Jeff says:Many people are citing the Court's reasoning in this
travesty of a decision saying that one reason California violated the US
Constitution is because it took away a right already granted to Californians
(ie, the "right" to marry someone of the same gender).That
so-called right was never granted by California. In fact, it was prohibited in
California. When the California Supreme Court ruled against Prop 22, the COURT
allowed same-gender marriages to occur, even though Prop 8 was already in the
docket for the November election (anticipating the ruling by the Court). The
Court was asked to grant a stay prohibiting such marriages until Prop 8 could be
voted on, but the Court refused and ordered counties and municipalities in
California to allow same-gender couples to marry.---Jeff; You are incorrect again. You see, there was NO LAW prohibiting
same-sex marriage in California until Prop-22 - at which point the California
Supreme Court ruled that prop-22 violated the California Constitution's equal
protection clause. Same-sex couples had exactly the SAME RIGHT to marry in CA
prior to Prop-22 BEFORE bigots added wording to the CA Consitution prohibiting
it. (note: heterosexual marriage was NOT in the Ca. Constitution either). It
is NOT NECESSARY for a right to be granted to some Americans if it is already a
right of American Citizens. WE DO NOT NEED YOUR PERMISSION - THE CONSTITUTION
GRANTS EQUAL PROTECTION TO US.
@ wrz: ""You cannot prohibit something that does not exist."What!? Governments do this all the time... A simple example: On the
highway that I frequent the government took away my right to drive 65 miles per
hour. In it's place they put a limit of 55 MPH."What was
prohibited that doesn't exist? Cars exist, freeways exist, the ability to go
faster than 55 MPH exists. What was prohibited that doesn't exist?""As proof that same-sex marriage does exist and is part of the
definition of marriage, just look at the 18,000 same-sex couples in California
who are, indeed, married."Such marriages are illegal because
they violate federal DOMA."You need to go read DOMA. There is
not a single word about same-sex marriages not being allowed or not being legal
- all DOMA says is the Federal Government gets to violate Full Faith and Credit
and the 10th Amendment and not recognize them, and other states get to violate
Full Faith and Credit and the 14th Amendment and not recognize them.@ Jeff: If rights were something given by the people, that would mean they
could be taken away by the people. Since rights are not given by one person to
another person but are something that are inherent as part of being a person,
they cannot be given by someone to someone else, nor can they be taken away by
someone else - or a group of someone else's for that matter. The Courts in
California did not grant the right to same-sex marriage, that right already
existed in the California State Constitution.Prop 8 was still
gathering signatures when the Court found that same-sex marriage was a right
granted under the California Constitution. Are you really arguing that Courts
should limit the rights of citizens because there may at some point in the
future be a vote to strip those rights away? You really want to give the Courts
that much power?@ wrz: You are right - the inability of children to
consent is a social construct - based upon the very real, tested, and proven
differences in maturity and reasoning abilities that exist between people of
various ages. In other words, there is a very valid social reason to limit the
ability of children to consent.A dog wags his tail for many reasons.
The fact that he or she responds with a tail wag to a certain tone of voice in
no way indicates consent or agreement with the contents of the words. This has
been proven in studies where a negative phrase is said in a positive tone and a
positive phrase is said in a negative tone. The arguments you so
cleverly try to assert have been proven fallacious over and over and over again.
There is a reason none of them were used by the defenders of Prop 8.
Many people are citing the Court's reasoning in this travesty of a decision
saying that one reason California violated the US Constitution is because it
took away a right already granted to Californians (ie, the "right" to
marry someone of the same gender).That so-called right was never
granted by California. In fact, it was prohibited in California. When the
California Supreme Court ruled against Prop 22, the COURT allowed same-gender
marriages to occur, even though Prop 8 was already in the docket for the
November election (anticipating the ruling by the Court). The Court was asked
to grant a stay prohibiting such marriages until Prop 8 could be voted on, but
the Court refused and ordered counties and municipalities in California to allow
same-gender couples to marry.This was never a right granted by the
people of the State of California. It had clearly been forbidden by statute
with Prop 22, and the passage of Prop 8 was more than likely. It is circular
reasoning at its worst for the Court of Appeals to say that we Californians took
away a right we had granted. WE did not grant it.
@atl134:"Dogs can't consent."I've seen dogs
consent. They wag their tails in wild anticipation.If someone feels
discriminated against because they can't marry someone of their own sex in
accordance with their desires, others can also claim discrimination if they
can't marry several people at the same time (called polygamy) or if they can't
marry a minor.And don't tell us that a minor cannot marry because
they can't give consent. Such minority status is a function of law which, like
any law, can be reversed... and should be reversed, because it is discriminatory
against certain citizens.The US Constitution has no proviso that
certain people, because of age, should be prohibited from enjoying certain
privileges. Furthermore, states cannot place such restrictions either because
the Federal Constitution requires equal protection under the law. Equal
protection for all people, young, old, etc, etc.
Gary Marriage and its lifestyle is against The Laws of Nature. Forget about
rights, definition, equality, etc...we all know the consequences of going
against the Laws of Nature. Most of the results are not good and could cost
lives. Imagine if all people accepted and practiced gay marriage, we will all be
gone in a little over 100 years.
wrz says:@Ranch:"If you don't believe in marriage
for gay couples, don't have one. It really is that simple."I
believe in marriage for gay people... provided they follow federal Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) and marry someone of the opposite sex.---Tell me. Did you marry your spouse simply because he/she was of the
opposite sex or did you choose to marry the person you loved? Would ANY member
of the opposite sex have done?Isn't it VERY hypocritical to marry
the person of your choice and then require someone else to marry someone they
don't choose simply because they meet a critierion you find acceptable in that
person? btw; DOMA violates the Constitution of the United States
(Article 4 sections 1 & 2 and Amendment 14).
Many of us object to gay marriage for a very practical and personal reason --
we're comfortable with the Church's current prohibition on plural marriage, and
are not anxious to see it re-instituted among the Saints.The 1890
Manifesto states as its basis, "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by
Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced
constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to
submit to those laws."When gay marriage is legally sanctioned,
we all know polygamy won't be far behind, as no rational basis exists for
permitting the one, while prohibiting the other.And, when submission
to law no longer requires avoiding plural marriage, does the Manifesto's
rationale go away? If so, what about our excusal from living that
commandment?I don't pretend to know the mind of God, and I freely
acknowledge that neither He, nor His prophet, need advice from me on how to
proceed, but I can't shake the uneasiness that these shifts in traditional
morality may have troublesome consequences for us.
(continued from above)But instead of the calling Obama a flip
flopper, the media gives him a pass for "evolving" his position, but
they will not give Mitt Romney the same amount of credit for evolving his
position on abortion. The won't allow Romney much intellectual acknowledgment
for the difference between statewide healthcare laws, and national health care
that removes decisions from the states.What a wacky world we live
Interesting that Obama was against gay marriage, now he isn't. But instead of
the calling him a flip flopping, the media gives him a pass. They have given
Obama credit for asserting that his views on gay marriage are "still
evolving," but they will not give Mitt Romney the same amount of credit.If you don't think bias in the media helps influence elections, you
don't understand very much about our sound-bite society and its lack of scrutiny
and willingness to feed its bias by consuming soundbites that taste good to it.
Society will be affected by media bias, no matter how inconsistent, misleading
and intellectually dishonest it is.
wrz@ludwig:"If your church or faith does not believe in same
sex marriage ---then it will not have to marry any gay couple as it has the
right to refuse to marry any heterosexual couple for whatever reason."wrzAre you ever naive! You fail to comprehend the powers that have
accrued to the government in the last few dozen years.LDS4If the
feds ever try to force churches to marry gays, a constitutional amendment would
be passed SO fast. NO one would DARE oppose it. There are FAR FAR more women
than gays and yet there has been no attempt to force LDS or Catholics to ordain
women. The sky isn't falling.wrzI'd like to see two men,
married of not, conceive a child. Same with two females.LDS4A couple
in my ward can't, even with fertility treatments. It's impossible. Maybe they
should have their marriage license revoked under your logic.wrzAnd federal law supersedes state law. See the Constitutional 'Supremacy
Clause.' So, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) supersedes any state law
allowing same sex marriage.LDS4DOMA does NOT prohibit same-sex
marriage. All it does is forbid the feds from recognizing them and gives states
the OPTION to recognize same-sex marriages performed in those states that allow
wrz@lds4gaymarriage:"The ruling is a victory for those
who love and follow the scriptures..."wrzI think you'll
find some scriptures where God abhors such conduct.LDS41 Cor.
10:29 states that using one's morals to justify infringing upon the rights of
others is wrong. D&C 134:4 likewise mentions those who let their religious
beliefs prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. WE LDS
used our morals/doctrine as justification to infringe upon the rights of gays
who had the right to marry in CA prior to 8. Sure, God abhors homosexuality,
but 8 dis nothing to discourage homosexuality. All 8 was about was to infringe
upon others' rights. It was no different than the South reinstalling
White/Black drinking fountains based on the vote of the majority.wrz"Please tell us what part of the constitution was
violated."@RedShirt:Equal protection clause.WRZThe
problem with that approach is... gays can marry just like anyone else can marry
so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.LDS4And
Christians in Saudi Arabia can attend public worship services and scripture
reading all they want as long as it is in a mosque studying the Koran...just
like everyone else.
Why do the prudes always focus on sex?1. I didn't marry my wife just
to have kids.2. I didn't get married just for physical intimacy.In fact, 99.99% of my married life has nothing to do with physical
intimacy.And children were just an added wonderful blessing to that tiny
0.001%. The fact is, Marriage is about 2 people who share the same
hopes, dreams, goals, and aspirations in life.It's about not having
to be alone in this world.It's about caring more about another
person, MORE than you care about yourself.It's about lifting up and
support someone else, an they in turn do the same for you.It's a
legally binding contract, a committment, - that come good times or bad - that
"We" are in this together. And that neither of us can just
"bail" on a whim.If all you got married for was the
physical intimacy, You got married for all the WRONG reasons.
