There's also that recent 4th circuit appeals court ruling striking down
Virginia's same-sex marriage ban (2-1 decision).
Because so many Circuit courts are ruling consistently, the SCOTUS may decide to
simply let those rulings stand.Which is a victory for justice and
equality in Utah and America!
The supreme court has delayed this decision long enough. It's time for them
to settle this once and for all. The state no longer has the right to define
I understand the need for full judicial review, but how many lower court
opinions does the Supreme Court need to proceed? SCOTUS started this ball
rolling with the Windsor decision, how about a final decision one way or
another? How about letting the three Appeals courts that are having
oral arguments in the next month complete their work, and then get on with it?
Do we really need to have every state and federal judge in America weigh in on
@Beehive1: States have never had the right to define marriage in such a way that
it violates Federal Constitutional civil rights provisions. See: Loving v.
Polygamy is wrong, and all other practices that this article refers to; if we
allow one then we open a floodgate and have to allow all. Then chaos reigns.
People may disagree, have a right to disagree. Yet a law suit culture is not
good for the future. We can all argue about art and philosophy and sunsets and
flowers and what to eat for dinner and where to go hiking or what book to read,
or which of the 472 hobbies in the world are best to take up, or we can
rearrange the furniture. Forgive others and don't live by lawsuit. The
Bible is more important than the Constitution, and with the topic of this
article, you have to choose which one you will follow.
@I M LDS 2"Because so many Circuit courts are ruling
consistently, the SCOTUS may decide to simply let those rulings stand."No. You're wrong. Justice Ginsburg has already stated that the
Supreme Court will rule on this issue.
Let's see, now what was that tune Dandy Don Meredith use to sing on Monday
night football?Oh yes, it goes something like this:"Turn out the lights, the party's over, they say that all good things
must end""Call it tonight, the party's over, and
tomorrow starts the same ole thing again" . . . . Willie Nelson,
oh and btw, I believe Willie supports marriage equality too.
@I M LDS 2No. Justice Ginsburg has already stated publicly that the
Supreme Court will rule on this issue.
Federal judges are creating a Constitutional right that didn't exist in
1972 - after Loving. See Baker v Nelson. Yes, the Supreme Court
needs to decide this matter, and I hope they follow the actual meaning and
intent of the Constitution.
There still remains very strong feelings about this issue in both directions.
Hopefully, both sides can maintain civility and respect for those who don't
necessarily share their same opinion. It's sometimes extremely difficult to
walk in someone else's shoes and thus remain non-judgmental. No
matter what the Supreme Court ultimately decides on this, there will always
remain strong feelings in the other direction for various reasons. It will be a
test of our society's civility and strength in seeing how well that
decision is accepted and upheld by our country in general, since that Supreme
Court decision is basically final and can't be appealed further... no
matter what the ruling ends up being.
Even if SCOTUS rules that the states can ban gay marriage and define marriage as
they see fit the states will cave on this issue and eventually allow gay
marriages because of the economic threats and boycotts that will follow.
@ waikiki_dave:Wow. If Willie Nelson supports SSM, then by all means
it must be the way to go. Afterall, letting old, has-been and washed-up
entertainers decide such critical issues in our society seems like the only
sensible thing to do. If that is your strongest argument, you really
need to go back to the drawing board. It's one of the weakest I ever
remember reading. It actually makes the other side's perspective somehow
@DutchmanIsn't that how the free market works? I factor in your
ethics before buying your goods, thus promoting more social unity and cohesion.
If I choose to discriminate or produce negative externalities without paying for
them, is it not acceptable for my customers to encourage better behavior by
patroning another merchant?
@christoph wrote: "Polygamy is wrong, and all other practices that this
article refers to; if we allow one then we open a floodgate and have to allow
all. Then chaos reigns."This is what we call the slippery slope
fallacy. Just because it's inevitable in your mind does not mean it is
inevitable in reality."Yet a law suit culture is not good for
the future."I hope you sent a strongly-worded letter on this
topic to Speaker Boehner."The Bible is more important than the
Constitution, and with the topic of this article, you have to choose which one
you will follow."I must have missed where it says "thou
shalt prevent same-sex couples from marrying under civil law." It's
probably right next to the verses about selling cakes.
