Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: State job is not to redefine marriage
58 comments | Read story
Wondering... | 1:39 a.m. July 24, 2008
Why, if Orson Scott Card is so concerned about the insitution of marriage,
isn't he calling for stricter divorce laws? Why does he feel that only
marriages with children are viable marriages?
Perhaps | 6:53 a.m. July 24, 2008
Perhaps he is so "concerned about the institution of marriage" because
the latest CDC finding retain AIDS/HIV as a gay disease. Did you know that in
those latest of findings that homosexual hispanic males have a 25% rate for this
deadly disease? Why? Because even "in a relationship" gay men have
anonymous sex. That is the difference and a large difference it is v. the
mainstream of society. No, I am not mormon or even religious. I oppose gay
marriage on scientific and political cost grounds.
RI Reader | 6:52 a.m. July 24, 2008
I love the laws of democracy, and the freedoms they instill in all humans. For
these laws to be effective, every citizen needs to understand they can be heard
when they feel their freedom is being deprived. And every point of view needs to
be heard.
Accusing the courts of destroying democracy because they keep a "religious" view point out of their "civil" decisions is irresponsible. The very fact the courts are willing to seriously review the issue of civil marriage from a non-religious based view is truly democracy in action, and deserves praise - not condemnation.
The counter balance is civil action by the states and the federal government to establish civil laws. The system works. The very fact one lone voice can spew the hatred and paranoia shown in this article proves democracy works.
Marriage is a religious and civil issue. If the church despises "gay" marriage as immoral, they can still forbid it as a church - just like they don't allow active members to drink alchohol. But if the civil courts say "gay" marriage is immoral, then they are truly crossing the line between church and state. We don't want them to cross that line.
Accusing the courts of destroying democracy because they keep a "religious" view point out of their "civil" decisions is irresponsible. The very fact the courts are willing to seriously review the issue of civil marriage from a non-religious based view is truly democracy in action, and deserves praise - not condemnation.
The counter balance is civil action by the states and the federal government to establish civil laws. The system works. The very fact one lone voice can spew the hatred and paranoia shown in this article proves democracy works.
Marriage is a religious and civil issue. If the church despises "gay" marriage as immoral, they can still forbid it as a church - just like they don't allow active members to drink alchohol. But if the civil courts say "gay" marriage is immoral, then they are truly crossing the line between church and state. We don't want them to cross that line.
Comments continue below
Angst | 7:09 a.m. July 24, 2008
Brother Card: Your one-sided and unthoughtful commentary saddened me.
To Wondering | 7:10 a.m. July 24, 2008
I saw nothing in this article that indicates Scott thinks only marriages with
children are viable. And, he addresses the issue of divorce. Raising such
questions ignores all points made in the article. (Could one assume that those
supporting gay marriage have no answer?) The point of the article addresses the
role of government in redefining what marriage is.
House of Cards | 8:08 a.m. July 24, 2008
I falsely assumed you had a better grasp of logic, jurisprudence, tolerance, and
current events, Bill.
The Supreme Courts made no new laws; they did their jobs, declaring unconstitutional laws that are unconstitutional.
Marriage has been defined differently throughout human history, and homosexuality has been around for all of human history, not just the past 15 years.
Abortion impacts the life and rights of unborn children who cannot speak for themselves. Driving blind impacts others on the roads. But gay marriage harms no one. It is entered into by consenting adults who have the ability and interest to protect their own rights.
"diktats"--good choice of words. You are conceding defeat here, as you should.
RICO laws-- The only way RICO apply is if actions are illegal AND being carried out for profit. Is the LDS Church opposing gay marriage FOR PROFIT?
Your definition includes �permanent or semi-permanent.� Will that be included in the amendment? You claim the definition is �universal,� but then you give a definition that is NOT universal. It is not even consistent with what the LDS Church officially states! Neither the Church nor any �marriage protection� legislation uses �semi-permanent.�
You are good at fiction AND propaganda!
The Supreme Courts made no new laws; they did their jobs, declaring unconstitutional laws that are unconstitutional.
Marriage has been defined differently throughout human history, and homosexuality has been around for all of human history, not just the past 15 years.
Abortion impacts the life and rights of unborn children who cannot speak for themselves. Driving blind impacts others on the roads. But gay marriage harms no one. It is entered into by consenting adults who have the ability and interest to protect their own rights.
"diktats"--good choice of words. You are conceding defeat here, as you should.
RICO laws-- The only way RICO apply is if actions are illegal AND being carried out for profit. Is the LDS Church opposing gay marriage FOR PROFIT?
Your definition includes �permanent or semi-permanent.� Will that be included in the amendment? You claim the definition is �universal,� but then you give a definition that is NOT universal. It is not even consistent with what the LDS Church officially states! Neither the Church nor any �marriage protection� legislation uses �semi-permanent.�
You are good at fiction AND propaganda!
for democracy | 8:21 a.m. July 24, 2008
Regardless of how one feels on this issue, the will of the people should be
honored. In many instances, the judicial branch in this country is becoming a
dictatorship, loosely interpreting the Constitution or ignoring it altogether.
Wondering Again... | 8:26 a.m. July 24, 2008
The 10 paragraphs that follow "No matter how sexually attracted a
man.." certainly do suggest that Orson Scott Card views childless mariiages
as a threat to the instituation of marriage. Where are the articles by Orson
Scott Card about how divorce is the number one threat to the institution of
marriage? Where has he called for tightening of the divorce laws? Where has
the LDS church provided church dicipline to members who get a divorce (even
multiple divorces)? Where has the LDS church had letters read from the pulpit
encouraging members to be activists and spend their money to toughen divorce
laws in order to save the institution of marriage and thereby segregating,
discriminating, and punishing people who are divorced?
To RI Reader | 8:32 a.m. July 24, 2008
It's not democratic for a few judges to overturn the law that was voted on
by millions. If we allow such actions to stand, we are turning our government
into a dictatorship by judges. It's as simple as that. No state
constitution was ever formulated in this country that contemplated gay marriage.
Every single one was enacted in a time when marriage meant heterosexual
marriage of one man and one woman - including Utah's. The writers of them
would be horrified that the political rights protected by equal treatment
provisions are now being used to corrupt and destroy the institution of marriage
as they knew it.
