Some argue that defending traditional marriage is a waste of time, considering
the high divorce rate. Therefore, the suggested concept here is that gay
marriages will somehow change the trend. I'm not going to say that is
impossible, but before quotes are rendered suggesting that gay
marriages/families are just as "normal", just as strong and healthy as
heterosexual marriages/families. Personally, I'll wait a few thousand years to
collect sufficient evidence to be sure of such statistics.And so
point to examples such as Greek and Roman civilizations to herald the cause of
gay marriage, consider that each of those groups imploded within a short time
after embracing that practice of "equality". And I'm not saying that
gay relationships were the cause of downfall for these two societies, but
evidence would suggest that it didn't do too much to strengthen or prolong them.
You can't support the Proclamation of Marriage but defend gay marriage and
everything that comes out of it. You can't rationalize sin.
The 10 commandments define sin: #6: 'You shall not murder.' #8 'You shall not
steal .#5 Honor your Father and your Mother,[not other or mothers]. @zoar
63 Do you believe any of them?
@zoar63"It is a law of physics that opposites attract or
join"I'm not aware of any such law in physics. It is true that
the laws of magnetism are such that unlike poles attract, but that does not
imply that in all cases objects with opposite characteristics attract."Marriage is the joining together of two opposite not same parties.
Marriage of two same sex people is not biologically possible."In reading your statement about marriage (quoted above), I think you are
referring to having children, not to marriage itself. Marriage is a social
contract between two persons and has nothing to do with natural laws or with
@Mark"If you are talking about the "laws of nature"
being physical laws, then homosexuallity does absolutely nothing in violation of
those. Clearly a homosexual act is quite possible under the physical laws of our
universe." It is a law of physics that opposites attract or
join. There are positive and negative charges. Same charges repel and opposite
charges attract. Take a pair of magnets and see if you can join them together if
they have like charges. Try to connect out- put to out- put and see if you get
sound from your speakers. So it is in biology the male and the female connect
and become one. Marriage is the joining together of two opposite not same
parties. Marriage of two same sex people is not biologically possible.
I'm sorry you find the Laws of Nature ridiculous even though you are governed by
it every second of your life. Man are not supposed to have sex with man. Bend
whatever you can bend but it is what it is. My special Operation friend once
told me that even the toughest unbeliever will call God when the situation
presents itself and you are not an exception.
@ll34"it'd be a mess. Let's say you have a guy and he's married
to three women, each of those three women are married to him and two other men
each. Legally how would this be handled? Do you just keep gathering deductions
on your taxes? You'd have to change the structure of some things to work for a
non-2-person model. What if there's divorces? Who pays alimony and to whom? If
there were a way to straighten out that entire mess then I'd be fine with it
being legal... even though I think it's morally wrong."That is
what congress and lawyers do best they think of ways to write new laws. Those
problems you bring up could be addressed. An entire new area of law would be
opened up and I am sure there are plenty of lawyers that would jump at the
Fortunately we still live in a Republic (and to the "Republic" for
which it stands) and not a Democracy. In our Republic the minorities cannot be
trampled upon by the the majority (whether the voters have spoken once twice or
ten times). I fail to understand why this point has not become very clear.
No sense in voting because if the way I feel and the majority of the voters feel
can be changed by one person or a small group of people to favor the losing side
then it isn't worth my time to go to the voting polls.
Explain my way out of what? Dude, this is the most ridiculous conversation I
have had on here in a long time. I'll ask again: what are you talking about? The
"laws of nature". What are you talking about? How nature works? The
animal kingdom? Violates none of those laws. Physics? Again violates no laws.
Laws about how people are designed? Again, violates no "laws" there
either. What "law" do you think is being violated? Or do you think the
only permissible sexual act is one that leads to conception? Well, that might be
your opinion, but it sure is not a "law" no matter what you may think.
Are you trying to say it violates God's law? If so, the first thing
you must do is prove there is a god before I'll even contemplate your
interpretation of any so called law He or She may have. I'm through
"Imagine if all people accepted and practiced gay marriage, we will all be
gone in a little over 100 years." - "Of course if all people only had
homosexual sex and nothing else humanity would die out." - This is no
nonsense.You, saying that homosexual sex does not violate the Laws
of Nature is absolutely nonsense. It is possible but it violates how man is
designed, created, evolved and made. Like I told you, it is a fact that
violation of Laws of Nature has consequences. If you tell me that
you don't care even if it violates the Laws of Nature and that you live by
whatever consequences it will bring, I will rest my case. But don't try to
explain your way out of it.
@ those who screen the comments: Why will you let one poster - RAB - mention
baptism for the dead, but not allow responding posts to mention it?If I cannot counter his post, using his own argument, then his comment should
not have been posted.My response: An analogy comparing same-sex
marriage (SSM), a civil, secular event, with baptisms for the dead, a religious
sacrament fails. Baptism for the dead has no civil effect - there is no social
recognition nor are there social benefits. No living person is denied anything
if baptisms for the dead are banned. (Which is an interesting thought - there
has been enough controversy over baptism for the dead. What if the majority of
society voted to ban it? Would the Courts be correct in overriding the will of
the majority and declaring such a ban unconstitutional?)One of the
arguments against SSM is that gays have the right to marry - one person of the
opposite sex, same as everyone else.What is the difference in the
cost to society if the two couples it is supporting are opposite-sex or
same-sex? Why is it better to support lies than it is to support love?
Oh my gosh, what are you talking about? Of course if all people only
had homosexual sex and nothing else humanity would die out. But they don't and
they won't. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that because of gay marriage
there is a possibility that everyone, everywhere would stop having heterosexual
sex. And such a suggestion has no place in a conversation about gay marriage.
I can't believe I'm responding to such nonsense. If you
are talking about the "laws of nature" being physical laws, then
homosexuallity does absolutely nothing in violation of those. Clearly a
homosexual act is quite possible under the physical laws of our universe. Again, what in the world are you talking about?
@ksampow The time-honored institution that you speak of was marriage established
by social groups, often churches, and controlled by those groups. The basic
problem of this topic is that governments took control of marriage and made
marriage a legal thing. Thus, some people want marriage to be reserved for a man
and a woman, while other want marriage to be open to anyone. Both groups seem to
have accepted governmental regulation of marriage a desirable thing. Yet, many
of those people would object to governmental regulation of other aspects of
their lives. They want to be free from excess governmental control; yet they
accept and strive for governmental control of marriage. If government would get
out of the marriage business, this whole problem would disappear.
Allen, laws of man will always fail. It may not be today or tomorrow but it
will. To elaborate on the Laws of Nature; man are not designed, created, evolved
and made for man. My point being that this Law is greater than any laws created
by man. Just because the consequences are not evident and immediate, as a person
trying to defy gravity, does not mean you can cheat it. Humans are imperfect and
corruptible. Mark, tell me. If everyone is gay and would abstain
from touching the opposite sex, would humanity survive? It is not absolutely
ridiculous but absolutely the truth. Brain surgery, space flight or the internet
or indoor plumbing all conforms with the Laws of Nature. Tell me of a brain
surgeon, pilot, programmer or a plummer that would say, "Oh, I just went
against the laws of nature with what I did today". I don't think so.
Phranc - There is no attempt to oppress anyone. The LDS CHurch is not asking
for laws against homosexuality. (Though God has already forbiden it in His
laws.) People can choose a homosexual lifestyle. But they have no right to
force society to change the definition of a time-honored (and divinely
established) institution to suit their personal preferences. These activists
want to redefine marriage.
You brought up the specter of humanity vanishing in a century, getting it, er,
right. It is absolutely ridiculous to use that idea in a discussion about gay
marriage. And what are these "laws of nature" you speak
of? Leave aside the fact that there is an abudence of homosexual acts performed
in nature. But do you really think that everything humans do should conform to
some arbitrary "law of nature"? There are plenty of species that will
eat their young; monogamy is rare; violence and brutality is the norm. Should we
really base what we do, as a civilization, on the "laws of nature"?
What do you find conforming to the "law of nature" in
brain surgery, or space flight, or the Internet, or indoor plumbing?
@Getting it Right It seems to me the topic being discussed concerns agency,
whether people can choose the type of marriage they want, or if marriage will
continue to be regulated by government. I don't understand your reasoning behind
your comments about "Law of Nature". Perhaps you will elaborate why
gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it is against the laws of nature?It's true that two gay people can't have children in and of themselves,
but there are many men and women who get married and have no intentions of
having children. Should they be prohibited from being married? Do we really want
that type of intervention in our lives by government?I'm an active
LDS and support the Proclamation on Marriage, but I also believe that people
should have the right to choose for themselves the type of marriage they will
have, and I believe that governments at all levels should stop regulating
marriage. Let social groups, such as religious churches, define marriage for
their organization, and let people choose a social group that practices the type
of marriage they want.
@Mark 12:26PMMark, Allowing gay marriage does not make the human
race disappears in a century, I did not said that, you did. Say what you want to
say, it does not change the fact that Gay Marriage is still against the Laws of
Oh my gosh yes. There we go. Allow gay marriage and the human race disappears in
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.
I would like to see governments at all levels get out of the marriage business;
let governments focus on civil unions, and let individuals and social groups
define marriage any way they want. Marriage, after all, is a social contract
between two people. It shouldn't be a basis for property rights, insurance
rights, and so forth.
@VoR;God has no legal standing in our government or civil laws.
Your book of mormon is meaningless as is the bible in relation to these laws.
They're not based on "god says".I've read your BoM, dozens
of times and in two languages. It changes nothing.Marriage id
defined by the people entering into the contract. What you want it to mean for
you is your personal business and doesn't affect what I want it to mean for me
or what Joe Blow wants it to mean for him. For some it is a religious rite, for
others it is a civil rite. Nobody should be able to define what it is for
someone else.Here's some advice. You follow your god and your god's
commandments. He'll deal with you when you get to heaven. I'll follow my god's
advice and he'll deal with me when I get there. In case you didn't understand
the subtlety of the above advice, here's a clearer rendition: Mind your own
business and we'll mind ours.
Here's some sound advice for anyone who wants to be happy and wants to learn the
truth regarding this issue and every other facet of our existence...Read the Book of Mormon. :) I find this to be better advice than anything else
I could have possibly debated or disputed on here. This issue and any other
'issue'- will they ever 'go away'? No. It could be rejected. It could be passed.
It doesn't matter because in the end what matters is people doing the right
thing or not. Every last bit of reason or evidence I've ever seen has supported
the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Everything true points in one direction.
Only by hardening one's heart does someone not see that same answer.There is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. Your body was designed one way, like
a one way street. If you want to fight that, fine. But it still isn't the truth.
I've said nothing here that should offend anyone, nor have I intended offense. I
simply think it's worth stating what I believe to be true. I'll probably go read
it now.Today is a great day. Best wishes to everyone.
rpjense says:"The fundamental problem here is that the people
of California spoke. A majority voted in favor of a proposition and this has
been overturned by a MINORITY ... a very few judges overturned the will of the
majority."--- You have that backwards sir. The
"fundamental problem" here is that THE RIGHTS OF A DESPISED MINORITY
were put up to a vote in the first place.
"...said the court âhas ruled straightforwardly that the motivation
for defending traditional marriage is animus against homosexual persons.
"--- What else do you call it when a law is specifically
targeted against one group and one group only? Animus.You can not
vote away the rights of Americans without having a valid reason. "God
says" is not a valid reason.
What if the government made a law stating that all people MUST agree with and
approve of the act of baptizing people in behalf of the dead in accordance with
LDS beliefs and that those who believe in baptism for the dead must be
financially supported by the government? Would not the whole country be
outraged? Why then is it okay for the government to make a law
stating that all people MUST agree with and approve of intimate homosexual
activities implicit in gay marriage in accordance with homosexual beliefs and
that those who believe in gay marriage must be financially supported by the
government? Simple really. Government endorsement of religious
beliefs is apparently only bad when the beliefs can be tied to a particular
religion. But if your belief approves of gay marriage and homosexual behavior
and cannot be tied to a particular religion, you get to obtain government
approval of your religious beliefs.
zoar63: "Can you provide a single cogent secular argument against plural
marriage."The most compelling I have heard is that
historically, in most cultures that practiced polygamy, the marriages have
consistently had uneven power relationships. One person (inevitably the male)
held all the power and the wives were subservient. Having watched two seasons
of "Sister Wives," the Kody Brown marriages (at least as as portrayed
after selective editing) seem to be fairly well balanced, full of mutual
respect, and financially self-supporting (no "bleed the beast" as in
Short Creek). Not perfect, but better than in most cultures (and better than
many monogamous marriages). I don't have too much of a problem with plural
marriage if it has balanced power structure, no coercion, mutual consent among
the participants, and doesn't burden larger society with caring for its
failures. Also, polygamy acceptance would have to include both polygyny AND
polyandry with equal opportunity and access for both.procuradorfiscal @6:09-- Godwin. Written with flair, but still a Godwin.
Re: "CA will join the six other states which have already approved same-sex
marriage and life will go on."CA is not joining anything. The
millions who voted for Prop 8 are figuratively being herded into cattle cars, on
a track to somewhere they didn't choose, being disingenuously soothed into going
along with it by 3 corrupt, dogmatic, doctrinaire judges, and way too many
liberal libertines chanting the modern moral equivalent of "arbeit macht
frei."Don't accuse the good people of CA of "joining"
anything. Particularly this lemming-like rush to the ragged edge of
@zoar63"Can you provide a single cogent secular argument against
plural marriage."Legally it'd be a mess. Let's say you have a
guy and he's married to three women, each of those three women are married to
him and two other men each. Legally how would this be handled? Do you just keep
gathering deductions on your taxes? You'd have to change the structure of some
things to work for a non-2-person model. What if there's divorces? Who pays
alimony and to whom? If there were a way to straighten out that entire mess then
I'd be fine with it being legal... even though I think it's morally wrong.
The problem with saying that the court should side with the "will of the
people" is that the will of the people is changing towards the acceptance
of same-sex marriage. Does that mean that the church will be in favor of SSM
when the majority of the voters are? Obviously, the church cannot
really mean this in view of the way the majority viewed polygamy. Be against
it, fine, but use better reasoning. At least one that aligns with the history
of the church itself. The church fought hard against the will of the public on
polygamy.Be against it because you think it is morally wrong and
leave it at that.
@ Mormoncowboy: If you don't have a marriage license from the state, then you
do not get the benefits of marriage.And if you have a registered
domestic partnership and call yourself married, everyone will know that you are
not really married, which will have a negative social impact on you.As the case states, there is a certain perception and distinction that goes
along with marriage that only marriage has.Anything else is not the
The path of least resistance here would be for gay's and lesbians to find
Church's willing to perform marriages for them, and then just get married. Then
when they go out in public and introduce themselves to their friends and family,
just use the familiar language of marriage, ie, husband/wife/spouse/etc. Then
lastly, defy any of their opponents to fine them or put them in jail for calling
their union "marriage". It wouldn't happen, and everybody everywhere
would realize how stupid this whole debate really is. You can't put a person in
jail for saying that they are married, and so you couldn't enforce proposition 8
even if you wanted to. Quit asking for permission and just get married if it
matters to you.
You know, it seems like there has been a lot of discussion lately about who gets
to decide what to call various things...discussions over words like
"marriage" or "Christian"I wonder who gets to
decide - those who claim to belong to those groups? Or outsiders looking in?
@ CottageCheese: You are right - a dog is not a cat, a football is not a
basketball, etc., etc., etc.But have you ever noticed that not all
cats are the same? Nor are all dogs, footballs, or basketballs.There are certain similarities that determine which category an item falls
into, but within that category there are a great many differences.A
civil union, domestic partnership, or "garriage" is not a marriage.
One of the benefits of marriage is use of the words "marriage" and
"marry" and "married" and all their counterparts. Without a
marriage, those aren't available. Anything other than a marriage is less.A cat is not a dog, and a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
@zoar63 and othersHonestly, I'm completely fine with allowing
polygamy. As long as all involved parties are adults and enter into the
arrangement of their own free will.
The LDS Church statment is too little and too late. If it truly wanted to defend
prop 8, it should have spendt some of its considerable legal talent at the trial
court level instead of leaving the job to incompetents.
There will be ups and downs in this battle, but it is easy to see which way it
is going. No case has been made to convince young people that gay and lesbian
marriage is a problem. Hollywood has normalized homosexuality, at least to the
extent that the young understand that there is nothing to fear. This will be
decided by attrition as the old-fashioned voters just die off and the electorate
is increasingly disinterested in interfering in other people's
lives...especially about something that just doesn't matter. Any campaign to say
that it does matter just marginalizes the campaigner. Within a decade, everybody
will have accepted gay marriage and moved on.
Why is it so hard for the LDS church (and others) to understand that the courts
are ruling on the constitutionality of the ban, not if the ban is popular
amongst voters. This isn't rocket science folks. Please stop with the
disingenous defense of the ban.
Why is it discrimination if you oppose something you beleive is wrong and
immoral? Maybe your discriminating Prop 8 supporters becasue we oppose you. It's
called taking a stand if you feel something is attacked, it's called the people,
the voters here have spoken and you lost twice. Sometimes I wish that you could
split us in half, you keep fresno and let us be our own state.
rpjense said:Interesting and endless ... the verbal wranglings of this
discussion. Mankind, endlessly and bravely afirming that immorality is okay. We
affirm this by basing our decisions, our twists of words, our logic, on what
others have said. It appears we have let go of basing our logic and reason on
anything resembling fundamental principles and truths. You can prove anything
you want by trotting out your so-called experts in man's reasoning.Isn't this your only support? What other have said? (in your case religious
leaders) Your so-called experts are clergy or Other men trotting out religion
as a tool to suppress yet other men.You have NO argument besides
religion, that's why the courts overturned this silly prop.
The sidebar graphics of polling data don't show the full story. Support for gay
marriage is very strong among younger people. Attrition of the older
generations with the passage of time will eventually shift the tide to majority
support for gay marriage.Opponents of gay marriage are on the wrong
side of history. The trend is towards expanding civil rights to all, as it
should be. In thirty or forty years people will look back at today's fuss with
the same bewilderment and incomprehension that we have when we watch newsreel
footage of the angry segregationist mobs harranguing the Little Rock Nine on
their way to class. It will seem such a quaint, dated, and misguided use of
human energy.By the way, how hard would it be for the DesNews online
to link to the actual decision and make it easier for us read it for ourselves?
@lagomorph"I have begged on these forums in the past for
someone to provide a single cogent secular argument against gay marriage. Still
waiting. All I get is the Bible. Fail."Can you provide a single
cogent secular argument against plural marriage. It seems like the polygamy laws
passed in 19th and early 20th century, which were clearly targeted against a
selected minority group, are a violation of the 14th Amendment. The definition
of marriage which is accepted as being between one man and one woman must
remain, otherwise if it is altered to include marriage between same sex couples
then we are clearly discriminating against a minority who have married
multiple partners. If these marriages are by consent of the parties involved
and do not include underage participants, then those marriages should also be
CottageCheese: "Well, a same-sex union is not a marriage."That is exactly what the court decided. From a summary of the decision:"The panel majority determined that in taking away the designation
of 'marriage,' while leaving in place all the substantive rights and
responsibilities of same-sex partners, Proposition 8 could not have reasonably
been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, ...[other social
goals of marriage]. The panel majority concluded that Proposition 8 served no
purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of
gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship
and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."In
other words, same-sex civil unions relegate gays to second class status. It
echoes Brown v. Board of Education: separate is not equal.
Interesting and endless ... the verbal wranglings of this discussion. Mankind,
endlessly and bravely afirming that immorality is okay. We affirm this by basing
our decisions, our twists of words, our logic, on what others have said. It
appears we have let go of basing our logic and reason on anything resembling
fundamental principles and truths. You can prove anything you want by trotting
out your so-called experts in man's reasoning. I suppose if we wanted to, we
could convince mankind that the sky was not blue. If enough people said so, it
must be true ... right?The fundamental problem here is that the
people of California spoke. A majority voted in favor of a proposition and this
has been overturned by a MINORITY ... a very few judges overturned the will of
the majority.I fear that our boat has left the harbor and we are
hopelessly adrift in a current we can only faintly discern. Yes, the whirlwind
will be upon us soon.
As a sixth generation LDS, I strongly oppose the church's continual involvement
in politics and government.
May I suggest that all of you read the constitution again and then read the
transcript of the trial.I doubt anyone who has done this would even
question this ruling. The judge cannot rule on evidence that was not presented
AND the pro Prop 8 side did not present any evidence at all on how gay marriage
harms society. In court, you cannot say that you
"believe" harm will occur, you must present real evidence. You cannot
say that your religion will not allow you to recognize gay couples because the
law does not care what you believe - they MUST deal with the law only. Above all else, they MUST follow the constitution.Anyone who has
read the transcripts, please tell me where this judge and these new judges were
wrong legally. Show me where they proved that gay marriage will harm society
and thus it is right to deny tax-paying, law-abiding Citizens the privileges
that you enjoy.I can't do it. Can you?
@BubbleWhats wrong with calling a dog a cat?Well, a dog
is not a cat.Whats wrong with calling a basketball a football?Well, a basketball is not a football.Whats wrong with
calling a Ford a Chevrolet?Well, a Ford is not a Chevrolet.Whats wrong with calling a same-sex union marriage?Well, a
same-sex union is not a marriage.It is two completely different
things. Like dogs and cats. Basketballs and footballs. Fords and
Chevrolets.Let them enter into relationships. Let them enjoy the
same benefits as others. But do not call it marriage because that is not what
it is!Call it Garriage. I'll get Married. And my same-sex friends
can get Garried.Then it is simple. Everyone has the same benefits,
but everyone knows that Marriage= man and woman and Garriage= same-sex.
"Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage
is crucial to society" Said the statement from the LDS Church. What the
statement did not mention was that LIKEWISE Millions of other Californians voted
against Prop 8. The Pro- Prop 8 groups in the Court Hearings were not able to
prove that allowing Gays and Lesbians to marry would cause detrimental harm to
society. Likewise if we allow popular vote to decide who can Marry, Interracial
Marriage wouldn't have been legal until the mid-1990s based on opinion polls, 30
Years after the SCOTUS said it was legal nationally. Game over people. you lost!
See you next spring before the SCOTUS if they will hear the case. In the
meantime some 18,000 Gay and Lesbian California Citizens remain legally married.
Shall the Evangelicals introduce a ballot initiative nullifying LDS Temple
Marriage in California? Who knows?
You may want to consider the "warning" that is included in "The
Family: A Proclamation to the World" given in 1995 by the prophet Gordon B.
Hinckley concerning the dissolution of the core family: "... We warn
that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or
offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand
accountable before God. 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 all have our free agency to choose
how to act, or not act upon our impulses.
Looks like the spin is out in full force today. It isnt about
religion. The nature of marriage has never involved people of the same sex
regardless of anybody's religion. People may have religious reasons for opposing
gay marriage. But proponents of gay marriage merely use that as a convenient way
to undermine their arguments.It isn't about civil rights. All the
rights that gay people want can be addressed without government-endorsed gay
marriage. The opposition of the pro-gay-marriage community to similar rights
for polygamists also exposes the lack of true interest in civil rights.The actual issue is simply a question of whether people should be forced to
endorse homosexual behavior REGARDLESS of whether or not they personally approve
of it. People and their government SHOULD accept, allow, permit, and tolerate
other peoples beliefs and behavior (assuming no one is being hurt). Thus, no
law should be created to punish gay people who marry. However,
people SHOULD NOT be forced, by the government that supposedly represents them,
to approve of, support, endorse, and agree with other peoples beliefs and
behavior. Thus, no law should be created to endorse gay marriage.
"Opponents of same-sex marriage have been unable to muster any arguments
other than it offends their theology," said the Rev. Barry Lynn of
Americans United for a Separation of Church and State. "We have a secular
government, and dogma should not and cannot be transformed into law."Amen!!
The Proclamation to the World on the Family that was delivered in 1995 by the
1st Presidency of the Church would be censured by the Deseret News Editorial
staff if I were to quote directly from it.The evidence for my above
statement is found on my email response from Des News when I made quote from
@OnlyInUtah, whose supreme ruler do you want to decide, because my God is a
loving God who made me the way I am and he does not make mistakes, neither did
he intend for cowards to us his scriptures to be twisted and used as a weapon
for bullying a minority of people because they are different from someones
else's view on right from wrong. I prayed for years for change before I realized
to ask God to change me and make me straight was also asking him to agree he
made a mistake and needed to fix it. You know what I don't need to be fixed. I
am who my Heavenly Father made me and doing what he expects me to do by loving
and helping everyone not just the people I agree with or like.
@ CottageCheese: 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution of
certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people."Marriage is not a religious issue as evidenced by
the fact that you cannot get married without a license from the state, but you
can get married without the participation of a religious officiator.The California Constitution was interpreted to contain the right to same-sex
marriage.Also, the part of the US Constitution that was violated was
the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection of the laws - you cannot
strip a right from a group of people and create an unequal situation without
evidence of harm from practicing that right.Prop 8 removed use of
the word "marriage" - everything else - adoption, child rearing,
non-discrimination, education about different family types, etc. - was still in
place. What harm is created in society by allowing same-sex couples
use of the word "marriage"?Prop 8 supporters acknowledged
that domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage - thus acknowledging a harm
to those who are forced to use the term "domestic partnership" instead
of the term "marriage".This is a violation of the 14th
2nd tryFirst, I would point out that even the LDS judge threw out the
argument that Judge Walker's sexual orientation made him unqualifed to hear and
rule on Prop 8. Basically, the Prop 8 proponents had no defense
except they don't approve of same-sex marriage. When cases are heard in court,
evidence has to stand up to scrutiny. CA will join the six other
states which have already approved same-sex marriage and life will go on. Churches will still be allowed wide latitude in their practices. For
example, a majority of churches still prohibit women from leadership positions.
The requirement that religious institutions offer health insurance
coverage for contraceptives has already been in place in 28 conservative and
liberal states. Where was the uproar when it happened? News media
does an extremely poor job of informing the public. Very few facts or history
are presented, with the end result of continual perpetuation of ignorance and
hysteria. It would be more useful for news sources to outline the judges
reasoning in their decisions than merely provide soundbites and
@BrentBot "This just goes to show us that we can't rely on Democratic
presidents to appoint judges who will uphold the will of the people."The duty of a federal judge is not and never has been to "uphold
the will of the majority." Their duty is to uphold the Constitution. If
the "will of the people" is to enshrine Mormonism (or indeed any other
religion) as the official religion of Utah, a judge would be well justified in
striking down such a law, would he not? If the will of the people is to
relegate a certain class of people to slavery, is it not the duty of a judge to
strike down that law?Similarly, this panel of judges decided that
Prop 8 violated the principles set forth in the Constitution (by denying equal
protection to all citizens) and struck it down.
For the second time on this issue, I wonder why I voted if the will of the
people gets tampered with. Why have it on the ballot in the first place? I
respect the statement by the Church.
A lot of comments say that the LDS church and others are trying to take away the
"right" of same-sex couples to marry.Since when was
marriage a "right" anyways?Is there any constitutional
language explicity stating that "all citizens of america shall have the
right to be married" There is no language in the constitution
granting marriage as a "right" to anyone. Heterosexual or
homosexual.And yet... these judges overturn Prop 8 ruling on a basis
that it is unconstitutional?There is nothing in the constitution
about marriage in the first place!!!Why?Because it was -
has been - and still is a religious practice. The constitution doesn't mention
anything about marriage to separate a religious practice from the laws or the
land. Looks like the consitution attempted to separate church and state - and
opponents of prop 8 are trying to combine them.Give me a break.
'Next thing you know plural marriage will be legal.' - dustman | 9:04 a.m. Feb.
8, 2012 Then I guess the 'defenders' of traditional marriage... never really cared about mongoamy, huh? It was all talk. What does it SAY when lgbt support mongamy, and religion supports
polygamy? Just to get the ability to marry any woman you find
attractive to be able to sleep with them. Wait a minute....
@Browsing DaveSurprisingly singled out? LDS members donated half the funds
and 3/4 the volunteer hours to prop 8 despite being 2% of the California
population. Those who work the hardest get the most credit... and the most
Next thing you know plural marriage will be legal. Wait a minute...
"homosexuality should be discouraged by society" WHAT???That is the question they asked LDS people in the ?Homosexuality
just is. Why am I attracted to the opposite sex? Because I just am.I would have been in the 25% that answered NO to that question because it is
the wrong question! You can't discourage a state of being because it exists no
matter how you react to it. The LDS church has repeatedly come out in favor of
compassion and love for all (all..meaning excluding no one)The
debate gets clouded by those who draw conclusions from the results of poorly
'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: the
union of a man and a woman...' - Rocket Science | 10:48 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012 A man and A woman. Singular. Not, polygamy. Which was legal in Utah, until 1890. So the claim of
marriage 'always' being between A man and A woman... is proven,
false. Polygamy, is not monogamy. Again.
'This just goes to show us that we can't rely on Democratic presidents to
appoint judges...' - BrentBot | 4:24 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012 Um, judge
Vaughn Walker, the judge to first strike down prop 8, was 1st nominated to his
position by... Ronald Regan. In 1987. His 2nd nomination
came from... George H. W. Bush. In 1989. So the claim
that this ruling is because of a 'Democtratic' President...? Is
false. Please, do some research before making unfounded and
factually faulty.... claims.
OnlyInUtah: "The justices need to go read the Bible."I
have begged on these forums in the past for someone to provide a single cogent
secular argument against gay marriage. Still waiting. All I get is the Bible.
Fail.RocketScience: "The definition of husband is: a man
married to a woman; the definition of a wife is: a woman married to a
man."Your definitions and argument are tautological. Another
fail.rjpense: "He did not have the personal integrity to
recuse himself because of a conflict of interest that obviously created a
bias."If the opponents of gay marriage are to be believed, gay
marriage poses a dire threat to straight marriage. A straight judge would have
an equal (perhaps even greater) conflict of interest and would also have to
recuse. Yet another fail.
I agree that marriage is sacred if one uses the definition of sacred as worthy
of reverence and respect. However, that sacredness doesn't come from the
pronouncement of an imagined diety. It comes from the daily acts of commitment
that are symbolized in the pronouncemnt that two individuals are married.
Declaring that one is "married" to another individual has come to mean
that the commitment one feels towards that individual is increased. Marriages
fall apart when that commitment falls apart..not when a diety says it falls
apart. Marriages are made by the daily acts of people not by prouncements.
Prouncements symbolize only. If the symbol of a diety sanctioned
marriage (religious ceremony..man and woman) is important to you fine, but don't
be fooled into thinking that sanction makes your marriage, and don't be fooled
into thinking that it prevents others from having successful marriages (non
religious ceremonies..same sex). To deny someone the privledge of
that special commitment because it offends your theology is not just religious
bigotry, it's constitutionaly wrong, and morally wrong because of the
opportunity loss it inflicts on society.
lost in DCWest Jordan, UTHVHsince when do the taliban
read the bible?Bible, Koran, Torah all draw their authority from
father abraham so they're all essentially the same.When religion isn't the
government, there's always a battle for control.Isn't that what this
really is, Religion wanting dominion over the word "marriage?"
Who were the three judges?Looked up that there are 48 judges in the Ninth
Circuit. Who were the three and why were they the ones to rule?
If civil rights were determined by a vote of the people, perhaps slavery would
still be part of the way of life for a large part of this country, and certainly
we would have a permanent second (or third) class. Change is hard and
uncomfortable, and like it or not, this change is coming. The question still
not answered for me is if we grant all rights equivalent to marriage but deny
the formality, what is the big deal about allowing marriage. We are already
there in a de facto way. Your personal faith and the way you live your life has
not been infringed and it won't if people you don't know or not personally
involved with are married or not. Are we going to impose religious views on
all, or seek to sway the views and actions of individuals? Who decides whose
moral code should be imposed on the whole of society?
rpjense: "The will of the majority was expressed through a democratic
process. A single, openly gay judge reversed the will of the vote of millions.
He did not have the personal integrity to recuse himself because of a conflict
of interest that obviously created a bias."No, Judge Walker was
_not_ "openly gay." He only "came out" after he retired.But you set yourself up too easily. The dissenting opinion in
yesterday's court ruling was from Judge Randy Smith, who is "openly" a
Mormon.Why do you feel justified in questioning the objectivity of
Judge Walker, but not Judge Smith?Look, it is flat-out impossible to
offer an argument against equal rights for all citizens without resorting to
ancient religious beliefs which we, out of respect for religious freedom, permit
to be excluded from evidence-based critical examination. The time has come to
end this exclusion. "My religion says so," is neither a
rational nor a constitutionally acceptable reason to deprive someone of their
This just goes to show us that we can't rely on Democratic presidents to appoint
judges who will uphold the will of the people. Democrats always believe they
have superior wisdom to the "masses". Just look what they are doing
to our country: no Federal Budget in three years, trillion dollar deficits as
far as the eye can see, and trampling on the religious rights of Catholics (and
other denominations in the future).Never vote for another Democrat
I must admit I was surprised that the LDS Church responded vocally or officially
to the ruling. I suppose it was in an effort to show solidarity with other
religious groups. While I strongly support their right to voice their opinion in
the matter, both in 2008 and today, I don't see how their statement today does
them any good. In 2008, it helped them take an early stand on a major issue, and
triggered increased awareness of the issue among it's members, in many cases
resulting in much-needed moderation and understanding. Though the backlash was
strong and surprisingly singled out, at least Prop 8 let the LDS define
themselves and choose a clear course of policy. Since gay marriage
will be a reality everywhere in the country within 30 years (if not sooner, look
at the demographics), in my view it was uncharacteristically foolish of LDS PR
officials to officially dig up an issue that their stance is already known on,
and that didn't go over well to begin with. Churches have every right to define
themselves and take stands, but it's better to take rare and firm stands then to
quip about every little ruling along the way. Here's to better judgement in the
future, as this case will undoubtedly continue past the election and media wave.
It is incredible and infuriating that a few judges using twisted reasoning can
overrule the will of the people. The notion that the constitution of the United
States was intended to protect the rights of a gay couple to marry is laughable.
The ruling regarding standing and the motion to throw out Judge Walkerâs
decision was a unanimous 3-0 vote.In his August 4, 2010, decision,
which the 9th Circuit upheld today, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck
down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection
clauses of the U.S. Constitutionâs 14th Amendment. In his opinion, Judge
Walker presented 80 findings of fact regarding same-sex marriage, which included
discussions about the immutability of sexual orientation, the ability of
same-sex couples to be good parents, and the inequality of providing LGBT
couples with civil unions as opposed to full marriages. These findings of fact
are highly significant, because while appellate courts can overturn a lower
courtâs decision based on its findings of law, they usually defer to those
courtsâ findings of fact. Todayâs ruling affirms Judge
Walkerâs findings of fact, meaning that they can but used in the future in
other trial cases in the 9th Circuit that deal with LGBT rights.
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: the
union of a man and a woman as husband and wifeThe definition of
husband is: a man married to a woman; the definition of a wife is: a woman
married to a man. A same gender couple cannot be husband and wife and marriage
does not include two husbands or two wives.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.It is not a matter of discrimination it is a matter of what is and what
is not. It is an attempt to make that which is statistically defined as
abnormal behavior seem normal through a legal definition.
*'LDS Church's in-kind donations to Prop. 8 total $190K' - By Lynn Arave - By
Dsnews - 02/03/09
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a first response in 1995.
All about "The Family." A Proclamation to the World in 1995. 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 of society. Then ban all same-sex marriage and
abortion.The justices need to go read the Bible they swear on.
HVHsince when do the taliban read the bible?
for al those LDS people drying because people have a negative view of the
church, this is a big reason why. This is an example of actual of attempting to
oppress others. People having an opinion about your religion is hardly the same
as taking away a persons ability to marry. one is simply words the other is
actions. see the difference?
@onlyinutah I really hope you where trying to be sarcastic.
Maybe people will stop discriminating against LDS people when the LDS Church
stops discriminating against them. I say that as an LDS person who is sometimes
ashamed of my brethren.
'The justices need to go read the Bible.' - OnlyInUtah | 5:12 p.m. Feb. 7,
2012 And what about the Quran? 'A single, openly gay
judge reversed the will of the vote of millions.' - rpjense | 5:33 p.m. Feb. 7,
2012 Not true. Former judge Walker's ruling was
actually SUPPORTED upon appeal by Judge James Ware. Judge Ware also
supported that there was no 'pro-gay' bias in Walkers 136 page ruling. That was in June, 2011. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to
check that. So, former judge Walkers ruling was supported by Judge
Ware AND, majority of the 9th circuit ruling. The only vote in
SUPPORT of Prop 8...was by a Mormon judge. 'Judicial activism?' 18,000 same-sex couples got married BEFORE Prop 8. If you
do not think life-long monogamy is worth it, that is your choice.
But I, would celebrate your marriage.
OnlyInUtah said:Cottonwood Heights, UTThis is an issue that should
be decided, not by the supreme court, but by the supreme ruler of mankind.. and
I believe He's given us his word on the matter. The justices need to go read the
Bible.The Taliban totally agrees with you, to bad we're fighting
with them right now.3 judges 2-1 the one decent was a mormon,
activist judge who doesn't understand the constitution any better than those who
believe in mob rule who have commented as such.Don't worry you can
still hate because America is still free. The sad reality is, your
children aren't as prejudice and like my father insisting he wasn't a racist,
believed that interacial marriage was wrong, and against the will of God.
Just a reminder -- Prop 8 was an expression of the will of millions of people of
the state of California, ensconced -- at their request -- in the constitution of
that sovereign state.Now two leftist activists, appointed for life
as a political trick to a partisan, discredited, laughably-oft-reversed court,
one that has come to richly deserve its nickname -- Ninth Circus -- flout the
will of those millions.And some think that's a cause for
celebration?That's beyond sad. This leftist-inspired and
implemented dictatorship of the radical fringe will shortly leave our nation a
riven, carved-up, hollowed-out hulk.That's not a cause for
The will of the majority was expressed through a democratic process. A single,
openly gay judge reversed the will of the vote of millions. He did not have the
personal integrity to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest that
obviously created a bias. Now, a small number of judges from the Ninth Circuit
(any surprises here?) has again reversed the will of the majority, RULING that
Prop 8 is unconstitutional.At the same time, the Obama
administration RULES via edict that religious-run health institutions must
comply with the government view of contraception ... forcing them to violate
their own beliefs and doctrines.What has happened to the
Constitution and government that our Founding Fathers created? It appears that
it is in the process of being co-opted and trammeled by a minority that is
intent on trampling out anything that is traditional family-based, decent, pure,
and moral.Of course there are going to be many of you who will
whistle and caw against the concept of core moral values. Say whatever you want.
You can preen and pretend, but those values don't change. You can trot out your
"experts", but their rhetoric cannot change fundamental verities.Sooner or later we reap the whirlwind.
This is an issue that should be decided, not by the supreme court, but by the
supreme ruler of mankind.. and I believe He's given us his word on the matter.
The justices need to go read the Bible.
Jut wondering what civil rights measures were passed by the voice of the
people?1. The Bill of Rights? No, that was a number of delegates
that voted to include those in the Constitution.2. ERA? As much as
I believe that women should be equal, i.e. equal pay for equal work, for one,
the ERA for no good reason, was voted down - on the basis that if people look
into documents defending opposition to the ERA, as "immoral." Go
figure. 3. Inter-racial marriage? Again, not by the voice of the
people - and it is now quite outdated. 5. Civil rights of the
1950s and 1960s - History speaks for itself, landmark U.S. Court decisions and
legislation from the federal government.6. Rights to give back some
of the rights taken away from indigenous tribes - again, executive orders.7. Women's suffrage: In states, when it was placed to the people to
give women the right to vote, it was voted down. 8. To really
defend marriage - i.e. to lessen the high percentage of divorce, for one. I am
sorry, I can't recall an instance. Please, if you respond, don't
begin by saying "Vince, the real issue is..." because such rhetoric
circumnavigates question #8 above.
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!