I think both sides of the debate can agree on this one thing: We need a
nationwide ruling on gay marriage.
Utah asked the Supreme Court to answer a single question: "Whether the 14th
Amendment prohibits a state from defining or recognizing marriage only as the
legal union between a man and a woman."===NO Mr. AG,
Amendment 3 did more than simply banning SSM, or "defining or recognizing
marriage only as the legal union between a man and a woman", it excludes the
possibility of civil union too. even if many Utahns now support civil union,
Amendment 3 makes it impossible.That fact alone is an invitation of
striking down Amendment 3.
Well, I feel vindicated. I wrote a rather scathing comment the other day, which
didn't make it into print, criticizing Utah's SCOTUS petition (lead
attorney: Gene Schaerr). Reading the petition, I was struck with how
singularly ineffective those recycled legal arguments have been thus far. I
closed with, "those opposed to marriage equality better hope SCOTUS
doesn't accept this petition. Any other states' would probably be
better for your cause." Apparently, the Plaintiffs'
attorneys must have read the brief and come to the same conclusion.
Well said Web Geek.
"NO Mr. AG, Amendment 3 did more than simply banning SSM, or "defining
or recognizing marriage only as the legal union between a man and a woman",
it excludes the possibility of civil union too. even if many Utahns now support
civil union, Amendment 3 makes it impossible.That fact alone is an
invitation of striking down Amendment 3."So if it removed the
clause excluding civil unions, you would agree with Amendment 3? I
think most people are assuming that the SC will rule in favor of the SSM side
and strike down state amendments banning gay marriage. They say Utah will,
ironically, be the force to allow SSM across the entire country.I
actually think this will go the other direction. I think Utah will be
responsible for upholding State's Rights across the country. Other than
the flubbed first ObamaCare ruling, the SC has been ruling very Conservatively
since then, including the recent strike down of the ObamaCare benefits from the
federal marketplace and the Hobby Lobby ruling.If I were a SSM
supporter, I would be absolutely terrified that this is going to the SC. A poor
strategy on their part for letting it get this far.
@illuminated"So if it removed the clause excluding civil unions, you
would agree with Amendment 3?"the point is, because there is
already such a clause, Amendment 3 is definitely unconstitutional. if you
want to have another constitution amendment without the clause excluding civil
unions, that is a different issue.
illuminated,There is nothing to be afraid of. If it isn't
struck down now, by the time this new generation is grown (yes, even in Utah),
our children will vote to abolish this bad amendment to our state Constitution.
It is just a matter of time.They are not being taught to fear and
hate those who are different, but to accept. They know too many people (some of
whom are related to them) who are not scary or to be feared. They will change
this if we, their parents are too chicken.
@MtnDewer"If it isn't struck down now, by the time this new
generation is grown, our children will vote to abolish this bad amendment to our
state Constitution. It is just a matter of time...They will change this if we,
their parents are too chicken."Even you don't sound too
confident with the SC ruling on this. Good sign. If they do in fact side with
the 10th Amendment, it will mean you will need a 2/3 vote from the states to add
an amendment allowing an override of the 10th on marriage law. All I can say
is...good luck with that. ;)"They are not being taught to fear
and hate those who are different, but to accept."Do you really
think people still buy this straw-man? It's not about hate, man, it's
about states having the right to keep an institution sacred. It's about
Federalism, the concept that the best blood of the 18th century died for.
We're not a Democracy, each person does not get to decide what is best. We
are a Representative Republic with state laws and leaders that are voted upon
by, yes, the -majority-.
How exactly does preventing gay parents who are raising a family from marrying
illuminated: First off, you are reading the 10th amendment wrong. It states
right in there that the states or the people can have the powers not delegated
to the federal government as long as they obey the constitution: "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it (that is the Constitution, btw) to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."That means that the states must
not pass any law regarding these powers that are unconstitutional.Secondly, the state definitely does not have the right to keep an institution
"sacred." That is putting some religious beliefs above others or those
who do not have any religious beliefs. We can show that is unconstitutional
right in Amendment #1, right?If I remember my Civil War history,
states rights were defeated by the Union. (19th Century blood was spilt for
that victory.)The Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.
Our State Constitution also states that fact. Now, we just need to learn how
we can enjoy some rights and privileges that we will not allow other Americans
of enjoying-- and still say we are following the constitution.
