Utah files opening argument in gay ma...

Utah files opening argument in gay marriage case

There are 15 comments on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer story from Feb 4, 2014, titled Utah files opening argument in gay marriage case. In it, Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that:

Utah filed its opening argument with an appeals court in defense of the state's gay marriage ban, which a federal judge overturned in late December.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1 Feb 4, 2014
Ah yes. The vapid old "What about the children?" argument. The problem with that argument is that it is inevitably used in a context that has nothing to do with the welfare of children. It can be used in almost any context where there is no real argument. The observer is supposed to simply surrender logic and say "Of course I want to protect children. You win."

The state of Utah has basically admitted it has no argument. It is hiding behind a shibboleth. And it will soon be exposed.

The fact is that same-sex parenting has never denied a single child of their biological father and mother. Nor does allowing same-sex couples to marry deny any children their biological father and mother.

One of these days, a judge will ask the defendants promoting the "What about the children?" argument how, specifically, same-sex marriages deny a child of his biological parents. The judge will ask the defendants to produce even one child who has been denied his biological family by same-sex couples. The judge will ask the defendants how granting marriage licenses to same-sex families will deprive even one child of his biological family.

Just as when Prop 8 proponents were asked how marriage is harmed by same-sex couples, they will be forced to admit they have no answer. And that will be the end of the legal debate.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 Feb 4, 2014
Let me get this, pardon the expression, straight. If marriage isn't left exclusive to opposite sex couples, heterosexuals will become confused as to what they should and should not do with their reproductive choices? It isn't US who are the problem, heterosexuals are learning disabled and require special education. Got it.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#4 Feb 4, 2014
Apparently UTAH's legal team has been asleep for 20 years and they just woke up
.
The time warp they project is striking
.
Today's world is a very different place than it was 20 years ago

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5 Feb 4, 2014
Here's some reading to take a look at for both Utah and Nevada:
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/marriage/im...

Here's one from the LDS:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/204301205/12-17668-...

You'll notice SEVERAL comments that have been repeated through various other briefs and then they claim there is NO animus towards Gays and Lesbians!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6 Feb 4, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
Ah yes. The vapid old "What about the children?" argument.
They might as well have filed, "we got nothing".

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7 Feb 4, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
Here's some reading to take a look at for both Utah and Nevada:
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/marriage/im...
Here's one from the LDS:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/204301205/12-17668-...
You'll notice SEVERAL comments that have been repeated through various other briefs and then they claim there is NO animus towards Gays and Lesbians!!!
The animus in these arguments is clearly reserved for heterosexuals. It has to be, even a hint that they did this because we are the "problem" and it's over. In this reality, not only is homosexuality not inferior to heterosexuality, it makes us more responsible in our reproductive impulses than those unfortunately born to be heterosexual. If I were straight, I'd be insulted hear that only heterosexuals require this level of adult supervision.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8 Feb 4, 2014
Funny stuff.
Salt Lake Trib wrote:
Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would "tend to encourage more parents to raise their existing biological children without the other biological parent."
Reminds me of a 1934 Cole Porter song referencing tennis pros
The state lists six other possible negative outcomes of such a move, including more out-of-wedlock births;
Right. Because married same-sex couples will have more out-of-wedlock children?
increased divorce rates;
See video above.
increased nonmarital sexual activity;
Because married same-sex couples will have more sex outside their marriages than otherwise?
more children being raised by same-sex parents;
So I guess those children would have been better off never having been born.
make it difficult to bar other "innovations" such as group marriage;
Right. Polygamy is a modern innovation that has no background in the Old Testament. And certainly there is no history of polygamy in Utah!
and decreased interest in marriage.
I guess maybe marriage is like illegal drugs: People only want to express their rebellious nature and will lose interest once it becomes legal?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9 Feb 4, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The animus in these arguments is clearly reserved for heterosexuals. It has to be, even a hint that they did this because we are the "problem" and it's over. In this reality, not only is homosexuality not inferior to heterosexuality, it makes us more responsible in our reproductive impulses than those unfortunately born to be heterosexual. If I were straight, I'd be insulted hear that only heterosexuals require this level of adult supervision.
Exactly......and for them to even make these silly arguments make them look pathetic as well.......I don't believe denying the right to marry for Same-Sex couples will CHANGE the actions of opposite-sex couples in the least and to attempt to argue that makes them look ridiculous as well!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#11 Feb 4, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
Exactly......and for them to even make these silly arguments make them look pathetic as well.......I don't believe denying the right to marry for Same-Sex couples will CHANGE the actions of opposite-sex couples in the least and to attempt to argue that makes them look ridiculous as well!!!
It's been their only successful argument since Baehr. Read back on the opinions where bans have been upheld. There is an it's not us, it really is them undercurrent to all of them. We ban same sex marriages, not because same sex couples are bad, etc, but because heterosexuals are slow learners and easily distracted.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13 Feb 4, 2014
SteamRoller wrote:
STFU....thank you!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#14 Feb 4, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It's been their only successful argument since Baehr. Read back on the opinions where bans have been upheld. There is an it's not us, it really is them undercurrent to all of them. We ban same sex marriages, not because same sex couples are bad, etc, but because heterosexuals are slow learners and easily distracted.
Those arguments just AREN'T working as much as they use to......to bad they can't see that!!!

Have you heard anything from the Virginia hearings, yet?
BobInTampa

Tampa, FL

#15 Feb 4, 2014
Let's call this what it is - DELAYING THE INEVITABLE!

State-by-state, cases will be brought before their respective Supreme Courts to overturn anti-gay-marriage amendments and laws by those who KNOW they can't/won't win, but just want to delay our rights.

Given the SCOTUS ruling, no State Supreme court is going to uphold their state law prohibiting gay marriage - especially given the facts that proponents are using the same arguments made in the Prop 8 trial.

So, their strategy is: delay, delay, delay - for no other reason that political expediency. Sad, but true. The only exceptions are those states where their Governor or Attorney General support marriage equality.

This will continue until (or unless) another case comes before the SCOTUS to have a direct ruling on the issue of gay marriage. Given the pace of the SCOTUS - going state by state might be faster. But, it IS just a matter of time!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Feb 4, 2014
Yeah!!!!

We should all celebrate the fact the anti-gays haven't figured out a more effective argument yet.

Their lame procreation arguments may work with a couple of anti-gay judges- like the one in Nevada- but the overwhelming majority of judges will rule against them.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23 Feb 5, 2014
There premise is based upon a claim that opposite sex couples provide a better family and the state has a compelling interest in denying same sex families equality.

1. There is no valid proof of their claim.

2. All citizens have a right to equal protection of the laws and due process.

3. There is no compelling state interest.

They will fail miserably.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24 Feb 5, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly......and for them to even make these silly arguments make them look pathetic as well.......I don't believe denying the right to marry for Same-Sex couples will CHANGE the actions of opposite-sex couples in the least and to attempt to argue that makes them look ridiculous as well!!!
Such a claim is nothing more than a huge fallacy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 11 min Brian_G 514
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 49 min River Tam 12,920
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr crucifiedguy 4,328
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 37,191
Some AssClown is Deleting Post 1 hr Here is what I 2
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr Here is what I 36,029
News Obama names Stonewall national monument; first ... 1 hr Here is what I 19
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 3 hr HornDawg 844
News Man Accused Of Firing Paintballs At Stockton Ga... 5 hr handjob 41
More from around the web