriage. How do you ever square that circle? Would anyone approve of the state of Washington refusing to recognize Utah marriages if they were sealed in a temple? Don't think so.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 22, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    Scientific advancements have kept abortion an issue. If we had no way of keeping a fetus alive before it reached term, anti-abortionists would be in the same position as SSM opponents: You either have a fundamental right or you do not. How do you argue that SS couples are equal only sometimes, i.e., in this shop, but not that one?

    Where SS couples will not have the right to be treated equally is in churches, temples, etc. No one is suggesting that the law intrudes there. If they are, they're mistaken.

    The federalism question is already well-established - laws must not be unconstitutional - so I don't see a hook on which to hang your hat there. And the issue would not be in the hands of the Judiciary if states had not gotten carried away by religious fervor and put to a vote the rights of others.

    IMO, the argument against SSM is a poor advertisement for religion at a time when religion is already losing adherents. So you proceed at your own risk. Or are you suggesting a "hostile takeover" under the leadership of General Bobby Jindal?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 22, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    How well will it work when someone married in one state is treated differently when in another? This sounds like a right that accrues to people, portable as they are, and not to states.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    The public debate over same sex marriage has been going on for twenty years and the author of this editorial still doesn't understand what same sex couples want.

    He wrote: "Gays and lesbians say they want the legal right to express their loving relationships through government recognition of their unions." That's not only inaccurate, it's almost incoherent. Gay and lesbian couples are asking for the same legal rights and responsibilities afforded heteroexual couples through the legal act of marriage. Nothing more nothing less.

    The moral question is comparable to divorce not abortion. Catholicism teaches that divorce is wrong and opposes remarriage; yet Catholics successfully live in a nation in which divorce and remarraige are readily available legal options. Same sex marriage is comparable. Some churches already perform and recognize same sex marriages, other do not. It will take time but people will adapt.

    At this point, it's feasible the Supreme Court may not take Utah's case. The court generally rules when lower courts disagree with one another. Thus far, that's not happening.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    June 22, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    I've started to save opinion pieces and articles like this that predict a SCOTUS ruling against equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. I save them because, in my view, they are so quickly going to be proven wrong and I want to be able to compare the reality with the wishful thinking that still existed in some quarters, even at this late date.

    Unlike public opinion on the abortion issue, which has remained remarkably stable over the last few decades, public opinion on this issue has shifted dramatically in the last decade. More and more people, even religious people, just don't see a problem with embracing the full humanity of gay people and according the relationships of neighbors, family members and friends, equal dignity and respect.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    June 22, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    Not so. This is about equality before the law. Gays are asking for the same rights that are enjoyed by all other citizens. States like Utah are asking to be allowed to continue to discriminate. Gays can demonstrate that they have suffered harm at the hands of the state. Nobody, and nothing suffers harm if discrimination ends.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 22, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    The flagrant hypocrisy by conservatives on the marriage issue is best illustrated by example:

    -What if a state, lets say Massachusetts, decided to outlaw private ownership of guns, by both a popular vote of the electorate and by legislation. Conservatives would be eagerly awaiting the trump card of the Supreme Court to restore the right to bear arms over the top of state sovereignty.

    -If the Supreme Court indicated marriage is a state issue, period, and some Californians decided to put another Proposition about marriage on the state ballot today, conservatives would be screaming and wailing, because they know if Prop 8 were on the ballot again, it would probably not pass, and a new Proposition affirming gay marriage would almost certainly win.

    Conservatives have suddenly become champions of democracy, when there are innumerable instances in the past where they emphasized that we have a Republic, where the mob rule of democracy should be resisted.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 22, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    "Those who believe that a child deserves a mother and a father and that it would be wrong for the government to impose gay marriage..."

    Is anyone being forced into same-sex marriages? No?

    Then no one is being imposed upon.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 22, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    Who has the "right" to define family? Who has the "right" to define marriage? Who has the right to decide whether changing those definitions will harm children who are raised in non-traditional "families"?

    Some people are suggesting that they have the right to redefine family and marriage. They assert that no harm is being done. Are they sure? What happens to society when a child is not taught correct principles? What happens to society when that child is not taught about his Father in Heaven or of absolute laws? What happens to society when a child is told that God makes mistakes when He assigns gender?

    Would people be correct if they said that gravity is not an absolute law pertaining to us as we live on earth? Would they tell a child that 2% of the population could jump off a cliff and not be harmed when gravity pulled them to their destruction at the foot of that cliff?

    States have the right to protect children. Utah is looking out for the welfare of children by upholding the absolute definition of "marriage".

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    June 22, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    @Marxist - You used Jim Crow laws as an example, and stated that they would still be in force if the federal government had not intervened.

    I don't think anyone knows for sure how public attitudes can change. Slavery was rampant for over a century in Brazil, but in the 19th Century people demanded it to be abolished. They didn't need a civil war. The legislature just voted it in.

    How do we know that America in the 80's wouldn't have come around on their own?

  • Bendana 99352, WA
    June 22, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    If you had ever traveled or lived in the south Marxist, you would have your answer. I have done both and I have no doubt that Jim Crow would be alive and well in the south today.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards "States have the right to protect children. " I absolutely agree, and the needs of children are even more important than the needs of marital partners.

    @ gmlewis "How do we know that America in the 80's wouldn't have come around [on Jim Crow] on their own?" We don't know, but the history is what it is - the Federal government took action when the states did not.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    It seems opponents of marriage equality are scrambling. In state after state judges are striking down their SSM bans. Even Governor Herbert has belatedly suggested civil unions as a solution. It is a little late for that as Amendment 3 also banned those. A state has a right to "define" marriage, but limiting it in the way they do is more than defining. It is legislating. And Drew did not mention another problem. SSMs in states where it is legal, are invalidated when the couple move to a state which does not recognize it. What is your "compromise" there?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    June 22, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    The more obvious it becomes that gay marriage will become legal, the more shrill and desperate these opinion pieces will become. And does anybody at the DN catch the deep irony of hoping for "compromise" after cheerleading Amendment Three?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    June 22, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    I think you're wrong, Drew Clark. Under your scenario, what would happen if a couple moved from Massachusetts to Utah? Would they be married or not? What if a Utah couple traveled to Massachusetts and got married and then returned home. Would they be married? What would happen if a legally married same sex couple was on vacation in Utah and one of the spouses was critically injured. Would the hospital treat the spouse as next of kin or would they require the injured spouses' parents or other next of kin to give consent to treatment. In addition to these complications of having different laws all over the United States, the more important thing to think about is why you think it is acceptable that some citizens of our country are treated differently from other citizens. Don't bother with the slippery slope arguments about people marrying dogs, cats, trees, and kids. Dogs, cats, trees, and kids cannot enter into contracts.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    I get what the writer is saying - since neither side can compromise the only possible "compromise" is through Federalism. Message received.

    The question of what is best for children in the SSM debate weighs heavily on me. I confess I don't know for sure. I think I'll leave that question to those better informed that I.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 22, 2014 12:29 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    You seem confused. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy. We live under laws, not religious leaders claiming "god said..."

