Reader comments
Stay on same-sex marriages denied
81 comments | Read story
Remco | 1:29 a.m. June 5, 2008
I hope that gay marriage is allowed in the entire US from this day onwards. If
they want to get married, than they should be able to...especially in a country
that claims to be the land of the free. I thought that even conservatives would
be in favor of marriage...after all they say it is a sacred bond between 2
people (never mind the gender)...so let them be bonded. So why can't we all
just get along and have some fun? Here in Holland we try to...
phoebe | 5:42 a.m. June 5, 2008
Divorce attorneys are behind the same sex marriage.
Matt MO. | 6:01 a.m. June 5, 2008
This is not Holland. We here try to live the basic laws of God. Where the
commandment given in the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve "Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth" Genesis 1:28. And also the commandment
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." and "Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour�s house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour�s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant,
nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy
neighbour�s." Being gay or lesbian you cannot keep
these commandments. So if man says it's ok it is still wrong in the eyes of
our creator and we would have to face his judgment sooner or later.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 6:49 a.m. June 5, 2008
Utah has no business telling other states how to regulate marriage.
re MattMo | 7:07 a.m. June 5, 2008
Why don't you worry about keeping your own house clean, and let GOD be the
judge of everyone else. K?
dave | 7:33 a.m. June 5, 2008
The biblical reference you quoted was referring to a beast of burden not a
posterior.
Oh, and why is the government in the marriage business? Sounds socialist to me. Are you a socialist?
Oh, and why is the government in the marriage business? Sounds socialist to me. Are you a socialist?
Californian | 8:00 a.m. June 5, 2008
This letter is to the people of Utah. Please don't tell us what to do.
From here it looks like your state has plenty of other issues to deal with.
Utah is dealing with significant probems with pollution, depression,
bankruptcies, polygamy, etc. etc. Nobody likes it when another state tries to
tell it what to do. Please mind your own business.
rainmaker | 8:03 a.m. June 5, 2008
What's the big hurry when it was a narrow decision for gay marriage in
California?
Four Corners | 8:03 a.m. June 5, 2008
Hurray for the political process!
If CA voters choose to make only hetero marriage legal, won't the courts still have the ability to say it's unconstitutional? It's the purpose of a 3 branch government.
Legalize morality is extremely difficult unless it is based on equality for all. Laws are created to protect the minority, not the majority. The majority already has protection.
We can be a funny state. Mormons came here in 1847 when it was part of Mexico to circumvent federal influence, as Mormons were the minority.
Go California and Mass!
If CA voters choose to make only hetero marriage legal, won't the courts still have the ability to say it's unconstitutional? It's the purpose of a 3 branch government.
Legalize morality is extremely difficult unless it is based on equality for all. Laws are created to protect the minority, not the majority. The majority already has protection.
We can be a funny state. Mormons came here in 1847 when it was part of Mexico to circumvent federal influence, as Mormons were the minority.
Go California and Mass!
Jon | 8:14 a.m. June 5, 2008
To Anonymous, Utah's not telling CA what they can and can't do, they
were just asking CA to put off implementing the ruling so that UT can prepare
for the lawsuits that are going to happen as a result of CA's decision.
Basically they're asking CA to hold off for a while so that CA's
ruling doesn't affect UT (the opposite of what you accuse UT of trying to
do).
To Dave, when gays and lesbians made marriage a political issue, the government has every right to get in the marriage business. Remember, it wasn't the conservatives that started making a stink out of it, it was the GLBT community.
To Dave, when gays and lesbians made marriage a political issue, the government has every right to get in the marriage business. Remember, it wasn't the conservatives that started making a stink out of it, it was the GLBT community.
Gary | 8:20 a.m. June 5, 2008
Californian wrote:
"This letter is to the people of Utah. Please don't tell us what to do. From here it looks like your state has plenty of other issues to deal with. Utah is dealing with significant probems with pollution, depression, bankruptcies, polygamy, etc. etc. Nobody likes it when another state tries to tell it what to do. Please mind your own business."
I have to agree. Utah had no right telling California what to do. Just as Utah would not like it if California told us what to do.
On behalf of the people of Utah, I apologize. Also, go Lakers!!
"This letter is to the people of Utah. Please don't tell us what to do. From here it looks like your state has plenty of other issues to deal with. Utah is dealing with significant probems with pollution, depression, bankruptcies, polygamy, etc. etc. Nobody likes it when another state tries to tell it what to do. Please mind your own business."
I have to agree. Utah had no right telling California what to do. Just as Utah would not like it if California told us what to do.
On behalf of the people of Utah, I apologize. Also, go Lakers!!
Agenda | 8:39 a.m. June 5, 2008
So California gets to set the agenda for every other state now? We can live in a
free country and can be free to have our own opinion as long as it dosent go
against the California happy living agenda! Please government sanction my life
style "choice" because my church and the moral police won't.
Instereo | 8:43 a.m. June 5, 2008
Many LDS seem to forget that in the pre-existence the War in Heaven was about
freedom of choice. Forcing someone to your moral standard is not God's way
but Satan's way. Therefore I'd say let California do what it wants and
Utah should stay out of it. Forcing people to be moral will never work. I
don't trust anyone that wants to force their morality on me because they
seem to forget other moral issues like Health Care, Immigration, Tax Breaks for
the Rich, and War and think it's OK for the poor to pay in all these areas
while the rich get a break.
Abraham the Lesser | 8:52 a.m. June 5, 2008
Eleven score and two years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a
new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men
are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil debate on gay marriage, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great technological battlefield of that debate. Many have died to protect the equality and liberty of all. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that the honored dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth; that all men may be created equal in word as well as in very deed as we remove the shackles which have kept many from enjoying the full blessings of liberty and equality in marriage.
Now we are engaged in a great civil debate on gay marriage, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great technological battlefield of that debate. Many have died to protect the equality and liberty of all. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that the honored dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth; that all men may be created equal in word as well as in very deed as we remove the shackles which have kept many from enjoying the full blessings of liberty and equality in marriage.
RE: Californian 8:00am | 9:02 a.m. June 5, 2008
Dear California Supremes,
We the people of California told you what we wanted. Remember Prop 22. It passed not by a narrow margins, but by 22% more than the opposition. In a narrowest margin possible (4-3), you have decided to thwart the will and voice of the people. I encourage all people from all states to stand up for the rights of the people to pass laws they feel are appropriate.
Sincerely,
Torrance CA
P.S. Just so UTHANS don't feel too bad. CA has other problems too: teenage pregnacy, gangs, foreclosures, lack of affordable housing, energy policy, water policy, growth policy, emminent domain, government corruption, illegal immigrants, nanny-state laws, democrats run amok, unions controlling public policy, and the State is bankrupt not just the citizens.
We the people of California told you what we wanted. Remember Prop 22. It passed not by a narrow margins, but by 22% more than the opposition. In a narrowest margin possible (4-3), you have decided to thwart the will and voice of the people. I encourage all people from all states to stand up for the rights of the people to pass laws they feel are appropriate.
Sincerely,
Torrance CA
P.S. Just so UTHANS don't feel too bad. CA has other problems too: teenage pregnacy, gangs, foreclosures, lack of affordable housing, energy policy, water policy, growth policy, emminent domain, government corruption, illegal immigrants, nanny-state laws, democrats run amok, unions controlling public policy, and the State is bankrupt not just the citizens.
Golden State Guy | 9:02 a.m. June 5, 2008
Because I strongly support traditonal marriage, I also strongly support gay
marriage.
And as a Sacramento, California resident, I welcome gays in Utah and elsewhere to come here to get married and receive the same legal benefits that are enjoyed by those who are in traditional marriages. CONGRATULATIONS AND WELCOME!
And as a Sacramento, California resident, I welcome gays in Utah and elsewhere to come here to get married and receive the same legal benefits that are enjoyed by those who are in traditional marriages. CONGRATULATIONS AND WELCOME!
Anonymous | 9:07 a.m. June 5, 2008
Simply put, the California court just negated the majority vote in California
statsting that " Marriage is between a one man and one woman" because
it was a law not an amendment to the State Constitution. The judges simply
stated, to bad folks, we can strike your vote down. In November, the
Constitutional Amendment will be voted on and passed. THe judges want to cause
as much trouble as possible for all by not staying the execution of the order
untill November . Time for the folks to take back the legislature and courts to
keep men in black robes from ruling by fiat.