@Ranch:"If you don't believe in marriage for gay couples, don't
have one. It really is that simple."I believe in marriage for
gay people... provided they follow federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and
marry someone of the opposite sex.@ludwig:"If your
church or faith does not believe in same sex marriage ---then it will not have
to marry any gay couple as it has the right to refuse to marry any heterosexual
couple for whatever reason."Are you ever naive! You fail to
comprehend the powers that have accrued to the government in the last few dozen
years."Yes, gay couples can procreate..."I'd
like to see two men, married of not, conceive a child. Same with two
females."Marriage is about two people who love each
other..."Why did you stop there with your definition of
marriage? Shouldn't you have expanded it to include several people who love
each other... such as one man and several women? Or one woman and several men?
Or an adult male and a twelve year old girl. Or an adult female and her ten
year old son? Why did you stop where you did in describing marriage?@Kalindra:"The Federal (US) Constitution is the supreme law
of the land. State Constitutions cannot violate it."And
federal law supersedes state law. See the Constitutional 'Supremacy Clause.'
So, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) supersedes any state law allowing same
sex marriage."You cannot prohibit something that does not
exist."What!? Governments do this all the time... A simple
example: On the highway that I frequent the government took away my right to
drive 65 miles per hour. In it's place they put a limit of 55 MPH."As proof that same-sex marriage does exist and is part of the definition
of marriage, just look at the 18,000 same-sex couples in California who are,
indeed, married."Such marriages are illegal because they
violate federal DOMA. .
@ John20000: For a long time now we have let non-procreative couples use the
term marriage. Do you have an issue with infertile couples being
married? And what does fertility or infertility have to do with same-sex
marriage? And are infertile couples that adopt considered procreative or
non-procreative? What about couples that use assistive fertility technologies?
All of you using God or President Packer or The Proclamation to the Family to
justify your position should realize one thing: Your God and your religion is
irrelevant to EVERYBODY but you. He/she/it does not matter. He/she/it has no
legal standing. He/she/it and his/her/its rules apply ONLY to those who follow
him/her/it. Nobody else, NOBODY ELSE, is obligated in any way to follow the
dictates or commands or rules of YOUR god(s). All of your religious
mumbo jumbo means nothing - except to you. All of it has no relevance - except
for you. If you don't believe in marriage for gay couples, don't
have one. It really is that simple.
'Or is that hateful to use a word that non-procreative unions can use?' -
John20000 | 5:15 p.m. Feb. 8, 2012 Grandparents?
What legal word should we use (since "marriage" looks to be out) to
describe a procreative union? Or is that hateful to use a word that
non-procreative unions can use?Are we really saying that there is no
different between a different-sex union and a same-sex union? They have to be
called the same thing legally.
First of all---this is NOT a religious issue because among other things Church
and States are separate and only the State has the right to issue marriages in a
Secular country as the United States. If your church or faith does not believe
in same sex marriage ---then it will not have to marry any gay couple as it has
the right to refuse to marry any heterosexual couple for whatever reason. This issue is about the legal freedom of everyone to choose whom they
love et al and the civil and human rights conferred upon couples by the magic
word 'marriage' which the words 'civil unions' do not carry and never can carry
no matter how you twist it to make it seem so. It about making the ideals of the
United States Constitution and wresting the rights it guarantees from the
bigoted fascists of this world who think that the world revolves only about them
and to hell with everybody else's freedoms and rights. No one is
going to force anyone to marry a same sex spouse so I fail to understand why the
issue has been made a Mount Everest out of a molehill in some quarters.
Procreation is not part of this but just incidental to any marriage. Procreation
is not a justification for marriage -----people bring children into this world
everyday who are not married and never will be married. There are many couples
who would like to have their own biological children but cannot and then there
are those heterosexuals who marry and do not want the little brats in their
lives because raising a child by the demands imposed upon one---takes upon
denying oneself the pleasures of life that one Yes, gay couples
can procreate and if you do not think so then you do not see the forest for the
trees and are way behind the advances of reproductive science and genetics that
began with Dolly the Sheep and Orchid cloning. These days a mouse may carry
human genomes and those same human genomes can be used to create children with
two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father and other permutations
thereof. Marriage is about two people who love each other to want to spend
the rest of their lives together and Same sex marriages are more stable than
heterosexual marriages aided also by laws that deny gay people the right to
divorce once married. It is a human and civil right of all people without
regards to gender, race, religion et al and Relgion is no excuse to deny someone
their legal human and civil rights in a secular country.
@ raybies: Actually, Prop 8 changed the status quo. Prior to the passage of
Prop 8, gays had marriage.@ J Thompson: The Federal (US)
Constitution is the supreme law of the land. State Constitutions cannot violate
it. The Court found that by the California Constitution giving marriage to
same-sex couples and then changing the California Constitution to take that
pre-existing right away, the California Constitution violated the 14th Amendment
of the US Constitution - California did something expressly forbidden by the US
Constitution. And the Judges said they couldn't do that. Look at that - the
Courts functioned exactly as you said they should.@ ksampow: The
definition of marriage changed 30 years ago when Hawaii first voted to prohibit
same-sex marriage. At that point, it was acknowledged that same-sex
relationships were a part of marriage - otherwise, how could you prohibit it?
You cannot prohibit something that does not exist. As proof that same-sex
marriage does exist and is part of the definition of marriage, just look at the
18,000 same-sex couples in California who are, indeed, married.
No one is proposing denying the right of gays to do what they want. They are
free to live together and practice their lifestyle. However, they are asking
for a change in the definition of the institution of marriage.That would
be like arguing that my rights are violated if my business can not be defined as
a charitable organization.The definition of a divinely appointed and
time-honored institution is what is in question, not civil liberties.
How few understand what is happening.The PEOPLE hold all power, not
the Courts, not the President, not Congress.The PEOPLE assign to
government limited responsibilities and limited authority.The PEOPLE
write the Constitution, not the Courts nor any other branch of government.When the PEOPLE write the Constitution, it becomes the supreme law.The STATE of California has the right to determine its own laws except
for those that are found to be explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.The U.S. Constitution has no clause regarding same-sex marriage. It is
not a "right" put in the Constitution by the voice of the people.
Accordingly, the 10th Amendment directs the States and the People to handle that
responsibility.The PEOPLE of the State of California changed their
State Constitution banning same-sex marriages. That point will be
understood when the Supreme Court rules. Those who have no
understanding of the Constitution nor of the limits and restrictions it places
on Courts may gloat now, but they won't be gloating long.
As some of my compadres have stated the majority of the people of California
voted to limit the definition of marriage between man and woman. This now has
been ruled unconstitutional by the courts (GO FIGURE). As President Packer so
eliquently put it in a General Conference talk, man can make laws that appear to
change the Laws of our Heavenly Father. However, as he also spoke, THE
PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD, THE FAMILY is not meant just for members of the
Latter-Day Saints but for every living person on the earth. The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints has taken the stand it is supposed to take
regardless of how popular it is. Our Heavenly Father definied marriage and
though man may think he can change this definition, it is beyond his realm to do
so. What these courts have ruled in fact is that the people of California do
not have the right to change their constitution at all. That the courts are the
only ones who can. Twice this has come to the people and twice it has passed,
Courts do not run the state nor the country. The people do and they have spoken.
Most eloquent quote from the article (sadly on page 4): "The
fact that California voters wanted to leave the status quo, and bent over
backwards to be fair, was not out of hatred, but just the opposite," said
Duncan. "They wanted to give the benefits, but still do justice to the
value society places on marriage being between a man and wife and what that
brings to children."
@John Pack Lambert of Michigan Currently marriage is the union of a man and a
woman this is in the form to create children, and exists primarily to encorage
the raising of children by their biological parents. (Well then , your version
of Marriage has really gone wrong so very wrong). Men and women have children
then one of them leaves and the other is left raising the child as a single
parent. Most men and women are having children without marriage. Then you have
Kim Kardishian married for 72 days have a big expensive showy marriage
televised. Newt running for president asking his wife for open marriage so he
can sleep with younger women, 2 divorces 3 marriages. Gays don't make a mockery
of marriage, because Heterosexual people already make a mockery of marriage.
It seems like every comment is arguing for gay marriage based on contracts,
constitution, equal rights etc.To me it comes down to one simple
idea. Is there a God? Does God condone gay marriage? Is God (and his
prophets) the author of the Bible? Does the Bible condone gay marriage or is it
against it? Last I checked, the Bible uses pretty strong language
against homosexuality. So, those for gay marriage must believe that the God of
the Bible is fiction is a phony?I am for traditional marriage
because I believe in God - I trust his word. I will not try to argue this with
a secular twist. I believe that God's intelligence. Either you believe God is
real and you believe in the Bible or you don't.
I believe the timing of this decision is the main reason that Rick Santorum won
in all three states that held caucases the same day that it was announced.
Santorum was courageous in speaking on this issue when others hoped to keep it
quiet. Now that it has come front and center, he is seen to be a man who
understands what matters most. He may not disagree substantially on this issue
from any of his opponents, but he has the credibility, consistency and
workability his opponents lack.
This decision will effect all marriages if it stands. Marriage is an
institution that gains its benefits from the way it is defined. If you change
the limits and parameters of marriage, you change how marriage is experienced
Those who speak of "allowing gays to marry" miss what this is about.
First off, everyone is allowed to marry, they just have to do so within the
present rules. I am serious about this. Marriage is the union of a man and a
woman. The question here is what exactly marriage is. Currently
marriage is the union of a man and a woman this is in the form to create
children, and exists primarily to encorage the raising of children by their
biological parents. This purpose is the only way that government involvement in
marriage can be justified. In fact since homosexual actions can never create
children, there is no justification for the state to regulate them at all by
giving them the designation of marriage.Marriage is primarily a
system of regulation justified because on the whole it has positive effects on
children. It is not a system for granting fundamental rights to people. Thus
limits on marriage that have the effect of making it more likely that children
will be born outside of wedlock need some justification. There is none for
regulations on marriage between people of different "races"
(especially since there is no scientific justification for race) and we have
decided that it is too intrusive for the government to place fertility or upper
age limits on marriage. However even there it was a public policy decision made
by legislative action. THat is the proper place for marriage to be decided, by
the people acting either directly or indirectly through the legislature.On the other hand, we justify regulations against underage marriage and
incestuous marriage because they involve relationships that are unstable and
unhealthy. However the issue here is a thing that is not marriage at all.