Utah had laws preventing interracial marriage from 1852-1963. When that was
overturned, I have to wonder if Utah fought this hard then too.
Web Geek"I think both sides of the debate can agree on this one thing:
We need a nationwide ruling on gay marriage."We need a national
ruling in order to simply the application of the Privileges and Immunities
Clause of Article IV of the US Constitution.And, if SCOTUS rules in
favor of SSM, we need to understand completely how the court came to that
conclusion... not just citation of the 14th Amendment. Because if the 14th
Amendment supports SSM it must also support all other marriage arrangements that
can be conjured by mankind... such as polygamy, siblings and other close
relatives, and even children.And don't tell me that children
can't marry. History is replete with such marriages. But, if you have
trouble with children marrying then just strike it from the list of marriages in
the above paragraph.
MtnDewer, You that misunderstands the 10th admendment....Civil
marriage laws are enactments authorizing the grant of special state benefits for
certain kinds of unions. In other words, they give to people in qualifying
relationships what the Framers called “privileges and
immunities”—an 18th century legal phrase that refers to benefits
bestowed by government on some people to the exclusion of others.American governments traditionally have conceded the “privileges and
immunities” of civil marriage only to a social union complying with
certain exacting requirements. With some variations, state laws traditionally
require that the union be (1) of a man and a woman, (2) who undergo certain
procedures in advance, (3) obtain a valid license, (4) have consented, (5) are
above a certain age, (6) are not married to anyone else, (7) are not too closely
related to each other, and (8) meet certain other requirements of ceremony
and/or cohabitation. States traditionally have excluded from special
benefits all other groupings—including, but not limited to, same-sex
marriages, polygamous marriages, polyandric marriages, other plural clusters,
designated intra-family unions (e.g., brother/sister and uncle/niece), and
unions that are unlicensed or that otherwise fail to meet the states’
@wrz,Depends on what you consider a child. Myself, I think of those
in their 20's as children. In Utah you can legally get married at the age
of 15. Young children cannot sign a legal contract, like those to buy a car,
rent an apartment, or a contract with the state such as a marriage license.
Those who opposed interracial marriage also warned against the same slippery
slope. Personally I would have no problem with the legalization of polygamy. I
have a neighbor who has three wives and many children. They are wonderful, nice,
great people. Utah also recognizes some marriages that are not legal here but
are in other states. You cannot marry your 1st cousin in Utah. But you can drive
to Colorado, marry your 1st cousin there, and drive back. And Utah will still
recognize you as legally married.
wrz,Whenever we (as the government) place a restriction upon a
citizen or group of citizens, we must have a reason for taking their freedom
away. It is easy to see why a blind man is restricted from getting
a driver's license - it is easy to see the harm that can come from that.It is also easy to see why a child under the age of 15 (that is
Utah's law, btw) must have parental approval before they are allowed to
marry. It is easy to see the harm that can fall upon the children of any close
relative that may marry.Now, explain to me the harm in allowing two
lesbians to marry that are raising children. Who is harmed by allowing them to
marry? Will keeping them from marrying cause less harm to them or more harm to
this family? How is anyone else harmed?How about two gay men who
have lived together for 40 years? What harm can come from allowing these two
men to marry? Who is harmed and how?Thanks for your reply.
@FatherOfFour:"Depends on what you consider a child. Myself, I think
of those in their 20's as children."Sometimes my spouse
acts childish."Young children cannot sign a legal contract, like
those to buy a car, rent an apartment, or a contract with the state such as a
marriage license."Change the law so they can sign a marriage
license... with attestations by an adult."Personally I would
have no problem with the legalization of polygamy."I think
alotta young bucks in town would cry foul if some rich dude gathered up all the
young fair maidens and took them to wife."I have a neighbor who
has three wives and many children."That's a little selfish,
isn't it?@MtnDewer:"It is easy to see the harm
that can fall upon the children of any close relative that may marry."What harm?"...explain to me the harm in allowing two
lesbians to marry that are raising children."Explain why they
need marriage? Children can be raised just fine without marriage. Even single
people raise children."How about two gay men who have lived
together for 40 years?"Same question.
@illuminated"If I were a SSM supporter, I would be absolutely
terrified that this is going to the SC."I suggest you read
Scalia's irate dissent in Windsor to learn why he was so upset. The
Windsor ruling is why your side is losing unanimously. Something like 34
courts have now ruled against you in the last years, and not a single one has
ruled in your favor. Windsor is why.
