Reader comments
Readers' forum: Benson had it right

123 comments | Read story

Boyd | 1:09 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Lionheart: I'll buy that argument when you come up with a proposition to ban divorce. Until then, I'm not buying the "protection of marriage" excuse.

Boyd | 1:24 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Cambridge,

I'm not arguing gay marriage. I'm arguing same-sex marriage. I'm arguing law based on the law. The 14th Amendment grants equal protection of all laws, which means no law can discriminate based on race or gender. Marriage, as it stands now, discriminates specifically on gender.

Mike Richards | 1:27 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@ 11:30,

In all the elections where I voted, I was never asked to complete a questionnaire concerning my level of education. Do they do things differently in California? Do you have to state your level of education before you receive a ballot? Do you have to state your level of education before you can drop your ballot into the ballot box?

Or, are you just showing your ignorance about how voting takes place?

An educated person would not make a claim that cannot be proven. He would not insult his fellow citizens in an effort to make himself look more intelligent than his peers. In fact, if he showed any of the "love" and "compassion" that the gay-activists claim they know so much about, he would not even broach the subject.

Just how many ways can the gay-activists show their contempt towards their fellow citizens? Who is in charge of their P.R. campaign? Maybe someone should tell the gay-activists that they're not making any friends with their self-centered tactics.

Comments continue below

Cambridge | 1:39 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Boyd,

No matter how many times you repeat a meaningless phrase, it remains a meaningless phrase. Gay marriage is same sex marriage. Or are you saying you only want same sex marriage for straight people?

Law based on law. That's interesting. Where did the first law come from? Our forefathers VOTED on it based on their MORAL and RELIGIOUS convictions. Judges did not create the law or our rights.

Lionheart | 1:38 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@Boyd 1:09: Divorce is not the issue, but here goes. Divorce was allowed according to Jesus, because men were so hardhearted, that they killed their wives to get rid of them. Therefore divorce was for the protection of women.

Johny Fairplay | 1:45 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

^^^^^^^^^

"An educated person would not make a claim that cannot be proven."

You mean like the existence of God?

King Darin the great has spoken | 1:49 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Darin,

"You totally missed the point of Mr. Bartholomew's letter. His point was that columnist Lee Benson's recent article was unbelievably flip, insensitive, and uninformed. And that it was!"

I can't speak for him but I got the point loud a clear which was "believe as I do or you are just being insensitive, flip and uninformed."

"What Benson and many others don't understand is that same-sex marriage - to those who advocate for it, mostly - is a question of basic human rights (to a family) and dignity."

What you and many others don't understand is that this isn't about human rights because marriage is not a right. How many times must you be told that unless you have a right to force the majority and government to issue marriage licenses then it's not a right. You argument goes like this "we know that you voted to create legal marriage but it isn't a statue. It is a right and you must issue marriage licenses because nature endowed us with the right to a marriage license. Now you will obey and you will hand us a marriage license because we are your masters and you are our slaves.

You violate my rights tyrant | 1:55 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Darin,

"Whether you like it or not, the fight for same-sex marriage rights will go on, and I dare say here in the public forum that those rights will be won, and then it is we (who like or not) who will just "get over it and move on." When that happens, will you remember your statements today?"

Okay you win. You have a right to force majorities to give you a marriage license and the majority has no say in the matter.

God or nature gave you a human right to the statute that created legal marriage. We didn't vote it into existence.

Legal marriage always existed and will always exist and government is obligated to issue you a driver's license. My bad, I meant to say marriage licenses but I got the two statutes confused. But that does bring up a good point. Since it is a right for an individual to obtain a marriage license therefore it must be a right to obtain a driver's license too.

Now that King Darin has settled the fact that his will will prevail whether any of his slaves likes it or not we can all bow before his vote.

@cambridge | 1:56 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Cambridge, this same erroneous claim that laws are simply codified morality has been argued and proven wrong many times already on these threads please go back and read those threads instead of wasting peoples time.

why are some posts ignored? | 1:56 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

This has happened several times. I take a great amount of time composing my thoughts and, without abuse, misdirection, or misinformation, the post is ignored. I was taking the case against 'gay marriage'. Perhaps I argued too persuasively?

Try reading Constitution moron | 2:01 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Anonymous,

"The state can remove driving privileges for breaking laws. The state can't exclude any group from equality access to the privileges the state can grant. This would be an infringement of a citizens rights."

Are gays prohibited from driving or getting married as the current laws permit? No, gays can marry the person of their choice just like heterosexuals and neither can marry a person of the same sex so they are treated the same.

If I'm straight and want to marry my newphew I can no more do so than a gay person can. Nor are gays required to marry only gays like blacks where when they were prohibited from marrying whites based on the color of their skin. Why was that wrong?