    We have a specific Amendment that says government is not allowed to set up or endorse a state religion, which means that religious teaching cannot be mandated by government because a religious leader proclaims "god said..." We have elected leaders who pass laws, and a court system that ensures the laws are Constitutional.

    Iraq is a situation where the religious want to enforce their teachings, and justify their extreme violence because they believe "god said."

    I understand that you believe your religious teachings are the same as scientific principles, like gravity. Sadly, they are not. Gravity can be proven with independent and replicatable testing. Religion is based on "feelings."

    While you are welcome to have your feelings and teach them to your children in your home, the Constitution says you cannot force others live according to your feelings.

    Besides, Mormons are 2% of the US population. In the theocracy you envision, do you think your religion would be allowed to exist?

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 22, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    Here is a list off the top of my head of "non-traditional" families the majority of Utah voters might think are not legitimate, not optimal, or won't teach correct principles. Some of these make me worry too, but all of them are legally able to marry except the last one. Why? Does the constitution also allow a state to prohibit these marriages?
    - Parents not married in the temple
    - Parents who are atheists or have beliefs different than the dominant local religion
    - Parents without basic education
    - Parents with physical disabilities that prevent reproduction, taking care of children, or employment.
    - Parents who abuse children
    - Parent who are in prison
    - Parents who don't believe in western medicine
    - Couples that are not faithful to each other
    - Couples with a huge age disparity between partners
    - Couple from different ethnic or cultural background
    - Couple of the same gender

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 22, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    Let's look at a quote by Gerald N. Lund:

    "Those who do not believe in a God who watches over His children and cares for them will openly scoff at such a notion. That is all right. As a popular saying notes, 'Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music'. Those who believe that God lives and is a loving Heavenly Father hear a music that others do not."

    Many of us "hear" the music. We KNOW why we are on earth. We KNOW that children are "an heritage of the Lord". We KNOW that we must teach those children correct principles and not try to influence them to abandon love of or faith in God.

    -----

    The Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Contrary to a previous post, there is no "anti-establishment" clause. "An establishment of religion" refers to an already existing religion. If Congress "established" a religion, including a humanistic religion, it would be powerless to write doctrine for that religion.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 22, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    @Hutterite:
    "How well will it work when someone married in one state is treated differently when in another?"

    How would it work if a doctor, CPA, or other professional licensed to conduct business in one state, moved to another and his/her practice had to be terminated due state licensing laws?

    You say, well, just get a license in the new state. But, what if they can't qualify in the new state? Their profession is toast.

    @Wonder"
    "...what would happen if a (same-sex) couple moved from Massachusetts to Utah? Would they be married or not?"

    They would not be married in Utah and thus would not be eligible for any Utah benefits accorded married folks. They would, however, be eligible for all federal benefits accorded married folks... per SCOTUS ruling on DOMA.

    @Tiago:
    "Why? Does the constitution also allow a state to prohibit these marriages?"

    Here's some more who can't marry to add to your list after 'couple of the same gender.'

    - Polygamists (one man, several women)
    - Polyandrists (one woman, several men)
    - First cousins
    - Siblings (Brother/sister)
    - Father/daughter
    - Mother/son
    - Child/child
    - Child/adult
    - Child/pet

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 22, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    Mike could you please provide us with a detailed list of the harm same sex marriage causes in society. I have now asked for such a list several times and yet no list has ever been provided. Please remember that same sex marriage has been legal in some nations for over a decade so any harm you list must be backed up by evidence of said harm in one of those nations. If it feels like I keep repeating myself with this request it's because I am. I have asked for such a list in many past threads and yet not a single list has ever been provided. One would think that the anti equality side is more than willing to say it will cause harm but have no actual information to back that statement up. One might be brought to conclude that in nations where same sex marriage has been legal for many years no harm has been experienced.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 22, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    That "minority of states" you wish to dismiss as somehow insignificant, now is home to 44% of the U.S. Population. That's a large minority.

    One of the reasons the religious battle to ban marriage equality is losing is that as more and more of us work in technical fields requiring logical thought, we've learned to think for ourselves.

    You say marriage is only for procreation, but we see all sorts of examples where it isn't. You say it's a religious tradition, but we have instant access to historical facts, and can see that's not true. You say children will be hurt by allowing gays or lesbians to marry each other, but we see families that already have children, and their parents are forced to be legal strangers to each other and their children by your marriage bans.

    You can't prove to us falseness is true, much less eternal truth, just because you insist it's so. We can see where truth, and justice, and logical common sense, really lie.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 22, 2014 5:33 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    Cornell Law website: "This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."

    I'm not sure where you get your interpretation. Congress cannot start a religion, Congress cannot prefer one religion over another. Under the Constitution Mormons, Southern Baptist, Catholics, Wiccans, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists all have the same standing. No group gets preference. No group is more, or less, right.

    When looking at some of the statements on these pages, part of the intent is to keep any group from taking over and trying to establish theocracy instead of the rule of law in a constitutional republic.

    As to the quote above, I can find quotes exactly like that from leaders of any monotheistic religion or denomination. In fact there is currently a Civil War going on in Iraq because members of one sect don't "dance" to the right "divine music." Their belief, and actions, are based on feelings. Just like yours.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 22, 2014 6:43 p.m.

    I missed that part were those that were against same sex marriage wanted to compermise. That word did not exist in their lexicon investigative team — consisting of two homicide detectives from the Salt Lake Police Department, two homicide detectives from the West Valley Police Department, a detective from the Unified Police Department, and three prosecutors from the district attorney's offi until they realized the tide had turned against them and same sex marriage became virtually assured.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 22, 2014 8:19 p.m.

    @The Wraith:
    "Mike could you please provide us with a detailed list of the harm same sex marriage causes in society."

    I'll give it a try... it will open the door for all other conceivable combinations of marriages such as polygamy, polyandry, siblings, father/daughter, mother/son, cousins, children. The net effect being, marriage would totally disappear from society. Anybody could 'marry' anybody or anything. So, why marry at all?

    And if only SSM were approved, of all the possible combinations, the courts would have introduced discrimination against almost all of man/womankind who desired other than the standard or SS marriage. I don't think the courts wanna be caught in that net.

    If the courts rule in favor of SSM it will be interesting to see how they arrive at that decision. The courts can't use federal law because there is not (since DOMA ruling). They can't use the 14 Amendment's equal protection because that clause applies to State law and State law says anyone can marry provided they marry someone of the opposite sex, who is not married, of legal age, not closely related, etc.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    June 22, 2014 8:31 p.m.

    SSM advocates are arguing the same way that the Southern states argued for slavery. The southern pride, and to a lesser extent northern pride, prevented them from recognizing the evil of slavery, until one Abraham Lincoln moved in God's direction to emancipate the evil! State's rights in this instance would not trump that which is evil. Federal laws to the contrary, SSM is wrong and those who favor it will find themselves not only on the wrong side of history, but on the wrong side with God!

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    June 22, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    " I predict it will uphold a state’s authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman."

    - I predict that the author of this article is right!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 22, 2014 8:56 p.m.

    @Stormwalker ,

    The Cornell Law website is not the Constitution. If you think otherwise, look at all the university websites that told us that citizens outside of a militia could not own firearms. The Supreme Court set them straight and the Constitution was interpreted just as it reads.

