Religious Defense of Marriage Continues; Explained
By Brig Bagley
11 February 2014
The topic is being beat to death, so I'll try to keep my comments and summaries fresh and new.
A number of groups, especially religions, have bonded together to defend their beliefs of traditional marriage and explain their views in their briefs to the Utah same-sex marriage case. Finding it offensive that their stance is labelled as bigotry, they argue that it is not about gay rights, it's about marriage.
"Briefs also argue that only a man and a woman can bear children and traditional marriage is the best environment to rear them. Some of the briefs contend that gay and lesbian people are not a protected class, and that sexual orientation isn't solely biological and can change over time."
One Salt Lake City attorney, Frank Mylar, says the redefinition of marriage turns makes it not a marriage at all:
"For example, a court could determine that orange juice can include juice made solely with potatoes, but it would have created something else by doing so. That marriage is composed of a man and a woman is as inseparable from the word marriage as orange juice is inseparable from oranges."
Judge Shelby issued his ruling that Amendment 3 was unconstitutional because it violates equal protection and due process under the law. He agrees that marriage laws should be state governed, but a majority rule cannot strip fundamental rights from sub-class citizens. Shelby said that "the purpose and effect of Amendment 3 is to deny the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, 'which is another way of saying that the law imposes inequality.' "
The plaintiffs (supporters of same-sex marriage) have until February 25 to file their response to the State's brief. Many other supporters are expected to file briefs to the 10th Circuit Court in Denver as well.
A number of groups, especially religions, have bonded together to defend their beliefs of traditional marriage and explain their views in their briefs to the Utah same-sex marriage case. Finding it offensive that their stance is labelled as bigotry, they argue that it is not about gay rights, it's about marriage.
"Briefs also argue that only a man and a woman can bear children and traditional marriage is the best environment to rear them. Some of the briefs contend that gay and lesbian people are not a protected class, and that sexual orientation isn't solely biological and can change over time."
One Salt Lake City attorney, Frank Mylar, says the redefinition of marriage turns makes it not a marriage at all:
"For example, a court could determine that orange juice can include juice made solely with potatoes, but it would have created something else by doing so. That marriage is composed of a man and a woman is as inseparable from the word marriage as orange juice is inseparable from oranges."
Judge Shelby issued his ruling that Amendment 3 was unconstitutional because it violates equal protection and due process under the law. He agrees that marriage laws should be state governed, but a majority rule cannot strip fundamental rights from sub-class citizens. Shelby said that "the purpose and effect of Amendment 3 is to deny the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, 'which is another way of saying that the law imposes inequality.' "
The plaintiffs (supporters of same-sex marriage) have until February 25 to file their response to the State's brief. Many other supporters are expected to file briefs to the 10th Circuit Court in Denver as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment