Reader comments
Readers' forum: Court assails public virtue
50 comments | Read story
GWB | 4:53 a.m. May 21, 2008
David, I am sure that your Utah civics course taught you that even though the
Declaration of Independence, which you cite, has no actual role in the
governance of the USA.
I am also sure that you must know that the "California Supreme Court" rules on laws on the books in "California" and has to guide decision based on the "California Stat Constitution", so long as the laws do not conflict with previous rulings of the US Supreme Court.
Therefore, for the "California Supreme Court" to determine that a law on the books in "California" denying rights to homosexual citizens that are given to heterosexual citizens violates the "California State Constitution" is exactly what their role should be.
I thought one of the tenets of the Republican party was to be in favor of States rights. I find it amazing that people in the most Republican state in the US (yes Utah) are so upset about what another state has done.
And if homosexuality is against "God's Law" why did he make homosexual animals. Of course you know that animals including monkeys have been filmed in wild settings engaging in homosexual acts.
I am also sure that you must know that the "California Supreme Court" rules on laws on the books in "California" and has to guide decision based on the "California Stat Constitution", so long as the laws do not conflict with previous rulings of the US Supreme Court.
Therefore, for the "California Supreme Court" to determine that a law on the books in "California" denying rights to homosexual citizens that are given to heterosexual citizens violates the "California State Constitution" is exactly what their role should be.
I thought one of the tenets of the Republican party was to be in favor of States rights. I find it amazing that people in the most Republican state in the US (yes Utah) are so upset about what another state has done.
And if homosexuality is against "God's Law" why did he make homosexual animals. Of course you know that animals including monkeys have been filmed in wild settings engaging in homosexual acts.
Raul | 7:27 a.m. May 21, 2008
Its called jurisprudence not public opinion that the courts job.
Comments continue below
KR | 8:14 a.m. May 21, 2008
More blah, blah,blah against same sex marriage - there are no substantive
arguments against it, just conjecture. When those who argue against gay marriage
come up with a substantive argument then I may take them seriously.
ediddy | 8:21 a.m. May 21, 2008
Gus,
for a refreshing change, give us a specific example of when an activist court held in favor of a "right wing" or "conservative wing nut" position. Would that be when the courts demanded the removal of the Ten Commandments from federal court houses, or maybe when they ruled that crosses on public property to commemorate fallen police officers needed to be removed. Or, maybe when the courts ruled that underaged females had no need to inform their parents when they aborted their grandchildren.
Oposition to your view Gus, in no way makes it a minority view, which is the very point of the reaction to the overturning of the people's view by an activist court..
for a refreshing change, give us a specific example of when an activist court held in favor of a "right wing" or "conservative wing nut" position. Would that be when the courts demanded the removal of the Ten Commandments from federal court houses, or maybe when they ruled that crosses on public property to commemorate fallen police officers needed to be removed. Or, maybe when the courts ruled that underaged females had no need to inform their parents when they aborted their grandchildren.
Oposition to your view Gus, in no way makes it a minority view, which is the very point of the reaction to the overturning of the people's view by an activist court..
Mike Richards | 8:33 a.m. May 21, 2008
There have been and will continue to be lots and lots of comments about the
California Court ruling. How many people have commented on the ruling without
reading the ruling? It is 172 pages long, but it is easy reading.
I found the dissenting opinion by J. Corrigan to be most interesting. He wrote: "The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined."
Of course, the word, "majority" is not referring voters who voted on proposition 22, but to the majority of the judges who ruled on the issue.
Read the whole document and then lets discuss the issue.
I found the dissenting opinion by J. Corrigan to be most interesting. He wrote: "The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined."
Of course, the word, "majority" is not referring voters who voted on proposition 22, but to the majority of the judges who ruled on the issue.
Read the whole document and then lets discuss the issue.
Darin | 8:53 a.m. May 21, 2008
It may not be "self evident" to you, J. David, but I know
discrimination when I see it, and so does the California Supreme Court,
apparently. Is there no room in your religious perspective to support human
rights and social justice?