Praise the Lord | 8:56 a.m. July 24, 2008
To Perhaps: Are you saying that gay marriage would promote HIV/AIDS? Your
logic is stunningly ignorant. Thank God we have courts who are able to counter
the "will" of voters like you.
Betsy | 9:57 a.m. July 24, 2008
God ordained marriage and no society has the right to alter it period. People are delusional if they think we are not headed for another civil war or revolution in this country. Over the trampling of the majority for the minority. United States is a Republic not a democracy. They are not interchangeable words. Our government all branches both parties are failing they are both lost. Gay marriage is merely a symptom. People are naive if they don't think that governments or courts will not interfere with the idea of where they can marry. Sooner or later someone will have the chutzpah to demand of the courts to marry in the Oakland Temple. The dictators will agree have the audacity to tell a faith who it can and cannot marry. That challenge is headed that way soon. Coming to a court near you.
Please Answer Me This | 10:10 a.m. July 24, 2008
Just what makes Mr. Card think it is the church's role to define the
state's definition marriage?
Alleged Homophobe | 10:13 a.m. July 24, 2008
To: House of Cards
Your arguments fall apart. You say that the courts have made no new laws, and I agree. However, what would you call a court order demanding that marriage licenses be issued for same sex couples? This I something I would call "legislating from the bench."
I also find it humorous that you say they declared laws regulating marriage as "unconstitutional" when the Constitution is, in fact, completely silent on the matter. The constitutionality of marriage laws is therefore subject to a wide variety of interpretation. These court "decisions" can, and do, vary with each judge (that's why there are appeals, and even the US Supreme Court will reconsider issues from time to time). I should also mention that court decisions are based heavily on precedent. The precedent of all of human history is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Are these judges following precedent?
You also assert that "gay marriage" harms no one. I emphatically disagree. Anything that is detrimental to the fabric of society harms us all. You may not see it now, but should "gay marriage" become the norm, like divorce and abortion have, the real damage will quickly become obvious.
Your arguments fall apart. You say that the courts have made no new laws, and I agree. However, what would you call a court order demanding that marriage licenses be issued for same sex couples? This I something I would call "legislating from the bench."
I also find it humorous that you say they declared laws regulating marriage as "unconstitutional" when the Constitution is, in fact, completely silent on the matter. The constitutionality of marriage laws is therefore subject to a wide variety of interpretation. These court "decisions" can, and do, vary with each judge (that's why there are appeals, and even the US Supreme Court will reconsider issues from time to time). I should also mention that court decisions are based heavily on precedent. The precedent of all of human history is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Are these judges following precedent?
You also assert that "gay marriage" harms no one. I emphatically disagree. Anything that is detrimental to the fabric of society harms us all. You may not see it now, but should "gay marriage" become the norm, like divorce and abortion have, the real damage will quickly become obvious.
EdM | 10:11 a.m. July 24, 2008
What is amazing about all this is back in the 2004 or 2006 elections there were
(if my memory serves me correct) at least 11 states that had referendums on
their ballots dealing with the issue of gay marriage. OVERWHELMINGLY people
voted against allowing gay "marriage". That is democracy in action.
sophistry | 11:04 a.m. July 24, 2008
Card's arguments clearly define his version of a patriarchal society's
vision of marriage (e.g. "Husbands need to have the whole society agree
that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a
right to trust that all his wife's children would be his.") His
discussion equating marriage with property rights (since his argument is from a
patriarchal view) means that he wants women to remain the property of men!
Thank the Lord God that people like Card are getting fewer in number every
year. No civilized society will ever return to the horrors inflicted by
patriarchy. As for reproduction, human beings reproduce much too
successfully--just look at India, China, Africa, Mexico and countless other
regions where mass human suffering exists.
Matthew | 11:17 a.m. July 24, 2008
It is interesting that those that disagree with Orson Scott Card don't seem
to have even taken the time and trouble to have read the whole article since
they disagreed with the first line or two. Read it again people.
Perhaps Orson can be accused of presenting his case with too much heat and vehemence but it is very well thought out and is not based on religion or religous premises. He could certainly write an equally long article on the religous reasons that also support that which he has already argued from an humanist stand point.
He was very hard on heterosexual society for what they have done to weaken marriage, and rightly so.
Read again people, this time with eyes and minds open. You might still disagree, but at least you would be able to formulate accurate and on point rebuttles instead of showing that you didn't read the whole article. Ignoring something just because you disagree with it is just plain ignorant.
Perhaps Orson can be accused of presenting his case with too much heat and vehemence but it is very well thought out and is not based on religion or religous premises. He could certainly write an equally long article on the religous reasons that also support that which he has already argued from an humanist stand point.
He was very hard on heterosexual society for what they have done to weaken marriage, and rightly so.
Read again people, this time with eyes and minds open. You might still disagree, but at least you would be able to formulate accurate and on point rebuttles instead of showing that you didn't read the whole article. Ignoring something just because you disagree with it is just plain ignorant.
Pat | 11:34 a.m. July 24, 2008
How ignorant to say that all gay people are having anonymous sex. I've been
in a relationship for 14 years and have NEVER cheated and NEVER had anonymous
sex. If just gay person doesn't engage as you stated, then you are wrong.
Your broad stroke paint brush is faulty. Try again.
kenny | 12:10 p.m. July 24, 2008
Will allowing gay marriage change the definition of marriage?If so will that
change also make changes in the definition of a hetrosexual marriage?Is this all
about the saying do it my way or the highway?Are we telling gays to marry the
oposite sex regardless of how they feel or dont get married?Are we reserving
legal benifits for only marriages between man and woman?If the constitution of
the united states were to ban homosexual marriages would that put a end to
homosexuality? First and foremost God gave man the right of choice. Must we try
and deny man what God gave him?Let men live their lives and you live yours.Stop
worrying about who is correct.Signed "a hetrosexual male,married active
mormon".
Anonymous | 12:18 p.m. July 24, 2008
Not including Orson Scott Card's comments, in general, I have found the
arguments against same-gender marriage to be very weak. Most of them come down
to (1) that's not what has been done for thousands of years, or (2)
it's against the Bible. Neither of these are very compelling in the
political environment. As I've thought about this deeply, I have realized
that two of the biggest reasons to oppose same-gender marriage have to do with
children--not the same-gender couples. (1) Eight years ago, the London TImes
ran an article on a sex-ed program in England that gave the message that if you
weren't sure of your orientation, try both and see what feels good! I
think that this is a natural end-point from same-gender marriage that will
increase promiscuity. (2) I believe that children do best with both a mother
and a father. This isn't to say that traditional marriages are always
better for children than same-gender guardians, but that the legal bias should
be (based on social research) on having both a mother and a father.
kenny | 12:26 p.m. July 24, 2008
Latter Day Saints have defined marriage in the Proclamation.That is the standard
for its members and hopefully for the world.Those who wish to live by that
standard will do so and those who think otherwise will not.We are not ready for
God to come down and establish laws that will force every man woman and child to
live according to his laws.He still allows us to choose.If the majority of the
world wants to re define marriage then I say let them.That will not change my
committment to the standard that I have set for me.Nor should it change yours.
Princeton Graduate | 12:36 p.m. July 24, 2008
Consider this. If marriage between a man and a woman is legally recognized only
for procreation strange consequences would follow. Utah could and, to be
consistent, should prohibit marriage in which one or both partners are sterile
or impotent.
If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should postmenopausal women be allowed to marry? Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives.
The rationale would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated with spousehood.
If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason.
If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should postmenopausal women be allowed to marry? Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives.
The rationale would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated with spousehood.
If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason.
Princeton Graduate | 12:43 p.m. July 24, 2008
What Mr. Card and people living in Utah need to understand, is that prior to
1950, it was illegal in Utah for a heterosexual man or woman to marry a black
person
The closest parallel in Utah history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950�s (Interracial Marriages in America). These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks.
Thankfully, these laws were overturned because the courts found that the right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed.
This same logic applies to gay marriage. You need to remember that polygamy was very offensive to many people outside the Mormon faith and the Mormons suffered greatly for practicing polygamy. I think in the 21st century, people should be more accepting of differences in marriage choice.
The closest parallel in Utah history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950�s (Interracial Marriages in America). These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks.
Thankfully, these laws were overturned because the courts found that the right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed.
This same logic applies to gay marriage. You need to remember that polygamy was very offensive to many people outside the Mormon faith and the Mormons suffered greatly for practicing polygamy. I think in the 21st century, people should be more accepting of differences in marriage choice.
House of Cards | 1:02 p.m. July 24, 2008
To: Admitted Homophobe
I would call your oversimplification an ignorant attempt at propaganda. In California, the Mayor of San Francisco, not the California Courts, ordered that marriage licenses be issued �without discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.� Mayor Newsom argued that the Californian Constitution clearly stated that "a person may not be denied equal protection of the laws," and the California courts had long ago interpreted the equal protection clause to apply to lesbians and gay men.
In March, 2004, the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco officials to STOP issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Why don�t you call THAT �legislating from the bench�? The Court DID NOT rule on the legality of same-sex marriages, nor did it address the constitutional issues raised by city officials in defense of them. It simply honored a temporary restraining order requested by the �Campaign for California Families� until further review of two lawsuits on the matter.
So, your claim that there was �a court order demanding that marriage licenses be issued for same sex couples� is oversimplified propaganda and deception. That makes you a liar.
I would call your oversimplification an ignorant attempt at propaganda. In California, the Mayor of San Francisco, not the California Courts, ordered that marriage licenses be issued �without discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.� Mayor Newsom argued that the Californian Constitution clearly stated that "a person may not be denied equal protection of the laws," and the California courts had long ago interpreted the equal protection clause to apply to lesbians and gay men.
In March, 2004, the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco officials to STOP issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Why don�t you call THAT �legislating from the bench�? The Court DID NOT rule on the legality of same-sex marriages, nor did it address the constitutional issues raised by city officials in defense of them. It simply honored a temporary restraining order requested by the �Campaign for California Families� until further review of two lawsuits on the matter.
So, your claim that there was �a court order demanding that marriage licenses be issued for same sex couples� is oversimplified propaganda and deception. That makes you a liar.
matpanda | 1:06 p.m. July 24, 2008
Hehe. Silly bigots. Spend more time in school (to learn some science and
logic) and less time sticking your noses into others' personal lives (which
don't affect you one bit). Maybe then, you'll earn some respect from
those of us who are educated and civilized.
The vast majority of the EDUCATED people of society (from legal scholars to social scientists--AKA people who can think LOGICALLY) support gay marriage. Survey after survey has shown that the higher the education level, the more supportive they are of gay marriage.
The CA Sup Ct did its job, which is to declare laws that are unconstitutional. The ignorant masses (so-called "majority") doesn't decide on everything in a constitutional democracy--otherwise we'd still have bans on woman's suffrage, interracial marriage, and school desegregation. The ignorant majority was against interracial marriage and school desegregation when Brown v. Board and Loving v. VA were decided.
Besides, the most recent Field Poll shows that only 42% of Californians support Prop 8 while 51% oppose. There's democracy for ya. Oops! Bummer huh? ;)
The vast majority of the EDUCATED people of society (from legal scholars to social scientists--AKA people who can think LOGICALLY) support gay marriage. Survey after survey has shown that the higher the education level, the more supportive they are of gay marriage.
The CA Sup Ct did its job, which is to declare laws that are unconstitutional. The ignorant masses (so-called "majority") doesn't decide on everything in a constitutional democracy--otherwise we'd still have bans on woman's suffrage, interracial marriage, and school desegregation. The ignorant majority was against interracial marriage and school desegregation when Brown v. Board and Loving v. VA were decided.
Besides, the most recent Field Poll shows that only 42% of Californians support Prop 8 while 51% oppose. There's democracy for ya. Oops! Bummer huh? ;)
House of Cards | 1:10 p.m. July 24, 2008
Moreover, the brief history I just cited proves that the California Constitution
IS, in fact, NOT �completely silent on the
matter.� Indeed, it was the legal basis of Mayor
Newsom�s directive to allow gay marriages in his
city/county in the first place!
And if court decisions are sometimes based heavily on precedent, watch out. You are wrong: the precedent of all human history is that marriage has been defined in COUNTLESS ways, including between two men and two women! You need to study ALL of history, not just your biased RELIGIOUS history.
You claim gay marriage "is detrimental to the fabric of society." How so? All you do is issue promisory notes: "You may not see it now, but should 'gay marriage' become the norm, like divorce and abortion have, the real damage will quickly become obvious."
1. There is a HUGE difference between gay marriage being legal and it "becoming the norm."
2. Divorce? Are you supporting legislation outlawing divorce? Why not?
3. How are divorce and abortion "the norm"? Less than half of people divorce, and far fewer women get abortions.
4. A number of countries have had gay marriage, divorce, and abortion for decades. What "damage"??
And if court decisions are sometimes based heavily on precedent, watch out. You are wrong: the precedent of all human history is that marriage has been defined in COUNTLESS ways, including between two men and two women! You need to study ALL of history, not just your biased RELIGIOUS history.
You claim gay marriage "is detrimental to the fabric of society." How so? All you do is issue promisory notes: "You may not see it now, but should 'gay marriage' become the norm, like divorce and abortion have, the real damage will quickly become obvious."
1. There is a HUGE difference between gay marriage being legal and it "becoming the norm."
2. Divorce? Are you supporting legislation outlawing divorce? Why not?
3. How are divorce and abortion "the norm"? Less than half of people divorce, and far fewer women get abortions.
4. A number of countries have had gay marriage, divorce, and abortion for decades. What "damage"??
Anonymous | 1:15 p.m. July 24, 2008
Bro. Card,
Keep it up and thanks! From California..
Bro. Coombs
Keep it up and thanks! From California..
Bro. Coombs
Knock Knock | 1:16 p.m. July 24, 2008
Matthew,
House of Cards addressed ALL of Orson Card's points from his entire article.
You only assume others didn't read the entire thing because you have no other argument to make. So you shoot blanks and try to drag a red herring argument across the path to get the discussion off topic.
YOU read more carefully, and try some THOUGHT with it! Ironic you call for others to be "open minded" when the iron gates of YOUR mind are welded shut!
House of Cards addressed ALL of Orson Card's points from his entire article.
You only assume others didn't read the entire thing because you have no other argument to make. So you shoot blanks and try to drag a red herring argument across the path to get the discussion off topic.
YOU read more carefully, and try some THOUGHT with it! Ironic you call for others to be "open minded" when the iron gates of YOUR mind are welded shut!
John Pack Lambert | 1:39 p.m. July 24, 2008
I am not sure I agree with all of Brother Card's conclusions. I think he
is too willing to bring up the spectre of war.
However, I think we need to understand what we will be facing with these new changes. Freedoms have clearly been curtailed in the name of "reproductive rights".
I think his worry about new "mental illness" categories are valid. During the 19th century at times Mormons were committed to mental institutions on the grounds that if someone was a Mormon they must be crazy. Mental illness is more about someone not conforming to societal norms than anything else. When a society proactively embraces a lifestyle that some people find morally wrong, things can start getting ugly.
However, I think we need to understand what we will be facing with these new changes. Freedoms have clearly been curtailed in the name of "reproductive rights".
I think his worry about new "mental illness" categories are valid. During the 19th century at times Mormons were committed to mental institutions on the grounds that if someone was a Mormon they must be crazy. Mental illness is more about someone not conforming to societal norms than anything else. When a society proactively embraces a lifestyle that some people find morally wrong, things can start getting ugly.
John Pack Lambert | 1:46 p.m. July 24, 2008
To RI Reader,
If the courts reviewed laws on the bases of what is actually said in the constitutions at both the Federal and State level, reviewed them in light of previous court decision and reviewed them in light of the meanings and intentions of existing laws we would not have a problem.
However when courts discover "rights" that are not in documents things start getting bad. Often when they discover "rights" they then mutate into different rights. The "right to privacy" somehow mutated into "reproductive rights" which can then be used to trump someones freedom of speech if they are speaking in ways that the advocates of "reproductive rights" do not like.
In the issue of religions verses public policy we have already seen a major defeat. Catholic Social Services gave up doing adoptions rather than be forced to place children with same-gender "married" couples in Massachusetts.
If the courts reviewed laws on the bases of what is actually said in the constitutions at both the Federal and State level, reviewed them in light of previous court decision and reviewed them in light of the meanings and intentions of existing laws we would not have a problem.
However when courts discover "rights" that are not in documents things start getting bad. Often when they discover "rights" they then mutate into different rights. The "right to privacy" somehow mutated into "reproductive rights" which can then be used to trump someones freedom of speech if they are speaking in ways that the advocates of "reproductive rights" do not like.
In the issue of religions verses public policy we have already seen a major defeat. Catholic Social Services gave up doing adoptions rather than be forced to place children with same-gender "married" couples in Massachusetts.
Jessica | 1:49 p.m. July 24, 2008
"What Mr. Card and people living in Utah need to understand, is that prior
to 1950, it was illegal in Utah for a heterosexual man or woman to marry a black
person
The closest parallel in Utah history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950�s (Interracial Marriages in America). These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks.
Thankfully, these laws were overturned because the courts found that the right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed.
This same logic applies to gay marriage. You need to remember that polygamy was very offensive to many people outside the Mormon faith and the Mormons suffered greatly for practicing polygamy. I think in the 21st century, people should be more accepting of differences in marriage choice."
Amen brother. The truth shall set you free.
The closest parallel in Utah history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950�s (Interracial Marriages in America). These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks.
Thankfully, these laws were overturned because the courts found that the right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed.
This same logic applies to gay marriage. You need to remember that polygamy was very offensive to many people outside the Mormon faith and the Mormons suffered greatly for practicing polygamy. I think in the 21st century, people should be more accepting of differences in marriage choice."
Amen brother. The truth shall set you free.
John Lambert | 1:57 p.m. July 24, 2008
To Wondering,
Orson Scott Card explained exactly why childless marriages do not undermine the institution of marriage.
Church leaders have on multiple occasions spoken out against divorce. Go read Elder Oaks's talk from I believe last October General Conference. There was also President Faust's talk where he mentioned about a lady who was in a horrible marriage whose divorce he processed but latter she admitted that she was less happy after divorce.
I have read claims that the church has at times excommunicated people for divorce under some circumstances.
The problem with divorce is that if you ban it all together you force people to stay in abusive relationships. In an ideal world where no one committed physical, emotional and other forms of abuse and where no one deserted their spouse than divorce would not be needed. However in our inperfect world we have to adapt to inperfections.
President Hinckley and other leaders of the church have on many occasions spoken against divorce.
Homosexual acts are incompatible with God's plan and have always been banned. Divorce has been allowed, as is obvious even from the pseudo-anti-divorce crowds favorite scripture, where Jesus denounces divorce.
Orson Scott Card explained exactly why childless marriages do not undermine the institution of marriage.
Church leaders have on multiple occasions spoken out against divorce. Go read Elder Oaks's talk from I believe last October General Conference. There was also President Faust's talk where he mentioned about a lady who was in a horrible marriage whose divorce he processed but latter she admitted that she was less happy after divorce.
I have read claims that the church has at times excommunicated people for divorce under some circumstances.
The problem with divorce is that if you ban it all together you force people to stay in abusive relationships. In an ideal world where no one committed physical, emotional and other forms of abuse and where no one deserted their spouse than divorce would not be needed. However in our inperfect world we have to adapt to inperfections.
President Hinckley and other leaders of the church have on many occasions spoken against divorce.
Homosexual acts are incompatible with God's plan and have always been banned. Divorce has been allowed, as is obvious even from the pseudo-anti-divorce crowds favorite scripture, where Jesus denounces divorce.
To: Princeton Graduate | 1:57 p.m. July 24, 2008
You wrote:
"Jessica | 1:49 p.m. Jul. 24, 2008
"What Mr. Card and people living in Utah need to understand, is that prior to 1950, it was illegal in Utah for a heterosexual man or woman to marry a black person
The closest parallel in Utah history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950�s (Interracial Marriages in America). These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks.
Thankfully, these laws were overturned because the courts found that the right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed.
This same logic applies to gay marriage. You need to remember that polygamy was very offensive to many people outside the Mormon faith and the Mormons suffered greatly for practicing polygamy. I think in the 21st century, people should be more accepting of differences in marriage choice."
Great point. Everyone can agree that those laws were unfair.
"Jessica | 1:49 p.m. Jul. 24, 2008
"What Mr. Card and people living in Utah need to understand, is that prior to 1950, it was illegal in Utah for a heterosexual man or woman to marry a black person
The closest parallel in Utah history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950�s (Interracial Marriages in America). These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks.
Thankfully, these laws were overturned because the courts found that the right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed.
This same logic applies to gay marriage. You need to remember that polygamy was very offensive to many people outside the Mormon faith and the Mormons suffered greatly for practicing polygamy. I think in the 21st century, people should be more accepting of differences in marriage choice."
Great point. Everyone can agree that those laws were unfair.
John Pack Lambert | 2:02 p.m. July 24, 2008
To Pat,
Are you a man? I ask, because your response to Perhaps is irrelevant if you are female, because Perhaps only said "gay men". Beyond this, you introduced the word "all". Perhaps did not go that far, claiming what he said applied to "all".
Studies on the matter show that among homosexual men a much higher percentage of them have sex with people other than their primary partner than married men have affairs.
Are you a man? I ask, because your response to Perhaps is irrelevant if you are female, because Perhaps only said "gay men". Beyond this, you introduced the word "all". Perhaps did not go that far, claiming what he said applied to "all".
Studies on the matter show that among homosexual men a much higher percentage of them have sex with people other than their primary partner than married men have affairs.
John Pack Lambert | 2:10 p.m. July 24, 2008
To Princeton Graduate,
Marriage is at base an institution that combines to unlike people into a greater whole. This is not what happens in same gender "marriage".
Card answers your arguments about infertile couples and they have been consistently rejected by the courts.
Marriage bwtween a man and a woman makes it possible for everyone to marry at some point in life. The fact that due to various individual conditions some people do not marry does not make it a discriminatory system. The marriage laws are designed to be universal.
Marriage is at base an institution that combines to unlike people into a greater whole. This is not what happens in same gender "marriage".
Card answers your arguments about infertile couples and they have been consistently rejected by the courts.
Marriage bwtween a man and a woman makes it possible for everyone to marry at some point in life. The fact that due to various individual conditions some people do not marry does not make it a discriminatory system. The marriage laws are designed to be universal.
Alleged Homophobe | 2:14 p.m. July 24, 2008
To House of Cards:
True, STATE Constitutions can and do define marriage laws. I was referring to the US Constitution, which is COMPLETELY silent on the matter. You also assume that I was talking about the situation in California. I was actually refering to the state of Massachusetts. The legallization of "gay marriage" there has certainly been called "legislating from the bench", and not just by myself. And while there are many examples of homosexuality in history, the legal precedent of marriage is clearly heterosexual.
Let me also define the term "norm" for you, in the context in which I was using it. A social "norm" is a situation, event, or action that is considered socially NORMAL and acceptable, not necessarily one that is encountered among a high percetage of citizens. This done, let me ask some questions of my own.
1. Do you feel that it is the job of a few judges to tell a SELF-GOVERNING people what the law should be? (Note that this is the topic of Mr. Card's article, not whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong.)
2. What are YOUR views about divorce and abortion? Do you believe that they have NO social consequences?
True, STATE Constitutions can and do define marriage laws. I was referring to the US Constitution, which is COMPLETELY silent on the matter. You also assume that I was talking about the situation in California. I was actually refering to the state of Massachusetts. The legallization of "gay marriage" there has certainly been called "legislating from the bench", and not just by myself. And while there are many examples of homosexuality in history, the legal precedent of marriage is clearly heterosexual.
Let me also define the term "norm" for you, in the context in which I was using it. A social "norm" is a situation, event, or action that is considered socially NORMAL and acceptable, not necessarily one that is encountered among a high percetage of citizens. This done, let me ask some questions of my own.
