The Frenzy over Riff-ruhs

Riff-ruhs, or Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, are all the rage in state legislatures across America  these days. According to the Associated Press (April 2, 2015), 20 states have passed some sort of RFRA, and another dozen are considering them.

So what is the cause of this? When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, some conservative business owners were incensed. They felt the law now demands they serve, in the normal course of business, same-sex couples that want to, say, buy a wedding cake or flowers for their wedding, have a photographer take pictures of their wedding, buy dinner in a local restaurant, or perhaps buy a house. Most of the opposition is based on the owner’s “strongly held religious beliefs” that same sex marriage is against their religion, and therefore they do not want to offer their goods or services to those engaged in the legal act of same sex marriage. Consequently, the lobbied their state legislators to pass laws that would allow them to legally deny goods or services to “those people,” based on their religious beliefs.

Why? Do they not realize the consequences of these actions? Is discrimination against same sex couples so important to them, that they would rather go out of business, than sell to the whole public?

When a couple is preparing to marry, they consult with friends and family members, as well as social media, when choosing photographers, florists, and bakers. After making a decision, based on the above recommendations, they go to that particular shop, perhaps only to find out they are being denied service, because they are a same sex couple. If this happened to you, what would you do?  Perhaps in a large city, you would go elsewhere to purchase the goods or services; but in small rural communities, that may not be feasible. Then what?

Henry Ford once remarked, if a person is satisfied, they will tell 3 people; if they are dissatisfied, they will tell 7. In this day of social media, I suspect the numbers, in case of dissatisfaction, are considerably higher. So, what does that matter, you might be thinking.

Do you remember when South Africa was still enforcing apartheid? Groups of people rallied against investment firms and companies that were doing business in South Africa, and slowly but surely the economic factors began to have a telling affect. Investment firms, retirement funds, and businesses changed models and the money to support apartheid dried up. The change happened. (And no, I am not minimizing the effect of Nelson Mandela and others within South Africa who worked so hard for change.) So it will be for businesses that discriminate, albeit supposedly legal to do so. 

As for me, I am in a heterosexual marriage, so on one hand, this doesn’t affect me. But, being who I am, and my strongly held beliefs, I will not knowingly patronize a business that discriminates against anyone, regardless of the reason.

Just some food for thought.

Your comments are welcome, as always.

R.M. “Bob” Hartman

The Question Is. . .

Republican Senator Mike Lee, the junior senator from Utah, posted an op-ed in the Deseret News (4/27/2015), in which he purports to discuss the question before the Supreme Court; namely, should same-sex marriage be legal and honored throughout the United States of America?

However, the good Senator misstated the question. To quote his article:

“Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving four separate lawsuits, each dealing with the same question: does the U.S. Constitution require the redefinition of marriage?”

Sorry, Senator, but you misstated the question. The question is not redefining marriage, rather it is "should same sex marriage be given equality with opposite sex marriage?" In America, the civil contract known as marriage grants the individuals participating certain rights, privileges, prerogatives, and responsibilities. These include, but are not limited to, such rights and privileges as visitation at hospitals, end of life decisions, joint ownership of property, right of survivorship, filing taxes jointly; and should include having your marriage recognized as legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

To further quote you, Senator:

“And unless it’s an issue of specifically national or interstate consequence, the Constitution directs this decision-making process to occur at the state level, to create the space for the greatest diversity of opinions to be expressed.”

Your own sentence, Senator Lee. I suggest you read, and re-read it, carefully. It is one of the best arguments for equality of same sex marriage.

Today, SSM is legal and recognized in 36 states and the District of Columbia. If a same-sex couple is legally wed in Utah, should they not also have the same rights, privileges, prerogatives and responsibilities if they move to Texas?

Marriage has already been defined as a civil right by the United States Supreme Court. Civil rights should not be limited to the current state of residence; rather, they should be recognized throughout the land.

Therefore, Senator, this is an issue of specific national consequence. Thank you for making the case for equality of same sex marriage in the United States of America.

As always, your comments and opinions are welcome.  

R.M. Bob Hartman

Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865627365/Let-people-not-courts-define-marriage.html retrieved April 28, 2015

Missed Opportunities

Republican senator Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, the junior senator from Texas, participated in a forum at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Summit; a summit called to allow presidential candidates and potential contenders to present their points of view regarding religious liberties in America.

In his comments, Senator Cruz said "there is no room for Christians in today's Democratic Party." He continued, stating “There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teaching on marriage."