Marriage must be the union of a male and a female. Anything else is not
Liberty and justice for ALL. Fair and EQUAL treatment under the law. Our
Constitution and Bill of Rights exist to ensure that the rights and freedoms of
minority groups are not infringed upon by the majority. It's why blacks and
women have the right to vote and are able to own property. Or would all you
neocons rather we go back to the 1800's?
@Riverton Cougar"God tells us that marriage is between a man and a
woman. Pagan, Furry1993, Phranc, mcbillay, et al, tell us that marriage is a
legal union between any two consenting adults.Who should I
believe?"Trick question because the answer is both. The
religious and legal definitions of marriage don't have to be the same thing.
This is a very disturbing ruling. Judge Walker's ruling was based on a biased
trial, excluding witnesses for the defence, intimidating the defence, ignoring
many of the defenses pleadings, and declaring certain religios views as
inherently wrong. Especially the last is very disturbing. One
thing though, in general the first step is to ask for a decision by the whole
9th Circuit. It will be some time before the case goes to the Supreme Court,
and if the 9th Circuit's ruling really makes it only apply to California the
Supreme Court may dodge the bullet. However the very fact that the court was
willing to overturn the will of the people with no good reason is disturbing.
"God tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. Pagan, Furry1993,
Phranc, mcbillay, et al, tell us that marriage is a legal union between any two
consenting adults.Who should I believe? Decisions,
decisions."The God of the Bible also approved genocide,
murders, stoning of your own children, forcing women to marry their rapists, etc
etc. God says these things were ok (and not just ok, sometimes he
COMMANDED them)...my mommy (and common sense) taught me these things are
wrong.Who should I believe? Decisions, decisions.
@Cats | 7:17 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012 Somewhere In Time, UT Sodom and
Gomorrah here we come! =========== Umm, you might want
to re-read your Bible.Just like every other civilization -- Sodom and Gomorrah were destoyed due to their Pride, Greed, and complete lack
of compassion on the poor & needy [and their wild party weekends].Think "WallStreet" and if it helps you.
"Equality Utah's Balken finds reasons for optimism in the decision. 'One of
the things that is beneficial about the court of appeal's statement,' she said,
'is that the Constitution does indeed apply to gay and transgender people in the
United States of America.'"I note that the words
"bisexual," "bi-sexual," and "transgender" are
completely absent both from the main opinion of the Court of Appeals and from
the concurring and dissenting opinion. (One footnote, number 18 in the main
opinion, refers to the word "bisexuals" when quoting a statement about
Colorado's law.)Those two groups, bi-sexuals and transgendered,
therefore, would likely not have had much to look to in this opinion, at least
linguistically. The opinion actually does not seem to extend any "right to
marry" to "transgender people in the United States of America."
Nor does it seem to extend any such right to transgender people in the State of
God tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. Pagan, Furry1993,
Phranc, mcbillay, et al, tell us that marriage is a legal union between any two
consenting adults.Who should I believe? Decisions, decisions.
'Sodom and Gomorrah here we come!' - Cats | 7:17 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012
Ok. Where is this place? Show me. On a map.
Moving on... If we are going to use religion to deny legal rights
and protections to Amercians then... Women are slaves to men
We can purchase human beings as slaves And you can't eat shell fish. Ever. Mormons have felt the sting of persecution for their
religion before: Missouri executive order 44, October 27, 1838. And now, people want to use the EXACT same reason, to deny gay
marriage? Nothing, would have changed. Also, there is
more than ONE religion out there. Some, even support gay maarriage.
Is their God not 'good enough?' As such, we have laws. And laws
should not be passed, unless you can prove what you are claiming.
The factual RESULTS of gay marriage? **'After 5 Years of Legal Gay
Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce
Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09 This data was collected from the
'National Center for Vital Statistics.' So please. Stop
trying to SCARE people into supporting discrimination by claiming there will be
some disaster because of gay marriage. There is none.
Marriage as an institution was originally devised as a means of property
exchange and alliance between families. These arrangements were made while one
or both participants were still children, or between grown men and children.A failure to see the institution as having evolved over time is just myopic.
Or do you long for the days when you could take the twelve year old daughter of
your serf as his tithe to till your lands?btw equating procreation with
marriage...you do realize people bred before marriage was invented, right? And
even today, people reproduce with and without certification by your state or
Why You Can't Ban Gay Marriage"Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances." Now, let me highlight that first section. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This,
ladies and gents, is why you cannot ban gay marriage. As much as many religious
sects like to scream and protest, saying that gay marriage is wrong, the truth
of the matter is it's only wrong to them because that is what they believe in
their church/temple/synagogue. MY religion has no objections to gay marriage. In
fact, my belief system has no objection to any marriage that is between two (or
more, as long as everyone is in agreement) consenting adult human beings.
Marriage is a deeply personal thing. To say that John and George cannot marry
because a religion says it's wrong is really not any different than saying women
should be stoned for infidelity because that same religion says you should. For all the people that insist that gay marriage is just opening the
door for things like marrying animals or children, let me point out that we do
have some other laws in place already to prevent such things. There are laws
against bestiality. There are laws against pedophilia. Again... Nothing against
it being between CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN BEINGS.Perhaps I should
reiterate those last two words. Human Beings. I don't care what a person's
color, religious preference, sexual preference, age, or harmless foibles are.
None of it makes them any less human. By saying two people cannot marry because
you do not approve of their lifestyle (that is no way affecting YOUR lifestyle,
I should note), you are attempting to strip them of their humanity. And that,
dear friends, is a wrong move.
Re: "We're about 5-10 years out of legalized gay marriage in this country.
Y'all best learn to deal with it."Corrupt, despotic leftist
tactics, motivated by the smug, elitist narcissism clearly evident in this and
too many other celebratory comments, will be the cause of the fall of a
once-great Nation.Leftist political tactics ignore the fact that
issuance of dogmatic, unsupportable, doctrinaire government mandates, by tiny,
collusive, corrupt minorities -- unelected, unaccountable, out-of control covens
in the judiciary and executive branches -- will not change long-held and
deeply-felt political and religious views. No one's mind was changed, either by
this poorly written, counterintuitive 2-1 decision, or by the trial judge's
corrupt, self-interested political screed.Smug leftist celebrations
of this corrupt, short-term victory will only hasten the inevitable majority
backlash. They presage the sad, lawless fury that will follow an inevitable
Supreme Court reversal and lead to more leftist "occupational"
insurrection.That won't be good for our Nation.
Sodom and Gomorrah here we come!
I just don't see the longterm civil benefit in this issue. The end result of
this won't be any more social stability, instead it will result in further
gender confusion, apathy towards children and family, and many young people
giving up on all matters regarding real praiseworthy social commitment. Religious organizations who contribute so much to the stability of our
communities continue to be further marginalized, while a small (already
privileged) group of hypersexuals continue to make marriage solely about sex,
rather than its real benefit to a stable society--that of propagating the human
species to the next generation. As a result the stalwart few who
cling to their beliefs are mocked and scorned, while the narcissitic continue to
rob and plunder what might've been strong families of their children, enticing
children to experiment in sexual deadends that leave nothing to the next
generation and no source for lasting happiness. The creation of
families that potentially create children should be enshrined in society. It
should be nurtured as an ideal, rather than just another career choice, if you
don't manage to succeed in business. Children are now being fed a
toxic diet of politically-correct moral poison that any stray deviant thought is
now a hard-caste of how you must act. They put the thought into your mind and
then tell you that you were Born that Way. Federally mandated
thought police continue dismantling of the founding principles of freedom. This
bastardization of marriage proves nothing. It does nothing to strengthen
families. Nothing to make a better generation. It does nothing to improve
honesty or character. It does nothing to enable birth parents or ensure their
responsibilities to their offspring.
A lot of tithing money and misplaced donated time just went down the drain.Once in a while it's refreshing when they get things right.
We all knew the 9th Circuit would make this ruling. Now the next stop is the
Supreme Court where, hopefully, marriage will be supported and we can end this
push for same sex marriage once and for all. I support civil unions and all
sorts of other rights for homosexual individuals; what I do not support is
having the definition of marriage changed to something other than between male
and female.We already make a large enough mockery of marriage as it
is with infidelity and high divorce rates. There is no need to further damage
the institution by changing something that is key to the foundation of
society.Let's just hope that those on all sides of the issue will
maintain civility in language and actions towards each other.
To red state pride | 9:17 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012 Cottonwood Heights, UT So let me get this straight- the citizens of a state can go through the proper
legal channels and amend their Constitution and then a federal court can simply
repeal that amendment?-------------------IF the amendment violates
the US Constitution -- in this case the equal protection of the laws provision
in the 14th Amendent to the US Constitution -- a federal court (in defense of
the US Constitution) can invalidate the amendment to the state constituion. It
did in this case.
I hereby declare the word(s) "Civil Union" to mean MORE than marriage.
It's even better. I declare that it equals all the rights, honor and beauty of
the word "marriage". Even more, in my Civil Unions, there will be no
messy pre-nuptials, no divorce lawyers, no split property problems , nothing.
Everything will be perfect. Isn't my version of Civil Unions even BETTER than
ordinary marriage? What if my idea catches on! Will the LGBT crowd be rushing
to get one of these upgraded Civil Unions? Will the word "marriage"
then be said disparagingly, something as less than, um, civil? Will married
people rush to get one of the better Civil Unions? No? Oh, so maybe it's all
about the word "marriage" after all....
@RedShirt:"Please tell us what part of the constitution was
violated."Equal protection clause.The problem with
that approach is... gays can marry just like anyone else can marry so long as
they marry someone of the opposite sex. Same with heterosexuals. In actuality,
there is no violation of the Equal Protection clause.furthermore,
some people probably would like to marry a sub teen... which is prohibited by
state law. If you think about it, those peoples' equal protection rights are
likewise being violated.When the US Supreme Court gets through with
this issue, marriage will disappear from the American scene altogether.@Mom of 2:"Nobody is forcing churches to recognize gay
marriage..."Oh yeah? Just wait til the courts get their hands
on that issue. My bet it, they will force religions to comply... just like the
current issue on requiring churches to fund abortion contrary to their
teachings.@bjb:"Mostly it just reminds me of how
many residents of this state need a lesson on the three branches of government
and how they operate."Here's a lesson for you... the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) is federal law. It says marriage is only between a man and
a woman. And, according to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, it
takes precedence over conflicting state laws.
@Jeff:@Will I live to see the horrible effects tolerance of
same-gender marriage will have on future generations?"No... you
can now see it in the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed by God
for despicable evil conduct.@red state pride:"btw -
can I marry my first cousin now? I may just marry all my cousins- seems to me
this makes it ok for anyone to marry anyone."You have a valid
point... one that the State Supreme court failed to see. There is no reason
now, that anyone can marry anyone they wish in California... such as a father
marrying his sub-teen daughter... or all of his daughters, as well as his
dog.The true is, so-called homosexuals are not discriminated against
re marriage. They can marry... just like anyone else so long as they marry
someone of the opposite sex... just like anyone else.@Christy:@The world will continue to turn."Yes, but marriage
will soon no longer exist... anyone soon will be able to marry anyone they
wish... their aunt, sister, cousin, even their pet hen. Or all of them at the
same time.@lds4gaymarriage:"The ruling is a victory
for those who love and follow the scriptures..."I think you'll
find some scriptures where God abhors such conduct.
I'm going to go ahead and take the prophets and apostles at their word. I don't
believe the proclamation on the the family was just a nice 'spiritual thought'
for the consumption of members of the LDS church. This isn't surprising news
and so it won't be terribly surprising when the unintended consequences are
felt. This is actually a just a re-run of human history: God: "Don't do
that."Man: "Why?"God" "I said so and here
is what will happen if you do..."Man: "I'll do as I
please."We are really going to keep touching the hotplate then
Did any of you notice that Judge Smith, who was the lone dissenter in today's
Prop 8 ruling, is Mormon? And his response was similar to the LDS
"Proclamation on the Family"?
God create a woman from a man's rib. Woman is to be a help mate to a man. I'm a
plumber by trade. Terms used in plumbing refer to male and female parts. I've
never in the time I've been a plumber been able to mate those pipes and fittings
male to male or female to female together. The Bible has shown the history of
man. Each time this issue comes to light. It has cause the destruction upon the
Earth. This is only repeat history. But this will be the last time and it will
be by fire.
I'm trying to find the right adjective to describe my feelings about this
ruling, but all the adjectives I would use are too strong for this forum.Which of my rights has been violated by this ruling? How about the
right to amend my state constitution? How about the right to define marriage as
I see fit? How about the right to call something evil when I see it as evil?How am I personally hurt by same-gender marriage? The personal hurt is
the same that comes from allowing anything that has the power to destroy the
species, including (but not limited to) incest, rape, and a long list of
prohibited acts that are well described in the Torah, as well as the New
Testament.Is my opposition to same-gender marriage purely religious?
No. It's biological, too, but the biology is much less kind than the religion
is.Will I live to see the horrible effects tolerance of same-gender
marriage will have on future generations? Possibly not; but they will occur,
and one needn't be a prophet to forsee them.
Isn't it odd that all the progressives in favor of gay marriage because
"everyone deserves equal treatment under the law" also support a
progressive income tax? I guess equal protection goes out the window once you
reach a certain level of income. Nothing hypocritical about that in this brave
So let me get this straight- the citizens of a state can go through the proper
legal channels and amend their Constitution and then a federal court can simply
repeal that amendment? So much for Federalism and State's rights....btw-
can I marry my first cousin now? I may just marry all my cousins- seems to me
this makes it ok for anyone to marry anyone
Religion divides us like nothing else. It's pretty evident here.
We're about 5-10 years out of legalized gay marriage in this country. Y'all best learn to deal with it. The world will continue to
turn. Gay people getting to marry the one they love won't affect the rotation
one bit. Worry about your own lives.
As I stated in the other thread on this decision, 120 years ago, the majority
used their moral sensitivities to infringe upon our rights. In 2008, a majority
used their moral sensitivities to infringe upon others' rights. How can we LDS
back Prop.8 when we liken unto today that what happened to us 120 years ago?Scripture (1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4) denounces using moral
sensitivities/religious opinions to infringe upon the rights of others. The
Supremes already stated that marriage was a right.The ruling is a
victory for those who love and follow the scriptures and for those who back the
divinely inspired Constitution and for those who remember our history of
persecution. It's a victory for those who believe that people belonging to
families (and not just roommates) strengthen society and set an example for
others to follow. It's a victory for those who believe in liberty
and justice for all.The Pro 8 side offered no testimony and was
overwhelmed by the flood of witnesses by the plaintiffs. No wonder the Pro 8
side is desparately trying to keep the trial recordings away from the public.
They couldn't even meet the low "rational basis scrutiny" standard.
The Court basically said that there was no conceivable reason for 8 to exist.
The pro 8 people commenting here likewise have no rebuttal other than one based
in religious dogma. I sure hope that we learned our lesson and will
keep the scriptures, our history and the Constitution in mind and mind our own
Four people, persons A, B, C and D. All are legal adults, all are in normal
possession of their mental faculties, and none uses force or coercion against
any other. Two people, A & B are allowed to enter into a government
sponsored contract. The other two, C & D, are not.Take the
religion and the tradition out of it, and the pointless discrimination is
@isrred"Why is it ok to FORCE me to recognize heterosexual marriages
then?"-----If the govt would mind its own business, you
wouldn't have to. Technically speaking, govt shouldn't have the right to
sanction a life-style through govt-sponsored marriage. But I already made that
@UtahBlueDevil"Utah fan - how are you being forced to do anything by
this? "----------Hotel owners, fertility specialists,
dating web site owners, photographers have all been sued by the militant
gay-marriage agenda.It will continue, as expansion of its life-style
and forcing its agenda on society is its ultimate goal. It won't stop, until
religion surrenders and is forced to accept gay marriage.
Nice try, guys. "Actually, it IS the contract." Wow. You know it's
a losing argument when you resort to telling your opponent what their argument
is."One of the purposes of marriage is to create a legally
defined relationship between people who are not otherwise related. A person and
his/her sister already have a legally defined relationship; hence, marriage
would accomplish nothing for them."Maybe it WOULD be about the
contract and not about developing a relation with someone with whom you had no
relation IF there weren't relatives who wanted to marry. However, there are.
So much for that.
OK Ranch. Have it your way. Feel better? (I didn't think so.)I'm not twisting anyone's words and especially not twisting reality.
"Technically speaking, a gay couple should be allowed to marry, but the
rest of society should not be FORCED to recognize it if they don't want to,
including businesses."Why is it ok to FORCE me to recognize
heterosexual marriages then? To FORCE me to subsidize them with my tax dollars
through the special tax and other benefits they receive? You sure have a lot to
say about freedoms and government forcing things upon people but refuse to see
that the knife cuts both ways.
@ Riverton Cougar: We know from experience that when two closely related
individuals marry, the chance of genetic defects being passed along increases -
this results in higher levels of mental and physical birth defects. For an
example of this, read "Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language."Higher levels of birth defects are a negative social consequence of the
behavior of closely related people marrying and raising children.Additionally, as Furry1993 pointed out, they are already related and an
additional contract is not needed to protect their relationship with each
other.@ Pavalova: Actually, it would be polyamory, which, if
"polygamy" ever becomes legal in the US is what we will actually have
as you cannot allow a man to have multiple wives without also allowing a woman
to have multiple husbands.Current polygamous societies infringe upon
the rights of the women in those societies and frequently upon the rights of
some of the men in the society as well. Until the known social harms of
polygamy can be addressed and accounted for, there are valid social reasons for
preventing it's legalization.
Utah fan - how are you being forced to do anything by this? When
people were granted the rights to have interracial relationships - what rights
were lost?You had one statement that was correct. The government
has no business deciding who and how you are married. The LDS Church, my
church, argued as much in its preceding when it tried to establish the
legitimacy of polygamy (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)). Having something legal does not take your rights away, nor compel you to
live to another moral standard. Drinking, smoking, gambling are all things we
don't think are morally correct... and are known to damage one emotionally or
physically. And yet members live where all of these are legal, and no right is
lost.I believe it is the churches job to battle for our souls. The
government needs to make sure one person does not infringe on anthers rights.
Its job is not to enforce the religious law of any particular faith.
It is very simple. The constitution does not cover homosexual lifestyle because
it is just that, A LIFESTYLE !! It is a choice they make and it is no different
than someone wanting to marry a goat and have sex. Wrong is wrong.
So many are missing the point. Marriage, as legally defined between a man and a
woman, does not deny the right of a gay couple to share their love, as so many
are claiming. Technically speaking, a gay couple should be allowed to marry, but
the rest of society should not be FORCED to recognize it if they don't want to,
including businesses. That is what a truly free society would entail. In a truly
free country (which the USA is not, unfortunately due to the loss of freedoms),
a life-style will not be sanctioned by the government. The government would have
no business denying or sanctioning a marriage. Gay marriage expands
the intrusion of the government over the lives of the people, and continues to
move the USA further away from freedom and closer to control of lives, and even
control over thought - closer to a totalitarian regime. Hotel owners, fertility
specialists, dating web site owners, photographers, etc. will continue to be
forced to accept gay marriage against their will, or be forced to take their
services out of society. Force. Force. Force. Until, eventually, freedom of
religion will erode.
What would stop three men or women from marrying eachother? Would that be
concidered polygamy? Just wondering...
I am an active member of the LDS church, I totally understand why the LDS church
was pushing to make Gay marriage illegal, but I also understand and agree with
the judges' decision. Their responsibility is not to uphold the decisions of
the majority, but to protect the rights of the minority. I personally do not
view gay marriage as moral, but I also don't think it's right to enforce my
views about marriage on other people. I just hope and wish that more LDS people
will make a greater effort to get to know people, and learn to love everyone,
rather than judging. By the way, it's not "free Agency,"
it's just agency
ALL the comments here have missed the mark. The 9th circuit court
overturned prop 8 NOT because of denying civil rights to the GLBT community but
rather on the premise that in California marriage was allowed and then
disallowed to a narrow band of individuals based on sexual orientation. This decision was made so that it is only in effect for California as
this scenario does not exist elsewhere in the US. This will be
appealed to the SCOTUS but may not be heard as it applies only to California.
This ruling has no effect on the current laws of Utah or other
states that currently do not allow same-sex marriage.
One more step towards FORCED perversion!
Once again more-enlightened-than-thou secular high priests in black robes have
spoken. Same-sex marriage has, of course, been there in the fine print of the
14th Amendment all along! We've just been too provincial and unenlightened and
bigoted over the past 140 years to realize it. The arrogance and sophistry is
just too much to stomach sometimes.LDS Liberal, what do you mean
should have compromised? California has had domestic partnerships aka civil
unions for some time (something I favor, btw) as stated in this piece. The
militant gay agenda, to normalize homosexuality and indoctrinate kids, will
never end -- just look at SB 48.
Our friends and family members have waited so long and worked so hard for this
"right". The "right" which has always been taken for granted
by most of us.We are so very happy for wonderful, loving folks who have
refused to give up on their dream.!
"Moreover, the sacrifices that fathers and mothers make for their children
ultimately will result in the greatest possible happiness for those making the
sacrifices. In all of human experience, there are no joys more tender, no love
more sweet, no fulfillment higher than that found in the family.Those who honor
the calling of righteous parenthood will find their souls refined, their hearts
purified, and their minds enlightened by the most important lessons of life.
They will rise to far greater heights of happiness than those who engage in the
narrow and ultimately unsatisfying pursuit of self."-Elder Bruce D.
PorterI can think of nothing more selfish, nothing more anti-family,
and nothing more un-Christlike than to believe something can bring people such
joy, love, and "greater heights of happiness" and self improvement but
demand that someone else you don't even know can't even have a chance to pursue
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HURRAH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The "will of
the people" does not always trump. The courts have always been there to
protect minorities from mob rule.
procuradorfiscalWhenever a legal opinion is based on granting or denying
"dignity" -- a word that doesn't even appear in the Constitution or
Bill of Rights -- you know it will be quickly overturned, probably in the en
banc review that will occur in the Ninth Circus, but for sure at the Supreme
Court.LDS4Don't be so sure. The only reason that Black/White
drinking fountains were banned was due to dignity. In the South, one was right
next to the other. The water coming out of each came from the same source and
was therefore equally cool, clean and clear. Blacks got the EXACT same benefits
that Whites got. They were seperate, but equal in every way. Gays
with Civil Unions and straights with marriage may also have the exact same state
rights and benefits, but there is no difference between them and the drinking
fountains. It's about dignity. it's about telling people that they are just as
equal as another. Should some be "more equal" than others?
Thousands of years of history have shown that whites and negroes shouldn't
marryAllowing mixed race marriages will destroy the country and lead to
race riotsGod created different skinned people to tell us to stay apart.
We are breaking God's lawYet, we all think that mixed raced marriage
is a great thing today. Twenty years from now gays will be able to be married
in all 50 states and accrue all the benefits that any married couples. This is
called progress folks. If you don't want to participate in it, you can lock the
door and cuddle up to Fox News, but this is the way the world is going and in
the end everyone will agree that the benefits outweigh the costs
To Riverton Cougar | 4:13 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012 Actually, it IS the
contract.Plus you've missed one important point. One of the
purposes of marriage is to create a legally defined relationship between people
who are not otherwise related. A person and his/her sister already have a
legally defined relationship; hence, marriage would accomplish nothing for them.
O'really says:@ Ranch Hand- Your rhetoric is so shallow. Bigotry in
any form (even against religion) is not good. Disagreeing with gay marriage is
not bigotry. ... Discrimination is not evil. It is necessary. We all
discriminate between what makes sense and what doesn't all the time everyday.
Love is good. Lust and following only our animal insticts is evil. Committment
to the right things is good. Commitment to something that is harmful and against
the laws of nature as well as inhibitive to the human race is evil."--- Disagreeing with same-sex marriage is not bigotry. Voting away the
rights of American Citizens because they're gay IS.Who gets to
decide what "the right things" are? You? Your religious leaders?
Sorry, I'm not buying.You can twist my words all you want, that
doesn't change the fact that discriminating against other people because they're
gay is evil. It doesn't change the fact that two people, in a loving, committed
relationship is good.You didn't prove anything shallow about my
rhetoric, only that you find evil things good and good things evil. ;}
Since the equal rights movement for women it's all been downhill for religion, I
remember when only men could hold the priesthood, those days now long gone,
since religions were forced by the government to accept women as equals.But alas this has NOT happened, and it is not the intent to force
religion to be tolerant of others, even if they espouse it as a teaching.
Religion is still quite free to discriminate against ideas, races, and sexes and
will continue to so...Freely!
Brother Chuck SchroederIs anyone voting to make "Family
Second?" I don't understand your logic. With all respect, I
value the Proclamation of the Family, as you quote, but it leaves gay families
altogether absent. Alienation is not operative in a gospel that seeks to
include all of God's children.Charlemagne,When the court
ruled in your favor I didn't hear the same rhetoric coming from you. Did
something change?RedShirtYou are correct, the US
constitution does not mention marriage. For that matter, the CA Constitution
did not either until Prop 8 amended the constitution. To take the argument into
context, however, the states can make regulations regarding marriage - and here
is the operative condition - as long as it does not violate inherent inalienable
rights. To that effect, the U.S. Supreme Court, to name a case, has stepped in
from time to time to expressly dictate where state laws violated federal laws
regarding marriage -- i.e. Love v. Virginia, to name one.Mom of
2,Absolutely, they cannot answer what they do not have an answer to
- the best are what-if situations which are not based on reality.
Furry1993 and Lane Meyer,You miss the point. Let me change the
scenario: instead of "dog", let's say "sister". After all,
his sister would be able to enter into a contract. Let's see if you guys get
the point now (hint: it's not the contract).
It never fails to surprise me how bigotry changes its excuses for existence but
never it purposes.Some Christians used to accuse LGBT of being sick,
oversexed individuals who were incapable of love or maintaining a faithful
relationship.Society and the LGBT community itself have changed.
With acceptance and openness people are finding pride and dignity in themselves.
The LGBT community is demanding Marriage. Christians should be the
first to support this movement toward "monogamy and marriage". But
many persist in their condemnation. They use verses from the the
Bible to support their bigotry, putting aside the main message of Jesus about
social justice, peace and human dignity.They get offended when
called bigots. Unfortunately they are blind to the despair, pain and humiliation
Riverton CougarRiverton, UTNow what's going to stop ol' Joe here who
lives on the corner from marrying his dog? After all, it's a free country and
nobody should have to tell Joe what he can't do. What he does won't affect them,
so why can't he marry his dog?------------ol' joe must
have a pretty smart dog. Only those who can consent to a contract may be
married. Yes, marriage is a contract between two people and the government.Now, how silly was that question?
SerenityManti, UTNo, I think the California district court was
biased in doing this. The people voted to ban that kind of union between
homosexuals and the court should have honored the request of the people. Instead
they listened to the loudest voices of homosexuals who don't care about public
opinion, only what they seem to think is correct---------Serenity,They did not listen to the homosexuals. Have you read
the transcripts of the trial? Those who were trying to protect traditional
marriage did not even put up a defense. Their witnesses seemed to be testifying
for the gay marriage people. They could not find one legal reason to keep gays
from marrying.This is not about our beliefs. It is about the
constitution and the right of citizens. If we want to deprive any citizen of
rights or privileges we enjoy, we MUST prove how it is going to harm society.
Pro Prop 8 lawyers did not do this.Read the transcripts.
To Riverton Cougar | 3:35 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012 Riverton, UT Now what's
going to stop ol' Joe here who lives on the corner from marrying his dog?-------------Probably the fact that the dog doesn't have the
capacity to enter into a contract.
O'relly: "Bigotry in any form (even against religion) is not good.
Disagreeing with gay marriage is not bigotry. It IS trying to maintain sanity
and order in society."-----------------------Can
you prove that? Pro Prop 8 lawyers could not prove that banning gay marriage
would keep society sane and orderly.That was the problem. If you
read the transcripts, you would know that they did not have a legal reason to
keep gays from marrying. Can you give us one? One that could be used in a
court of law? Remember that beliefs and suppositions are not admissible. Only
facts. I'd love to hear your argument.
Thinkin\' ManRexburg, IDThree liberal judges uphold the ruling of a
gay judge -- big surprise.--------------The vote was
2-1. The dissenting judge was Mormon. - big surprise.
@christoph"give them an inch" and pretty soon they want
all the same civil rights everyone else has.
Now what's going to stop ol' Joe here who lives on the corner from marrying his
dog? After all, it's a free country and nobody should have to tell Joe what he
can't do. What he does won't affect them, so why can't he marry his dog?
I am not pray gay lifestyle, but I agree the government has no business telling
anyone who can marry who.
@ Ginger Where did God tell two men to "cleave"@ Ranch
Hand- Your rhetoric is so shallow. Bigotry in any form (even against religion)
is not good. Disagreeing with gay marriage is not bigotry. It IS trying to
maintain sanity and order in society. Discrimination is not evil. It is
necessary. We all discriminate between what makes sense and what doesn't all the
time everyday. Love is good. Lust and following only our animal insticts is
evil. Committment to the right things is good. Commitment to something that is
harmful and against the laws of nature as well as inhibitive to the human race
While it is true as far as it goes that 75% of the cases the supreme court
decides to hear from the ninth district (keeping in mind they only hear cases
where they think there maybe a problem) get overturned. A little fact checking
puts these numbers in some perspective. In 2011 the ninth circuit heard over
13000 cases. The US supreme court only hears 90 cases total from all the
districts every year. So even if every case the supreme court heard came from
the ninth circuit and even if they vacated 100% of those cases it would only be
6.9% of the ninth circuit rulings in 2011. It is also a fact that there are
actually two other districts the second and fifth districts, that get turned
over more frequently then the ninth circuit making your numbers even that more
A great day for California and Freedom loving Americans. Today America moved
one step closer to fulfillng the promise of "Freedom and justice for
From what I read, the people having the greatest heartburn with this decision,
base EVERYTHING on "Sex" and not "Marriage".I
know plenty of Non-married people having sex.I know just as many Married
people not having sex.Do us a favor - purdes - take "Sex"
out of the equation - and re-access your thinking.My guess you won't find
a bit of differnece between Hetero-___ual and Homo-___ual marriage.BTW - You should've "compromised" with Civil Unions, while you were
No, I think the California district court was biased in doing this. The people
voted to ban that kind of union between homosexuals and the court should have
honored the request of the people. Instead they listened to the loudest voices
of homosexuals who don't care about public opinion, only what they seem to think
is correct. But that doesn't make it right. Man and a woman should make a
marriage. Man and man or woman and woman just can't naturally have that kind of
First they said they wouldn't teach gay history and gay social studies in CA
schools, now they are----give them an inch, they take a universe. This doesn't
hurt me, just children and schools and society---adds confusion----nations with
lots of youth and children and young families have a better economy---so this is
about wealth vs. poverty, life vs. death. Nations with all adult populations
become poor very quickly. (See Greece and Italy and Europe and USA). The New
Testament is a great book that points out what corrupt law does to a society.