1. Do you feel that it is the job of a few judges to tell a SELF-GOVERNING people what the law should be? (Note that this is the topic of Mr. Card's article, not whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong.)
2. What are YOUR views about divorce and abortion? Do you believe that they have NO social consequences?
John Lambert | 2:16 p.m. July 24, 2008
To Princeton graduate again,
First off, Brother Card does not live in Utah. Although you do not say absolutely that he does, you almost imply it. Card has lived for a great many years in North Carolina.
Your ideas on inter-racial marriage are quite odd. There was never a phrase like "heterosexual" in those laws. Your use of it is misleading. The anti-inter-racial marriage law in Utah was actually not repealed until about 1963.
However, your analogy is totally false. This begans with the fact that the current law limits marriage to being between a man and a woman. There is no reference to "homosexuals" in the law. The anti-inter-racial marriage laws not only banned marriage between whites and blacks but then had to define what constituted a member of either race. In Virginia, the state whose law was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967, they also banned marriage of whites and Native Americans (something that Brigham Young encoraged, but that is another story) and yet they did not ban Native Americans and Blacks marrying, and the definitions to be Native American and black were different.
First off, Brother Card does not live in Utah. Although you do not say absolutely that he does, you almost imply it. Card has lived for a great many years in North Carolina.
Your ideas on inter-racial marriage are quite odd. There was never a phrase like "heterosexual" in those laws. Your use of it is misleading. The anti-inter-racial marriage law in Utah was actually not repealed until about 1963.
However, your analogy is totally false. This begans with the fact that the current law limits marriage to being between a man and a woman. There is no reference to "homosexuals" in the law. The anti-inter-racial marriage laws not only banned marriage between whites and blacks but then had to define what constituted a member of either race. In Virginia, the state whose law was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967, they also banned marriage of whites and Native Americans (something that Brigham Young encoraged, but that is another story) and yet they did not ban Native Americans and Blacks marrying, and the definitions to be Native American and black were different.
John Lambert | 2:24 p.m. July 24, 2008
Other issues with the laws. In about 1958 Elder Spencer W. Kimball said in a
talk at BYU "Inter-racial marriage is no sin".
You will not find a place where someone argues that inter-racial marriage is inherently sinful because it involves sexual relations in a way that is inherently wrong.
Laws against inter-racial marriage were at heart attempts to preserve distinct races and keep blacks subordinant to whites. The laws against both inter-racial marriage and inter-racial sex were most heavily focused against black men marrying white women. The reverse relationship was at least in many parts of the south normally tolerated as long as it was not given official status. Although Loving vs. Virginia did involve a couple where the husband was European-American and the wife was African-American, it was because they had had the audacity to actually go get married in Washington DC that the matter ever went before law.
The route issue here is that race has no direct relevance to either the results of a marriage or how it is percieved by others. I can name at least six inter-racial couples where one spouse is of African descent and the other is of European descent.
You will not find a place where someone argues that inter-racial marriage is inherently sinful because it involves sexual relations in a way that is inherently wrong.
Laws against inter-racial marriage were at heart attempts to preserve distinct races and keep blacks subordinant to whites. The laws against both inter-racial marriage and inter-racial sex were most heavily focused against black men marrying white women. The reverse relationship was at least in many parts of the south normally tolerated as long as it was not given official status. Although Loving vs. Virginia did involve a couple where the husband was European-American and the wife was African-American, it was because they had had the audacity to actually go get married in Washington DC that the matter ever went before law.
The route issue here is that race has no direct relevance to either the results of a marriage or how it is percieved by others. I can name at least six inter-racial couples where one spouse is of African descent and the other is of European descent.
John Lambert | 2:32 p.m. July 24, 2008
Actually, I have to take back my last statement. I forgot that in the case of
one of the couples the husband is from Iraq, so the only one who has European
descent is his wife who is partly of African descent, with her mother being a
native of Swahili, and partly of Dutch descent with her father having been an
Afrikaner of South Africa.
However these six couples are just the ones who are currently in my state where both husband and wife are members. We had another couple that was such but they moved to Tennessee about a year ago. This does not count at least one part member family that would fit the description, or our multiple Anglo men with Filipina wives including a bishop in one of our wards, as well as several other mixed race couples where one of the spouses is either Latino, Polynesian or Asian.
However none of these conditions change the fact that the legalization of same gender marriage would be the first step to using it as a club against religios organizations that refuse to change their doctrine to allow it.
However these six couples are just the ones who are currently in my state where both husband and wife are members. We had another couple that was such but they moved to Tennessee about a year ago. This does not count at least one part member family that would fit the description, or our multiple Anglo men with Filipina wives including a bishop in one of our wards, as well as several other mixed race couples where one of the spouses is either Latino, Polynesian or Asian.
However none of these conditions change the fact that the legalization of same gender marriage would be the first step to using it as a club against religios organizations that refuse to change their doctrine to allow it.
John Pack Lambert | 2:38 p.m. July 24, 2008
To House of Cards,
Newsom was in open and clear violation of Proposition 22. It is not the place of a mayor to decide that a law is unconstitutional and ignore it.
You are also far too willing to call someone a liar. What the person who you attack as such was probably refering to is that fact that the court ruled that the Supreme Court's saying that civil unions were not good enough and marriage certificates had to be issued for same-gender couples to marry.
I read an editorial where they essentially said this was what the court had did. It seems likely that the commentor had had his views on this issue shaped by that editorial and may not have even contemplated to whole Newsom fiasco.
Those who say things that they believe are true even if they are not are not liars.
Newsom was in open and clear violation of Proposition 22. It is not the place of a mayor to decide that a law is unconstitutional and ignore it.
You are also far too willing to call someone a liar. What the person who you attack as such was probably refering to is that fact that the court ruled that the Supreme Court's saying that civil unions were not good enough and marriage certificates had to be issued for same-gender couples to marry.
I read an editorial where they essentially said this was what the court had did. It seems likely that the commentor had had his views on this issue shaped by that editorial and may not have even contemplated to whole Newsom fiasco.
Those who say things that they believe are true even if they are not are not liars.
John Lambert | 2:49 p.m. July 24, 2008
To matpanda,
It is refreshing to see the elitists not hiding behind anything but coming full out and saying how much they disdain anyone who disagrees with them.