FatherOfFourWEST VALLEY CITY, UT"Utah had laws preventing
interracial marriage from 1852-1963."--If Utah had gotten rid of
that law 10 years sooner, it would have been embarrassingly late for a non-slave
State.All this has to do with the Mormon dilemma: there are at least
100,000 Gays in mormon families in Utah, some too young to have realized it. All
these people are raised in a marriage-centered culture.--- Think of that
13 year old who is hating himself/herself because to follow his true nature
means that he is supposed to spend not only this life, but all eternity,
alone.The lds have been willing to overlook the hurt to many
hundreds of thousands of Americans, and to their own family members, because
they believe God has not given them direction to do differently.I
think that the wave of acceptance of equality that has swept most of the country
(and something like 80% of the young, is a sign that God says He was ready. If Utah does not want to be thought of as equivalent to Mississippi and
Alabama, it needs to move on this issue.
It seems that Utah is focused in making nationwide history.If the
Utah case goes to the SCOTUS and the SC rules in favor of equality and declares
SSM legal in our country, what impact will this have around the world?The LDS church have thousands of missionaries around the world who will be
questioned about SSM and Utah. Obviously the missionaries will state the
position of the church. But just having the conversation is a huge step for the
whole world in the right direction.
"The state contends that ruling deprives Utah voters of their right to
define marriage as they overwhelmingly did in passing Amendment 3 a decade
ago."--- Utah voters did not have the right to pass any
amendment that restricted the Civil Rights of LGBT American citizens; even to
the extent of "defining marriage".@illuminated;"So if it removed the clause excluding civil unions, you would agree with
Amendment 3? "--- At this point, absolutely not!1)
You would have to VOTE to amend Amendment 3 anyway.2) You weren't
willing to allow civil unions when you passed A3, now there is no reason
whatsoever why we should accept some lesser term now that you're losing the
battle in the courts.3) Separate is not equalFrankly, I think
you're assessment is wrong. SCOTUS knows which way the wind is blowing;
additionally, refusal to allow SSM creates a condition where an LGBT couple is
married, divorced, married, divorced, married, divorced again as they travel
from state to state; something that DOES NOT happen to straight couples.
@wrz;"Explain why they need marriage? Children can be raised
just fine without marriage. Even single people raise children."--- Legal protections. Why shouldn't LGBT couples get the same legal
protections for our familes that you get for yours? Are you really that
@USU-Logan:"it excludes the possibility of civil union too. even
if many Utahns now support civil union, Amendment 3 makes it impossible."If I read your thought correctly, you are stating that laws don't
matter. What matters to you in the governance of our society, is opinion polls.
It sounds like we should do away with legislatures, and courts, and just have
polls conducted from time to time.If a group gets the ear of the
media, and they put a positive spin on the desire of that group, then public
opinion will soon support that view and it will soon be law.I think
I prefer to live under the rule of law as established by legislatures. They
don't tend to be swayed as easily by media spin.
@Ranch:Why shouldn't children receive legal protection from
being disadvantaged by being raised by LGBT couples?Every child
deserves to be raised by a mom and a dad. Homosexual women and homosexual men
cannot have children. Maybe this is news to you.Yes, some men or
women have had children, and then emotionally damaged their child by divorcing
their spouse. Should they be legally allowed to damage the child further by
marrying a person of the same sex? Heaven forbid. Or in the case of people who
do not believe in heaven, Society forbid.Are you really so selfish,
to state that the child is meaningless here, and only the selfish desires of the
'partners' should be considered?
everyone who is pro same sex marriage thinks the answer that they desire will be
found in the supreme court... careful what you wish for, the court can be very
subtle and they have a penchant for staying away from legislating from the
bench.. it doesn't really matter what all of these lower court judges think
in the end.
This is good because it will help people who love each other and want to marry
family members and marry multiple people at the time. Why shouldn't group
marriage, polygamy, and inter-family marriage get the same legal protections?
All forms of discrimination are wrong.
@ ConfusedI Googled a section of your comment and it led to another
person's work. You should cite your sources or at least enclose the copied
language in quotation marks.