The higher law --which is not enforcable, is the law that will bring freedom (no
swearing, no anger toward God) Immoral people become bored really fast and move
onto new things quickly, many homosexual people today, for instance, are
confessing that they weren't born that way, that it is choice. At least they
are honest, but still stubbornly defiant.
Well, I'm extremely sad over this decision, but I cannot force people to choose
the right. I know that marriage is only correct when it is between a man and
woman, there are no other possibilities. I know some people here believe I will
change my mind, but I can assure you that I will not. I can not. If I do, I will
violate my conscience. If you believe in the Bible, you cannot condone this type
of behavior. Nevertheless, I also allow you the agency to disagree. I used to be
proud I was born and raised in California. Not anymore.
It is a sad day when the people of California speak and we have courts such as
the 9th Circuit who don't acknowledge the voice of the people. It is also a sad
day when then Attorney General Jerry Brown now Gov. Brown has the responsibility
to defend the state of California and he refuses to do so. We need Mitt more
than ever since he has signed the National Organization of Marriage's pledge to
defend traditional marriage and put judges on the bench who will defend the
Judeo-Christian values of our Constitution which the 9th Circuit failed to
realize in their ruling.
To lovinglife | 1:36 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012 Isn't it wonderful that
marriage is contracted by people, not kitchen parts.
Why is anyone surprised? When the "Big One" happens, I hope that court
is in session in SanFrancisco!
The looney lefty's here need to read the dictionary about the definition of
"religion."The 9th Circus has it share of liberal ideology
A small yet important step toward liberty and justice for all.Congratulations California!
since gay marriage is allowed it is only fair that plural marriage that is
doctrine in D&C be allowed again.
This is crazy! Now if my gay neighbors two houses down get married,
our whole street is going to explode! Then the whole country shortly thereafter!
This is the most liberal court in the US, what would you expect? But this will
end up in the Supreme Court. @Church Member - free agency occurs in
sports, not in the Church. @Pagan - the only people that refer to the
Constitution as a living document are those who don't want to follow it.
The 9th Circuit has more of its ruling overturned than any other court in the
land. This one will be as well. To church member I also believe in free agency
and the people of California used theirs to vote agains gay marriage. So now
three people get to choose for me, not sure I think that was what free agency
was all about.
"What a waste of Tax payer dollars. Get rid of federal appeals
court."You realize this decision was in response to the appeal
on the prior ruling that ALSO ruled prop 8 to be unconstitutional, right? If
there were no appeals court, then it wouldn't have changed anything.
Yet another example on these boards where it seems that many posters do not want
government interfering with how we want to live, yet if its something important
to these posters they do want the government to interfere. I'm glad the Court
made the decision it did. This whole concept of defining marriage is nothing
more than some churches trying to force agency decisions, and there is only one
individual (together with his followers) who subscribe to that notion: the
A great day for both reason and civil rights
"If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination."-God (Fictional protagonist of
several "holy" books)"If you eat shellfish, you have
committed an abomination." - God"If you wear
cotton and wool together, you have committed an abomination"-
God--- One ridiculous quote deserves another, and another. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet
for bitter!"-God ---Bigotry is evil, yet you call
it good. Discrimination is evil, yet you call it good. Love is good, yet you
call it evil. Committment is good, yet you call it evil. You need to
re-evaluate your usage of this "scripture"; you are on the wrong side
of the page.
@BJB "Mostly it just reminds me of how many residents of this state need a
lesson on the three branches of government and how they operate. If you don't
like how judges interpret the law then yell at your legislator who wrote a poor
law that is open to various interpretations."Laughable that you
didn't study the California ruling before your comment. In 2004, the
mayor of San Francisco issued marriage licenses regardless of applicants'
gender. The consolidated lawsuits which resulted eventually reached the Supreme
Court of California. On June 16, 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled in
favor of same-sex marriage based on an equal protection argument.So,
in California, the Judges make and interpret the law. So, much for your three
branches of government theory. Yell, at your California legislator, it won't do
What a waste of Tax payer dollars. Get rid of federal appeals court.
@Thinkin\' Man: Clearly you haven't bothered to be informed. The ruling was 2-1
split, the 1 judge opposed to gay marriage was a Mormon (shocker). Get your
facts straight instead of spewing your ignorance.
The marrage by same sex couples is an important bed rock issue. On one side were
two of the most prominent lawyers in America. Counsel for proposition 8
supporters were clearly incompetent in calling only two immaterial witnesses.
The legal system does not work well when one side does a pathetic job in
presenting a case. I do not understand why, after expending substantial
resources to get prop 8 passed, those who supported prop 8 did not spend the
resources to put on a case. Trying to win at the Supreme Court without putting
on a decent case is an expensive fool's errand. The LDS Church is going to lose
â"Had Marilyn Monroe's film been called 'How to Register a Domestic
Partnership with a Millionaire', it would not have conveyed the same meaning as
did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is
If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination.-God
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light,
and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!-God
Three liberal judges uphold the ruling of a gay judge -- big surprise.Society has no natural incentive to promote or support same-sex marriage the
way it supports marriage because society's interest in marriage is promotion of
families (the undisputed best way to raise children and thereby foster a stable
society) and legal protection for women and children. Giving same-sex unions
the same status as marriage has none of those benefits to society.
I am an at home mom with a wonderful husband and great children. I do have a
college degree. Protecting same sex marriage does not make sense to me. It is
like defending a plumber who came and fixed my kitchen sink and tried to
convince me that it is a good thing and legal to connect my drain with a female
to female part OR male to male part. The drain would be a leaky mess in my
kitchen. Am I the only one that can see that whether you believe in God or
Evolution, the obvious is that a man and a man or a woman and a woman do not fit
together as one and have the power to procreate. It is that melding of two into
one and the power to create life that marriage is intended to protect. Where
are all the intellectuals when you need them?!
Excerpts fromThe Constitution of the United States:Article IV - The
StatesSection 1 - Each State to Honor all others Full Faith
and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
judicial Proceedings of every other State.--- Public records (i.e.,
marriage records) are to be recognized in ALL states if from ANY state.Section 2 - State citizens, ExtraditionThe Citizens of each State shall
be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States.--- Marriage, legal benefits, etc. fall under this
category.Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, PressCongress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof;--- Many religions allow same-sex marriages.
What about their religious freedom to practice as they see fit? Doesn't prop-8
violate that?Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. 1 ... No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.--- Prop-8,
like Utah's Amendment 3 deprives Citizens of the United States (i.e. GLBTQ
Citizens) of the "priviliges and immunites" of marriage.
Additionally, it deprives them of their freedom of "life and liberty"
and may also deprive them of joint property if one of the partners should die -
since they're not married.
Sure is fun watching all the verbal hairsplitting on the definitions marriage,
husband and wife. Get over it folks, dictionaries change over time. Definitions
aren't facts, they're fungible.Equal fun with all the sputtering
about the constitutional basis of the decision. Its not in the marriage clause
folks. Neither is it in the Tenth Amendment. It's the Fourteenth Amendment,
specifically the Equal Protection Clause which guarantees that no government may
treat one individual differently than another before the law, the oldest and
most precious part of our common law with roots back to the Magna Carta.Theologically, Bro Chuck, the first commandment was to "dress and
tend" the garden, given to Adam. The second commandment given to both Adam
and Eve was "a man [shall] leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife; and they shall be done flesh." What are they to do?
"cleave", not marry. If you're going to parse words you're stuck with
that. The commandment was make babies, not enter into legal contracts or
religious vows.Bro Chuck you can argue heterosexuality has a
scriptural basis from the earliest times, but not marriage. Marriage isn't
mentioned until Noah's time, generations after Adam. Sorry, your arguments in
favor of marriage based on precedent don't hold water even in scriptural
contexts.The court has done the right thing: the state has no right
to treat anyone better or worse treatment than any other. God said He was no
respecter of persons. Government should be no respecter of persons.
UPDATES:Please keep in mind, as you read earlier comments etc., that
this article is being updated throughout the day as we gather more reaction and
analysis.GROUCHO MARX CITED:My favorite part of the
decision is where the court quotes from Groucho Marx. Regardless of how anybody
falls on this issue, you gotta love it when the Marx Brothers are invoked.The court said: "Groucho Marx's one-liner, 'Marriage is a wonderful
institution ... but who wants to live in an institution?' would lack its punch
if the word 'marriage' were replaced with the alternative phrase."Let's try it:"A registered domestic partnership is a wonderful
institution ... but who wants to live in an institution?"
A mormon activist judge in the 9th circuit was the single vote against gay
marriage in today's ruling so if you're upset by "activist judges"
then you should probably take a seat.Under the 14th amendment equal
protections clause it says "no state (even the state of California) shall
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws." You can't have a law benefitting a majority of Californians while it
is discriminating against a minority of Californians. It was this same clause
that helped Brown v the Board of Education the case that ended segregation in
schools. If we did a popular vote on every social issue women wouldn't have the
right to vote (seeing how only men would clearly vote against that) and our
schools would still be segregated.
What do we now in the U.S.? Make up the rules as we go? There are people who
just live together because they don't think they need a paper to confirm there
love, so why to do Gay people need a paper to confirm there love? Where is the
Sometimes I read the user comments on articles in the Deseret News just to get
my blood boiling and make sure I'm still alive! Mostly it just reminds me of how
many residents of this state need a lesson on the three branches of government
and how they operate. If you don't like how judges interpret the law then yell
at your legislator who wrote a poor law that is open to various interpretations.