    Congress cannot legislate doctrine to an established religion. IF Congress were to establish a religion, it could not legislate doctrines for that religion. Secular humanism is a religion to many. Under the 1st Amendment, Congress cannot legislate secular humanism "doctrine" without violating the 1st Amendment. It does not mention the necessity of a religion with God at its center. It only speaks of "an establishment of religion".

    @Wraith,

    The burden is on you. Deity has already spoken on the subject. God told the world that marriage is between a man and a woman and that sex outside of marriage is forbidden. You will need to justify your idea that same-sex marriage is at least as good for children as traditional marriage. If it is not at least as good, your argument fails.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2014 8:56 p.m.

    I applaud this well thought out editorial. I have asserted in my own terms the idea that "Moral and religious views don't abide by U.S. Supreme Court decisions". The gay community doesn't like the idea that many millions of Americans will never accept their definition of morality or the counterfeit "marriage structures" they participate in. That said, we will need to find some post SCOTUS decision pathways to compromise with our gay and straight citizens. I personally favor some type of a state recognized "same-sex partnership" which includes equality in typical benefits (taxation, inheritance, etc) but which also recognizes a legal definition difference between a same-sex partnership and a man-woman marriage. However, it is an illusion to believe that the two sides will ever totally come together in terms of moral and religious views on this subject. We will need to find ways to simply disagree agreeably as the old cliché says.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 22, 2014 8:57 p.m.

    Please do tell us were the compermise was in amendment 3. Funny how all of a sudden those that are against same sex marriage want got compermise when they are on the losing end.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2014 9:11 p.m.

    An assertion was made that "When gay people can legally marry, their families are strengthened and protected. Their children are better off. Society is better off".

    Conservative traditionalists couldn't disagree more with that assertion!. Children are better off and society is better off within the structure of a man-woman marriage and naturally born children who are nurtured within the traditional marriage structure. Too many gay relationships end up in separation and any children adopted into those circumstances must suffer the consequences. Children growing up in gay homes notice that their family structure is different from the majority of families and this raises serious questions and doubts for them. Children adopted into gay households most often don't share in the same-sex attraction which again causes them to have doubts about that lifestyle and results in confusion for them.

  • Arizona1 Tucson, AZ
    June 22, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    I hope the author's right, but I don't have that kind of confidence in the Supreme Court. I hope the justices are as committed to the idea of federalism as the author seems to suggest, but I think that all too often these days even the Supreme Court lets personal and public opinions override the principles of federalism.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2014 9:15 p.m.

    Mike Richards You said; Who has the "right" to define family? Who has the "right" to define marriage? And I agree with you!!!

    You don't have the right, and neither does any religion because all of them define it in different ways. I'm sure you know our Church's history where marriage was defined quite differently than monogamy.

    Citizens of this country are entitled to their constitutional rights without your definition of what is right or wrong. Religion has no place in our legal system, nor should religion be used to deny citizens their rightful civil rights.

  • Mike702 Hamilton, 00
    June 22, 2014 9:25 p.m.

    From Amendment XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The gist of that is that states can stop same-sex couples from marrying, if they have a rational reason.

    States that have failed to come up with a rational reason, so far: Oregon ... California ... Idaho ... Utah ... New Mexico ... Oklahoma ... Texas ... Arkansas ... Iowa ... Wisconsin ... Michigan ... Ohio ... Kentucky ... Tennessee ... Virginia ... Pennsylvania ... New Jersey ...

    States that have succeeded in presenting a rational reason, so far: .

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 22, 2014 9:31 p.m.

    What kind of negotiation are we talking about, exactly?

    When even civil unions options were killed in legislation.

    Also, what is wrong with making someone want "normalcy." We are saying what... that un-normalcy is the best and only option?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    In the SSM debate let's not let the best be the enemy of the good. I think the traditional dad-mom-kids-heterosexual home is the best environment in which to raise children. I say that because that is what I have experienced. But there is a lot of ruin in traditional marriages.

    Are the kids in a ruined hetero marriage better off that those in a committed same sex one? I believe SSM marriages can be good for children. I don't know, but I think such arrangements can be good. We have many solid citizens saying so. So let's not have the best be the enemy of the good.

    Everyone needs a family, including gays and lesbians. Life is intolerable without a family. That's why so many want SSM, because they are being denied families in states like Utah.

    Also, the limbo some SSM's are in due to the Utah appeal is cruelty personified.

    Let's try to be kind to each other.

  • intervention slc, UT
    June 22, 2014 9:45 p.m.

    so on the eve of their defeat the uncompromising oppressors for the past two decades want the soon to be liberated oppressed to compromise and wait until the oppressors are ready to let them go free?

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 22, 2014 9:57 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards

    "Contrary to a previous post, there is no "anti-establishment" clause. "

    Wrong.

    "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another....No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa." -- EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

    It's really pretty straightforward. The state MUST remain religious neutral. It cannot use the majority religion to deny equal protection to ANY of its citizens and when it does the constitutional remedy is the courts.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 22, 2014 10:17 p.m.

    @10cc The right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution the right to marry someone of the same gender isn't. Laws on woman's suffrage, against segregation were made by the legislature, roe vs wade and judges overturning the will of the people are based on things not found in constitution. Equal protection never did or will give people of same gender right to marry. Why are they just now finding that out a century and a half after amendment was passed?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 22, 2014 11:09 p.m.

    I wish we could round up all the folks against marriage equality, science, and want to live in some gun filled theocracy and send them to an island. There, they could live their lives the way they want. Then, the rest of us could finally move this country toward in a democratic way, the way the founding fathers desired.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    June 23, 2014 12:27 a.m.

    @Arizona1:
    "I hope the justices are as committed to the idea of federalism as the author seems to suggest..."

    The situation facing SCOTUS is: If it rules that states can define marriage (federalism), there will be several states that allows SSM and several that won't which will create problems where we have such a mobile society. With this thorny situation federalism might disappear.

    @Mike702:
    "The gist of that (Amendment 14) is that states can stop same-sex couples from marrying, if they have a rational reason.

    No. The amendment says that States can not deny equal protection of State laws.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    June 23, 2014 1:09 a.m.

    It would be shocking to see this article on any news source but the DN or Fox.

    As I keep saying, the issue is that major religions, particularly catholic and lds, have marriage and procreation at the center of their doctrines.
    --- These religions are so anxious to keep their own Gay members and children of members from leaving the church in order to marry that they have lost sight of what Jesus would do.

    The only arguments against marriage equality:

    1-- "It would cause my religion major problems, because parents will expect the church to marry all their children, including the Gay ones"

    2-- "It puts my nose out of joint to have to accommodate these people, whom I was taught to look down on, in my part of the bus, and to have them act equal to me.

    Jesus Christ, as a Living God, understands that the time has come for this equality. Churches which do not find a way to it will continue to lose young members.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 23, 2014 6:44 a.m.