All the natives screamed that the investigation of Swallow was a waste of
money.That was an INVESTMENT. THIS is a waste of our money.
Objectified - "No matter what the Supreme Court ultimately decides on this,
there will always remain strong feelings in the other direction for various
reasons. It will be a test of our society's civility and strength in seeing
how well that decision is accepted ... ."It will never be
accepted by some. The test of civility will be whether we, as individuals who
disagree with the Court, condemn the inevitable incivility and violence that
follows. We have civil rights and abortion decisions that still inflame
extremists - but too many citizens accept the occasional abortion-clinic
shooting/bombing or racially motivated discrimination.
It is inevitable. I think even the State of Utah wants to prove that they have
done all that they can and then live with the result.
Excellent. It had to be appealled. Two points: 1) The citizens of a State MUST
have the right to define marriage correctly -- ONLY between ONE man and ONE
woman. 2) Equality in marriage already exists. Any man of age can marry any
woman of age. If you delude yourself into thinking you are "for
equality" in all things, then are you for stripping out "age" as a
determining factor? Equal would then be universally equal.
"It comes down to this: Thousands of mixed-race couples are
unconstitutionally being denied the right to marry, or millions of voters are
being disenfranchised of their vote to define marriage," the confederate
state of Virginia wrote in its concurrence with Utah.
@RockOn wrote: "Any man of age can marry any woman of age. If
you delude yourself into thinking you are "for equality" in all things,
then are you for stripping out "age" as a determining factor? Equal
would then be universally equal."There's a rational basis
for limiting marriage to people above the age of majority (or up to two years
younger in specific cases): because children cannot consent to entering into
contracts, contracts that could affect them for the rest of their lives.What is the rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex
couples? It doesn't exist. The only reason for banning same-sex marriage is
The Supreme Court will take it up. They will decide that laws banning SSM are
unconstitutional. I am a religious man who believes homosexuality is a sin. That
being said, I have homosexual friends and have nothing against them as people.
Don't believe me? That's fine, but it is true. I have friends in all
walks of life that do things that I consider to be sins (I struggle with my own
sins). In the end what matters most is that people like me who believe it is a
sin still need to be kind and respectful to those who have a different set of
beliefs. I would ask the same in return. As long as my faith is not forced to
cater to SSM (which I don't see happening in my lifetime) life will move
on. I do see polygamy being the next issue to come to the front in this arena of
marriage, but that is another story for another day.
From the article -- "The state's petition says the difference in the
competing views of marriage is not that one side promotes equality, justice and
tolerance, while the other endorses inequality, injustice and
intolerance."Endorsing inequality, injustice and intolerance is
exactly what the state is trying to do.====================@SoCalChris 1:07 p.m. Aug. 5, 2014Yes, the Supreme Court needs to
decide this matter, and I hope they follow the actual meaning and intent of the
Constitution.--------------To follow the actual meaning
and intent of the Constitution, the Court ruling would allow secular same-sex
marriage but rule that churches have the right to determine who is eligible for
religious marriage according to the doctrine of each. The meaning and intent of
the constution would thereby be satisfied and followed in every regard.
@Rock On"If you delude yourself into thinking you are "for
equality" in all things, then are you for stripping out "age" as a
determining factor? "Well then it's a good thing
that's not the argument. The argument for interracial marriage involved
removing race from the requirement list, same-sex marriage just looks to remove
gender from the requirement list.
Strongly charged devicive issues need calm minds to find middle grounds. The
battle lines are now drawn and neither side will retreat.My
suggestion: Allow both sides some dignity. For those with moral beliefs for
Natural Marriage, they need to allow those who want NO rules on marriage all the
contractual rights Natural Marriage has without the label. Leave Marriage to the
Natural law definition.Both sides win.
In my opinion, the only thing that is inevitable is that whatever ruling the
Supreme Court comes up with will end in societal division. Roe v Wade never
settled the abortion question and hundreds of millions of Americans oppose
abortion and that trend is growing. You cannot adjudicate immorality!. A court
cannot decide what is moral or immoral, those are questions of the conscience.