And if we want to talk about activist judges, let's talk about this ultra
conservative Mormon who was the only dissenting voice and is trying to force his
personal religious beliefs on others through his rulings!
California voted for proposition 8, but then they voted in Jerry Brown as
Governor instead of Meg Whitman. Now, the state won't defend their own
proposition for their own constitution or the vote of their people.
I'm wondering... let's suppose gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states... how
will that affect me personally, as a married straight male. will some group of
gays show up at my house and try to force me into a gay marriage against my
will? what about my wife and kids? my job? there are already gays in my
neighborhood. they're good neighbors. they keep their house and yard
well-maintained. they're quiet and respectful. hmmm... I mean, I'm trying to
imagine exactly what catastrophies will occur in my life if gay marriages were
allowed and I can't think of one single negative thing. on the
contrary, I can think of a few positive things. for example, gay people are
going to have gay relationships whether gay marriage is allowed or not. we live
in a society that tries to espouse the benefits of long-term relationships
(typically marriage). if we allow gay marriage, then we allow gays to commit
themselves to to long-term relationships via marriage (at least to the same
extent as same-sex marriages). sounds like a win-win situation.
gays get the same rights to marriage as does every other American. straights
get the benefit of having gays in committed long-term relationships.
Unbelievable, that the liberal judges would do such a thing, pushing THEIR
agenda on the rest of the people of California, and by legal extension, to the
rest of us. Yes, this WILL have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. We
can only pray that they will have the sense to overturn it. This ruling will
have far-reaching that you and I only partly glimpse in regards to the morality
associated with family life.Hopefully the voice of the people DOES
make a difference here. As Mosiah in the Book of Mormon put it:*Now
it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that
which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire
that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your
lawâto do your business by the voice of the people.* Mosiah 29:26*yea, well did he (Mosiah) say that if the time should come that the
voice of this people should choose iniquity, that is, if the time should come
that this people should fall into transgression, they would be ripe for
destruction.* Alma 10:19
Proposition 8 was to amend the California Constitution. But, the amended
California constitution is California unconstitutional? That is a real
problem.So, the U.S. Supreme Court will look at the court appeal of
a state constitution? That is a problem for me in itself.
Before all you pro-gay activist gets all excited about this decsion just
remember one thing.The 9th Circuit Court has been over ruled by the
SCOTUS more times than all the other district courts combined.Just
because these wacky judges "think" something is unconstitutional, does
not make it so.my perdiction is SCOTUS will over rule the decision.
The end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
The Constitution grants rights to people. The one time it was used to take away
rights with Prohibition was eventually overturned. Declaring Prop 8
unconstitutional is keeping the spirit of the constitution alive and well.
Granting Gays the right to marry does not lessen or take away the rights of
EJM says:" I just can't call it marriage when it is between 2 people
of the same sex."--- You get to say how you call your own
marriage/relationship. Nobody elses. O'really says:"Gays and lesbians can share their love and lives without calling it
marriage. "--- Why should we? Why don't you?SusanTJ says:"The people voted against this. period. the
end."--- The Civil Rights of Americans Citizens are not yours
to vote on.@SLMG;Separate but equal is not equal. Civil
Unions create a "second class" status.@patriot;Morality is relative. I consider bigotry and discrimation to be immoral. Brother Chuck Schroeder says:"Being raised in a married
family reduces a child's probability of living in poverty by about 80
percent."--- Don't the children in GLBT families deserve this
benefit then? What about those families?@ClarkHippo;The
LDS Church already denies (temple) marriage (the only "true" marriage)
to those heterosexuals they deem unworthy, why should that change for
homosexuals? They can always deem them "unworthy". Your question is
a red herring. There are already many churches that will perform same-sex
marriage ceremonies. If glbt couples want church weddings, they can find a
church to perform them - they don't need yours.
I'm not surprised that this was a split ruling, and it doesn't seem like many
experts were surprised either.What will be interesting is to see
whether the 9th Circuit's track of being overturned continues. For those
unfamiliar with this record, on average roughly 80% (as high as 88%, depending
on the year) of rulings from the 9th Circuit are overturned when appealed.
Statistically speaking, betting on a 9th Circuit ruling to be upheld isn't the
wisest thing to do.
@Brother Chuck Schroeder"Has the 9th Circuit Court read this?. Ban
all same sex marriage in America. "The Family." A Proclamation to the
World. "Have they read that proclamation? Well one of the 3
(the dissenting vote) is LDS so I assume he did. @SusanTJ"The people voted against this. period. the end. "So
southern states who disagreed with legalization of interracial marriage (some
didn't repeal their laws against it until the 1990s) should've not had to deal
with the court decision of Loving vs Virginia that legalized it nationwide?
Time for a historical review about the development -- decline and fall, some
would call it -- of secular marriage. Marriages of necessity. Of convienance.
Of alliance. Buying women as brides. Marriages for companionship, not child
rearing. Dowererys. Polygamy. Polyandry. Brides as property. La Casa Grande.
La Casa Bonita. No wait marriages. No fault divorces. Taking up residence in
Nevada to get Reno-vated. It was the heterosexuals who brought about these
marriage developments, not the homosexuals. The evolution to same sex marriage
is only the latest devolution, and certainly not the worst.
On June 26, 2011, following New York's passage of same-sex marriage, Time
Magazine writer Howard Chua-Eoah wrote an article entitled, "The
Bittersweet Victory: Why Gay Marriage Still Isn't Marriage."Among other things, Chua-Eoah said, "Marriage without a church or temple
wedding isn't the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and
whistles in the church of their choice but not me?"How many in
the gay and lesbian community agree with this idea? If so, how soon before we
see churches forced to change their positions, either by lawsuits, court
rulings, marches, speeches, or, perhaps, other means?
A little bit of premature celebration by the gay marriage proponent's. This is
just one more step towards the inevitable Supreme Court decision on it. None of
it means a thing until then.
I have a photograph of my great-grandfather standing with several men in a Utah
prison. Did these men commit a bank robbery or a murder? No. They were in prison
for simply following their religious beliefs. How soon before
churches or individuals within certain churches are again put behind bars for
simply following their religious beliefs? Call me paranoid, stupid,
disillusion, or out of touch all you want, but I have the picture to prove that
even in the USA, people can go to prison for simply following their beliefs.
When has the 9th Circuit Court ever cared about adhering to the Constitution?
@patriot"to be exactly like Europe - bankrupt and without any
morals"Errr you are already bankrupt, when everything is
finished in Europe, everyone will start looking at the US and that's when the
real fun begins. Regarding morals, Americans get divored more, take more
drugs, have more abortions, view more pornography, have more DUI's, smoke more
than Western Europe. When it comes to most things you would count as
"morals", America is already at the bottom of the cesspool.We don't have gay marriage in the UK but for some time now we have had civil
unions that give same sex couples the full legal rights of marriage. It has not
affected me or my marriage in any way at all.
God has not shown his displeaure with the court decision. Earlier this morning
in L.A.it was overcast with intermittent rain drops. No dramatic changes in the
weather. It has neither started raining big time nor has the sun come out. Also,
I haven't felt any earthquakes in L.A. Finally, the trains still seem to be
running more or less on time. Everybody go back to work. Next Spring the SCOTUS
will hear the Prop 8 case. In the meantime everybody, Straight and those legally
married Gay people work on making your existing marriages better, enough said.
Peace out !!
As far as I'm concerned, let gay and lesbian couples get married, that's fine,
just answer me this question.For years, LDS Church critics have said
again and again that the "real reason" the church changed in policy on
blacks and the priesthood is because of outside pressure, including threats to
strip the church of its tax-exempt status as well as supposed lawsuits filed
against the church.Let's say these critics are correct. (LDS critics
never lie are exaggerate things, right?) What pressure can the LDS Church expect
in the future before it is "forced" to change its policy on same-sex
marriage? What tactics should LDS Church leaders and members expect to be the
recipients of in the near future?
Regardless of what elections may decide, judges may rule or legislators may
enact, the definition of marriage has always been, is, and always will be
âthe union of a man and a woman as husband and wifeâThe
definition of husband is âa man married to a womanâ; the definition
of a wife is âa woman married to a manâ. A same gender couple
cannot be husband and wife and marriage does not include two husbands or two
wifes.Two men or two women living as a couple do not meet the
definition of married. The definition of marriage was established religiously
thousands of years ago and no one can change that. All the legal rights can be
given to couples and the law may call it marriage but does not make same gender
couples what they never can be.
Pagan should be banned from commenting more than once here...as for me, I can't
get even one comment into the system...If ever this goes through,
tell Pagan he will never convince that a 3% majority isn't as good as a 47%
minority...he would fit in with the smooth talking lawyers & hypocrites.
This ought to be a wakeup call to the Republican Party and social and cultural
conservatives more generally, as someone who strongly supports traditional
marriage, and who believes that further attempts to undermine its special and
privileged place in our society will have serious, baleful consequences. Why
does this matter? Because the best and most effective way to avert crime,
poverty, drug abuse and other social pathologies is to have strong, intact
families. Being raised in a married family reduces a child's probability of
living in poverty by about 80 percent. Don't let other people bring their
trouble into your life. Some people are never happy and want to drag everybody
else down to their misery level. It's a good thing to listen to other people's
troubles and try to help out if you can but you just can't help some people.
They're determined to be miserable. Don't join them. Just ban same sex marriage.
My priorities are 1. God, 2. Family, meaning mother and father, male and
female, husband and wife, with ot without children, 3. Country, 4. The Charlie
Daniels Band. Oh yea, one more, gator hunting in the swamp. Ban
same-sex marriage in America Congress.
@ Momof2 It's not going to affect YOUR marriage per se. But you can't deny
that it confuses the definition and picture of "marriage". It will
confuse children. It will hurt society.
Just an observation..It sure did not take all the gay rights people long
to get on here and wipe our noses in their joy..this is not over, this
battle may have been won - but the war is still going.
No surprise here. It is becoming one of the most obvious attacks on religion and
freedom ever. Not caught off guard to see the 9th trashing the 1st admendment.
"Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some
skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that
the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic
counsel.There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems
probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what
we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering
majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then,
unconscious of itself."Neal A. MaxwellOctober 10, 1978
America is headed for the dumpster - decaying from within. I feel sad for my
kids and grandkids and the kind of country they will have to grow up in. I
suspect America is headed - in the fast lane - to be exactly like Europe -
bankrupt and without any morals. It wouldn't be at all surprising to me to see
America lose it's sovereignty before 2030. Our founders built a nation on a
foundation of a belief in God as well as moral integrity and starting with the
god-less and moral-less hippie generation of the 1960's we have been in decay
ever since. Soon we will be a mirror image of Greece - bankrupt and full of
dysfunctional families which is the eventual outcome of all who adopt liberal
Why is it that so many heterosexuals fight for the right not to marry, and have
laws go their way, and why do homosexuals fight for the right to marry? What is
wrong with this picture???
I think we all knew this decision was coming. One battle lost to stop same sex
marriage but the war goes on, hopefully the next battle will be won and the next
one as well and the fight will finally be won. I have no problem with civil
Unions for gay and lesbian couples but marriage has always been a man & a
woman couple and should remain that way.
The people voted against this. period. the end.
So much for the voice of the people speaking. If Prop 8 is or was considered to
be unconstitutional, why was it allowed to be on the ballot to begin with. The
only outcome that I can see here is attorneys and judges becoming richer and
people becoming upset. It kind of reminds me of a civilization on this
continent a few thousand years ago, when attorneys and judges stirred the people
up to get gain. Yep nothing has changed.
Marxist..."half a life"? Are you serious? They would live together and
carry on their relationships regardless of a document stating they are "man
and husband" or "woman and wife". They just want the benefits
without really qualifying for them. It's blatant selfishness not to mention
disregard for children in the mix who deserve a mother and father living in
their home.Gays and lesbians can share their love and lives without
calling it marriage. I can understand their desire to be loved and wanted. But
physical relations between a man with a man and woman with a woman are immoral.
Calling it "marriage" won't ever change that. It's still wrong. It
will always be wrong no matter what the judicial system declares.
This is a serious question, so please--no one get your knickers in a twist.
Just looking at the possible implications, if a bisexual person should marry a
same-sex partner in California then return home to a state where that marriage
is not legally recognized, could that person then legally marry someone of the
opposite sex in their home state without having to first divorce their same-sex
I have no problem with the idea of civil unions so that 2 people who want to
have the same civil protections under the law can do so. I just can't call it
marriage. Call me old fashioned. Call me whatever names you want. I just
can't call it marriage when it is between 2 people of the same sex.
Conservatives should've just "compromised" with Civil Unions -- but NO, They had to go for the whole enchilada.Their
All-or-Nothingism, No Compromising on anything has failed.Looks like now
they will have to settle for NOTHING.I knew this wasn't going to go
the way they wished, hoped, even prayed for.It's the price of living
in a FREE society with EQUAL rights.Deal with it.
Then, by the same reasoning, polygamists and any other -ists have a right to do
whatever they want interpersonally.Government is abdicating any
specific role in regulating the inter-personal affairs of citizens. This would
probably a good thing, except now in the name of liberalism, they will want to
force everyone else and every religion to think like they do.Already
in our school curricula the government is teaching our very young children that
all "life styles" are equal and that everyone must accept this. The
government has raised their view to a "religious" dogma that everyone
must march to.As we move along this road, our freedom of association
will soon stop when we leave our private property. Our own children will be
listening to hear if we believe in the party line. Things here will not be much
different than it has been under past totalitarian regimes. For us it will be
the totalitarianism of atheism.It doesn't have to be this ugly way.
Every vote for every level of government matters in this election, and the
president nominates supreme court members.
Don't worry, after elected, Mitt Romney will ban same sex marriage in
America."Obviously, Governor Mormon is a member of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and
eternal identity and purpose...Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of
God. I believe these words with all of my heart. I mean no ill will to my
fellowmen, but marriage is not our law to change. It is God's law, and if we
make a mockery of it, we are choosing to receive the consequences of such
This isn't surprising. While Latter-Day Saints might view this as an assault
upon marriage, we must remember that freedom of choice must allow every one to
make his or her own choices and we cannot force our beliefs regarding such
decisions on any other person or group by legislation or ballot. So long as
marriage outside the Church is simply a legal contract, it must be available to
all who are legally qualified and able to enter into such a contract. People
inherently recognize truth, but often due to prejudices or spiritual darkness
will attempt to create something similar to a true ordinance as a mockery and
affront to God. We must not contend with evil, but through living the Gospel,
demonstrate that living according to God's will bears fruit that is eternal and
everlasting. And by their fruit ye shall know those who follow Christ and those
who do not.
This 2-3 split was a sure bet months ago when the panel members were decided.
But Judge Smiths dissent is fascinating and not surprisingly reads like the
Proclamation on the Family. It's obvious he realized how weak the original
arguments by the Prop 8 supporters were, so he has gone waaaaay outside the case
to try to give it some legitimacy before it goes en banc or up to the Supreme
Court.His LDS roots, his valentines to Scalia, and his add ons to the case
will probably get more scrutiny than the panels actual decision.
Has the 9th Circuit Court read this?. Ban all same sex marriage in America.
"The Family." A Proclamation to the World. The first commandment
that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as
husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply
and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has
commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between
man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Marriage between man and
woman is essential to His eternal plan. Further, we warn that the
disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and
nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon
responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those
measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit
This is great news. Nobody is forcing churches to recognize gay marriage, but
legally it should be available. How is it going to hurt MY marriage if Bob and
Joe down the block want to get married? I ask that all the time and nobody can
Whenever a legal opinion is based on granting or denying "dignity" --
a word that doesn't even appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights -- you
know it will be quickly overturned, probably in the en banc review that will
occur in the Ninth Circus, but for sure at the Supreme Court.
'The state decided that Marriage is between a man and a woman. Please tell
us what part of the constitution was violated.' - RedShirt | 11:47 a.m. Feb. 7,
2012 1st, many states scrambled to factually CHANGE thier state
constution when gay marriage was 1st allowed in MA in 2004. My
example? The state of Utah. Amendment 3. Passed in 2004 it factually
CHANGED the vergabe of people allowed in marriage TOO 'one man and one woman'
FROM... 'two people.' So, the very people who claim to
want to DEFEND to constitution....changed it. 2nd, the constitution
is constantaly refferenced as a 'living document'. i.e. it can change to reflect
our views of an American citizen. I support this as: The
consitution did NOT mention 'slaves' as equal people. Or make the claim that
they were worthy of legal protections and rights of the average American
citizen. i.e. Our black American citizens of today.
Today, it is my hope, we know better.
OH NO the world is going to end! Right? I mean this was important right? We
didn't want Gays to mary because... because...?
The 9th circuit court is the most overturned, liberal excuse for a court in the
world.Newt Gingrich has promised to disband this mockery of justice and I urge
all Americans to vote for Newt to reign in the usurped power of this rediculous
Though not gay myself, I have had a number of gay friends. Uniformly they are
good people. To deprive them of the institution of marriage is to condemn them
to half a life. Remember, equal protection under the law. Of course, this is
going to end up before the supreme court. I predict gay marriage will be an
extablished fact within 5 years, like it or not (I do understand why various
religions cannot accept this - it's going to be tough on them).
Where does the US constitution say anything about marriage?I know
that the constitution says that if it isn't specifically mentioned in the US
constitution, that the rights are left to the states and people. The state
decided that Marriage is between a man and a woman.Please tell us
what part of the constitution was violated.
wow. way to freak out all the religious people. this should be fun to watch...
So, First gay marriage is allowed in California. 18,000 same-gender
couples get married. Then, Prop 8 passes with voter majoirty. 52%
for, 47% against. A majority of... 3%. Then, former
federal judge walker rules Prop 8 unconstitutional. His ruling, is
supported: **'Judge's Prop. 8 ruling upheld' - By Lisa Leff - AP -
Published by DSNews - 06/14/11 '...ruling that struck down
California's same-sex marriage ban...' - article Also, Walkers
orientation is noted as not an impact in his 136 page oringinal ruling against
Prop 8. Supported by, Judge Ware. **'Judge Ware Denies Motion To
Vacate Decision Overturning Prop 8' - By Barry Deutsch - Family Scholars -
06/14/11 This, and even the 'Defense of Marriage Act' is failing in
courts: **'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges'
- By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10 Popular
support, favors gay marriage: **'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans
support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011
Washington state passes gay marriage through it's Senate and needs to vote in
the House... 6 other states allow gay marriage. With MA still having
one of the lowest divorce rates... and, this. I choose,
the right side of history.
And is it any wonder that people don't respect the judiciary?
Before you all start posting nonsense about the "will of the majority"
and the voice of the people, please get an education about this country and its
judicial, legislative, and executive laws.The United States of
America is NOT governed by majority rule; if it were, schools would never have
been desegregated in the south thanks to Brown v. Board of Education as the
MAJORITY of residents in those school districts supported segregation.Our Constitution requires the rights of the minority be balanced with the will
of the majority. So while the voice of the majority can play a role, it cannot
be the only consideration when determining others' rights.Whether
legally marrying the sole adult individual you love is a right or not is more
reasonable a debate; but the "voice of the majority" argument is
nonsense in this context.
I still say "Family First", and ban all gay marriage.Congress could of repealed California's Proposition 8 ?. Why didn't they
then?. What were the GOP waiting for?.Now the Federal appeals court
declares California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional. A federal appeals court
Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for
the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year. Prop 8
Overturned, February 7, 2012 The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited
marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. Opponents of
same-sex marriage have promised to appeal to the US Supreme Court. If prop 19 in California is passed, can the federal government repeal the law?
Sorry Ron Paul, California's Proposition 19 which would legalize the personal
growth, use, and distribution of marijuana appears to have gone up in smoke.
This is awesome news. Allowing them to marry will not hurt anyone. I believe in
free agency. People should be able to choose to live their lives the way they
want (as long as they don't harm anyone).
2-1 decision... we could've guessed it'd go that way months ago.