YBU | 9:24 a.m. May 21, 2008
ediddy:
Actually, the Utah Supreme court ruled that crosses on public property are legal and do NOT need to be removed, so, yes, there is a ruling for "right wing" conservatives.
Actually, the Utah Supreme court ruled that crosses on public property are legal and do NOT need to be removed, so, yes, there is a ruling for "right wing" conservatives.
big economic trouble ahead | 9:33 a.m. May 21, 2008
Let this topic go conservatives. Mind your own business.
Focus on keeping this country from going completely in the toilet economically instead.
Focus on keeping this country from going completely in the toilet economically instead.
Joe Moe | 9:38 a.m. May 21, 2008
Thanks for the insight, Mike (8:33). What I understand is that the Judge
Corrigan of the California Supreme Court also believes that the majority acted
as "activist judges." So it's not just wing-nut rightists in
Utah who think that? Crazy. It's just crazy that he thinks the courts
need to let the people define their laws. Doesn't he want more power for
himself?
Utlra Bob | 9:45 a.m. May 21, 2008
The reason why people are anti samesex marriage is because it contradicts the
rules of their religion. When the rules of their religion are contradicted the
strength and power of that religion is decreased.
These same people often are heard praising "freedom" however never when freedom would allow a person to deviate from religious rules.
These same people often are heard praising "freedom" however never when freedom would allow a person to deviate from religious rules.
Frank | 9:46 a.m. May 21, 2008
re: GWB | 4:53 a.m. May 21, 2008
Ive never liked the animal argument, I wouldnt even if I was fully pro gay-marriage.
Animals also mate with their own offspring and kill and canabalize their own children. They arent the best examples for higher level standards of living. "Gods Law" differs on the potential of the lifeform.
Ive never liked the animal argument, I wouldnt even if I was fully pro gay-marriage.
Animals also mate with their own offspring and kill and canabalize their own children. They arent the best examples for higher level standards of living. "Gods Law" differs on the potential of the lifeform.
Anonymous | 10:05 a.m. May 21, 2008
To Darin -
NEVER say the word "social" to conservatives.
It means something evil to them.
NEVER say the word "social" to conservatives.
It means something evil to them.
Anonymous | 10:39 a.m. May 21, 2008
Mike I notice that you only present the dissenting argument against the ruling
but not the majority opinion, are we suppose to take this as a possible bias.
The reason you do not include it is that it does not fit into your narrow
paradigm of right and wrong. Yes, I have read the ruling. The majority ruling
was based on the simple point of law that substantially equal does not make it
equal. The idea of separate but equal was struck down many years ago. So either
they have the rights or they do not. Substantially equal is not equal. The
dissenting judge�s opinion shows a lack of either
willingness or understanding of the judicial branches role as a check and
balance.
ediddy | 11:04 a.m. May 21, 2008
YBU,
Istand corrected, but as an interedting additional question, does that mean that left wingers, none the less were opposed to the crosses?
In concession, one thing that bothers me in the rhetoric here is the notion that if I oppose gay marriage, then I am homophobic. If I oppose abortion, then I am not pro choice. Often the positions taken here reflect accuracy only as framed by the position of the adversary, which is to concede that one side gets to decide which is right and which is left. I do not.
Istand corrected, but as an interedting additional question, does that mean that left wingers, none the less were opposed to the crosses?
In concession, one thing that bothers me in the rhetoric here is the notion that if I oppose gay marriage, then I am homophobic. If I oppose abortion, then I am not pro choice. Often the positions taken here reflect accuracy only as framed by the position of the adversary, which is to concede that one side gets to decide which is right and which is left. I do not.
Try This J David | 11:14 a.m. May 21, 2008
Suppose the citizens of California overwhelmingly voted (let's call it
prop. 23) to outlaw Mormonism, because it's not normal. After all,
it's only been around a relatively short time compared to mainstream
Christianity and they don't want this new agenda shoved down their
throats.
Then, suppose the California Supreme Court overturned prop. 23. Would you be outraged? Probably not, and for good reason because, just like prop. 22 it was deemed unconstitutional.