@Constitutionalist"I prefer to live under the rule of law as
established by legislatures. They don't tend to be swayed as easily by
media spin."So just because interracial marriage ban was the
law, segregation was the law, you would rather live under such rule of law
established by legislatures?Even if there were so many clear-sighted media
rightly pointed out or "spin" those laws were discriminatory?If those laws were not struck down by the court, you think Southern states
would have been desegregated soon?
Constitutionalist says:"@Ranch:Why shouldn't children
receive legal protection from being disadvantaged by being raised by LGBT
couples?"--- You're making the mistaken assumption that
children are "disadvantaged" by being raised by an LGBT couple. "Every child deserves to be raised by a mom and a dad."--- How does denying marriage to LGBT couples ensure that "every child has
a mom and dad"? (Hint: it doesn't).Homosexual women and
homosexual men CAN have children. Maybe this is news to you."Are
you really so selfish, to state that the child is meaningless here, and only the
selfish desires of the 'partners' should be considered?"--- I hope you aren't so selfish as to have/raise children in a household
filled with bigotry.
Where in the Constitution does it say that "feelings" are the basis for
equality? No one would accept a premise that "feeling" poor is reason
enough to steal. No one would accept a premise that "feeling" inferior
is reason to destroy anyone who you "feel" is your superior. No one should ever accept a premise that "feelings" towards someone of
the same sex is a reason to redefine "marriage", to redefine
"family" or to redefine what is acceptable to teach children. We are not paid according to our feelings. No one tries to use the 14th
Amendment to force equality in wages.We are not "housed"
according to our feelings. No one tries to force us to live in identical houses
because of the 14th Amendment.Nothing in law is dictated by
"feelings". That's why we have law. No man is discriminated
against if he wants to marry someone of the opposite sex nor is any woman. No
one is discriminated against for honoring the purposes for which our bodies were
created. Should the 1.6% who have decided to practice same-sex sex redefine
"marriage", "family" and the proper education of children?
@USU-Logan:Your response to me @12:47 took my statement totally out
of context. There is no point in continuing the conversation when this
happens.But I'll make a point anyway, although you'll
probably not read this point any more than your read the last one. You
can't equate same-sex marriage issues to interracial marriage. Interracial
marriages still involve one man and one woman. That's what marriage is.
Same-sex marriage is not a marriage at all. It is an attempt to totally
dismantle the word 'marriage' and reconstruct it according to your
political whims. I might ask, why do you have so little respect for what
marriage is, that you want to destroy it by dismantling it and totally changing
its very purpose and nature?
@Ranch:"--- Legal protections. Why shouldn't LGBT couples get the
same legal protections for our families that you get for yours?"If the family belongs to you through birth or by legal adoption you have all
the legal protection that anyone else has. Marriage adds nothing to the
protection that I'm aware of. If you feel differently, please
elucidate."Are you really that selfish?"Sometimes.
@Ranch:"You're making the mistaken assumption that children
are "disadvantaged" by being raised by an LGBT couple."I
guess that may be a matter of opinion. Children have the best advantage when
raised by their biological mother and father. Surrogates, such as adoptive and
step parents do their best, but this is still not the ideal."How
does denying marriage to LGBT couples ensure that "every child has a mom and
dad?"That's not the point. People aren't perfect, so
parents often split up, causing emotional trauma to their children. This lack of
perfection does not mean that we should condone and legally endorse some
relationships that are obviously flawed, such as same-sex parenting."Homosexual women and homosexual men CAN have children." OK, so take
my words out of the context in which they were offered. Certainly a homosexual
man can still be sexually active with a woman, and thereby father a child, and
visa versa. But same-sex couples cannot have children with each other."in a household filled with bigotry"You are erroneously
equating bigotry with an abhorrence for moral deviance. You are using the word
'bigot' to call evil, good, and good, evil.
wrz,Let me explain...maybe a "for instance" story would help
you understand.For instance, lets say that two lesbians are raising
a child. One has given birth to this child through IVF. The other parent is
the one working to support these two. They have been together for 15 years.
On the way home from work one day, she is in an accident. She is in a
coma. Her partner cannot make any health decisions because the working
partner's parents are fighting her in court as the closest relatives and
they think they should be able to make these decisions. Despite a power of
attorney, the court decides that amendment 3 supersedes the power of attorney
because it looks too much like a "marriage" to be legal. The working partner dies. Her parents claim half of the house as theirs,
causing the mother and her child to sell the house and move. The
mother and child will not receive any SS benefits or pension from the departed
partner, since the child could not be adopted by the partner here in Utah.No harm done, right?A simple marriage license would
alleviate all these problems.