If past commentaries posted by the majority of the gay community are any
indication, it is not likely that they will act with civility to those who are
on the other side of the debate if SCOTUS rules against SSM. Predictably, if
the court rules in favor of SSM many in the gay community will believe that the
rest of us should just suddenly abandon our moral conscience and accept it with
open arms. Not going to happen.
Homosexual marriage will never happen after the SCOTUS makes their final
Christoph, if you "live by the Bible", you'll have the right to
enslave people in neighboring countries. I think that both the Canadians and
the Mexicans might disagree with you, even if you do point out chapter and
When all is said and done, no matter how it turns out, I want my portion of the
millions of dollars the state has wasted on this refunded to me. All the
problems we have in this state, and we throw millions of dollars at this?
History shows us that marriage is not defined by those who are excluded.
Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon child molesters and spousal
abusers to civil marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in the
institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry. Tradition is simply
not a valid reason to continue a practice of discrimination. There are no
Interracial marriage licenses. There are no felony marriage licenses. There are
no non-procreative marriage licenses. Allowing same-sex couples to participate
and/or strengthen the existing institution, means there is only ONE marriage
license for all. Nothing has been re-defined. Look no further than
"traditional voting" which was NOT "re-defined" by allowing
women the right to vote anymore than freeing slaves changed the definition of
freedom. A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of
intimacy is simply no right at all. The "redefinition argument" is a
logical fallacy and complete nonsense.
RockOn, your suggestion of "all the rights, just don't use the word
'marriage'" bears a remarkable resemblance to the pre-1954
arrangement of "separate-but-equal" facilities in the South. And we all
know how well that worked. Meck, if you want to guess how civil the
anti-SSM crowd will be when SCOTUS lets the lower court rulings stand, just read
the posts being made today. Not too many of them score high on the civility
index. Might I gently remind you that the Samaritans were a despised lot, and
may well have been considered "immoral", but Jesus said some pretty nice
things about the one who helped that injured guy.
The link in the side-bar to the full text of the Utah appeal filing is broken.
If it's not fixed by the time this gets posted, you can also find it on the
Scribd website. Just search for 235952087.It's pretty
hilarious, if you want my opinion. It's as if Gene Schaerr hasn't
read any of the failed briefs that have been losing all year long in courts all
over the country. He tries to sell Baker again. To the Supreme Court! He
raises Tradition, another perennial non-starter. And then he, apparently with a
straight face, goes on to assert that Utah's law meets EVERY standard of
judicial review.You opponents of same-sex marriage better hope the
Supreme Court doesn't take his brief. You'll have a better chance
with almost any other state's. This one is pretty weak sauce. You're paying him for this?
@HankJr: Hello? Are you aware there's a whole country that surrounds
Utah, and 20 of those other states (including DC) where marriage equality is the
law of the land RIGHT NOW, where same-sex couples are marrying TODAY? In fact,
those states represent some 44% of the population of the US.No
matter what the Supreme Court rules, those 20 states (including DC) will
continue to have legal same-sex marriage. I also suspect, strongly, that even
if they rule that Utah can keep part of Amendment 3, at a very minimum the
non-recognition part will be struck down. Because... if the Federal Government
has to recognize a same-sex marriage conducted in a jurisdiction that permits
it, where in heck is Utah going to find the footing to set itself above the
Federal Government? (Hint: Not going to happen. "States Rights" are
additive, not subtractive.)
Most of the objections are either:A-- My religion has no place for
it, so neither does the Constitution.B-- Those people are not worthy
of sitting in my part of the bus.Small-mindedness, prejudice,
snobbery, inflexibility --- not at all Christian
Why is it okay for two women in love to get married but not three? Why is their
love not respected like that of the two women? If same gender marriage is
approved, there will be... unintended results.
"...The state's petition says the difference in the two predominant and
competing views of marriage is not that one side promotes equality, justice and
tolerance, while the other endorses inequality, injustice and
intolerance...".The exact defense states rights advocates used
in Loving v Virginia."...In his dissent, Judge Paul Kelly wrote
that the Constitution is silent on the regulation of marriage and that power is
reserved to the states, albeit consistent with federal constitutional
guarantees...".Another example echoing states rights advocates
thinking in Loving v Virginia.How did these lines of thinking work
for states rights advocates in Loving v Virginia?The slippery slope
arguments used by states rights advocates today are the same slippery slope
arguments used by states rights advocates in Loving v Virginia.How
did these lines of thinking work for states rights advocates in Loving v
@slightyoffcenter It is the people trying to redefine marriage that are
bringing it up and the Governer and AG are doing what they have a duty to do.