Then, suppose the California Supreme Court overturned prop. 23. Would you be outraged? Probably not, and for good reason because, just like prop. 22 it was deemed unconstitutional.
Mike Richards | 11:32 a.m. May 21, 2008
To Anonymous 10:39,
You have a name. I have a name. My name is not anonymous. I stand for certain principles and I use my own name so that anyone who wishes to investigate knows who I am and what I stand for.
I am 100% anti-same-sex "marriage". I am 100% pro-traditional marriage. I am 100% pro-family. I am 100% Christian and 100% devoted to noble principles given to us by God through His prophets, from Adam down to President Monson.
Yes, I am biased. I salute J. Corrigan, the Justice who wrote the minority opinion. I salute him for having the courage to stand up against situational ethics and to stand for the will of the people who voted on Prop. 22. In addition, I salute all who have the courage to state their cause and give their name.
Today I stand for anything that is good and noble among my fellow men. Someday I will stand before my Maker and report on how I lived my life. My hope then is that there will be evidence to show that I was not ashamed to stand for godly principles.
Do as you wish, but don't hide behind "anonymous".
You have a name. I have a name. My name is not anonymous. I stand for certain principles and I use my own name so that anyone who wishes to investigate knows who I am and what I stand for.
I am 100% anti-same-sex "marriage". I am 100% pro-traditional marriage. I am 100% pro-family. I am 100% Christian and 100% devoted to noble principles given to us by God through His prophets, from Adam down to President Monson.
Yes, I am biased. I salute J. Corrigan, the Justice who wrote the minority opinion. I salute him for having the courage to stand up against situational ethics and to stand for the will of the people who voted on Prop. 22. In addition, I salute all who have the courage to state their cause and give their name.
Today I stand for anything that is good and noble among my fellow men. Someday I will stand before my Maker and report on how I lived my life. My hope then is that there will be evidence to show that I was not ashamed to stand for godly principles.
Do as you wish, but don't hide behind "anonymous".
Ummmmmmm | 11:48 a.m. May 21, 2008
Don't Like Gay marriage? Don't marry one! And if marriage is so
sacred why not outlaw divorces except in special circumstances like abuse in the
home? If I made the "choice" to be gay, YOU made the
"choice" to marry the wrong person. Deal with it. The same way
I've been told to deal with my "choice".
what the...? | 12:19 p.m. May 21, 2008
Why is it that every chance they get, Mormons want to talk about how bad crosses
are?
Numbers | 12:34 p.m. May 21, 2008
Look at the bright side. Karl Rove has an issue to keep voters minds off the
results of trickle down economics, presidential lies and a disillusioned
public.
People bring up the will of the majority in California. I took time and I checked polls. Today, it is a coin toss. Gay marriage has gained 1.4% annually in polling. In five years gay marriage would pass.
The question arises; do you want to push for a vote you can loose in? Loosing the vote on gay marriage in California would be a real set back.
People bring up the will of the majority in California. I took time and I checked polls. Today, it is a coin toss. Gay marriage has gained 1.4% annually in polling. In five years gay marriage would pass.
The question arises; do you want to push for a vote you can loose in? Loosing the vote on gay marriage in California would be a real set back.
Hang on... | 12:38 p.m. May 21, 2008
I am a kleptomaniac. I have been ever since birth. I have even been diagnosed
with this condition. I am not dishonest, it is how God made me. I am being
discriminated against by the laws that say I can't follow what I have been
made to do, when it is not my choice to be this way, I was made this way. We
need to strike those laws down because they discriminate against me and other
kleptomaniacs.
Brandon Burt | 12:42 p.m. May 21, 2008
Good for you, Mike Richards. Too many anti-marriage folks hide behind anonymity;
it's good to see a marriage foe use his real name.
I suppose legal ethics become "situational" whenever a real-life law is applied to real-life families. And, when Mike Richards doesn't happen to condone some feature of those real-life families, he believes the law should not apply equally to them.
Picking and choosing how laws should be applied based on whether you like the people they apply to seems awfully "situational" to me.