Wow. This from an attorney who graduated cum laude from Princeton University, and continued on to receive his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1995. While at Harvard, he was the principal editor of the Harvard Law Review. One would be inclined to believe, with his education, he would know that liberal and fascism have opposite meanings.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines liberal as “not narrow in opinion or judgment.” The same source defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation, and often race and stands for a centralized autocratic, often militaristic government.” The two terms are polar opposites on both political and social scales. For Senator Cruz to use these two terms, together, to describe the Democratic Party is akin to his defying the existence of gravity while his feet are buried in quicksand.

Every individual I have met, who self-aligns with the Democratic Party, as well as the party itself, defines the Democratic Party as being a “big tent” party; that is to say no litmus test exists for membership or active participation as a candidate within the party.  There are those within the party who are strongly pro-life, even as the party defines itself as pro-choice; there are those who are against any form of gun control, even as the party works for stronger gun control legislation. From my own hands-on experiences, I have met and worked with Democrats who held no religious belief, as well as those who have very strongly-held religious convictions, be they Christian, Eastern, Middle Eastern, or Deist.

In my lifetime, I do not remember ever hearing, or reading about, any organized group “going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teachings on marriage.” I wonder, is Senator Cruz trying to form a wedge issue using the current events circulating around the hot-button issue of same sex marriage? Is he creating a boogie man to take the focus off the important issues facing our nation; issues such as stagnant wages, a Congress with the lowest approval rating in decades, a complete lack of compromise between the two major political parties, and much-needed immigration reform?

Presidential candidate Cruz missed a golden opportunity. He could have used his time at this summit to explain how a Cruz administration would work with Congress to ensure that all Americans would enjoy religious freedom while simultaneously guaranteeing the civil rights of all.  He could have explained how discrimination, in any form, goes against not only the constitution, but also the 2nd great commandment, “Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.”  Senator Cruz could have spoken to the value of diversity in both public and private arenas, and the need for acceptance of diverse religions and lifestyles.

But he didn’t.

You opinion and comments are always welcome. Thanks for reading!
R.M. Bob Hartman

Sources:

CNN http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/26/politics/ted-cruz-liberal-fascism-iowa-speech/index.html ,   retrieved April 26, 2015.

Shadows and Straws

It never ceases to amaze me, the deep shadows and thin straws used by those who would project their version of morality and life-style choices upon others in order to deny the constitutional right of marriage to same-sex couples.

Attorney Gene Schaerr authored a commentary, posted on the website of the Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, outlining an amicus brief he had filed with the Supreme Court, wherein he claims that allowing same sex marriage will (a) devalue heterosexual marriage, (b) reduce the percentage of women who are married, and (c) increase the number of induced abortions.

Mr. Schaerr is best known as the lead attorney hired by the State of Utah to defend Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution, which defined marriage as existing only between one man and one woman. The State of Utah, not surprisingly, lost the appeal, and same sex marriage is now legal in Utah. (I posted my reply to Utah’s court filing on this blog.)

Certainly Mr. Schaerr is entitled to his personal and religious beliefs. He is very well known for his membership in, and support of, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which opposes SSM on religious grounds. However, he is not entitled to his own facts, nor should he be allowed to use those beliefs to deny any American his or her constitutional rights.

To quote Attorney Schaerr:

“For example, an “any-two-adults” model of marriage implicitly tells men (and women) that a child doesn’t need a father (or mother), thereby weakening the norm of gender-diverse parenting. Other norms, such as the value of biological bonding, partner exclusivity, and reproductive postponement until marriage, will likewise crumble.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Schaerr’s opinion and amicus brief, that train left the station a long time ago. The Pew Research Center has studied census data from 1960 to 2013; here are the numbers: In 1960, only 9% of children were living in a single parent household; in 1980, 19% were in single parent households; and 2013, the figure was 34%. From this data, I conclude that the “norms” Mr. Schaerr speaks to have already crumbled. Traditional marriage was the norm in 1960, but it is certainly not the norm in 2015. For Mr. Schaerr to conclude that same sex marriage will devalue traditional heterosexual marriage seems to fly into the face of facts; traditional marriage has been declining (devaluing?) for decades.

As quoted by The Washington Post, the PRC analysis of Americans age 25 and older who have never been married details the following facts. In 1960, 8% of women and 10% of men in this group have never married. The number of never married men and women dropped slightly in 1970, to 8.5% and 9%, respectively, and has increased since; the rate in 2012 was 17% of women and 23% of men. On the surface, this increase of unmarried women and men would seem to support Mr. Schaerr’s arguments, but the details seem to have escaped him. In the PRC analysis, those who are same-sex married (in those states that allow SSM) are considered as married, and therefore are not part of the increased number of those who have never married. I therefore respectfully disagree with Mr. Schaerr regarding the supposed effect of same-sex marriage on the percentage of women who never marry. 

Regarding abortion, Mr. Schaerr stated in his brief that allowing SSM will increase the number of abortions. He is statistically incorrect; the Guttmacher Institute reports the number abortions performed in the United States has declined from a peak in 1981 of 29.3 per 1000 women of child-bearing age to 12.3 per 1000 in 2013. Same sex marriage was not legal in anywhere in the U.S. in 1981, when SSM did not exist; by 2013, 37 states and the District of Columbia legally allowed SSM. And yet the number of abortions has fallen to historic lows. Perhaps Mr. Schaerr should go back to school?

I think that a majority of us have longed, at one point or another, for “the good old days,” when Mom stayed home and raised the children, Dad worked one good-paying job, and everybody was June and Ward Cleaver happy. Reality, however, was not always that sunny. People of color were regarded as inferior; many women (and some men) stayed in abusive, destructive relationships because divorce for any reason was frowned upon by society, or not a legal option; family planning and reliable birth control were not discussed, and women could not apply for credit without their spouse’s approval.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the rise of social knowledge of (and disgust for) spousal and child abuse, the availability of higher education to both men and women, the availability of reliable birth control, and the acceptance of women as men’s equal in the workplace and the home allowed society to move forward and, albeit slowly, accept changes in the mores of American life. (These are just a few of the changes, used only as examples.) The actual acceptance of these changes has taken, and will continue to take, time to become a true reality for all Americans. But as a nation, as a people, we are moving in the right direction.

Now, as a society, we are on the cusp of another major paradigm shift; one which I view as a positive change in America’s social network. When the Supreme Court rules on same sex marriage in June, it is my hope, and my belief, that the constitutional right of all couples to marry as they desire will become the law of the land. 

As always, your opinions and comments are valued.

R.M. Hartman

Sources:

The Daily Signal http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/17/forcing-states-to-recognize-gay-marriage-could-increase-number-of-abortions/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social retrieved April 23, 2015

Pew Research Center:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/

The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/24/i-do-no-thanks-the-economics-behind-americas-marriage-decline/ 

Guttmacher Instutite: https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Amazed, But Not Amused

Wow, where do I begin? The State of Utah filed its brief, outlining the State’s position on denying same-sex marriage rights in Utah, on Monday, February 3rd at 11:30 PM. (A scant 30 minutes before deadline.) I’ve spent a good part of yesterday and today reading the brief, looking up references, making notes; and I must admit my amazement. I’ve listed the major points, as I see them, here; and I have added my own comments. If you want to download the brief, it is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download, you do have to create a sign in for Scribd.com, but it is free. All page references made refer to the brief as submitted to the court.

What happens if Utah allows same-sex marriage, on an equal footing with opposite-sex marriage?
“Same sex marriage creates. . .(2) a risk of increased fatherlessness (and motherlessness), with all the emotional, social, and economic damage that has been shown to create.
(3) A risk of reduced birthrates, with the demographic and economic crises that could bring.” (Pages 2-3)
These are certainly interesting viewpoints. I would like to see the peer-reviewed papers that create both of these positions; none were cited in the brief. I fail to see how the presence of two loving committed adults in a relationship creates an increased risk of fatherlessness or motherlessness for the children. How will allowing same-sex marriage reduce the birthrate? If same-sex marriage is allowed, will opposite-sex couples stop creating children? That is an extremely doubtful outcome! Should same-sex marriages be denied, it is highly unlikely that the individuals involved will decide to engage in opposite-sex marriage and procreate. It is much more likely the participants will simply choose to cohabitate, without the legal benefit and protection of marriage. The two terms, fatherlessness and motherlessness, really? Who created those terms?

The voters in the general election held in November of 2004 passed Utah Amendment 3. Article 1, Section 29 of the Utah State Constitution now reads:
“(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic unions, however denominated, shall be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”
I have covered this, in depth, in a previous article. Suffice it to say, due to all of the uproar and rhetoric on both sides, our Governor and some in the legislature are now openly talking about allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples, which they would not consider before. It’s too late for that, Governor. The horse has left the barn, at a gallop. The point the Governor and his supporters are not accepting is that civil unions do not provide all of the benefits accorded to married couples, as per existing federal and state laws. Separate but equal has been tried before, it failed then and it will fail now. Additionally, providing now for civil unions would invalidate paragraph 2 of this section, and as that is a constitutional change, it would have to come before the voters.

Under a section titled “Summary of Argument”, the State argues, among other things, that:
“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition increases the likelihood that children will be raised by their biological mothers and fathers-or at least a mother and father in intact families.” (Page 26)
I cannot follow that argument; if a heterosexual couple is raising their children now, how will allowing same-sex marriage decrease the likelihood they will continue to do so? Is the State saying, if we allow same-sex marriage, fathers or mothers in existing marriages will run off to be with a same-sex partner? Personally, I do not think so. I do not think it will matter to the parents at all, I cannot see same-sex marriage destroying any existing marriages/relationships. Characteristically, Utah is again tilting at windmills.

“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition helps to insure adequate reproduction by parents willing and able to raise their children in stable homes. . .The state has a compelling interest in ensuring adequate reproduction. . . ” (Page 27)
It is a biological fact that procreation requires involvement of opposite sexes. However, I do not understand how allowing same-sex marriage will reduce adequate reproduction by opposite-sex parents. Furthermore, what is the “compelling interest” the State has in ensuring adequate reproduction? The decision to reproduce, or not, belongs to the prospective parents, not to the State. Is this a behind the back maneuver to outlaw birth control in Utah? Could the State be saying, you must reproduce or your marriage is not valid?

“And although sex between men and women naturally- and often accidentally-produces children, it does not necessarily produce stable families dedicated to protecting and nurturing those children” (Page 52)
Well, here is a statement I can understand and agree with. Producing children does not mean a stable relationship, not by a long shot. Given the current number of single parent households in Utah, either because of divorce, desertion, or lack of commitment on the part of either parent, I think this statement is a no-brainer. My real question is, what does this statement have to do with the issue at hand, that is, same-sex marriage?

“Because of its critical social functions, marriage is also one of our most important social institutions.” (Page 53)
“Marriage (n): the state of being united to another person as a usual contractually relationship according to law or custom” (Merriam-Webster) It is indeed one of our most important social institutions, and as such, how would the State benefit by not allowing individuals to marry the person they wish to contract with? When two people decide to marry, to form that contract, they are formalizing their joint desire to enter into a long- term commitment to each other, for better or for worse, as the saying goes.

“. . . the law often supports social institutions, in order to give them formal recognition, bring legal and administrative arrangements into line with them, facilitate their use by members of the community who wish to do so, and encourage the transmission of belief in their value to future generations.” (Pages 55-56)
Let us then allow formal recognition of same sex marriages. Let those who wish to marry, to make a contract with another person, do so without segregation by race, creed, national origin, language, or sexual orientation. Provide all marriages the same legal and administrative arrangements currently enjoyed by opposite sex marriages. As I understand it, that is at the crux of the argument for same-sex marriage.

Utah has listed seven arguments against “redefining” marriage as the union of two people (as opposed to the current wording, one man and one woman.) The State refers to this as genderless marriage. Here are Utah’s seven arguments:

“First, redefining marriage in genderless terms would break the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation. . . the redefinition ordered by the district court would tend to encourage more parents to raise their existing biological children without the other biological parent.” (Pages 72-73)
This argument has some serious flaws. What is the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation? Many couples enter into marriage knowingly without the ability or desire to procreate. Further, the State offers no peer-reviewed documentation or studies that conclude allowing same sex marriage would encourage more parents to raise children without the other biological parent involved. Is the State trying to blame a shadow-figure for the incidence of single-parent households? That bucket doesn’t hold water, we already have children being raised in single-parent households and we currently do not have genderless marriage.

“Second . . . the loss of the State’s clear message in favor of biological mother-father parenting within marriage would likely result in a higher percentage of couples conceiving children without the stability that marriage would otherwise bring.” (Page 73)
I agree that the ideal situation for raising children is a two-parent, financially secure, loving household. The State does not explain how allowing same-sex marriage will cause that “clear message” to be lost. Nor does, or can, the State demonstrate how same-sex marriage will encourage couples to conceive children without marriage. Where did they come up with this argument?

“Third. . . would undermine the existing social norm that often leads parents in acceptable but not ideal marriages to make self-sacrifices and remain married to the parents of their children.” (Page 73)
Ok, sadly, I have heard this one before. The State is encouraging parents to stay married for the sake of the children. It wants parents to remain in a perhaps loveless or tumultuous relationship for the sake of a theoretically existing social norm. To keep up the (false) appearance of Utah as a family-centered state, the State expects and desires parents to remain in a relationship that may be damaging to their mental or physical well-being. This is not just a bucket-load of cattle by-product; instead, it is a whole trainload! All of which having been said, how does this social norm bear on the subject at hand, which is the recognition of same-sex marriage? I cannot make that connection, no matter how hard I try.