Besides that money is a drop in the bucket as most school districts and highway
departments have budgets well over what the State is spending in something it
was put up on. Should you refuse to pay personal legal fees because that money
could be better spent when you are wronged. The State of Utah is doing
it's constitutional duty to defend the voters. Ask the plantiffs to pay
the fee's. Do we need to roll over and play dead when we are litigated
against for money sake.
Quickslow87,To answer your polygamy question, it's a question
of equality. Marriage as currently granted and adjudicated (and there's a
lot of adjudication involved with marriage) is an equal partnership of two
people who are granted next-of-kin status by the State. This next-of-kin status
supercedes their natural blood families. And, by legal design, in modern
marriage, it's an equal partnership.Imagine adjudicating
survivorship, guardianship, divorce, or child support in an polygamous marriage.
Today, in a two-person marriage, if one of them is unconscious, taken ill with
no living will or health-care proxy, the other can speak for them and make
decisions. What happens if there are three other spouses? Who don't
agree? What happens in a polygynous family, when one wife sues for
divorce and child support? That breaks their economic model and could
impoverish the remaining family and children.Marriage is a legal
arrangement, first and foremost. Unless an arrangement can be as balanced as
one with only two partners, there is no way any state is going to approve such a
legal status. It's an administrative nightmare unless they say
@Testimony, I thought that SSM was a civil rights issue, that two SS people who
love each other should have the same right as hetero marriages? Now you're
saying that it's only an inheritance/survivorship issue?Are you
willing to concede that the civil rights argument doesn't hold water? That
the 'civil right' for three people who love each other is no different
than the civil right for two people who love each other?And as to
your argument about inheritance/survivorship, couldn't that be easily
solved with a prenuptial agreement?
@Understands Math:"... children cannot consent to entering into
contracts..."Laws can be changed... At least that's what
SSM proponents are telling us."What is the rational basis for
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples?"Marriage is designed
to produce and raise children. I'd like to see two men or two women
produce a child. But, if they want to all marry each other, they might be on to
something.@Kaladin:"The Supreme... will decide that laws
banning SSM are unconstitutional."Then the court will have to do
some serious contorting of the Constitution.@Furry1993:"Endorsing inequality, injustice and intolerance is exactly what the state
is trying to do."Agreed... where states are banning polygamy,
and any other combination of marriage.
Gay marriage is on the rise, while America is on the decline.Is
there any time in world history, where a prosperous country was gay?
Why aren't these states stopping the supermen courts and federal courts
state courts and DOJ from passing illegal decisions on what is written into the
constitution? What is written into the constitution is not debatable or the
authority of the judicial system to question, the Constitution limits their
rules of procedure.The state of Utah should be taking their argument
to the Congressmen and the Legislator of law and order to renounce the judicial
departments breaching the separtion of government powers by trying to change the
Constitution to suit their pleasures. The courts can only make opinions of the
intent of laws, not the law itself.By letting the Judaical system
make opinion of the law itself is a breach of their powers and authority. They
do not have this power or authority and its time the legislative branch of
governmetn become responsible and enforce the Constitution and separation of
powers among the branches. The legislators are the power and voice of
representation of the people and have the collective power to change the powers
of the branches of government and even the Constitution and its written laws.
tarbaby,Marriage Equality ("SSM") is a civil rights
issue.Polygamy is not.Other than LDS members, I
don't seem to hear anyone else talking about legal polygamy as either a
threat or a desired outcome.Allowing LGBT folk to marry their
desired partner is not only a clear case of civil justice, it's a
completely logical outcome of legalizing their physical relationships, which the
Supreme Court did in Lawrence v. Texas. It's completely logical because it
still fits the basic model of marriage, which is an equal partnership of two
consenting, unrelated adults who wish to become each others' next of kin
for all emotional, spiritual, administrative and financial reasons.The patriarchal model of polygynous polygamy doesn't work in modern
society because one man is not the equal of two or more women. Not emotionally,
not administratively, not spiritually, and not financially. What if the man
dies or is taken seriously ill? How would divorce affect the remaining family?
Which wife gets to draw retirement based on her husband's Social Security,
certainly not all of them? No, there's simply no way to make polygamy work
legally or equitably.
@Understands Math"Understands Math wrote: This is what we call
the slippery slope fallacy. Just because it's inevitable in your mind does
not mean it is inevitable in reality."No. That's not a
slippery-slope theory - it's clear logic. If marriage is a
fundamental constitutional right for homosexuals, it must be a fundamental
constitutional right for heterosexuals.
@tarbaby5: I think the inheritance and power-of-attorney rights that Testimony
mentions are among the civil rights being sought by SSM proponents, not the sole
definition of SSM marriage privileges.
In their appeal to the 10th District Circuit Court, Gene Schaerr and the other
attorneys working on behalf of the State of Utah argued that marriage is for the
benefit of having children.Unfortunately for them, their argument
was totally inconsistent with Utah's marriage law: Title 30Husband and WifeChapter 1Marriage (EXCERPT)
(2) First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or (b) if both
parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court,
located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is
unable to reproduce.No doubt these highly qualified attorneys will
want to bone up on the inconvenient points of Utah's marriage law before
they present their case to the US Supreme Court, where justices may tell them
they have explaining to do.
@My2Cents says: "The courts can only make opinions of the intent of laws,
not the law itself."You must not live in the US. Here in
American the courts have had the core authority to review the constitutionality
of a law ever since 1803 with Marbury v Madison. Judicial review of the law is
a very basic part of our system of government, and it's why mixed-race
couples are free to marry in the confederate states today.
@ConservativeSmasher wrote:"No. That's not a slippery-slope
theory - it's clear logic.If marriage is a fundamental
constitutional right for homosexuals, it must be a fundamental constitutional
right for heterosexuals."Please list the localities that outlaw
opposite-sex marriage, please.
@christoph, To take your argument to the other extreme, how about doing away
with all marriages of all sexes and make them all chapter S corporations. After
all this is corporate America and corporations are people. God must love
corporations because he is turning the whole big world into one world wide
Utah law states that marriage is between a man and woman. What is to stop a
transgender woman from marrying a man or a transgender man from marrying a
woman? Would this be legal under the current law?
@christoph"the bible is more important than the
Constitution."In this Country the Constitution is the Supreme
Law of the Land. The First Amendment prohibits the Bible from taking
precedents. Government should take every precaution to allow
citizens to live according to their conscious...so long as that does not violate
the rights of others.You claim that polygamy is wrong, but the Bible
clearly supports it. For examples, I refer you to Abraham, Jacob, David,
Solomon. Did Jacob sin in polygamy?
@wrzMarriage is designed to produce and raise children.----------------False. Even the Bible does not support that. God
gave Adam Eve as a help-meet, not to be a child producer. He gave the
commandment to reproduce AFTER they were both created. But in his reasoning to
create her, he did not say to have offspring.Marriage is about
commitment, to each other first and foremost. It is true that children arise
from many of these couplings, but unmarried couples can have kids, and there are
married couples that do not have kids.To be consistent in your
reasoning we would have to give all potential marriage partners fertility tests,
and if within a certain amount of time they have no children dissolve their
marriage.Of course, that would be ridiculous. Therefore marriage is
about Love; not kids.
"A U.S. District Judge Shelby struck down Amendment 3 last December, ruling
that it violates the due process and equal protection guarantees in the 14th
Amendment."The good judge is missing some salient points.'Due process' simply means an assurance that all levels of
American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures. It
says nothing about the fairness or equality of laws.'Equal
protection of the laws' simply means laws will be applied equally to all
citizens of the States. As for laws defining marriage as between one man and one
woman, it is applied equally to all citizens of the state. That is, if someone
wishes to marry they need but to select someone of the opposite sex.If a state takes legal action to extend marriage to same-sex folks in order to
provide equal protection, it must also extend marriage to other combinations
such as polygamy; two/three/four or more men and one woman; Two/three/four or
more women and one man; father/daughter, mother/son, close relatives such as
first cousins, teens, and any and all other possible marriage combinations.
MaxPower"He (God) gave the commandment to reproduce AFTER they were
both created. But in His reasoning to create her, He did not say to have
offspring."Does it matter when God commanded them to reproduce?
The point is, He commanded them to do so. Genesis 1:28: '...and God said
unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...'I fail to see how two guys or two gals married to each other can multiply.
Now, if they wanna marry each other as a group of four they might me able to
pull off the multiply thing."To be consistent in your reasoning
we would have to give all potential marriage partners fertility tests..."Not so. All married heterosexuals likely try to produce children.
Sometimes they fail for some reason. But, two males or two females can try all
day long and not succeed... if I understand the human reproductive system
correctly."Therefore marriage is about Love; not kids."You don't need marriage to love. I would suspect you love your
mother. But that doesn't mean you wanna marry her... or maybe it does.
But I hope not.
@ Understands Math"Please list the localities that outlaw
opposite-sex marriage, please."Well, since polygamous marriage
IS opposite-sex marriage, I'd venture to say it is banned in all 50 states
and US territories.
wrz,States had decided that their definition of marriage did not
include blacks and whites marrying. This was taken before the SCOTUS and they
ruled that this state law was unconstitutional per our 14th amendment. The suit
proved that black/white marriages did not harm others and that those wanting
interracial marriages were not being treated equally. The ruling did not open
the door for gays to marry. It did not open the door for polygamists. It did
not open the door for you to marry your daughter.Now, gays have
petitioned the courts, since states have passed laws that limit marriage to
man-woman. So far, all federal courts have concurred that these laws are
unconstitutional. It will go before the SCOTUS. If they decide that these laws
go against the 14th amendment too, it will not open the door for the number
allowed to marry to change. This will be a different lawsuit that they must
prove how this does not harm others and treats them differently than other
citizens are being treated. That last one might be hard to show since even
those wanting polygamy can marry at least one other person. Your
argument is false.
It's very unfortunate that those souls controlled by dogma can not
understand this issue, and continue to gnash teeth and wring hands over
something that has ZERO to do with their own personal lives.Why is
that, exactly?I still find it both amazing and disturbing that so
many appear to be so very, VERY intensely interested in what goes on behind
other folks bedroom doors. Of what business is it of yours?Do you
contend that there is demonstrable harm caused by allowing same sex couples to
marry? That has lost in court every time. Do you contend that there is
compelling state interest in denying marriage that overwhelms the constitutional
mandate to equal protection of the law? How about the many
churches that either DO or, in non-equality states wish to perform same sex
weddings? Where is their religious freedom?What are you afraid of?
What consequences can you enumerate that will be so dire as to overwhelm the
mandate for equal treatment and the benefits of marriage to gay families, their
children and society?
@ConservativeSmasher:"Well, since polygamous marriage IS
opposite-sex marriage, I'd venture to say it is banned in all 50 states and
US territories."You seem confused. The case in question does not
address laws against bigamy or polygamy in any way.And if the
legalization of same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to the legalization of
polygamy... why hasn't it happened yet?Hence my reference to
the "slippery slope fallacy."@wrz: "Laws can be
changed... At least that's what SSM proponents are telling us."You ignore of course again the rational reason for children being unable
to consent to marriage."Marriage is designed to produce and
raise children. I'd like to see two men or two women produce a child. But,
if they want to all marry each other, they might be on to something."The law has no such child-raising requirement, or even expectation. But
plenty of same-sex couples are raising children, be they biological or adopted.
And they expect the same benefits that opposite-couples receive. And I know of
no reason why they shouldn't.And this being my fourth and final
comment on this article, I bid you all good day.
wrz: "Does it matter when God commanded them to reproduce? The point is, He
commanded them to do so. Genesis 1:28: '...and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...'I fail to
see how two guys or two gals married to each other can multiply."-----------Now, please connect this with our civil construct of
marriage...what does who, when, where, and why have to do with the act of two
people marrying? You know that people can marry who do not have any chance of
procreating...they can try all day and not succeed. Yet, there is no
prohibition to them marrying. In fact, it is purely for the companionship, love
and legal mutual benefits they receive that they do marry. Yes, older,
infertile couples are allowed to partake of the same marriage rights and
privileges that younger, fertile couples can. I know that you like
how the pieces fit, but they are, by law, similarly situated with gay couples.