    @Stormwalker 2:09 a.m. June 22, 2014

    You speak of establishing a reciprocity system for marriage laws among the various states. Such a system already exits. it's called the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1) of the US Constitution, which provides that full faith and credit (recognition) will give given by each state to the "public acts, records and judicial proceedings" of every other state. In other words, a marriage (which is a public act) and the record of the marriage in one state must be recognized in all states, and a couple married in one state is married in every other state. That's about as reciprocal as it is possible to get.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 23, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    @MikeRichards 9:23 a.m. June 22, 2014

    Who has the right to define family and marriage? Churches for the records, rites and ordinances pertinent to the church and religion. Civil authority, subject to the protections of the US Constitution, for secular records, relationships and laws.

    Teaching a child "correct principles" does not necessarily mean teaching a child religion. It means teaching the child to be honest and honorable in his/her dealings with others. In other words, how to be a good citizen and member of society. It is not necessary to be religious to live a good, honest, honorable life.

    Religious instruction is available both in mortality and in the post-mortal life. The child will have plenty of opportunity to learn.

    Your comment about "God making a mistake when assigning gender" once again shows that you do not know the difference between same-sex attraction and transgerderism. A man who is gay knows very well that he is a man and does not think that he was put into a body of the wrong hender. He just knows that he is a man who is sexually and affectionally attracted to men instead of women.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 23, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    @MikeRichards 9:23 a.m. June 22, 2014

    There is a big difference between religious dogma (like the positions taken on same-sex marriage) and a physical, demonstrable law like the law of gravity. Attempting to tie the together is not an appropriate argument to make.

    Denying same sex couples the right to marry and adopt does not work to "protect children." In fact it works a detriment to children in families whether the parents are a same-sex couple. Allowing the marriage and adoption of the child by the non-biologic parent would strengthen the family, stabilize the family, and in the process strengthen and stabilize society. In fact, Utah's Amendment 3 (and other similar laws) works to weaken family and destabilize society.

    While it is totally your right, and the right of all religious bodies, to attempt to preach and persuade on this issue (and others), it is not appropriate to attempt to impose religious positions on a secular society.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 23, 2014 7:01 a.m.

    To Mike Richards, and the others using "God" and "God says" as their argument -- which God? Before you can sustain an argument using "God" or "Heavenly Father" as your authority, there has to be agreement about which God's authority is being invoked and which conception of God you are espousing. The God reverenced by LDS? Catholics? Evangelical Protestants? Other Protestants? Quakers? And so on. And those are only some of the Christian denominations. Add to that several iterations of Judaism. And then there are the non-Christian faiths. Each one of these has a God who "says" something different from other Gods on just about every subject (including some being perfectly willing to marry same-sex couples). So tell us -- which God are you invoking and why should those who believe in a different concept of God accept your description of who God is and what "God says" when they believe differently from what you preach. Feel free to preach all you want -- just be honest and label what you say as your personal belief and not based on fact accepted by all.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 23, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    @realmaverik you don't seem to believe in democracy, if you did you would support the majority of people in the majority of states who voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    @higv

    In a true democracy (not a mobacracy) the rights of the minority cannot be placed on vote. Were that the case, could I please vote on whether I think your marriage is valid?

    It wouldn't matter if 100% of the people in 100% of the States voted to restrict the rights of a certain minority, if it violates the Constitution, and in this case it violates Aritcle IV, Amendment 9 and 14. The courts have done their job admirably in determining that.

    My religion, just 150 short years ago was subject to Mob rule, being scuttled about from place to place. Do we really want to return to that? because that is what "States Rights" would look like.

    Or are we "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL"? Especially for those with whom we disagree.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 23, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    @higv

    If you believe in democracy you wouldn't put the rights of other individuals in the ballot!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 23, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    @higv, and others who misunderstand democracy: Constitutional democracy is not three wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. Without individual rights, or respect for the individual as an equal, that's just mob rule, or on a larger scale, fascism.

    Constitutional limitations on unwarranted government intrusion into our private lives is what guarantees our freedom. Without those limitations, we'd have no right to free speech, or to religion, or to a reasonably fair trial before being fined or imprisoned. When Theocracy gains power, as it did in our country's early colonial days, people could be tortured and humiliated for minor infractions, like dancing or swearing, and exiled, imprisoned or executed for whatever the Church elders considered heresies, such as disrespecting the Church elders, or espousing a different religion. Look up "Boston Martyrs," and "Flushing Remonstrance" some time.

    The position against same-sex marriage is essentially a theological one. In all the countries and states where it's legal, no good scientific, social, or practical reason to ban it has been demonstrated. All you're left with is pure, dogmatic belief, and we're not a Theocracy, thank God.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 23, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    To Mike Richards, and the others using "God" and "God says" as their argument -- which God?

    You realize that is the precise arguement terrorsts used to justify flying jet filled with people into the Twin Towers, Pentagon and target Washington D.C killing thousands don't you?

    God told them to...

    Like Furry1993 said -- who's God, What God?

    America is not a Theocracy.
    And although I "think" we worship the same God,
    As an American who actually defends the Constitution,
    I will fight your corrputed interpreatation of it and trampling of it.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    June 23, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    Furry, without God, there is no such thing as honesty. Is it Hitler's honesty, Chairmen mau? Those of you who are so naive to put your trust in man amaze me! It is history repeated all over again. if we just elect Obama, or Bush, or Hillary, then it will be different this time, because surely power enables my candidate! What ignorance and folly to behold! Go ahead, keep putting your trust in man! I, and many others, know otherwise!

  • EasttoAK Dubuque, IA
    June 23, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    "because we are talking about matters of deeply held individual liberty and conscience...". Uhmm, No. We're talking equality.

    "Advocates of same-sex marriage, gays and lesbians are seeking normalcy." Again, no. Equality. We already have normalcy.

    "Gays and lesbians say they want the legal right to express their loving relationships". And again, no. We can express what we want now. Government doesn't legally recognize expression.

    "One side cannot obtain its hopes and dreams without crushing others’ deeply held beliefs." Nope. Equal rights doesn't preclude the anti-equality side from keeping their beliefs. It may crush your bigoted actions, though.

    "it’s likely that the high court will choose the path of least contention. I predict it will uphold a state’s authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman." What a surprise that the author came to this conclusion! Shocking, I say!

    This op-ed is another desperate attempt by DN to put lipstick on a pig (to make the anti-equality argument as palatable to the public and courts as possible). Give it up, you've lost.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    @Light and Liberty

    Wait, why are we talking about Hitler? Who was extolling the virtues of Hitler?

    To say without God there is no honesty, one would have to conclude that all atheists lie 100% of the time. That humanity is inherently incapable of any good action.

    I believe God is a perfect being, and being children of that Perfect Being we are able to achieve what He has, and have the innate ability to do good. We are also free to choose. Who are we to take away that ability from others? Salvation cannot be forced upon someone. We fought a War over that very issue.

    Unless harm can be shown to a person, or society as a whole (and Mother nature has done a pretty good job of making sure the vast, vast majority of man kind reproduces) I say live and let live. We can preach what we believe God has commanded us to preach, and that right has not, nor will be taken away. Our job is to persuade men to come unto Christ, not force them.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    "...compromises between the rights of gays and the ability of states to make democratic decisions governing family law."

    --- Drew; Is your marriage recognized when you travel from state to state? Please provide a *valid* reason that the marriages of LGBT citizens shouldn't be recognize likewise.

    "One side cannot obtain its hopes and dreams without crushing others’ deeply held beliefs."

    --- Garbage and nonsense. Legal recognition of SSM does not "crush others' deeply held religious beliefs".

    "I predict it will uphold a state’s authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman."

    --- I predict that you're wrong.

    "How will legislators protect the free exercise of religion, including the right of businesses and educational institutions not to be coerced into supporting ..."

    --- Businesses DO NOT have/practice/abide-by religion. They are NOT living, breating beings.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    Mike Richards says:

    "The Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" "

    --- Amendment 3 prevents the "free exercise thereof" by religions that believe in SSM. You're advocating this prevention. You clearly do NOT believe in the Constitution - except when it adheres to your own beliefs.

    "Deity has already spoken on the subject. "

    --- No it hasn't. Fictional beings do not speak.

    wrz says:

    "They would not be married in Utah and thus would not be eligible for any Utah benefits accorded married folks."

    --- Which is in clear violation of the 14th Amendment - Equal Protection.

    @Alfred;

    Not just state laws, any laws.

    @Light and Liberty;

    Odin is the source of all things good. He is the only god, yours is a pretender.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 23, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    @wrz
    "I'll give it a try... it will open the door for all other conceivable combinations of marriages such as polygamy, polyandry, siblings, father/daughter, mother/son, cousins, children."

    If your argument is so compelling, I wonder why the defendants of DOMA and Prop 8 did not use it in court. I also wonder why state attorneys of NJ, NM, OH, UT, OK, KY, VA, IL, TX, TN, MI, IN, AR, ID, OR, PA, did not use such argument to persuade the judges.

    Is it because so-called "argument" is only a sensational claim, but can not stand the scrutiny in the court of law and can not win?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 23, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    Tolstoy
    salt lake, UT
    Please do tell us were the compermise was in amendment 3. Funny how all of a sudden those that are against same sex marriage want got compermise when they are on the losing end.

    8:57 p.m. June 22, 2014

    =======

    Ya,

    They sort of remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

    After finally loosing everything -- both arms and legs in this case,
    Tells King Arthur to "compromise" and call it a draw...

    Silly.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 23, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    To "10CC" your examples are flawed. In the first about guns, the constitution is quite clear that the people have a right to own weapons. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage. In you second example, the Supreme Court in their majority opinion for the DOMA defense said that marriage is a state issue and is for the state to decide. So, if California decided to define marriage in some wacky way, that is their right.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    June 23, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    To wrz: I accept that you sincerely believe that SSM legalization "will open the door for all other conceivable combinations of marriages such as polygamy, polyandry, siblings, father/daughter, mother/son, cousins, children. The net effect being, marriage would totally disappear from society. "

    How soon do you think this would happen? Two months? Two years? Twenty years? Two hundred years? How soon would we see the start of this (e.g. lawsuits being filed to permit polygamy, etc)?

    "If the courts rule in favor of SSM it will be interesting to see how they arrive at that decision. The courts can't use federal law because there is not (since DOMA ruling). They can't use the 14 Amendment's equal protection because that clause applies to State law and State law says anyone can marry provided they marry someone of the opposite sex, who is not married, of legal age, not closely related, etc."

    If you believe that the justices can't use the 14th Amendment, then I would urge you to write all justices in the various circuit courts and tell them this, since, as we speak, dozens of cases are headed their way.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    June 23, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    Meckofahess, I would gently suggest that you not speak for the "gay community" (which is about as monolithic as the "straight community"--which is to say, not at all) in your assertion of what they do or do not like. My own marriage (which has lasted 35+ years) is considered a "counterfeit marriage structure" by the Catholic church, since I was divorced from my first husband. I (and, I suspect, most of the "divorced and remarried" community) could care less what the Pope or anyone else thinks.

    "That said, we will need to find some post SCOTUS decision pathways to compromise with our gay and straight citizens."

    If you voted for Amendment 3, could you tell us when you changed your mind about "compromise"?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 23, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    I have read this article a couple of times and the article seems to be a series of wishful thinking. The author is attempting to use "federalism" as the constitutional element that will allow Utah and other states to maintain their stance against SSM. "State-by-state disputes will be messy. But conflicts about fundamental values are best reconciled through politics, and through the mediating institution of federalism".

    However, this concept seems to imply the notion that the United States is the same as in 1786 when travel was difficult and most people were born and die in the same area. The pre-amble of the constitution ndicates that : "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    If the Constitution is the base of our laws. Then Federalism cannot be applied to restrict the rights of citizens of this nation.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 23, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    @ RedShirt

    "In the first about guns, the constitution is quite clear that the people have a right to own weapons."

    The constitution makes no such declaration. It says they have the right to "keep and bear arms"; nothing at all about "owning weapons." If you are going to play a semantics game with the constitution to support your argument at least have the decency to be consistent.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 23, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    @RedShirt;

    The Constitution is clear about the right to bear arms.

    It is ALSO very clear about the right to Equal Protection.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 23, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    The Constitution also makes no mention of the "Right to Pursue Happiness" so are we to assume that is not a right?

    It also makes no specific reference to capitalism or the "free market" are we to assume that the government can create a complete communistic society?

    It makes no reference to churchs being free from taxation...are we to assume we can rescind that?

    Or can we assume there are some rights not enumerated in the Constitution that are just as important as the ones so listed? (See amendment IX).

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 23, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    =====

    RedShirt,

    Please tell my what "well regulated militia" you belong to,
    and "keep and bear arms" says nothing about ownership.

    The Government "issued" an M-16, and KC-135 jet to me to keep and bear.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 23, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    To "my_two_cents_worth" wow, you really need to go back to grammar school. To "keep and bear arms" means to own weapons. The 2nd Ammendment states that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The word keep means "to retain in one's possession or power" or "to continue having or holding" If it was only a matter of being able to use government issued weapons, then it would only state that you can bear arms. However, since it stated to keep arms, that means that you retain ownership of arms.

    Please go back and re-read the US Constitution.

    To "MaxPower" very good. You do not have a federally protected right to persue happiness, and that is good because how can you define happiness? Actually, the government cannot engage in a communistic society because it violates most of Section 1 of the Constitution.

    Yes, we could rescind the tax laws that gave ALL non-profit organizations tax exempt status.

    See the 10th ammendment for what to do about rights not listed in the Constitution. Anything not listed is up to the States or People to decide.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 23, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    @Red Shirt.

    The constitution does not state that the people have a right to own weapons. The right to "keep and bear arms" is subject to many interpretations one of which could be "own weapons." But since "ownership" like "marriage" is not specifically stated, using your argument, we cannot assume either are rights.

    You can't have it both ways: either ALL of the constitution is literal or All of it includes implied rights not specified.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 23, 2014 3:23 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    So...how does the Ninth Amendment play into your thinking? It specifically states that not every right is enumerated, and the enumeration of rights cannot be construed to be exhaustive.

