governed by law? | 8:49 p.m. Nov. 22, 2008
"So what happens when a small group of partison judges strike down a legally instituted constitutional amendment? I think someone once used the metaphor "hanging by a thread" to describe the Constitution in this situation.

We are in dire trouble if Prop 8 is overturned because there are NO limits if we aren't bound by constitutional law."

This is exactly the point of Proposition 8. Constitutional law would mean absolutely nothing, and there are those who wouldn't care, as long as they got what they wanted by demolishing the law.

You know, there are certain political groups in recent history who used other groups to tear down governments so that they could then go in and take over. And then, they turned on those "other groups." We need to be VERY careful...

To "Say Again"

This hot of CNN today:

CNN) -- A Florida circuit judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday a 31-year-old state law that prevents gays and lesbians from adopting children, saying "the blanket exclusion" of gay applicants "defeated Florida's goal of providing dependent children a permanent family."

"The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption," Judge Cindy S. Lederman wrote in her 53-page ruling.

Florida is the only state that specifically bans all "homosexual" people from adopting children, although it does allow them to be foster parents.

This month, Arkansas voters approved a ballot measure to prohibit unmarried partners -- same-sex or opposite-sex couples -- from adopting children or from serving as foster parents.

The measure is similar to one in Utah, which excludes same-sex couples indirectly through a statute barring all unmarried couples from adopting or taking in foster children.

My point:
How many times do the courts have to tell you that it is their job to protect the rights of all Americans!!! Equality means minorities too!!!

Again...I quote from Christ " Do unto others as you would have done unto you".

To I told you so:

Judge Lederman has a long and admirable history of defense of abused children in her court. She does a outstanding job of advocacy for children. She has been accused of abuse of power (see "Courting Disaster" by Tristram Korten).

Which would you rather have a say in the law of your country, its constitution, or judges? By allowing judges to "make law", you no longer need the legislative branch. Or, anyone to vote.

Doing unto others, as Christ said, meant Christlike behavior. I think that defending what is right, is Christlike, even though it may seem unpopular. Christ was not always very popular.

putting their "God" where it shouldn't be. "God " (or any religion's version of "God") should be kept in the religion and not mixed out in public where different people many times have a different version. And don't start quoting scriptures here....just like "God" people interpret or believe them differently.

... "Sounds like," here's the core problem. What's more important: What God wants, or what people think? If you know the first, the second doesn't matter. And if that's the case, it's not ANYONE's right to say where God should and shouldn't be. God is hardly bound by our political beliefs--most of which we've created in SPITE of Him.

Hopefully that's clear enough!

Okay, we get it, you are fighting for your civil rights.

Why don't you stop and consider the pro8 side?
I've yet to hear from an opponent of prop8 who seemed to have a clue why there should be a distinction between unions of hetero and unions of homo couples.

The lack of understanding seems to go in one direction.

LDS Member... Would you (or the LDS in general) be willing to support a federal Constitutional amendment granting all civil and legal rights currently enjoyed by married couples, to individuals who are officially joined by a Civil Union? I mean the entire package, from joint tax returns, to inheritance, to hospital visitation, to adoption and child support obligations, to employee benefits, to everything else. Then, each religious group would be free to define "marriage" according to their particular beliefs, without infringing on anyone's civil and legal rights under the Constitution and the Laws of the country.

If not, why not.

If the government didn't recognize your marriages in your temples? It is certainly not the norm. Put yourself in other's places.

Fedralist...
issues of joint tax returns,inheritance, hospital visitation should be equal. They should also be able to legally adopt children. However, church owned/sponsored adoption agencies should have the right to deny same-sex couples on religious grounds.
One reason I am for a distinction of the two unions is that I believe the gov't (society) has more to benefit from traditional unions.
With that in mind, gov't should not be obligated to give full equal rights to civil unions in all cases. Nevertheless, that could be left up to the judges.
same-sex couples can and should fight for civil unions.
Those who believe the traditional definition of marriage is worth preserving, should fight for that.

LDS member... I also agree there should be a distinction between "civil union" and "marriage". The government should be in the business of sanctioning civil unions only, for civil and legal purposes, and the different religions should be in the business of blessing marriages according to their laws and precepts for their congregations only. I know there are many religious groups and organizations which welcome gay and lesbian couples with open arms, and would gladly perform marriages for same-sex couples in all its traditional splendor.

Re: Church owned/sponsored adoption agencies, and for that matter, any church owned/sponsored public service organization. I would accept that they could deny services based on their religious teaching, provided they understand they will not receive any financial support from any governmental sources. To give public support (funded by tax dollars) to any group which would deny their services to any member of the public (the taxpayers) is hypocritical and discriminatory. Public funding should only go to those groups which serve the public without restriction.

Were is all this violence coming from the gay community that is being talked about in all these posts? What news storys are you people seeing / reading?
I'm not seeing or hearing any of it. I was at the gay rights rally in Salt Lake City and there were thousands of people there and there was NO violence! It was completely peaceful! No one was hurt. No one was arrested. No laws were broke. And as to vandalism at churches (yes it is completely deplorable and unacceptable) but I have not heard of one incident that has been PROVEN to have been caused by any gay activists!
What happened to being Innocent before PROVEN guilty in America? Maybe we should wait for the facts to come in like the police do before we go running off and assuming it is gay people doing these things! They could be completely unrelated. These type of things have been happening for many years before this latest controversy! MAYBE! its people on the other side that are trying to make gay people look bad by villainizing them. Don't jump to conclusions BEFORE the FACTS are in.

Just drop it and move on!

God works mysterious way to a lot of good things came out of this incident.

"One man and One woman, that's marriage! It's simple as that!

Just move forward with a faith.

I love all my friend who are gays or not but I certainly will not agree what they believe about a marriage. That's it!