Check that phrase out in your legal books. It really does have something to do
with treating citizens equally and the 14th amendment. Not to
mention first cousins in Utah...can you explain that law?
@wrz,"Marriage is designed to produce and raise
children."Can you show us where that is codified in law?
TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA"It's very unfortunate that
those souls controlled by dogma can not understand this issue, and continue to
gnash teeth and wring hands over something that has ZERO to do with their own
personal lives.Why is that, exactly?Of what business is it of
yours?What are you afraid of? What consequences can you enumerate that
will be so dire as to overwhelm the mandate for equal treatment and the benefits
of marriage to gay families, their children and society?"--- The
Utah Fuss is simple to explain:1-- Most Gay people in Utah are from
lds families2-- lds religion and life are centered around marriage3-- When non Mormons down the block are marrying, how does an lds parent tell
only one of his kids they must live in celibacy, alone?4-- Thus, equality
threatens the church, not individualsI believe that God has spoken
on this subject, as shown by the whirlwind of acceptance all over the country,
even among DN readers. God keeps loving His children and giving them more
freedom.He has sent new blessings to those who were formerly
excluded by man's ignorance.He did not write church dogma: men
@Rock On...One could not possibly be any more incorrect then your post. #1
citizens of states do not have rights defining marriage "correctly".
(That's the entire point of the lawsuit) #2- Any man of age most certainly
may NOT marry any women of age. #3- Age of consent has absolutely nothing to do
with this matter at hand along with equality! #4- Is your "correct"
marriage that weak and unstable that another's would negatively effect your
own? Do your friends marriage problems (which all married "correctly" I
assume) effect your own in a negative manner?
christoph says:"The Bible is more important than the
Constitution, and with the topic of this article, you have to choose which one
you will follow."--- Then I will choose to follow the
Constitution since the Bible is nothing more than an ancient work of fiction.SoCalChris says:"... the Supreme Court needs to decide this
matter, and I hope they follow the actual meaning and intent of the
Constitution."---You mean the original intent of equality,
liberty and justice for ALL Americans? Or only those you approve of?@Objectified;I'm sure the "civility" of the
anti-marriage crowd, calling LGBT "sinners, abominations, etc." will
continue right along as it is now; with them continuing to work in foreign
nations to criminalize LGBT peoples.@RockOn;The citizens
of the state NEVER had the right to violate the civil rights of their fellow
citizens.@Quickslow87;I love the nebulous
"unintended results" comments. Next, I want to see your post stating
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling...".
@higv;If Utah had not created an amendment violating the civil
rights of LGBT citizens, we'd never have had to take it to court in the
first place; putting the responsibility for the cost right back where it belongs
- on your (Utahns) shoulders.ConservativeSmasher says:"If marriage is a fundamental constitutional right for homosexuals, it
must be a fundamental constitutional right for heterosexuals.'"--- Yes it is, and nobody is telling heterosexuals they can't
5-4 ruling in favor of states deciding marriage laws for their citizens.If I'm wrong, I'll buy you all lunch.
USALover,I'm not sure if you remember last year's Windsor
(DOMA) decision, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of Due
Process and Equal Protection clauses (as set forth in the 5th and 14th
Amendments) for the federal government to refuse to recognize a marriage
solemnized in a state where it was legally valid. The decision invalidated part
of DOMA and ordered the federal government to recognize those marriages.Regardless as to whether a state should or should not be compelled to
allow same-sex couples to marry, how does a state escape that requirement to
recognize a legally constituted marriage from another state where such marriages
are permitted? If the federal government is required to recognize them under
our Constitution, how can a state successfully argue that it is not?I think it's obvious that Utah will at the very least be compelled to
recognize same-sex marriage, even if it is not compelled to allow them to take
place in-state. It's likely, though, that all of Amendment 3 will be
@USALover5-4 ruling in favor of states deciding marriage laws for
their citizens==============The States already can decide
their marriage laws, as long as they do not violate the Rights of the Citizens
as set forth in the US Constitution. The restrictions must be of such that harm
can be shown if the marriages were allowed. Thus far, no State has been able to
prove harm.Even if Utah were to win, and allowed to only perform
Hetero marriages how would you justify not recognizing a same sex marriage from
Massachusetts? The Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV would compel Utah