“Fourth . . . would also undermine the current social norm (weakened though it may be) that those who wish to have children-or engage in conduct that could lead to children-should get married. “ (Page 75)
Let us remember what this lawsuit is about, the validity of same-sex marriage. These same sex couples want to get married. They want to raise children, if any are involved, in a two-parent, loving household. If anything, they want to strengthen the social norm of being married when raising children. I am beginning to wonder about the validity, and appropriateness, of the State’s arguments.

“Fifth, and most obviously, a genderless definition of marriage would likely increase the number of children being raised by same-sex parents. That could happen because the couple decides to raise together an existing child of one of the partners. Or it could be the result of the conception of a new child through surrogacy or sperm donation.” (Page 76)
For this to be a valid argument against same-sex marriage, the State needs to demonstrate (which they haven’t) how this arrangement would be detrimental to the State, or to the children involved. Previously, the State has argued that is it important for children to be raised in a two-parent household; a two-parent household provides a better environment for the children. Why, then, does the State not want to support marriage? This sounds like circular reasoning, and not very good reasoning at that.

“Sixth. . . it would likely lead to other innovations. . . for starters, if homosexual marriage is OK, why not group marriage?” (Page 77)
Ah, the good old slippery slope again. Let’s all go out to the slide in the playground. Polygamous marriage is not legal under current Federal law, although that law is currently being challenged in federal courts. Polygamy, however, is not the question here. Is the State creating a diversion because they don’t feel they have a strong enough argument in this case? If so, Utah should remember that it had to renounce and outlaw polygamy in order to gain admission into the Union.

“Seventh. . . a court-ordered redefinition of marriage could well lead to its wholesale “privatization”-for example by enactment of a civil union regime for all couples, with religious and other organizations being free to offer the title of “marriage” as they see fit.” (Page78)
The individual(s) responsible for this paragraph needs to go back to law school! In order to be legally married, the couple-opposite-sex or same-sex- must first obtain a marriage license from the state. This license creates a legal, binding contract between the two people; if they wish a religious component to the marriage, they can be wed in a ceremony by a faith that allows that marriage. Conversely, they can be wed by the county clerk, or by a justice of the peace, even Elvis, if they wish to go to Las Vegas. Is the State, not too subtly, suggesting that marriage require a religious component? Given this is Utah we are talking about, that is not a big stretch of the imagination.

The State continues to focus on the fertility rates, arguing that:
“By implicating endorsing the adult-centric model of marriage, a genderless redefinition would send a powerful message that it is entirely appropriate-even expected-for adults to forgo or severely limit the number of their children based upon concerns for their own convenience. “ (Page 88)
This argument shows arrogance, sheer unadulterated arrogance on the part of the State. It is altogether appropriate for adults to consider their own circumstances in the decision to have children, and how many children to have. Career, financial, health, and lifestyle choices can and should be an important part in the educated decision to have, or not have children, and in the decision of how many children to have. It is my observation, having lived in this state for almost 40 years, that many people feel it is their (religious) duty to have children quickly, and frequently, regardless of their ability to support the children, or their personal desire or physical/mental condition to have children. This “duty” can, and in some cases does, cause severe social/economic stress on the parents, and on society as a whole. Our overcrowded, under-funded educational system comes to mind, but that is a discussion for another day.

“Preserving Utah’s marriage definition furthers the State’s vital interest in accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife.” (Page 90)
I believe we have finally arrived at the core of the State’s position. The very predominant religion in the state of Utah is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Church does not accept or condone same-sex relationships or marriages. Its position is that homosexuality is a sin, and a choice; a choice that can be “corrected” by faith, prayer, fasting, and marriage to a person of the opposite sex, with procreation following. The Church maintains this position regardless of the mounting scientific evidence that homosexuality is a biological factor that is decided while the child is in utero; that it is not the “fault” of the mother or the father, and that it is not genetically related.
No logical, thinking individual could or should deny the Church its right to its beliefs. Nor will that same individual deny the members of the Church their right to practice their religion, insofar as that practice does not conflict with the rights of those who do not believe the same.
In reference to the quote above, the State does have a vital interest in promoting religious freedom and reducing civil strife. That religious freedom, however, is a double-edged sword. The sword does protect the right of a church, and its members, to believe and practice as they wish. It also protects others in the same fashion; that is, they have the right to believe and practice, according to their own personal dictates and conscience.

