Campus locals speak up about marriage equality in Utah
Despite U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby’s ruling last December to legalize same-sex marriage in Utah, the state held on to one sentence from its constitution: “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.”
That changed Oct. 6 when the Supreme Court of the United States declined to rule on Utah’s appeal of the 10th Circuit Court’s decision, upholding Shelby’s ruling and thereby establishing the legality of same-sex marriage in the state.
Reid Furniss, an adviser in Utah State University’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences, married his husband Cary Youmans Dec. 23. Furniss admitted to having “waffled” between whether or not he agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision, but now feels it was a smart one.
“I think it was a good thing they ruled the way they did or did not rule, whichever way you want to describe,” Furniss said. “The reason being is the state is always taking this, ‘we have the right to make the decisions on what marriage is.’ In my opinion, if the Supreme Court were to come in and say, ‘this is how it is going to be,’ they would have been trampling on states’ rights. So there’s that side of the decision to look at. I think the court was smart at this point not to step in and do anything that would go against state’s rights.”
Yet the debate over the power of states to determine the legality of same-sex marriage continues. Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick ruled Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Arizona banned same-sex marriage in 2008 with Arizona Proposition 102, an amendment to its constitution known as the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Youmans and Furniss, the first gay couple in Cache County to be married by a religious leader, disagree that legalizing same-sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage.
“There are groups that are anti-marriage equality, that describe themselves as pro-traditional marriage,” Youmans said. “And a lot of the verbiage they use suggests or implies that those of us that are pro-marriage equality are somehow anti-traditional marriage. I just want to go on record: I am not against traditional marriage. It is about marriage equality, not preference of this type of couple being married as opposed to this type of couple. We just simply want an equal status, an equal opportunity.”
With same-sex marriage now legal in Utah, gay and lesbian couples are now privy to many of the same benefits as heterosexual couples, benefits which were once denied to them.
“One yummy thing about USU being progressive, for lack of a better word, is that they have at least recognized that we are at least domestic partners if you will,” Furniss said. “So we have had double insurance coverage like the straights or the heterosexuals have had. To a point, we have the same perks or benefits. However, because the state of Utah did not recognize it as if it were the straight, married, heterosexual couples, we have been taxed on those benefits.”
However, adoption rights for same-sex couples in Utah are still limited. A hold placed on adoptions is still in effect for four same-sex couples married in the 17-day window from December to January. The couples are waiting on a decision from the Supreme Court on whether or not to lift the stay. In an email interview, Reed Abplanalp-Cowan, USU alum and co-director of the documentary “8: A Mormon Proposition” wrote that same-sex couples who adopt could provide much-needed homes for children in the U.S.
“It will only have effect within the parameters of that particular ruling,” he wrote. “But as an adoptive parent of three children, I pray that gay couples who can qualify for being adoptive parents through stringent screening will be able to continue to be a solution to the fact that more than a quarter million children in our country today are in foster care needing homes.”
According to a study by the Williams Institute, more than 111,000 same-sex couples are raising approximately 170,000 biological, adopted or stepchildren. Furthermore, same-sex couples are four times more likely to raise an adopted child and six times more likely to raise a foster child than heterosexual couples.
“Families and love are families and love,” Furniss said. “That’s the way we are wired. Religion and politics should not mix no matter what the religion is, and that’s where the problems are coming in from, those that don’t follow the same religious background. That’s what serves up this inequality thing, in my opinion.”
— katherine.l.larsen@gmail.com
Marriage Equality is really an interesting term to use in that it assumes that the definition of marriage has been changed to include any legal contract between people of any gender – when the truth is that marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman (we’re considering definitions right now – remember that). Before this ruling, gays had every right to do the same thing straights would have done: marry someone of the opposite gender. Equality, under the true definition of this issue, existed. What has now happened has not been the equalization of an already equal playing field, but an expansion of the definition of the word. It is for this reason that the ruling made by activist moron Shelby makes little sense. He did not play the role of right-equalizer – the only role he’s constitutionally qualified to play – as he’d like to think, rather he played the wordsmith. Subjectivity such as this (the definition of terms) are exactly the sort of ambiguous issues the founders thought were best left to the states. Write it down as a constitutional fail by the courts. And Statesman, try not to slant so hard to the left.
Dean, I find it humorous that you believe yourself to have greater knowledge of the constitution than a court justice. Our legal system (a system of common law) is completely based on the judicial interpretation of the constitution and on predicated rulings. So I completely acknowledge your interpretation– your playing of the “wordsmith”– but, unfortunately for you (and fortunately for me), you aren’t a justice and don’t get to interpret the constitution on any substantive level.
I get it, I should just say “God save the King” and accept the decision of those who “know best” without questioning it. I’ll keep that in mind for next time. While their word is binding, I hope we’re not truly so ignorant at USU as to think that it’s always correct.
There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to marry any and all consenting adults. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality “just for some” is not equality. Let’s stand up for EVERY ADULT’S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!