I suppose legal ethics become "situational" whenever a real-life law is applied to real-life families. And, when Mike Richards doesn't happen to condone some feature of those real-life families, he believes the law should not apply equally to them.
Picking and choosing how laws should be applied based on whether you like the people they apply to seems awfully "situational" to me.
Anonymous | 12:45 p.m. May 21, 2008
That's quite a macho speech Mike Richards.
Since you are more interested in affixing a name (how do we REALLY know you are Mike Richards?) than the context of the posting, why not be a REAL Rambo-kinda guy and post the following:
Your home address
Your home phone
Your work phone
Your email address
That way we can all know for sure you are not "hiding."
Many thanks, Big Guy
Since you are more interested in affixing a name (how do we REALLY know you are Mike Richards?) than the context of the posting, why not be a REAL Rambo-kinda guy and post the following:
Your home address
Your home phone
Your work phone
Your email address
That way we can all know for sure you are not "hiding."
Many thanks, Big Guy
YBU | 12:57 p.m. May 21, 2008
ediddy:
It was the atheists who had a beef with the crosses - they wanted to have something other than a cross signify the sacrifice of the highway patrol person. Whether or not they were "left wing" or conservatives is unknown. I am sure that there are conservatives that believe in smaller governments, tax reductions and still not believe in a god.
It was the atheists who had a beef with the crosses - they wanted to have something other than a cross signify the sacrifice of the highway patrol person. Whether or not they were "left wing" or conservatives is unknown. I am sure that there are conservatives that believe in smaller governments, tax reductions and still not believe in a god.
YBU | 1:00 p.m. May 21, 2008
Hang On...
Laws are to protect people. The law against stealing is to protect those who work hard to own something and protect them from others who want it for whatever reasons.
The law against same-sex marriage is to protect some people's beliefs...
Big difference.
Laws are to protect people. The law against stealing is to protect those who work hard to own something and protect them from others who want it for whatever reasons.
The law against same-sex marriage is to protect some people's beliefs...
Big difference.
Anonymous | 1:06 p.m. May 21, 2008
Mike you are very childish, I have long stood out from the crowds and made my
voice known not just as a poster on these blogs but through public rallies,
petition drives, lobbying our congress, voter registration an soon on. I have
long stood against the bully that thinks he can use scripture to justify
anything that comes to their mind. How about some fact mike, I know they are
inconvenient to your arguments but you should try them on some time. Civics,
natural sciences and psychology could do wonders for your ability to argue
intelligently, rather then your self righteous belief that you have a direct
line to god. And no I am not disclosing my name because I do not wish to give
into your childish game, but trust me I am well known among the politically
active.
the way it is | 1:10 p.m. May 21, 2008
Laws that guarantee freedom of speech, privacy and personal choice are good
laws.
Laws that remove any of the above due to religious or moralized bigotry get shut down sooner or later.
This is the American Way.
Laws that remove any of the above due to religious or moralized bigotry get shut down sooner or later.
This is the American Way.
need more info | 1:20 p.m. May 21, 2008
Dear Mike Richards,
Don't hide behind anything.
Please furnish your home address, telephone number, work number, and email address for I can be sure you truly are a man amongsts men.
Don't hide behind anything.
Please furnish your home address, telephone number, work number, and email address for I can be sure you truly are a man amongsts men.
Anonymous | 2:05 p.m. May 21, 2008
I wonder how it harms YBU that people somewhere are choosing to do what they do
in privacy, in their own homes, bothering no one?
Mike Richards | 2:10 p.m. May 21, 2008
Well, well, well, It seems that a chord has been struck. To all of you who
want my address and phone number, please show me the proper example and
I'll promise to call you personally as soon as the DN publishes your
telephone number, your address and your e-mail address. Don't be timid.
Be leaders and lead the way.
Why is it that pro-gay, pro-same-sex marriage are mostly anti-religion and anti-God? Why is it that pro-gay, pro-same-sex marriage are mostly experts in philosophy? Why is it that pro-gay, pro-same-sex marriage are so fond of citing the fact that monkeys are often homosexual? Are we to assume that we are evolving towards monkeys or have we evolved beyond monkeys?