Susan | 9:07 a.m. June 5, 2008
Gays think that if they can legally marry it will somehow make their lifestyle
not immoral. It won't. The millions of people who believe homosexuality
is wrong will keep believing it's wrong whether it's legal or not.
The truly sad thought is that children raised by gays are the ones that suffer.
Every child needs a MOTHER and a FATHER. Every gay person I know had a mother
and a father. Why do they think it's ok to deny their children of this
need.
CTR | 9:15 a.m. June 5, 2008
I applaud the CA Court's denial to stay their decision.
Yes the Utah courts will now have to grapple with issues related to CA couples marrying and moving/returning to Utah. (This is on the horizon for Utah courts anyway, whatever the CA court's decision had been because of Mass. marriages.) More significant, It seems to me, is that the Court's denial now reframes the debate. It will now be a more difficult hurdle for those pushing the measure to amend the CA constitution. Actual, real couples will marry. When people are asked to vote to remove rights from people---rights that are already in place, they tend to be more reluctant.
Still might happen, but its a harder sell.
Yes the Utah courts will now have to grapple with issues related to CA couples marrying and moving/returning to Utah. (This is on the horizon for Utah courts anyway, whatever the CA court's decision had been because of Mass. marriages.) More significant, It seems to me, is that the Court's denial now reframes the debate. It will now be a more difficult hurdle for those pushing the measure to amend the CA constitution. Actual, real couples will marry. When people are asked to vote to remove rights from people---rights that are already in place, they tend to be more reluctant.
Still might happen, but its a harder sell.
To Jon/8:14 am | 9:17 a.m. June 5, 2008
Gay and lesbians have always wanted the right to get married. It is just lately
that they have tried and when conservatives were upset, CONSERVATIVES passed a
law to prohibit it. The courts were then called upon to determine whether the
law was constitutional. It wasn't.
The government has always been in the marriage business. They are the ones granting rights and privileges to married couples.
The government has always been in the marriage business. They are the ones granting rights and privileges to married couples.
Y recognize Unholy Civil Unions? | 9:29 a.m. June 5, 2008
God won't ever recognize gay marriage, nor will I. It doesn't and
will never exist to him. There is no such thing in his realm.
No matter what laws we create or how we redefine marriage, that won't change true marriage as defined, ordained, and upheld by God.
No gay marriage in California, any other American state, or foreign land, will be recognized in one state--the state of Heaven.
Sorry miscreants, your political lobbying is abhorred by the ruler of the Heavens, though for a time you are free to choose wickedness over happiness on Earth, even those days of petitioning for acceptance of your wrongdoing are numbered. He will never accept your state of sodomy. You may fool yourself, but He knows your lies and your choice to depart from the sanctity of holy matrimony. I'm sad for you, but your hope lies in changing your ways, not in me accepting you self-defeatist attitude.
No matter what laws we create or how we redefine marriage, that won't change true marriage as defined, ordained, and upheld by God.
No gay marriage in California, any other American state, or foreign land, will be recognized in one state--the state of Heaven.
Sorry miscreants, your political lobbying is abhorred by the ruler of the Heavens, though for a time you are free to choose wickedness over happiness on Earth, even those days of petitioning for acceptance of your wrongdoing are numbered. He will never accept your state of sodomy. You may fool yourself, but He knows your lies and your choice to depart from the sanctity of holy matrimony. I'm sad for you, but your hope lies in changing your ways, not in me accepting you self-defeatist attitude.
Anonymous | 9:29 a.m. June 5, 2008
Utah needs to mind its own business. Please keep your narrow intolerant
behavior behind the Zion curtain.
Anonymous | 9:32 a.m. June 5, 2008
To - Just Sayin' | 8:28 a.m. June 5, 2008.
This would not be an issue if Utah would mind its own business and stay behind the Zion curtain. For all I care you can have as many wives as you want.
This would not be an issue if Utah would mind its own business and stay behind the Zion curtain. For all I care you can have as many wives as you want.
Greg | 9:33 a.m. June 5, 2008
Anonymous 6:49am and Califorian- Neither Utah, nor anybody else is telling
California how to do their business. What California does with this is clearly
being determined by the CA Supreme Court (as stated in the article). The actions
of the California Supreme Court, however, do impact other states. Any and all of
those states are well within their rights to make a request for a stay until
November.
As for freedom to do whatever you want, you are sadly deluded to think that the Constitution guarantees such rights. I have not read anywhere in the U.S. Constitution the right to marry whomever and what ever one wants; it is one of those rights reserved for the states. I don't know about the California constitution, but I doubt it says anything at this point.
It is true that this is government by the people. It should be obvious that there are certain rights which are not absolute, such as your right to hold another person in servitude even if the people generally agree it is O.K. You don't have the right to dance naked in the street. The government actually does have the right to legalize morality.
As for freedom to do whatever you want, you are sadly deluded to think that the Constitution guarantees such rights. I have not read anywhere in the U.S. Constitution the right to marry whomever and what ever one wants; it is one of those rights reserved for the states. I don't know about the California constitution, but I doubt it says anything at this point.
It is true that this is government by the people. It should be obvious that there are certain rights which are not absolute, such as your right to hold another person in servitude even if the people generally agree it is O.K. You don't have the right to dance naked in the street. The government actually does have the right to legalize morality.
Hannah | 9:38 a.m. June 5, 2008
Anetelope Island or Catalina Island? Pineview or the Pacific? Lagoon or Laguna
Beach? Droughts or Disneyland?
As for me and my house, we will choose California.
As for me and my house, we will choose California.
LDS Democrat | 9:42 a.m. June 5, 2008
To Matt Mo and Others:
In Mexico and other nations, the state only recognizes marriages by officers of the court, not ministers of religion. To be sealed in an LDS temple in Mexico and elsewhere, one must be married by a justice of the peace first. And of course, most such civil marriages don't involve LDS (or active LDS). Similarly, the California decision only involves civil marriages, not religious ones, and in no way forces the LDS church to seal gay married couples in the temple, and therefore does NOT affect or harm LDS marriages at all.
In Mexico and other nations, the state only recognizes marriages by officers of the court, not ministers of religion. To be sealed in an LDS temple in Mexico and elsewhere, one must be married by a justice of the peace first. And of course, most such civil marriages don't involve LDS (or active LDS). Similarly, the California decision only involves civil marriages, not religious ones, and in no way forces the LDS church to seal gay married couples in the temple, and therefore does NOT affect or harm LDS marriages at all.
Sociological Researcher | 9:51 a.m. June 5, 2008
Have you studied the history of marriage? Do you understand research that looks
deep into the well-being of individuals? Or are you simply shouting the
rhetoric of the day?
You ask why government is in the marriage business. The history of marriage from day one was instituted by religious organization, not government. HOWEVER, the wellbeing of civilization and its converse decline, rests upon the health of society's marriages. Thus, governments choose to protect society by regulating marriage. The reason marriage is the bedrock of healthy societies is that it�s also the seedbed of our next generation. In truth, healthy marriages provide sound children. I'm not stating my own opinion, but the results of countless studies.
Our next generation's wellbeing comes from homes where there is a married biological father and mother who care for their offspring. This is the most secure environment for the rising generation; this is the foundation of stable societies. Government has every right to regulate the safety of society. Rather than personal gratification, our focus should be on the security of our nation�s children.
For More information read Harvard�s �Alone Together: How marriage is changing in America.�
You ask why government is in the marriage business. The history of marriage from day one was instituted by religious organization, not government. HOWEVER, the wellbeing of civilization and its converse decline, rests upon the health of society's marriages. Thus, governments choose to protect society by regulating marriage. The reason marriage is the bedrock of healthy societies is that it�s also the seedbed of our next generation. In truth, healthy marriages provide sound children. I'm not stating my own opinion, but the results of countless studies.
Our next generation's wellbeing comes from homes where there is a married biological father and mother who care for their offspring. This is the most secure environment for the rising generation; this is the foundation of stable societies. Government has every right to regulate the safety of society. Rather than personal gratification, our focus should be on the security of our nation�s children.
For More information read Harvard�s �Alone Together: How marriage is changing in America.�
LDS Democrat 2 | 9:54 a.m. June 5, 2008
To MattMo and others:
It is not the responsibility (nor the right) of government under the US constitution to use the police powers of the State to enforce God's commandments, as we LDS (or anyone else) sees them. Otherwise, government could imprison those who dare to divorce, stone those who dare to commit adultery, fine those who dare to break the sabbath (never mind which sabbath--LDS, Seventh Day Adventist/Jewish, or Moslem), swear, break the Word of Wisdom, have "dirty" thoughts, etc. All of these "violations" of God's laws involve Holiness, i.e., what we do WITH others or by ourselves. The police powers of the State should only be used to enforce Morality, i.e., what we do TO others against their will. So if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, or don't support temple sealings for gays. But don't make gay marriage illegal because it violates your sense of holiness.
It is not the responsibility (nor the right) of government under the US constitution to use the police powers of the State to enforce God's commandments, as we LDS (or anyone else) sees them. Otherwise, government could imprison those who dare to divorce, stone those who dare to commit adultery, fine those who dare to break the sabbath (never mind which sabbath--LDS, Seventh Day Adventist/Jewish, or Moslem), swear, break the Word of Wisdom, have "dirty" thoughts, etc. All of these "violations" of God's laws involve Holiness, i.e., what we do WITH others or by ourselves. The police powers of the State should only be used to enforce Morality, i.e., what we do TO others against their will. So if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, or don't support temple sealings for gays. But don't make gay marriage illegal because it violates your sense of holiness.
Marriage Equality already exists | 9:56 a.m. June 5, 2008
Well said, Greg.
I would add that marriage equality already exists as presently constituted. Last I checked, anyone who wants to get married has the right to do so. Any man is able to marry a woman. And any woman is able to marry a man. Since everyone fits in the gender categories of man or woman, marriage is equally available to all, so this isn't a matter of equal rights, Abraham, clearly the lesser.
I would add that marriage equality already exists as presently constituted. Last I checked, anyone who wants to get married has the right to do so. Any man is able to marry a woman. And any woman is able to marry a man. Since everyone fits in the gender categories of man or woman, marriage is equally available to all, so this isn't a matter of equal rights, Abraham, clearly the lesser.
Kev | 10:00 a.m. June 5, 2008
Huh Gays making marriage a political issue sorry it seems that the mormons made
marriage a political issue way back when they anted to become a state but had
to discontinue multiple marriages in order to become a state thats like way
political if you ask me
kev | 10:09 a.m. June 5, 2008
Marriage Equality already exists
that is the dumbest argument that you all seem to keep putting out it makes no sense but then most f your arguments don't either
so what you are saying is I should marry someone I am not attracted o so that I can share all I have with them think about it its is a stupid argument
besides I have been there and It only created hurt and misery on both sides but I guess thats what you want
that is the dumbest argument that you all seem to keep putting out it makes no sense but then most f your arguments don't either
so what you are saying is I should marry someone I am not attracted o so that I can share all I have with them think about it its is a stupid argument
besides I have been there and It only created hurt and misery on both sides but I guess thats what you want
To LDS Democrat 2 @9:54 | 10:15 a.m. June 5, 2008
I totally agree.
I find it funny | 10:23 a.m. June 5, 2008
That Californians-it's OK, I used to be one myself-are telling us to keep
our morals to our own state. Gay activists are already proclaming their intent
to have gays from other states come to CA, get married, return home and file
suit to have their marriages recognized under the "full faith and
credit" clause of the Constitution.
So who is imposing whose morals on who?
So who is imposing whose morals on who?
To Susan 9:07 | 10:54 a.m. June 5, 2008
"Gays think that if they can legally marry it will somehow make their
lifestyle not immoral."
Wrong! We already think that we are moral. We just want to live our lives with all the rights and privileges that everyone is suppose to enjoy in this great ol' USA. We are all suppose to be equal. You can get married to the person that you love and enjoy all sorts of rights, but we can't. Why? Because some of you think that we are not good enough.
Wrong! We already think that we are moral. We just want to live our lives with all the rights and privileges that everyone is suppose to enjoy in this great ol' USA. We are all suppose to be equal. You can get married to the person that you love and enjoy all sorts of rights, but we can't. Why? Because some of you think that we are not good enough.
How God Lives?? | 11:27 a.m. June 5, 2008
"God won't ever recognize gay marriage, nor will I. It doesn't
and will never exist to him. There is no such thing in his realm"
I find it interesting that anyone supposes they know what exists in "God's realm"
Didn't he once say to Isaiah "...your ways are not my ways"?
He may very well have established a model of procreation for humans here on earth, but you can't honestly suppose that defines the sum and whole of all things Godly.
I find it interesting that anyone supposes they know what exists in "God's realm"
Didn't he once say to Isaiah "...your ways are not my ways"?
He may very well have established a model of procreation for humans here on earth, but you can't honestly suppose that defines the sum and whole of all things Godly.
Wickedness never was happiness | 11:31 a.m. June 5, 2008
Kev,
No one is forcing you to get married.
The argument is simply that you already have equal rights to marry under the constituted format of marriage (Being between a man and a woman), just like the rest of us have that same right. Therefore, You cannot logically or justly argue that marriage equality is already available to you. Furthermore, that right has nothing to do with the happiness of any relationship.
If you choose to be with someone of the same sex, it is you who have forfeited the right of what marriage is (And what real marriage always will be).
By no means should you intrepret this as a request that you go and marry someone who you don't love and make both parties miserable. That would be stupid.
If you were happy in your gay relationship than you wouldn't need the government's approving label. It is you who just can't be pleased. Happiness is a choice. It is your right to be happy and it is just too bad that you choose not to be whether you are in a marriage or out of one.
No one is forcing you to get married.
The argument is simply that you already have equal rights to marry under the constituted format of marriage (Being between a man and a woman), just like the rest of us have that same right. Therefore, You cannot logically or justly argue that marriage equality is already available to you. Furthermore, that right has nothing to do with the happiness of any relationship.
If you choose to be with someone of the same sex, it is you who have forfeited the right of what marriage is (And what real marriage always will be).
By no means should you intrepret this as a request that you go and marry someone who you don't love and make both parties miserable. That would be stupid.
If you were happy in your gay relationship than you wouldn't need the government's approving label. It is you who just can't be pleased. Happiness is a choice. It is your right to be happy and it is just too bad that you choose not to be whether you are in a marriage or out of one.
God reveals enough knowledge | 11:56 a.m. June 5, 2008
Do you suppose that God makes laws He doesn't follow?
We may not know all God's ways, but He has clearly revealed his answer to this law (If commanded in this realm it naturally perpetuates what exists in the next realm if bound by God):
Matthew 19:3-5 (See also, Gen. 2:24)- Jesus says--
" 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"
OR Mark 10:6-9
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
We may not know all God's ways, but He has clearly revealed his answer to this law (If commanded in this realm it naturally perpetuates what exists in the next realm if bound by God):
Matthew 19:3-5 (See also, Gen. 2:24)- Jesus says--
" 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"
OR Mark 10:6-9
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Stupidity never was happiness | 12:00 p.m. June 5, 2008
First of all, there is nothing in the constitution about marriage, period.
We are however, a nation built on the idea that citizens have a right to pursue happiness.
Since a relationship with someone of the opposite sex is NOT a state of happiness for someone who is gay, then government sponsered support of ONLY heterosexual relationships, is a violation of the principals upon which this nation was founded.
Also, for those studying the history of government involment in marragie, it was established for the purpose of conveying property. It has always primarily been a financial institution--from the perspective of government. Therefore to deny gays the same financial benefits is wrong.
The very nice couple in their 70s I know that just got married, certianly didn't have the idea of raising children foremost in their thoughts.
We are however, a nation built on the idea that citizens have a right to pursue happiness.
Since a relationship with someone of the opposite sex is NOT a state of happiness for someone who is gay, then government sponsered support of ONLY heterosexual relationships, is a violation of the principals upon which this nation was founded.
Also, for those studying the history of government involment in marragie, it was established for the purpose of conveying property. It has always primarily been a financial institution--from the perspective of government. Therefore to deny gays the same financial benefits is wrong.
The very nice couple in their 70s I know that just got married, certianly didn't have the idea of raising children foremost in their thoughts.
somefuss | 12:09 p.m. June 5, 2008
It is amusing to read the comments. The ruling of the Crazy courts here in Calif
is like a comedy of errors. We can really worry when these marriages start to
reproduce by natural means.
Josh in PHX | 12:11 p.m. June 5, 2008
To Matt MO:
I am sorry you have such a narrow-minded view of the world. I am gay--and proud of it. I am in a long-term, monogamous and loving relationship. And believe it or not, I am fully able to keep God's commandments.
I have never committed adultery. I have never coveted my neighbours house, wife, manservant, maidservent, ox, ass or anything else. I honor my mother and father (who are proud of me and my partner--and they are LDS). I have never killed anyone. Do I need to continue?
When you say that being gay or lesbian makes it so you cant live those commandments--it is offensive. I am doing a whole lot better at living these commandments than a lot of heterosexuals. You need to come up with a better argument.
I am sorry you have such a narrow-minded view of the world. I am gay--and proud of it. I am in a long-term, monogamous and loving relationship. And believe it or not, I am fully able to keep God's commandments.
I have never committed adultery. I have never coveted my neighbours house, wife, manservant, maidservent, ox, ass or anything else. I honor my mother and father (who are proud of me and my partner--and they are LDS). I have never killed anyone. Do I need to continue?
When you say that being gay or lesbian makes it so you cant live those commandments--it is offensive. I am doing a whole lot better at living these commandments than a lot of heterosexuals. You need to come up with a better argument.
CTR | 12:34 p.m. June 5, 2008
To God reveals enough knowledge:
I'm not quite sure why you're injecting religion into the discussion at hand. I get that you have a religious objection to same-sex couples marrying, as is your right.
But not all people, not all religious people, not all Christians, not even all LDS object to same-sex couples marrying. So why should your particular religious view be legislated above others?
I'm not quite sure why you're injecting religion into the discussion at hand. I get that you have a religious objection to same-sex couples marrying, as is your right.
But not all people, not all religious people, not all Christians, not even all LDS object to same-sex couples marrying. So why should your particular religious view be legislated above others?
Nosy parkers | 12:36 p.m. June 5, 2008
I was privileged to help my brother's ex-wife raise their children. They
are beautiful, contributing, moral people. The only problems of a major nature
came into the family dressed in suits, holding the priesthood and telling their
mom that she should have consulted men in the raising of her family. That two
women, no matter how capable (and I'm wholly capable and then some)could
compare to the influence of men on the family. All hell broke loose when the
children stood up for their mom and she caved and lost all sense of
self-respect.
What a lovely commentary on this community. Leave a woman alone to raise her kids with her ex-sil's help, then destroy it with gobbeldygook presented as doctrine.
Marriage is commitment and NOT adultry Matt Mo. And wherever do you get off saying not coveting is impossible for gays? Do you know what coveting is? Certainly no one will be coveting you.
What a lovely commentary on this community. Leave a woman alone to raise her kids with her ex-sil's help, then destroy it with gobbeldygook presented as doctrine.
Marriage is commitment and NOT adultry Matt Mo. And wherever do you get off saying not coveting is impossible for gays? Do you know what coveting is? Certainly no one will be coveting you.
lost in DC | 12:51 p.m. June 5, 2008
to all you narrow minded, liberal Californians, we aren't telling you what
to do. we were asking your kangaroo, oops, I mean supreme court to wait until
YOU can have your say, which is scheduled for November, so that YOUR actions
don't have negative effects on us.
The fact that the four kangaroos on the CA court didn't even cite a reason for not granting the delay says they are much more interested in legislating from the bench than they are in listening to the will of the CA voter.
The fact that the four kangaroos on the CA court didn't even cite a reason for not granting the delay says they are much more interested in legislating from the bench than they are in listening to the will of the CA voter.
Hey, Matt MO | 12:53 p.m. June 5, 2008
Since I'm past the age of bearing children, are you saying my impending
marriage shouldn't take place?
I don't understand your take on gays not being able to keep the commandments you cited, but I'm guessing it's quite likely no one of any ilk will be coveting your ass any time soon.
I don't understand your take on gays not being able to keep the commandments you cited, but I'm guessing it's quite likely no one of any ilk will be coveting your ass any time soon.
Gays get singles benefits | 12:56 p.m. June 5, 2008
Good point Stupidity, no wonder you're not happy,
Again, no one said you can't be in a relationship. The government does allow and therefore support homosexual relationships, we just don't call it marriage, which would be a violation of what marriage is, and a violation of the principles on which this nation was founded, by married persons.
If you want money from the government, claim your stupidity check with the welfare department like every other single person.