Hope this will be settled soon.We are all quite used to the political hate
day after day posted in the comments on the DN.Stomach wrenching to hear
such hate about people who are good citizens, work hard, and live to provide a
good home for their children.This lack of understanding and tolerance has
turned to cruelty and hatred as it has been passed down from parents to children
Mike Richards 3:09 p.m.We've been down this road before, Mike.
Religion is based on *nothing* but feelings, but it still gets constitutional
protection. You can love love same-sex marriage or hate it, but at least has
tangible results that can be measured in the real world. All you have going for
your side of this argument is "Because God said so."
@ConstitutionalistSo when you are accusing me "laws don't
matter", you are not out of context.but when I pointed out your
position would lead to tolerate legislated segregation, I am out of context? how
convenient!SSM and interracial marriage are two different issues,
but share many similarities. In the past, they were both banned by law,
rejected by general public, condemned by religious community as ungodly
unnatural; and gradually, more and more states, and people, especially young
people, began to accept same sex couples' right to marry, just like
accepting interracial couples' right to marriage in the past."why do you have so little respect for what marriage is"So
according to you, people who support SSM "have little respect for what
marriage is"? Do you know just in the past 2 years, the number of
marriage equality states has jumped from 6 to 19, and still counting? Do
you know since 2010, majority of American people support SSM, and among young
people, 70-80% support SSM? Do you know there is a unbroken streak of 30+
wins in court for SSM?Now in your opinion, we ALL "have little
respect for what marriage is"? how self-righteous of you!
Those 1.6% of the population who are trying to convince the 98.4% of the rest of
us that they have a "new" idea have seemed to fallen victim to their own
propaganda. Now they're insisting that because they reject the fact that
they have the same rights as all other citizens of the United States, I.e. the
right given them by our Creator to marry some of the opposite sex regardless of
race, religion or national origin, that somehow the 14th Amendment
"gives" them rights. Government has no "rights" to give. It
never has and it never will.They also forget that everyone of them
has a mother and everyone of them has a father. Do they really claim that the
1.6 who practice same-sex sex have found something that helps society and
something that promotes the purposes of family?wIt's time the
Court sat everyone down and explained that it will not be party to same-sex
propaganda nor will it destroy the family because 1.6% of the population is
trying to change the Constitution to justify their same-sex attraction.
@ Mike RichardsMike, this is NOT anew idea. The same as the slave's
dream of freedom was not born with Abraham Lincoln.You talk about
the "Creator" as if you new his mind. Pretty arrogant if you ask me. But
let me play with that notion. If the "Creator" doesn't want
homosexual couples, can you explain why:1.- he "created"
homosexuals2.- he "created" sexual drive as one of the main drives
for humans.3.- Could he have "created" some people without sexual
desires. Yes, he could and he did.4.- Have you noticed that throughout
history homosexuals have made unique contributions? Perhaps we were
"created" for that. And he created other of us, because " is not
good for man to be alone".Mike, I am a happy homosexual and
thank my "creator" for everything he has given me and done in my life,
even through this painful process he shows his love everyday.... or dDo you
think this change of mind across the land is because we LGBT are being so
Bob K,Man's true nature is not based on their sexual
attractions, but on their inherent worth as a child of God. The LDS Church
doesn't teach that anyone has to spend eternity alone, but one cannot
expect to break the commandments in this life and receive the blessings of God
in the next.God has given man his commandments, and they do not
change. The Law of Chastity is one of these. A full understanding of his plan of
salvation is necessary to understand why this is. I don't have room to
explain it here, but it is important to remember that God does not think the way
we do. He does not "change with the wind." Moreover, acceptance of
immorality as the norm is not going to change God's commandments.This isn't a matter of equality. All are equal under the law. This is a
matter of deciding to redefine an age-old institution that has benefited mankind
for millennia to fit an ever-expanding definition of what is acceptable
@Baccus0902I'll explain for him. He created us so that we could
obtain bodies, walk by faith and not by sight and eventually become like him. He
ordained the family to help us on this path. Also, he gave us commandments to
protect the family and his children. The living of these commandments is
essential for happiness now and in the eternities.
Be careful what you ask for......