To 11:14,
"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion." That has been the law of the land since December 15, 1791.
To 1:06,
Thank you. I regard my children and my grandchildren and their innocent, "childish" behavior to be wonderful examples of living life. Disrespecting a child is something that an adult would never do.
When people resort to calling names, their cause and their integrity is suspect. Rise above your animal passions and be noble.
Why is it that pro-gay, pro-same-sex marriage are mostly anti-religion and anti-God? Why is it that pro-gay, pro-same-sex marriage are mostly experts in philosophy? Why is it that pro-gay, pro-same-sex marriage are so fond of citing the fact that monkeys are often homosexual? Are we to assume that we are evolving towards monkeys or have we evolved beyond monkeys?
To 11:14,
"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion." That has been the law of the land since December 15, 1791.
To 1:06,
Thank you. I regard my children and my grandchildren and their innocent, "childish" behavior to be wonderful examples of living life. Disrespecting a child is something that an adult would never do.
When people resort to calling names, their cause and their integrity is suspect. Rise above your animal passions and be noble.
RE:Hang On | 2:22 p.m. May 21, 2008
HOW are your civil rights being shut down? You have more rights than I do as a
gay man. Nice try, but I'm not budging. I feel sorry for your struggle if
you really have been diagnosed, but you still have waaaay more in your favor.
Brandon Burt | 2:32 p.m. May 21, 2008
By the same token, Mike Richards, why is it that anti-marriage people are mostly
the same people who say that there's no such thing as evolution, and that
we must teach Creationism in school?
And there has been no name calling in my comments.
And there has been no name calling in my comments.
Mike Richards | 2:43 p.m. May 21, 2008
To Numbers (12:34),
When a vote is taken and when that vote represents the will of the people, then the people have decided for themselves a course of action, whether it be good or bad. Most of the time we charge our representatives with the obligation of formulating our laws, but sometimes the cause is so important that we, the citizens, vote directly. When that vote takes place, it is the will of the people.
Any student of history can give examples of nations that have faltered and then failed when the desire of the people was contrary to God's law (or to nature's law - for those who choose to profess no belief in God). Greece once was a world power. Rome was once a world power. Perhaps the same will one day be said of the United States. Surely, if the will of the people is to defile themselves and to defile one another, there will be natural consequences.
Those same natural laws affect each of us. When we individually chose to forfeit success by indulgent living, we individually will cease to progress. We will falter and then we will fail - based on our own personal vote.
When a vote is taken and when that vote represents the will of the people, then the people have decided for themselves a course of action, whether it be good or bad. Most of the time we charge our representatives with the obligation of formulating our laws, but sometimes the cause is so important that we, the citizens, vote directly. When that vote takes place, it is the will of the people.
Any student of history can give examples of nations that have faltered and then failed when the desire of the people was contrary to God's law (or to nature's law - for those who choose to profess no belief in God). Greece once was a world power. Rome was once a world power. Perhaps the same will one day be said of the United States. Surely, if the will of the people is to defile themselves and to defile one another, there will be natural consequences.
Those same natural laws affect each of us. When we individually chose to forfeit success by indulgent living, we individually will cease to progress. We will falter and then we will fail - based on our own personal vote.
Hey Folks, | 2:49 p.m. May 21, 2008
If my lifestyle offends you, please remember the key word is "MY".
A lot of things other people do offend me, but I'm adult enough to walk away or ignore it or if I have to, to tolerate it and MOVE ON.
A lot of things other people do offend me, but I'm adult enough to walk away or ignore it or if I have to, to tolerate it and MOVE ON.
YBU | 2:50 p.m. May 21, 2008
Anonymous 2:05
I was answering "Hang On 12:38" who unfortunately is a kleptomaniac and thinks that laws should be passed to allow him to take whatever he wants to. I was telling him that his kleptomania harms those who he take from, but homosexuality harms no one. Big difference between the two.
I was answering "Hang On 12:38" who unfortunately is a kleptomaniac and thinks that laws should be passed to allow him to take whatever he wants to. I was telling him that his kleptomania harms those who he take from, but homosexuality harms no one. Big difference between the two.
Anonymous | 3:04 p.m. May 21, 2008
Sorry Mike Richards.
Like all neocons you only talk the talk.
Like all neocons you only talk the talk.
Anonymous | 3:07 p.m. May 21, 2008
Why is it that just when things get interesting (thanks to liberal postings) we
always get to have the pleasure of the wacky neocons with their ridiculous Rambo
impressions and Rush Limbaugh insults to lower the bar once again?
just saying | 3:08 p.m. May 21, 2008
GWB ...I am not saying you are right or wrong here but you should be careful
about using anectdotal evidence to back your claim. Monkeys also defecate in
their hands and throw it at those they are unhappy with or threatened by...are
you suggesting this too should be constitutionally protected?
Mike Richards | 3:11 p.m. May 21, 2008
Brandon,
Thanks for using your name. To me, that means that you're willing to take full responsibility for what you write. We should all do that. If our thoughts are not important enough to own, they're not important enough to publish - at least that's how I feel.
In both of your posts your used the words "anti-marriage" and in your first post, you used the words "marriage foe". From the context, it appears that most writers would have used "anti-same-sex marriage" and "same-sex marriage foe". That brings us to J. Corrigan, who wrote the minority opinion for the California Court. He wrote: "It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined."
We neither pick nor choose laws. Law governs us. Law governs how we live. Justice is blind - or it should be. Good law does not favor one group over another. Good law brings out the best in society. Bad laws allow people, or groups of people, to destroy society because of their limited and selfish interests. The laws that we choose for ourselves can be vetoed by God (or by nature) when those laws are destructive.
Thanks for using your name. To me, that means that you're willing to take full responsibility for what you write. We should all do that. If our thoughts are not important enough to own, they're not important enough to publish - at least that's how I feel.
In both of your posts your used the words "anti-marriage" and in your first post, you used the words "marriage foe". From the context, it appears that most writers would have used "anti-same-sex marriage" and "same-sex marriage foe". That brings us to J. Corrigan, who wrote the minority opinion for the California Court. He wrote: "It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined."
We neither pick nor choose laws. Law governs us. Law governs how we live. Justice is blind - or it should be. Good law does not favor one group over another. Good law brings out the best in society. Bad laws allow people, or groups of people, to destroy society because of their limited and selfish interests. The laws that we choose for ourselves can be vetoed by God (or by nature) when those laws are destructive.
Anonymous | 4:03 p.m. May 21, 2008
Mike Richards is obviously one of those self-absorbed neocons who loves to see
his "name in lights" so to speak. Not the purpose of this format.
Meanwhile the rest of us will focus on the substance of the thought posted - not the fabulous fame our name may bring. (wink)
Meanwhile the rest of us will focus on the substance of the thought posted - not the fabulous fame our name may bring. (wink)
Numbers returns | 4:48 p.m. May 21, 2008
Mike's god punishes the innocent for the sins of others?
Rome fail because it over extended it's empire. It's military bankrupted it like the military of Spain, France and England bankrupted those nations.
Gays weren't to blame.
National debt caused by wars those who claim to support but won't pay for will turn American into a third world nation.
Your words imply a faith your actions don't confirm. If you have faith in god doesn't it follow that you have faith he can judge others better than you can?
Rome fail because it over extended it's empire. It's military bankrupted it like the military of Spain, France and England bankrupted those nations.
Gays weren't to blame.
National debt caused by wars those who claim to support but won't pay for will turn American into a third world nation.
Your words imply a faith your actions don't confirm. If you have faith in god doesn't it follow that you have faith he can judge others better than you can?
ediddy | 5:21 p.m. May 21, 2008
Mike Richards,
Save your breath trying to flush out anonymous. It might be female, but that seems unlikely. Either way, all you will do is get blank rhetoric and cowardice in return. I've been the rounds with "him" and it is a waste of time.
Save your breath trying to flush out anonymous. It might be female, but that seems unlikely. Either way, all you will do is get blank rhetoric and cowardice in return. I've been the rounds with "him" and it is a waste of time.