Again, no one said you can't be in a relationship. The government does allow and therefore support homosexual relationships, we just don't call it marriage, which would be a violation of what marriage is, and a violation of the principles on which this nation was founded, by married persons.
If you want money from the government, claim your stupidity check with the welfare department like every other single person.
hooboy | 12:57 p.m. June 5, 2008
Dear Y, sure am glad I don't live in the realm you describe.
Why is it that people think they can read God's mind? It must be rather tiring to have to be benevolent and tolerant of such foolishness all the time.
Why is it that people think they can read God's mind? It must be rather tiring to have to be benevolent and tolerant of such foolishness all the time.
To those against gay marriage | 1:03 p.m. June 5, 2008
You do realize that in 50 years you'll be seen in the same light as the
racists are today, right?
Homophobia will be relegated to a quaint, backward position that will make your grandchildren cringe with embarrassment when you spout your hatred. The world is changing, and for the better--get used to it or you're in for a very bumpy ride.
Homophobia will be relegated to a quaint, backward position that will make your grandchildren cringe with embarrassment when you spout your hatred. The world is changing, and for the better--get used to it or you're in for a very bumpy ride.
Pride cometh before the fall | 1:22 p.m. June 5, 2008
Justification on here is hillarious...
The dictionary defines fornication as sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other. Sexual activity with persons of the same sex is therefore not only homosexual but also fornication. The bible commands against, and condemns fornication like unto adultery.
The dictionary defines fornication as sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other. Sexual activity with persons of the same sex is therefore not only homosexual but also fornication. The bible commands against, and condemns fornication like unto adultery.
So scared! Please! LOL | 1:55 p.m. June 5, 2008
Yes God, don't you hate being called a homophobe. You do realize when
people want to marry their dogs, man's best lover, in fifty years, those
who oppose it will be considered backwards. Those for it, will claim that
unless you are a dog lover, literally, you are no better than the racists.
Yeah, God is the one who should fear because He is so backwards. Please!
Gays already have equal rights. You want special rights. You should be afraid, because I do accept you as a person, but I have no guilt for not accepting your actions, that is your fear before homophobes like God.
Gays already have equal rights. You want special rights. You should be afraid, because I do accept you as a person, but I have no guilt for not accepting your actions, that is your fear before homophobes like God.
eany meany | 2:30 p.m. June 5, 2008
Pride cometh before the fall | 1:22 p.m.
So if homosexuals were married to each other, they would not be committing fornication.
So if homosexuals were married to each other, they would not be committing fornication.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Fierce snowstorm heads to Midwest 7:41 a.m.
- EU: Jerusalem should be joint capital 7:38 a.m.
- Obama talks job-creating initiative 7:37 a.m.
- Stock futures drop as $ strengthens 7:34 a.m.
- Iran: Nearly 200 protesters arrested 7:13 a.m.
- Obama envoy begins trip to NKorea 7:12 a.m.
- Baghdad blasts toll at 118 dead 7:11 a.m.
- High school girls basketball: Top 20 1:40 a.m.
- High school swimming rankings 1:28 a.m.
- High school girls basketball rankings 1:19 a.m.
- Cougars going back to Vegas
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl
- Bring the true spirit of Christmas
- Utes excited to go to San Diego
- Winter weather is here to stay
- BYU professor remembered
- TCU's BCS game missing something
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
261 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl203
- Letters: Global warming a lie161
- Cougars going back to Vegas147
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil134
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony100
- Harpring's NBA career is over96
- Utahns want health care reform bills78
- Utes excited to go to San Diego77
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Amazon.com, Target.com, Sears.com, Walmart.com, Kmart.com and...
Latest comments
To all of you brainwashed and braindead Utahan's, this is what organized...
Thank you so much George! You made my day. And it is not just our paper,...
that every time the Global Warming gang holds a big conference in some major...
The idea that taxes enslave or are stealing is the most anti-american...
The Spurs are under new ownership this year. Their new owner is the Jazz....
Perhaps one thing that should be learned from this experience is that there...
Welcome to socialism. This Obamaland mentality is becoming boring and scary....
nice to see american fork getting some wins and some love from dnews, and...
Tax the religious organizations,you would have a windfall!
TCU or BSU should be playing Florida in the Sugar Bowl, and not each other in...
Advertisements