    This nation was founded on the rights of "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness" and John Locke (not a framer, but it was his ideas that influenced the Social Contract known as the Constitution) included the Right to Property. Governments role is to protect those 4 rights, in exchange for some of our Rights (generally Rights that when exercised to their fullest would violate one or more of the rights listed above for someone else) otherwise our ability to engage in said activity should be protected (like choosing the partner of my choice)

    Actually, reading Article I (assuming that is what you meant by Section I) there would be no restriction on Congress from implementing a communistic economic model (important to separate economic model from the political model) would you please cite for me at least one provision that would be violated?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    To "my_two_cents_worth" I don't like the idea of "implied" rights becuase that comes down to opinion that can change from year to year.

    To "MaxPower" I don't see any problem with that. All it is saying is that not all rights were listed in the Constitution, and that you can't twist the constitution to deny somebody rights that are retained by the people. That is why we have the 10th Ammendment, so that we know what to do with the rights that are retained by the people. The 9th Ammendment has never been part of the question with SSM.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 23, 2014 5:35 p.m.

    @Redshirt

    So if by your account there are rights we posses not listed in the Constitution, can we vote then away? Can I put your marriage on a ballot, or your right to pursue happiness? Create a special officer at the State level that gets to determine how you seek happiness?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 23, 2014 5:55 p.m.

    @redshirt
    If you want to play semantic games I could just as easily hand you a butter knife and say, "there you have your arms and therefore your rights are not being violated, after all the second amendment does not say I have to allow you to own a gun." silly you say? no more so then claiming that gay peoples rights are not being violated by claiming they have equal protections and access to marriage because they can marry someone of the opposite sex and therefore the ninth and fourteenth amendments do not apply.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 23, 2014 6:54 p.m.

    To both wrz and Mike

    Both of you failed, and failed miserably, in your response to me. Nothing you posted even remotely approached something that looked like a list. Furthermore, nothing you said was backed up by actual evidence from nations that legalized same sex marriage several years ago. I asked for actual evidence and neither one of you could come up with so much as a single point.

    wrz could you please provide me with actual evidence from one of the nations where same sex marriage is legal and the things you have mentioned have become a reality?

    As for you Mike the burden is in fact not on me but on you. Unlike you I've actually studied history and I've seen where homosexuality was an important part of some cultures that not only thrived but lasted longer than the U.S. has been in existence so far. Given these facts the burden is on you not only to provide actual evidence of your claims but also to provide that the deity you worship is actually exists let alone actually means anything. As of now your deity is worthless.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:05 p.m.

    For all those who want to defend something wrong(think slavery), it doesn't matter how long or how hard you defend it, it is still wrong. it doesn't matter whether the courts rule in your favor(think Dred Scott), the travesty and division that it causes (as the nation's conscience can not be squelched) will inevitable lead to its eradication (either civil war or God's wrath or an emancipation from its destructive effect on God's children). Compulsion to do make legal(think slavery) is no justification for the 10th or the 14th amendment! What do the SSM supporters suppose they are to do wth those who know that Marriage is between a man and a women and that children who come to this earth deserve a chance to live under God's greatest instrument for their opportunity and growth?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    RedShirt says: "See the 10th ammendment for what to do about rights not listed in the Constitution. Anything not listed is up to the States or People to decide."

    EXCEPT you forgot to read this phrase which contradicts what you just wrote:

    "...nor prohibited by it to the States,...". This little phrase effectively PREVENTS States from violating other clauses in the US Constitution; including the 14th, 5th and all others. States absolutely do not have the right to violate the Equal Protection clause.

    @Kalindra;

    Actually, the appendages from his shoulders to his wrists would qualify as "bear arms". :)

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:20 p.m.

    @Light and Liberty,

    Who is advocating the reinstatement of slavery?

    It's arguments like that that make your other arguments seem silly. Slavery causes an obvious infringement on the rights of others (the right to Liberty) and almost universally Dred Scott is regarded as the biggest mistake the Supreme Court has made.

    On a religious level, I fully agree with you; however in a legal realm, where laws must be secular for us to enjoy religious freedom, no harm can be shown to you, your marriage, or your kids if your gay neighbor can marry the man of his dreams.

    If you can show demonstrable harm, you need to race on down to the AG office, because all of them are getting their tails kicked (something like 19-0 since Windsor)

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:29 p.m.

    @light and liberty
    So you are equating those fighting to end the oppression of the gay community who are being forced to live as second class citizens with those that supported slavery and segregation, while equating those that are the oppressors with being the slaves and those forced into segregation? The only thing the religions that appose gay marriage are being "forced" to do is not force others to live by thier religious dictates. They can believe gay marriage is a sin that is thier choice they do not however get to force others to live as second class citizens because of those beliefs.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    June 24, 2014 2:14 a.m.

    higv
    Dietrich, ID
    "@10cc The right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution the right to marry someone of the same gender isn't. Laws on woman's suffrage, against segregation were made by the legislature, roe vs wade and judges overturning the will of the people are based on things not found in constitution. Equal protection never did or will give people of same gender right to marry. Why are they just now finding that out a century and a half after amendment was passed?"

    --OK, then: the Supreme Court is not meant to rule for the basic fairness intended in the Bill of Rights?

    --In my view, the issue behind opinions such as yours and others is that they are diversions, to shield one's religion from having to notice that their own children are being damaged.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    June 24, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    Here is the crux of the issue. It is wrong (just as slavery was wrong). The SSM advocates want to overturn thousands of years of tradition and protections for society and children in one fail swoop, all because they want to change the meaning of one word. I am not against granting gays all the rights that every other citizen enjoys, just don't claim it is marriage. Call it another name, for Marriage is only between a man and a women and can not be changed! As far as being wrong, which it is, and blatantly so, the division and contention will only get wider and stronger because, just as slavery, conscience is a hard thing to sqealch on a societal level. Individually, it can be, as evidenced by slave owners in the south who wanted it to continue. Societal level brought eventually to the breaking point and it was eventually eradicated, thank God!

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    June 24, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    Mr. Clark misses the point entirely. The United States Supreme Court will decide how the United States Constitutional principle of equality will be applied to all people in all states. We are still the United States of America.

    Equality is not a principle that can be "compromised" and mean 50 different things among the states.

    And Amendment 3 was anything but a "compromise."

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 24, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    @Light and Liberty

    Call it another name, for Marriage is only between a man and a women and can not be changed!

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

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck.

    Or as Shakespeare so eloquently stated "What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?"

    Besides, wouldn't a different name create a kind of "caste system" for marriages? Could all rights be guaranteed if it were something else?

    And for these people, there relationships are just as special to them as mine with my wife is to me. Who am I to say they can't say they are "married?" Why don't we give them "marriage" and if you feel offended by sharing the word, call yours something different?

    Marriage has always changed to suit the times...at times it was man and several women; at times it involved concubines; at times wives were property; at others they could give hand maidens to their husbands. But ultimately it has always been the ultimate commitment a couple could make.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    June 24, 2014 8:22 a.m.

    Light and Liberty
    St. George/Washington, UT
    Here is the crux of the issue. It is wrong (just as slavery was wrong).

    =======

    Dude, enough with the Slavery issue already.

    You have it 180 degrees completely backwards.

    Slavery was about a Majority,
    dictating that a minority were lesser Humans,
    and therfore not equal or protected the same under the law.

    The Progressive Abraham Lincoln and others passed the 14th Amendment and said they are.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 24, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    To "Darrel" yes, according to the US constitution if the right is not listed within it, it is up to the state and people to decide. If they want to do away with a right they can.