Anonymous | 5:35 p.m. May 21, 2008
It's always amusing how people from this culture have learned how to hide
behind their church to mask their bigotry and hatred for people, places and
things different from them.
Kevin | 5:37 p.m. May 21, 2008
The California Supreme Court usurped no one's right, Mr. Gowdy.
Californians can go to the ballot this November and overrule the court. I
doubt they will vote to overrule.
Another point is that this case had only to do with the word "marriage." Gays in California already enjoyed the rights of marriage granted under that state. The court merely allowed the word marriage to be applied to those rights. Your yammering is only about semantics, Mr. Gowdy.
It's interesting to note that of the 6 Republicans on the bench, 3 voted in the majority. The majority opinion was written by a Republican. The lone Democrat on the bench was merely a tie breaker.
Of the 3 Republicans who dissented, one, Justice Carol Corrigan, wrote a separate dissent, where she said "Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages."
You are on the wrong side of history and morality, Mr. Gowdy.
Another point is that this case had only to do with the word "marriage." Gays in California already enjoyed the rights of marriage granted under that state. The court merely allowed the word marriage to be applied to those rights. Your yammering is only about semantics, Mr. Gowdy.
It's interesting to note that of the 6 Republicans on the bench, 3 voted in the majority. The majority opinion was written by a Republican. The lone Democrat on the bench was merely a tie breaker.
Of the 3 Republicans who dissented, one, Justice Carol Corrigan, wrote a separate dissent, where she said "Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages."
You are on the wrong side of history and morality, Mr. Gowdy.
Ultra Bob | 5:49 p.m. May 21, 2008
Mike
As an American Liberal Democrat whose attempts to find God have totally failed, I will disagree with you for the most part. However I am glad to see people who have the courage and strength of character to use their real name in this jungle of opinion. So I say Yea Mike.
For myself I decided some time ago not to put up with the anonymous and sometimes threatning letters that came through the mail.
As an American Liberal Democrat whose attempts to find God have totally failed, I will disagree with you for the most part. However I am glad to see people who have the courage and strength of character to use their real name in this jungle of opinion. So I say Yea Mike.
For myself I decided some time ago not to put up with the anonymous and sometimes threatning letters that came through the mail.
Anonymous | 5:57 p.m. May 21, 2008
Actually the California Supreme Court SUPPORTED people's rights.
Why do conservatives insist on larger governments and more power sticking their noses into places that are other people's personal business?
Thank God for liberal, wonderful California!
Why do conservatives insist on larger governments and more power sticking their noses into places that are other people's personal business?
Thank God for liberal, wonderful California!
Reason | 6:52 p.m. May 21, 2008
Re: Mike Richards. Thanks for your comments. I admire your solid, clear stand
on an important social issue.
Mike Richards | 7:16 p.m. May 21, 2008
The sad fact is that many who post anytime there is a "gay rights"
subject are not local. I have a nephew who is a gay activist, and believe me,
the group he associates with knows how to do organize and intimidate. Many of
us who defend traditional marriage and traditional families have received
threatening letters and telephone calls. That abuse goes with the job of
defending things that are good and noble. It has always been that way.
Just like today, many who have posted have intimidation on their minds. The goal is to use any means to further the gay agenda.
The best response is to actively participate in every pro-God, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage thread, using information and resources that are so easily available via the Internet. No one who is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage needs to ever feel intimidated or bashful about voicing an opinion. And no one needs to feel that being pro-God, pro-family, pro-life, pro-marriage is close-minded. Just the opposite is true.
Everyone on earth has the same right and obligation to stand for something. Hopefully, we choose to stand for good.
Just like today, many who have posted have intimidation on their minds. The goal is to use any means to further the gay agenda.
The best response is to actively participate in every pro-God, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage thread, using information and resources that are so easily available via the Internet. No one who is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage needs to ever feel intimidated or bashful about voicing an opinion. And no one needs to feel that being pro-God, pro-family, pro-life, pro-marriage is close-minded. Just the opposite is true.