However your understanding of history is clearly flawed. Utah overturned its unfortunant anti-inter-racial marriage law in 1963 by legislative action.
The Loving v. Virginia case only repealed laws in 16 states, while Maryland had repealed its law early that year after the court had began hearing the Loving case.
Interesting side note, Asians and Filipinos were banned from marrying whites under Utah's law, but Native Americans, Latinos (at least as long as they did not have African Ancestry) and Pacific Islanders were not affected.
Nebraska also repealed its law (which did not ban Filipinos but did ban Asians marrying whites) in 1963. Michigan had repealed its anti-inter-racial marriage law in 1883.
It is refreshing to see the elitists not hiding behind anything but coming full out and saying how much they disdain anyone who disagrees with them.
However your understanding of history is clearly flawed. Utah overturned its unfortunant anti-inter-racial marriage law in 1963 by legislative action.
The Loving v. Virginia case only repealed laws in 16 states, while Maryland had repealed its law early that year after the court had began hearing the Loving case.
Interesting side note, Asians and Filipinos were banned from marrying whites under Utah's law, but Native Americans, Latinos (at least as long as they did not have African Ancestry) and Pacific Islanders were not affected.
Nebraska also repealed its law (which did not ban Filipinos but did ban Asians marrying whites) in 1963. Michigan had repealed its anti-inter-racial marriage law in 1883.
Alleged Homophobe | 2:54 p.m. July 24, 2008
I also wanted to mention that I work in EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, and my opposition
to the validation of such relationships is based on the FACT that homosexuality
is a genetic dead end. Those who insist that they are "born this way"
only confirm the fact that their behavior is due to some genetic abheration and
can easily be categorized as a congenital disorder.
As a scientist, I do not understand why opposition to evolutionary suicide automatically makes me an illogical, uneducated religious fanatic. Maybe House of Cards and matpanda should be a little more careful about their insults.
As a scientist, I do not understand why opposition to evolutionary suicide automatically makes me an illogical, uneducated religious fanatic. Maybe House of Cards and matpanda should be a little more careful about their insults.
House of Cards | 3:41 p.m. July 24, 2008
You did not specify the US Constitution, but that doesn't matter. Even in
Massachusetts, the legal battle over gay marriage unfolded very similar to the
way it did in California. Yes, President Bush called it "legislating from
the bench", but that is simpleminded from the KING of simpleminds! It still
does not explain why ANY court's ruling is "legislating from the
bench" when it supports gay marriage, but a "wise ruling" when it
restricts it.
"The legal precedent of marriage is clearly heterosexual?" You misuse the word "precedent". You should have used "norm". Your view of history is Western- and Christian-centric. Human history is MUCH bigger than that. Only if you realize that is further historical discussion possible.
I would be more inclined to answer your questions if I knew they were sincere. Obviously they aren't, so why waste the time?
I will say judges are PART OF the brilliant Government Mechanism for a SELF-GOVERNING people! I agree with the most recent California and Mass. Supreme Court rulings.
My MORAL views about divorce and abortion are irrelevant when considering "social consequences" (societal "damage"). I look to empirical evidence. If you claim "societal damage" where is the evidence?
"The legal precedent of marriage is clearly heterosexual?" You misuse the word "precedent". You should have used "norm". Your view of history is Western- and Christian-centric. Human history is MUCH bigger than that. Only if you realize that is further historical discussion possible.
I would be more inclined to answer your questions if I knew they were sincere. Obviously they aren't, so why waste the time?
I will say judges are PART OF the brilliant Government Mechanism for a SELF-GOVERNING people! I agree with the most recent California and Mass. Supreme Court rulings.
My MORAL views about divorce and abortion are irrelevant when considering "social consequences" (societal "damage"). I look to empirical evidence. If you claim "societal damage" where is the evidence?
Anonymous | 4:19 p.m. July 24, 2008
Lambert said, "the legalization of same gender marriage would be the first
step to using it as a club against religios organizations that refuse to change
their doctrine to allow it."
OK. We will continue to fight this bigotry in the courts and the polls. But even if that fails, and I don't think it will, those of us in the Church will continue to fight the Church over the issue, just as some did over the issue of blacks and the priesthood. Our time will come, I guarantee it.
OK. We will continue to fight this bigotry in the courts and the polls. But even if that fails, and I don't think it will, those of us in the Church will continue to fight the Church over the issue, just as some did over the issue of blacks and the priesthood. Our time will come, I guarantee it.
House of Cards | 4:31 p.m. July 24, 2008
To Alleged Homophobe,
Just because you "work in Evolutionary Biology" doesn't mean you are any good at it.
By the way, how do you "work in Evolutionary Biology"? Is that your way of trying to appear like you have credentials without actually having a PhD? Sounds fishy to me.
Regardless, you certainly must have failed (or missed) your logic classes.
Just because someone believes they are "born that way" does NOT constitute �a confirmation of a genetic abheration� (it is spelled �aberration�. Go back to school) or a "congenital defect" let alone does it make homosexuality a �genetic dead end.�
In your extensive �work in evolutionary biology,� did you forget to study recessive genes? Did you fail to study the mendelian significance of dominant and recessive character?
Please just admit your deception. You are NO scientist. You haven�t the credentials to call yourselve a scientist, and clearly if you are �working in evolutionary biology� you are at best an incompetent scientist. And THAT is a **carefully placed** insult!
Just because you "work in Evolutionary Biology" doesn't mean you are any good at it.
By the way, how do you "work in Evolutionary Biology"? Is that your way of trying to appear like you have credentials without actually having a PhD? Sounds fishy to me.
Regardless, you certainly must have failed (or missed) your logic classes.
Just because someone believes they are "born that way" does NOT constitute �a confirmation of a genetic abheration� (it is spelled �aberration�. Go back to school) or a "congenital defect" let alone does it make homosexuality a �genetic dead end.�
In your extensive �work in evolutionary biology,� did you forget to study recessive genes? Did you fail to study the mendelian significance of dominant and recessive character?
Please just admit your deception. You are NO scientist. You haven�t the credentials to call yourselve a scientist, and clearly if you are �working in evolutionary biology� you are at best an incompetent scientist. And THAT is a **carefully placed** insult!