to recognize that marriage, even if it would not perform that marriage in the
"---You mean the original intent of equality, liberty and justice for ALL
Americans? Or only those you approve of?"I mean the intent of
those who drafted and ratified the Constitution and amendments and not some
fashionable meaning. Again, the right to SSM didn't exist in
1972. It didn't magically appear in the fine print in the past 40 years.
@SoCalChris;The right to EQUAL TREATMENT existed for ALL Americans,
which is incluseive of LGBT Americans, not just heterosexual Americans.No matter how you spin it, the 14th Amendment covers us too; even if you think
it's only "fashionable".
@SoCalChris"the right to SSM didn't exist in 1972. It didn't
magically appear in the fine print in the past 40 years."According to your logic, the right to desegregation didn't exist in 1896,
it didn't' magically appear in Brown v Board of Education decades
@Christoph...Have you ever ate a piece of shellfish? Hope not because according
to your Bible you have committed a major sin. Wasn't aware we all took a
time machine back to the 1600's! Separation of church and state my friend.
Welcome to 2014.
@USAlover"If I'm wrong, I'll buy you all lunch."Before you place that bet you might want to read Scalia's irate
dissent in the Windsor case. That ruling is why your side hasn't won a
single marriage equality case yet. I think you're down 0-34 right now.
Utah, you're gonna loose. Looks like a Substantive Due Process issue. Also
Equal Protection. Utah is giving marriage to one class of people and denying it
to another. Bottom line... you're gonna loose in a 6-3 decision.Remember, you heard it here.
USU-Logan,Good argument. But the 13th and 14th Amendments were
about race not gender. Why else was there a need for the 19th Amend and why was
there a push for the ERA? The Constitution has always recognized
gender differences. We can still segregate restrooms and locker rooms by gender
but not by race. The point is that even after Loving SCOTUS said SSM was not a
Constitutional right.Ranch, I support civil unions and protections
for gays. I don't judge anyone for being gay. But I stop short of saying
that homosexuality is equal in every way to heterosexuality and that gender is a
meaningless feature like hair or eye color when it comes to marriage.
That's what SSM does and I don't see where the Constitution requires
@SoCalChris: "Ranch, I support civil unions and protections for gays. I
don't judge anyone for being gay."While it may comfort you
to proclaim you "don't judge anyone for being gay", in fact, your
stated positions on the matter indicate you absolutely *do* hold judgmental
animus toward them.To wit: you would not allow them to marry, but
instead you wish to enforce a second-tier standard upon them - they can have
"civil unions". I am sure you are aware that "separate but
equal" construct was found unconstitutional long ago. "That's what SSM does and I don't see where the Constitution
requires it."Well, actually... yes, it does.And, of
course, the 14th Amendment: "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."It is this passage within Section
1 of the 14th Amendment that will lead to marriage equality throughout this
country, once these various appeals run their course.
@SoCalChris,where does the 14th amendment say it is about race not
about gender? it is for all Americans, black or white, man or woman, gay or
straight.And even if 14th amendment is only about race, did the
court understand racial issues the same way in 1896 and in 1954? Of course not,
the court, along with American society, evolved too.Just because the
court saw gay right issues in a certain way in the 70s, doesn't mean it
will keep it that way now, and definitely not forever.
@SoCalChris;You stated that marriage for LGBT couples is not
explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.Amendment 9:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."Simply stated, the 9th Amendment says that not all rights are listed in the
Constitution. If "civil unions" are so great that
you're willing to "let us have them", why don't you have one
instead of a marriage? Fortunately, our right to marriage, while not listed
explicitely in the Constitution, exists nevertheless.
You never put civil rights up for a vote as did Utah. I really think the supreme
court will decide that the lower court ruling will stand.