Everyone on earth has the same right and obligation to stand for something. Hopefully, we choose to stand for good.
George Washington | 7:32 p.m. May 21, 2008
"[V]irtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government."
--George Washington
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
--George Washington
--George Washington
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
--George Washington
Kevin | 11:23 p.m. May 21, 2008
Mike Richards:
I'm very much a local. Maybe you should sit down and listen to your nephew. You bet I'm pro-life, pro-family (all families), pro-marriage (same-sex and opposite-sex).
I'm not "pro-God." I don't believe there's any truth to religion.
But please keep this in mind. This country was not founded on tradition. It does not exist to exalt tradition. It was founded on the concepts of freedom and equality. It exists to exalt freedom and equality.
It's unfortunate you feel traditional families are under attack, that is, that you feel they need to be defended. It's also unfortunate you think people like me are the ones attacking. I feel no amount of reason will reach you on this point, so I'll just say that for the record.
I'm very much a local. Maybe you should sit down and listen to your nephew. You bet I'm pro-life, pro-family (all families), pro-marriage (same-sex and opposite-sex).
I'm not "pro-God." I don't believe there's any truth to religion.
But please keep this in mind. This country was not founded on tradition. It does not exist to exalt tradition. It was founded on the concepts of freedom and equality. It exists to exalt freedom and equality.
It's unfortunate you feel traditional families are under attack, that is, that you feel they need to be defended. It's also unfortunate you think people like me are the ones attacking. I feel no amount of reason will reach you on this point, so I'll just say that for the record.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Williams to miss Cavs game, too 4:06 p.m.
- Weber St. gets past No. Arizona 4:01 p.m.
- In Asia, Obama pushing arms control 3:50 p.m.
- Texas rolls 47-14 over Baylor 3:48 p.m.
- Snowstorm hits Utah; 1 dead 3:43 p.m.
- Montana wins Big Sky with win 3:43 p.m.
- Rep. bashes Dems over health care 3:41 p.m.
- No. 21 Wisconsin beats Michigan 3:26 p.m.
- Hotline doctors field colon questions 3:18 p.m.
- No. 22 BYU holds off pesky Lobos 3:14 p.m.
- Apostle's wife felt comfort in attack
- Short-handed Jazz fly past Sixers
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?
- D-Will home for daughter
- Bench proves fruitful for Y.
- Utes excited for 'dream' game
- Born of water and the spirit
- Woods Cross refinery to shut down
- 5A: Bingham rolls to title game
- Man killed during 3rd I-15 crash
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
352 - Editorial: Mormons and gay rights199
- Senators want food tax restored164
- Will state consider gay rights law?146
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah129
- Utes remain silent about BCS120
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?120
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections113
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges105
- Celtics crush Jazz104
Maybe someone out there can help me understand how raising the state...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Why would it matter what religion Washington was? The US isn't a christian...
Hey Dick - See any similarity between BYU/NM and last years Utah/TCU...
Utah 45 UNM 14 YBU 24 UNM 19 Utah is 26 points better than YBU. ...
Looking good Tigers. We love you so much. Keep up the good work and bring...
The data shows the earth is cooling, not warming! But like Groucho Marks...
Wow. Top-25 team, BYU is not. The MWC has really 3 classes: Class...
"FACT #2: BYU has received $2.0M in charity handouts from the University of...
4 of the first 5 comments from cougar trolls. Great win for the coogs by the...
Considering that two of the high priest group leaders in my stake (at...
Science is a fraud. We all know people are black because Cain killed Abel. ...
Advertisements
The writer is, obviously, interpreting the issue from a very religious perspective. This is understandable considering the strict application of so-called "divine work". However, in this instance, the Court saw the necessity to protect the rights of the minority.
If the writer believes that homosexuality is an "abomination and sin", then there is nothing further to be discussed except to say he takes a minority view on the issue.
Same-sex marriage is here and is irrelevant to most people who do not view it as a threat to the "public virtue". It certainly is not a threat to traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That deceit is a figment of the Religious Right's imaginative claim to Truth and God's Will.