What is your point? | 5:00 p.m. July 24, 2008
Is House of Cards trying to say that ancient marriage traditions have no basis
in rights of procreation and inheritance? (Both of these seem a bit problematic
for homosexuals, don't you think?) He fails to give ANY examples of
ancient laws supporting homosexual relationships. They do exist, mostly in far
eastern society, but can hardly be called well-established legal precedent.
Most ancient laws actually forbid homosexual relationships. In fact, for most
of human history (and I do mean ALL of human history), even being homosexual has
been illegal, and in ancient (and even a few modern) middle-eastern and western
societies has been punishable by death. Admittedly, I am happy that we no
longer punish people for their sexual orientation, but I see no reason that
their behavior should receive society's stamp of approval. It is possible
to love a person without loving what they do.
Reality | 5:08 p.m. July 24, 2008
Is it just me, or is anybody else tired of John Lambert taking over all of these
boards?
Mr. Lambert, please limit yourself to no more than 10 posts per board. It is the polite thing to do.
Mr. Lambert, please limit yourself to no more than 10 posts per board. It is the polite thing to do.
Otis Spurlock | 5:13 p.m. July 24, 2008
Princeton Graduate wrote:
"Consider this. If marriage between a man and a woman is legally recognized only for procreation strange consequences would follow. Utah could and, to be consistent, should prohibit marriage in which one or both partners are sterile or impotent.
If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should postmenopausal women be allowed to marry? Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives.
The rationale would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated with spousehood.
If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason."
Best point yet. I would like to see somebody (other than John Lambert) address these issues and how they relate to the current debate.
"Consider this. If marriage between a man and a woman is legally recognized only for procreation strange consequences would follow. Utah could and, to be consistent, should prohibit marriage in which one or both partners are sterile or impotent.
If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should postmenopausal women be allowed to marry? Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives.
The rationale would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated with spousehood.
If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason."
Best point yet. I would like to see somebody (other than John Lambert) address these issues and how they relate to the current debate.
kenny | 8:28 p.m. July 24, 2008
People in Utah are urged to speak out against marriage that does not fit into
the traditional model.I suspect the reasoning is that the moral values within
the community will decay if same gender marriages are allowd.I remember back in
the 70's when in Utah the issue was cable television and what it would do
to the standards of the community if allowed.Utahns are doing just fine inspite
of the "evils" of cable and I suspect they will do just fine even if
the people next door are two guys living together as spouse/spouse as well.
What are you going to do if they show up at church?
Walk out?
What are you going to do if they show up at church?
Walk out?
Princeton Graduate | 8:31 p.m. July 24, 2008
Here's the problem with the 'civil union' approach:
In Vermont a court recently legalized not marriage for gays, but a �civil union� which affords same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of married couples, but without calling it �marriage.�
While I applaud Vermont�s court system for this step in the right direction, a new institution for gay couples is not the answer. It simply affirms their second-class status in American society. In the Supreme Court case Brown vs. The Board of Education, the policy of �separate but equal� with regard to race was struck down as being unconstitutional, because separate can never be equal.
Creating a separate institution for gay couples is just as unequal and unconstitutional as creating separate institutions for blacks and whites.
In Vermont a court recently legalized not marriage for gays, but a �civil union� which affords same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of married couples, but without calling it �marriage.�
While I applaud Vermont�s court system for this step in the right direction, a new institution for gay couples is not the answer. It simply affirms their second-class status in American society. In the Supreme Court case Brown vs. The Board of Education, the policy of �separate but equal� with regard to race was struck down as being unconstitutional, because separate can never be equal.
Creating a separate institution for gay couples is just as unequal and unconstitutional as creating separate institutions for blacks and whites.
Princeton Graduate | 8:36 p.m. July 24, 2008
Some Utahns claim that gay people are not being discriminated against in any
way. Their argument often sounds like this: Gay people are allowed to
marry--they're allowed to marry people of the opposite gender, just like
heterosexuals.
In response to this argument I refer you to the words of Andrew Sullivan: �Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people � to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband?"
In America we are granted, as an unalienable right, the right to pursue our happiness. If we tell gay people that the only people they can marry are those they aren't attracted to or can't love romantically, then we are violating this right.
Gay marriage is a no-brainer. People need to open their hearts and minds.
In response to this argument I refer you to the words of Andrew Sullivan: �Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people � to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband?"
In America we are granted, as an unalienable right, the right to pursue our happiness. If we tell gay people that the only people they can marry are those they aren't attracted to or can't love romantically, then we are violating this right.
Gay marriage is a no-brainer. People need to open their hearts and minds.
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.
- Dixie campus briefs 1:10 a.m.
- Westminster campus briefs 1:09 a.m.
- UVU campus briefs 1:07 a.m.
- Utah Utes campus briefs 1:07 a.m.
- Visit to paradise nightmarish for Ags 12:32 a.m.
- Utes struggling to shake starts 12:31 a.m.
- Cougars' execution flawless 12:30 a.m.
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings 12:17 a.m.
- 3A football: Tigers pull away 12:12 a.m.
- Editorial: 'Immigrant' children needy 12:12 a.m.
- Gay advocates trek to LDS office
207 - Dirk does dirty work in Dallas190
- Lobo suspended171
- Speed has never been BYU's game136
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys128
- House passes health care bill111
- RSL rallies to advance102
- Prep football: San Juan vs. S. Sevier102
- Thousands protest health bill100
- Provo company innovating engines98
Advertisement
Latest comments
Nothing proposed would keep young adults from learning of the reality of sex,...
the only "decent" team we played we lost to? I guess that Air Force isn't a...
I am watching the game again, and it is awesome!!!
I can't help but laugh inside when I read comments from YBU/TCU fans who...
(from the independant) I like Dennis Miller.... and Bill Maher, although I...
As a BYU alumnus, I can't justify to myself ever donating another dollar to...
Not a chance. Don't get me wrong they are both studs, but if Asiata wasn't...
Titan Fan, sorry that some of your best players got hurt. I hope they...
So sad how fear based so many are.
Will the Jazz even make the playoffs this year. The way they are playing it...
Advertisements