    To "Kalindra" now you are being silly. A butter knife is not considered a weapon. If we followed the constitution strictly there would be no limit to what I could have as a weapon.

    Gays are equally protected under the marriage laws that say marriage is between a man and a woman. None of the laws state that to be married you must love the other person, they only state that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Sexual orientation is not taken into account when a man and woman are married. They are granted equal protection as they are not questioned about their sexual orientation nor are they denied marriage to a person of the opposite gender because of their sexual orientation.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 24, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    @RedShirt

    So are the powers of the State and People otherwise unlimited? Could a State, for example, go against Loving v Virginia and re-institute a ban on interracial marriage? Was Alabama right in refusing to go along with Segregation in schools (after all, education is a State matter)

    Can a State leave the Union? After all, it is not prohibited in the Constitution. Can a State setup a State religion, or ban it all together? After all, the First Amendment only prohibits Congress.

    Can a State setup a board that determines what profession each child shall learn?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 24, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    To "Darrel" the power of the State and People are not unlimited. They are limited by the US constitution and State constitution.

    A state could not institute a ban on interracial marriage because that clearly goes against the 14th Ammendment. Yes, Alabama was right in refusing to go along with segregation.

    Some states could leave the Union, however, I think most have a clause similar to Utah which says that that Utah is part of the US. Utah Constitution Article I, Section 3. Without changing the Utah constitution they cannot leave the union. There are good arguments on both sides for individual states being able to establish an official religion. I haven't decided which one makes the most sense to me.

    A state could set up a board to determine what profession each child should have. I doubt any would do soright now.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    June 24, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    Logical extension of one of the arguments against gay marriage: It's not in the Constitution. Well neither is traditional marriage, so following your logic, a state could ban all marriages.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    June 24, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    Ah oh!

    Another marriage equality domino has just fallen.

    The 9th Circuit Court has --rejected-- the sua sponte call for an en banc rehearing in the SmithKlein v. Abbott Labs case, thus allowing the original 3-panel decision to stand. (SmithKlein ... is a jury selection case involving a potential juror, who is gay).

    This latest event is somewhat complicated and obscure, but has very real implications for the federalism argument made by Drew Clark in this opinion piece. -- Heightened scrutiny at the circuit court level for LGBT people, throws all kinds of monkey wrenches into the scenario Mr. Clark imagines. Keep in mind, this case pertains to the 9th circuit, not the 10th -- but this does NOT help Mr. Clark's arguments.

    Dissenting in the rejection of the en banc rehearing were justices O’Scannlain, Bea and Bybee -- first two Catholic, Bybee, Latter-day Saint.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2014 1:03 p.m.

    Meckofahess
    "I personally favor some type of a state recognized "same-sex partnership" which includes equality in typical benefits (taxation, inheritance, etc) but which also recognizes a legal definition difference between a same-sex partnership and a man-woman marriage."
    KJK
    That same logic was used when the South had separate drinking fountains for Blacks and Whites. The law gave both races the same cold clear water (government benefits) "but which also recognize(d) a legal definition difference between" them.

    Meckofahess
    Too many gay relationships end up in separation and any children adopted into those circumstances must suffer the consequences. Children growing up in gay homes notice that their family structure is different from the majority of families and this raises serious questions and doubts for them. Children adopted into gay households most often don't share in the same-sex attraction which again causes them to have doubts about that lifestyle and results in confusion for them.
    KJK
    Giving gays marriage would discourage separation as it does with straight couples. Mixed race/religion/step families are likewise different than most. Should those too be outlawed?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    June 24, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    Meckofahess writes, " Children growing up in gay homes notice that their family structure is different from the majority of families and this raises serious questions and doubts for them."

    Who told you about these "serious questions and doubts?

    The majority of children are NOT growing up with June & Ward Cleaver. There are families with stepkids, families with no kids, grandparents raising kids, single moms and single dads, each with kids. Then there are families with two moms or two dads, and some have kids and some don't. Then there are foster homes and group homes and homes with adopted kids. And families with his, hers, and ours. And families where both spouses work and families with disabled parents. And three generation families. Some of these families raise happy and confident kids, and some mess up badly.

    The gay parents I know teach their kids that they can grow up to be anything they want and they can love whomever they choose. It sounds like this bothers you.

  • SLC guy Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    It would sure have been nice if the founding fathers included a few basic rights for children when they wrote the constitution. Those we don't kill off before birth go to broken or alternative lifestyle homes. Welcome to the U.S.A. kid!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    @wrz
    "it will open the door for all other conceivable combinations of marriages such as polygamy, polyandry, siblings, father/daughter, mother/son, cousins, children."

    Would you accuse interracial marriage of having that effect, or do you just use this against same-sex couples?

    "why marry at all?"

    If you can't answer that question yourself then I think marriage has far worse problems than same-sex couples.

    "If the courts rule in favor of SSM it will be interesting to see how they arrive at that decision. "

    They could just do what they did with interracial marriage.

    @Baccus0902
    "If you believe in democracy you wouldn't put the rights of other individuals in the ballot!"

    Actually, if you believe in democracy, you can. However, if you believe in a Constitutional Republic, you wouldn't.

    @Redshirt
    " However, since it stated to keep arms, that means that you retain ownership of arms."

    For a well-regulated militia. Are you part of the armed forces? National guard? Personally I think gun owners should be first in line if there's a draft because of the 2nd Amendment (besides, they're the people who know how to use guns).

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    June 24, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    To "Schnee" no, the arms are not for a well regulated militia. The statement that you have the right to bear arms is a separate clause from militia within that sentence. So, if you understand engligh grammar rules, that means that the right to bear arms is separate from a militia.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 24, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    @redshirt

    Once again it the second amendment says nothing about weapons and certainly does not enumerate guns a being among them. You are as entitled to own a butter knife as anyone after all we all have the same rights and protections to do so.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 6:12 a.m.

    We all make up this world! I think that it is really sad that so many people choose to mock what we have to say about ourselves! Tell me, why do people feel such a need to control and dominate the lives of gay people in a way that demeans and degrades us? By now, it is common knowledge that being gay is not something a person chooses and it is not a disease! I thank God every day that I was born into a family that loves and supports me, which is how it truly should be! Whatever happens with same sex marriage, we certainly don't have to accept beliefs that make us out to be nothing but garbage in the eyes of many! The message is pretty clear! I don't like being rude, but there is nothing nice about the way we get treated! I do my best to respect the beliefs of others, but I will not accept beliefs that make me out to be something like a disease! Excuse me, but my God knows me and He created me and He would respect the choices I have made! Too bad that others do not!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    @Redshirtcaltech
    Pretty sure the Founders didn't write half a sentence of nothing.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    @RedShir

    Your way of constitutional interpretation is very interesting. When it comes to gun, you prefer to read the 2nd amendment expansively, the term "keep arms" in constitution and your "weapon ownership" are interchangeable.

    But when it comes to marriage, all the sudden, you prefer to read constitution literally, since there is no word “marriage” in text, marriage is not a constitutional right.

    Can you be more consistent?