The narrow issue in this matter before the court is civil rights, or equality. There are no less than 15 Supreme Court decisions that have delineated marriage as a civil right, beginning in 1888; the latest decision was US vs. Windsor. (The following quote is from Lawrence vs. Texas., 2003)
“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”(Lawrence vs. Texas)
The majority of Utah’s citizens are members of the LDS church, and support and participate in the Church to varying degrees. That is fine, but majorities do not decide or control civil rights. The laws and courts of our nation are there to protect the civil rights of minorities as well as majorities. In this particular matter, it is the civil right of homosexual persons to be married, the same as heterosexual persons, and to enjoy the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage, that is under discussion. This case is not a discussion of procreation, though the State would like to make it that. Nor is it a discussion of morals, because morals are as individual as you and I are. It is a matter of the rights of individuals to marry as they choose, and to enjoy the protection and benefit of marriage.

After reading and studying this brief, I have several opinions. (Surprise!)
First, the State has failed to show why or how same-sex marriage will harm the State, its citizens, or the children. In constructing this document, the State refers to the incidence of single-parent families, and attempts but miserably fails to connect same-sex marriage to single-parent households.
Second, the State has raised the specter of same-sex marriage causing a decrease in the number of children born in Utah, without demonstrating causation. This thinking flies into the wall of reason, and falls hard to the ground. I hope that it will stay there. It certainly does not deserve reincarnation.
Third, the State has claimed, without justification, that same-sex marriage will increase the number of children born of causal, non-committed sexual congress. Excuse me, how did the “crack legal team” hired by the Attorney General come up with this idea? Marriage will lead to an increase in childbearing casual sex? Anyone following that road deserves to drive off the cliff.
Fourth, and in my opinion most dangerously, the State has tried, however subtly, to inject majority religious opinion into secular law. I know this is Utah, but come on; we are in the 21st century, not the dark ages. Religion –any religion-does not belong in secular law!

Finally, patient reader (I know this has been a long document, even for me), I believe the State has wasted good money on this brief, and indeed is wasting money on this entire case. That is money that should go to education, for education is the best defense of civil rights, and of liberty. I also believe that while this case is about Utah law, the decisions reached will, long-term, effect the entire United States of America.

I hope you have enjoyed this discussion, I know you have opinions that may agree or disagree with mine. However, that is the beauty of America, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I would like to hear yours. Please leave your comments below.
Thanks for reading, as always!

One final housekeeping item: In this article, when I use the term marriage, I am referring to the arrangement between two consenting adults, of legal age to enter marriage.

Sources:
For Utah’s brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download

For Lawrence vs. Texas: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79449919/Lawrence-vs-Texas

Equal Rights, Anyone?

In response to the equal rights discussion currently being held in Utah, state Senator Stephen Urquhart (R-Washington county district 29) has again proposed a bill that would make housing and job discrimination, based on sexual orientation, illegal in Utah. A television and web advertising campaign is now under way to defeat his bill.

First Freedom Coalition (which I will refer to as FFC) has posted a webpage (http://fairtoall.org/) where they list their concerns and issues with this proposed legislation. The three TV advertisements they are currently running against this bill also are posted on the webpage, as is their First Freedoms Compact. Here are the 5 items in the First Freedom Compact, and my thoughts on those items.

“First Freedoms
All people in a free society share equally the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and the right to make a living.”
I could not agree more with this statement! All people, I believe, should have all these rights, without discrimination. Unfortunately, in Utah, it is currently legal to discriminate in those areas if someone is of a sexual orientation that is not strictly heterosexual. I would not want to be denied an apartment based on my sexual orientation, what about you?

“Tolerance
Pluralism within a free society requires all people to adopt a “live and let live” approach to secular and religious expressions intended for the betterment of mankind. This is especially true when people of varying beliefs disagree about those expressions.”
Then by all means, be tolerant. Be tolerant of those of a different nationality, race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation. Be willing to have an open discussion, and listen to other points of view. Does anyone else remember “you can’t trust anyone over 30?”

“Fairness
All people are to be treated reasonably and with fairness in their public and commercial interactions. No single group should be elevated to a “special class” above others with special rights that infringe on the first freedoms of everyone else.”
I believe we have hit upon the real core point that FFC is striving to make. No one, least of all Senator Urquhart, is trying to create a “special class” above any other. All his bill will do is make discrimination against people, because of their sexual orientation, illegal in Utah.

“Mutual Respect
Conflicting rights are inherent in a free society, and conflicts requiring public mediation should be handled rationally, respectfully and lawfully. Rational disagreements on sensitive issues are not justification for accusations of hatred, intolerance or bigotry.”
I agree that a lot of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry has been shown on the same sex marriage issue. Reading the op-ed, letters to the editor, or comments section of The Salt Lake Tribune, one can see both sides behaving in a disrespectful manner, with some writers being very intolerant of another’s viewpoint. In the discussion of mutual respect, should we not also have respect for people whose sexual orientation is different from ours? Should we respect their rights as much as we expect them to recognize ours? I believe we should.