    And when it comes to 10th amendment, yet again, you no longer want to read the constitution literally, you want to go expansively, claiming "Anything not listed is up to the States or People to decide." Even though the 10th amendment clearly stated "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED by it to the States,..." which does not allow states to pass law or referendum that is against other parts of federal constitution, i.e. equal protection and equal liberty clause of 14th and 5th amendment. And that is exactly why so many federal judges struck down anti-gay marriage referendum.

    And BTW that term "so many federal judges" now include 10th circuit appeal judges, who just overturned Amendment 3.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    June 25, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    To "USU-Logan" waht is inconsistent? Being able to defend yourself is written in the constitution in the 2nd Ammendment. I don't see the word "marriage" anywhere in the US Constitution. Since marriage is not in the constitution that means that it is NOT a constitutional right. The Supreme Court has also said that marriage is not a Constitutional Right, but is a state issue.

    The judges are just being politically correct, and are not ruling based on the Constitution. They just use the constitution to justify their beliefs. It wasn't politically correct 10 years ago to support SSM, that is why it failed in the 1990's.

    To "Kalindra" and "Schnee" here is the text from the Constitution. It states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There are 2 rights being listed here. First, we are entitled to a militia to ensure our freedom. Second, we are given the right to keep and bear Arms. Militias are/were government entities, and that is why the right was given to the people (you and me) to own and carry weapons.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    @RedShirt

    What is the inconsistency?

    you want to go literally when it comes to marriage, but when it comes to 10th Amendment, you no longer want to read the constitution literally, you want to go expansively, claiming "Anything not listed is up to the States or People to decide."

    Even though the 10th amendment clearly stated “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED by it to the States,..." which does not allow states to pass law or referendum that is against other parts of federal constitution, i.e. equal protection and equal liberty clause of 14th and 5th amendment. But that part of the constitution text means nothing to you. because all the sudden, you don't want to go literally, how consistent!

    Read the 10th circuit decision:

    "We hold that the 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws....."

    And you apparently believe these highly regarded judges with extraordinary credentials are wrong, while you, with no legal credential, are right about constitution. I wonder what is the odd?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    June 25, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    To "USU-Logan" you are confusing. First you claim that marriage is not in the US Constitution, which I agree with. Now you say it is, but not directly. Inconsistency is defined as "lacking in harmony between the different parts or elements; self-contradictory". I say marriage is not found in the Constitution, and you agree that the word marriage is not written there. Now you say it is in the constitution in the 14th Ammendment, but it isn't written their either but is implied.

    You do realize that for something to be considered a Constitutional Right, it must be directly named within the Constitution. Anything else is a state or right of the people, per the US constitution. Marriage rights are, as the SCOTUS has pointed out, a STATE right to regulate. This is where the rulings get weird. The states can decide how to regulate marriage, but they have to regulate it in a way that the Feds agree with.

    Please be consistent in defining Constitution Right.

    You, with no law background, assume that just because a person is a judge they have extraordinary credentials. That is wrong. Many are judges because of political connections, not skill.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    You want to go literally when it comes to marriage.
    But when it comes to 10th Amendment, suddenly, you don't want to go literally, you no longer are consistent, "Anything not listed is up to the States or People to decide"? Even though the 10th amendment clearly stated "...NOR PROHIBITED by it to the States,...".

    You don’t want to go literally this time because you know that part will fail your argument that state can ban SSM, which has been rejected in 22 court decisions since Windsor, so you would rather ignore this part of constitution, how consistent!

    Whether marriage is mentioned in the text or not, SCOTUS has affirmed marriage is a constitutional right for 14 times, I take it as SCOTUS said. Simply because you don't like it cannot change the fact. And like I said, post Windsor, there are 22 consecutive court rulings favor SSM, 22 straight wins, your side? Zero.

    DN only allows 4 post each ID, and I reached the limit. I know you have many usernames to go on, if you find one court ruling favors your side lately, I will get a new username and continue discuss with you. Until then, Bye.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 25, 2014 3:08 p.m.

    To "USU-Logan" Prove it, where has a judge said that marriage is a constitutional right. You are the first liberal to say that it is a constitutional right. Please give me a verifiable reference so that I can see the context of it.

    I have searched the constitution, and nowhere does the constitution say anything about marriage.

    According to a legal dictionary constitutional rights are "rights given or reserved to the people by the U. S. Constitution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments)." Tell me where the right to marry is written in the US constitution. Until you can find that clause in the constitution, you should hold off on responding.

  • intervention slc, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    @redshirt
    So I don't understand your point. Are you agreeing with their arguments that neither guns or weapons are actually enumerated in the second amendment? The only thing you are doing is proving there point for them.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 25, 2014 5:30 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: You need to re-read the Constitution.

    Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    The 9th Amendment talks about rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution - such as marriage - and very clearly states that those rights are retained by the people. Starting with Maynard v. Hill in 1888, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that marriage is one of the unenumerated rights retained by the people.

    The same-sex marriage rulings affirm that this right exists and cannot be limited based on gender.

    The 10th Amendment gives states and the people the power to create and define laws - as long as the states and/or the people are not doing things delegated to the Federal government - such as declaring war or creating treaties with foreign powers - or prohibited by the Constitution - such as violating the 14th Amendment.

    "Rights" and "powers" are very different words with very specific meanings.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 8:21 p.m.

    What culture war is he referring too? Did he start one?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 26, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    Dear Deseret News and friends. Living in the denial step of the grieving process for a long time can be very stunting. We suggest you seek therapy. Marriage equality is coming.

  • Seneca Falls Salt Lake, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    1. The result of Roe v. Wade and the ensuing culture war about abortion is relevant, but not a slam dunk. SCOTUS was way out in front of public opinion and that is what sparked the backlash we're still dealing with today.

    In the case of same-sex marriage, no such backlash would occur because a ruling that says banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional would not be premature, but rather would reflect the opinion of the majority.

  • Seneca Falls Salt Lake, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    2. Most attorneys general have actually refused to defend state laws against same-sex marriage, and all federal judges who have heard cases have declared such laws unconstitutional. With the 10th Circuit ruling yesterday, we have an appeals court now in agreement.

    3. There is no way that SCOTUS will let the states have their own way on this issue. Wildly different marriage laws from state to state would not only be unjust, but affect other important issues like interstate commerce indirectly. That is why the 2004 ruling in MA was so important.

    4. The makeup of the Court seems to suggest that the Justices will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote that way, and we have every reason that Kennedy will do so as well. He is already known for opinions that respect "dignity," and this case would cement that legacy as the capstone of his career.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    Guess what, your right, the debate probably will not end soon! Give me a break, to do unto others as you would have them do to you, isn't very hard to understand! There is a lot of information these days about homosexuality and for people to insist that there is something wrong with us, in my opinion, is pathetic! Gay people have deep religious beliefs as well as Mormons, and you know what, we were not some kind of accident! It is safe to say that God did create people gay, which would mean that he has a plan for us! For somebody to try and tell me that I am an offense to God is extremely insulting! then, for people to pass laws that restrict us from living our lives the way we believe is absurd! Come on! There is no need for God to be offended by my life! I have lived a good life and shared it with my partner and it is so offensive that others feel a need to degrade my life! To hide behind God while doing these things is. well, pathetic!