”The Common Good
Governance in a free society must differentiate between private and public concerns – respecting the right of people to work out their lives as they see fit while also respecting public policies intended to protect freedom and advance the common good.”
Indeed, the common good. Let’s talk about the difference between private and public concerns. By accepted legal definition, a business with less than 15 employees, that does not do business with any governmental agency, or accepts any government payment (such as TANF) is a private concern. Mom and dad renting out the studio apartment over the garage is a private concern. A private college that does not accept government money for any of its programs, or accept government payment for tuition; this is a private concern. A public concern is one that deals with the public, such as a transit agency, a utility, a business (with more than 15 employees) selling its goods and services to the general public. A university that uses public grants for research, or accepts federal student loans, is a public concern. An apartment complex of five units or more, renting to the general public, is a public concern. The corner store that accepts TANF is a public concern.

Regarding the advertisements produced by FFC: in one, the case is made that a photographer was fined for not photographing at same sex commitment ceremony. Although, as it was argued in court, the company had an unwritten policy not to be a participant in any same sex ceremony, that was not disclosed to one of the participants. In another, the baker did not disclose in his advertisements that he would not prepare wedding cakes for a same sex couple. In both cases, a simple written policy, a simple written declaration, would have been sufficient to have the cases thrown out in court. Don’t get me wrong, I have been involved in small business since I have been able to wash dishes. I’ve built them, I’ve watched them succeed, I’ve watched them fail. But one thing I know, PUT IT IN WRITING. Another video talks about discrimination, by facility, of a student at Missouri State University. She had refused an assignment, based upon her faith; the University held up her rights, after a lawsuit was filed.

One video really disturbs me. It talks about setting up a “special class”, saying that the new law proposed by Senator Urguhart sets up a special class that is above other people in the country. This is, as near as I can tell, complete bulls**t. This legislation is designed to reduce discrimination against people of same-sex relationships. This legislation says a gay couple cannot refuse to rent an apartment to me, a heterosexual, based on my sexual orientation. It says that a florist cannot refuse to arrange the flowers for me because I am a heterosexual, again, based on my sexual preference.

Do I have a dog in this fight? No, and yes. I am in a heterosexual relationship, my wife and I own our home (with the bank), and I see no problems on the horizon created by our relationship. However, when I moved to Utah in the mid 70’s with a significant other, we were denied housing and bank accounts because we could not produce a marriage license.

Discrimination is wrong, whatever the basis. Agree or disagree, I welcome your comments.

Wasting Taxpayer's money, Utah style

Utah is a place of spectacular beauty and grace, from the granite peaks of the Wasatch to the red rocks of Zion National Park, lakes and streams, deserts and forests. I consider myself fortunate to be living in this place, at this time. Now I am watching history unfold in Utah, an historical event I never thought I would see.

On November 2, 2004, Utah, and indeed all of the United States, held elections. One of the items on Utah’s ballot was Amendment 3 to the Utah State Constitution; the Amendment reads as follows:
”Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” (Utah Constitution, Article 1 Section 29).

This amendment passed, 65.86% in favor. So that makes it majority rule, correct? Not so fast. . . only 57.21% of the registered voters turned out for the election. That’s right folks, 37.68% of those registered to vote decided what a marriage should be. (Utah voted George Bush for president, 71.54%, the highest percentage in the United States to vote for Bush) (2004 Presidential Election Results)

My grandmother used to say that all things of value take time. On December 20, 2013, Federal Judge Robert J. Shelby wrote a decision that brought equal rights to Utah. “The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry,” wrote Shelby, “and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason.” (Dallasvoice.com)

I’ve listened, carefully, to the arguments against same-sex marriage.

One of the State of Utah’s arguments was that the state is promoting relationships that can procreate, it was in the best interest of the state to license only those relationships that can result in offspring. This, as you may imagine, created a groundswell of opposition. There are many people who desire to be joined as a married couple who cannot, or do not desire, to procreate. My wife and I are both now medically sterile, does that mean the state is not interested in our marriage? Two of my friends became a married couple and made the decision not to have children before they were married. Should the state have denied them a marriage license?

There is the argument that “this is the way it has always been.” This argument went to the gutter a long time ago, when slavery became illegal; when women were franchised to vote, and when the Jim Crow laws were declared illegal.

Then, there is the argument that homosexuality is forbidden for Christians. Could someone please give me the scripture passage where Jesus said that? I cannot find it, however I can find Christ saying, love they neighbor as thyself. Second to that, not all people in the United States are Christian, and not all sects of Christianity have the same views regarding same sex marriage. (Regarding other religions, I apologize, but I have no training or knowledge of other religious groups’ views on same sex marriages.)

One of the most vocal arguments is that “same sex marriage destroys traditional marriage.” I don’t understand this point of view. What another couple does in the privacy of their own home does not damage my marriage. It does not demean my marriage, in truth, it does not affect me at all.

The rights of marriage are many, including: the right of jointly owned property, to make decisions regarding the end-of-life cycle, to file taxes as a married couple, to adopt a child, to be declared eligible for insurance under a spouse’s employer, to have your marriage recognized in all 50 states, and so forth. The least of those is the sexual relationship between the people married.

I cannot understand the thought process that denies marriage to those of the same sex, any more than I could understand the thought process that denied the rights of marriage to those of different races. And yet, that is what Utah is want to do. Upon being sworn in as our “Interim” Attorney General, Sean Reyes told a press conference that his office would continue to press this case, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, no matter now much it costs. The recent estimate from the AG’s office is $2 MILLION, for an outside law firm to assist the AG’s office.

So this is how Utah is wasting taxpayer money? Trying to legislate some “morality” at a high cost to the taxpayers; while we remain dead last in per-pupil spending on K-12 education? This is Governor Herbert’s “best managed state” in action?

I don’t think so.
Your comments are appreciated.


Downloaded from: http://le.utah.gov/code/CONST/htm/00I01_002900.htm on December 25, 2013

Downloaded from: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2004&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0 on December 25, 2013

Downloaded from: http://www.dallasvoice.com/utah-gay-marriage-ban-struck-unconstitutional-10164201.html on December 25, 2013

UPDATE: Monday, January 6, 2014: The United States Supreme Court issued a stay in this matter, until an expedited hearing could review the case.

UPDATE: Tuesday, January 14, 2014: U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern, Oklahoma, has struck down the Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage, and immediately stayed his order, pending review by the 10th circuit court of appeals.

UPDATE: January 16, 2014. Utah State Tax Commission reverses itself, says same sex married couples can files jointly on 2013 State tax returns.

An Intellegent Commentary on the Subject of Marriage

Marriage is a contractual relationship between two (or more) persons, typically sanctioned by the state and providing certain benefits, duties and responsibilities to both parties; although the benefits, duties and responsibilities have changed greatly over time. Some of these benefits (in the United States), include but are not limited to:
• Sharing with a spouse control over property, labor and sexual services.
• Giving a spouse responsibility for a spouse's debts.
• Providing a spouse visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
• The ability to transfer control over the spouse's affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
• Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent's child.
• Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
• Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

As this is a contractual relationship, it is controlled by the state in which it is initatied, and not by federal law. This is evident in the differences of requirements from state to state, as the following information details.

A Marriage License, or intention of marriage, is required in all states except Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Puerto Rico

The common age of consent in the United States is 16 however; it can be as young as 13 for females and 14 for males in some states

So-called “Common Law” marriage (no documents or religious ceremony required) is legal in 10 states. There is no age of consent for Common Law marriages.

A Medical exam (STD, and in some cases rubella and sickle cell anemia for females) is required in 24 states

If these points are controlled by the state, then it can logically be represented that marriage is a legal condition, although marriage in some cases is accompanied by religious conditions or acceptance. The validity of marriage in one state is transferred to another; that is, if the parties are married in New York, they are considered married in Oklahoma as well, notwithstanding that certain states still have statutes forbidding certain types of marriage.

Religion did not formally enter marriage until the Council of Trent in 1563, which stated in part…that a Roman Catholic marriage would only be recognized if officiated by a priest with two witnesses. "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life”…

After the break between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, Lord Hardawicke’s Act, 1753 (Anglican Church) was the first to require performance of a religious ceremony, with witnesses. This act, however, did not affect the marriages within the Jewish or Quaker religious sects.

From my review, briefly stated above, of marriage as both a civil and religious action, it is my contention that marriage is a civil contract, and the choice of including or excluding the religious component is left to the participants. It is also my conclusion that, as marriage is a civil contract, there is no valid arguement for refusing to allow gays and lesbians (same sex marriage) the same rights, privilages, benfits and responsibilites currently provided to hetrosexual couples under current laws and conditions.

Notes:
Source: Cornell University Law School
ibid
ibid
ibid
ibid
Witte Jr., John (1997). From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 39–40