Because a white person could marry a white person therefore a black person should be able to marry a black person. This is comparable to a gay person being able to marry a straight person and any law that prohibits a gay person from marrying a straight person would be unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection under the law.

Since all are treated the same under current law it doesn't violate equal protection.

@Mike Richards | 2:09 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Mike, Mike, Mike, your ignorance is showing again, maybe you missed the part where I stated it was a poll that was conducted following the election. You are free to look it up, there was an article on Yahoo about it again today. So the claim was based on the polling not on pie in the sky beliefs like you usually do. Seriously do you even think before you post or do you just write the first impulsive thought that comes in your head.

@lionhart | 2:15 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Please provide a reference to a state or federal law showing that marriage is for the purposes of protecting women and children and the domestication of maturing men.

@You violate my rights tyrant | 2:20 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

I am so tired of this twisted belief that if you are not allowed to prevent someone else from a certain behavior you do not like but causes no proven public harm that somehow your rights are being violated. it is truly strange logic.

Anonymous | 2:21 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

why are some posts ignored,

"This has happened several times. I take a great amount of time composing my thoughts and, without abuse, misdirection, or misinformation, the post is ignored. I was taking the case against 'gay marriage'. Perhaps I argued too persuasively?"

I suspect that it has to do with the backlog. I bet the moderators place priority on new messages and work there way backwards which means that if there is a large number of posts at one time then the DN moderators are unlikely to get posted. I noticed that some of my posts never get posted while others take a long time before doing so.

If you look at the time stamps you will notice that there are clear gaps in the time where several posts close in time are posted and then there is a large gap in the time between the first post in that cluster and the last one of the previous cluster. If it hasn't shown up after a couple of hours I would suggest that you repost it. My last post to show up took over a half hour.

Mike Richards | 2:22 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Johnny,

All things prove that God exists. So far man has not been able to breath life into even a leaf, but we're surrounded by all things living.

I'll leave it to you to prove that God does not exist. Please take your time, in fact, why not take the rest of your life exploring every aspect of God. Somewhere along the course of that kind of study, you'll find Him and then your life will change forever for the better.

Boyd | 2:22 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Cambridge,

The Lawrence v. Texas case declared that sexual behaviors are private, and not subject to legal restrictions unless in violation of other laws. Therefore, the act of homosexuality is not legally permissible in arguing same-sex marriage. Once the act of sex is removed from the equation, as mandated by the Texas Supreme Court, the argument of same-sex marriage becomes one of gender.

As others have previously said, sexual orientation is not a protected class. However, gender is. Since we can not argue marriage on grounds of sexuality (for how many marriages are sexless?), we have to argue it on the grounds of gender.

Gay marriage and same-sex marriage are not the same thing, because two straight men could get married without making them gay.

Lionheart | 2:24 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@why are some posts ignored: If you mean that the censor didn't let them through, perhaps you did argue too persuasively. Sometimes when (in my opinion) my arguments are too pointed and I am essentially offering the coup d' gras on the thread, they don't post it. Oh well, that's the rules. The censor makes the rules. Live to fight another day, post another.

Boyd | 2:26 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Lionheart: Wonderful. By the way, did you know that nowhere in our laws is Jesus mentioned? Why is that, ya think?

Boyd | 2:39 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

To Try reading Constitution moron,

And if same-sex marriage were allowed, current law would not violate equal protection either. However, a man may not marry another man. That's gender discrimination, plain and simple, a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

You are a liar | 2:44 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

To: "@You violate my rights tyrant,"

"I am so tired of this twisted belief that if you are not allowed to prevent someone else from a certain behavior you do not like but causes no proven public harm that somehow your rights are being violated. it is truly strange logic."

That's because I don't believe that but that was a nice attempt to twist my words into something that they don't mean so you can tear down an argument I did not make. That is what we call a straw man but you don't care about the truth.

I don't want to prevent anyone from doing anything. You and anyone else can do whatever you want. That is what makes me a liberal moron. I don't care who you are in love with or want to have a relationship with.

I oppose you forcing the majority to do something which is to issue a marriage license to persons who want to marry a person of the same sex even though everyone regardless of gender, race and sexual orientation are treated equally under current law.

Nor did I say anything about public harm. Cite the post moron. I dare you.

@gays already have rights | 2:48 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

"it doesn't. But the point is being missed. It is a blatant attack on the family, it is degrading, yet people refuse to see this." wow that was almost a skilled performance at trying to side step the question. All you did is rephrase the same claim but provided no evidence. How is gay marriage "a blatant attack on the familyï¿½ and ï¿½degrading?ï¿½ As to your questions it is rather simple people do not have to prove their behavior will somehow benefit society in order for that behavior to be allowed. Do you have to prove that your opinions will somehow benefit society before you express them?

@Mike | 2:52 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Alright Mike why donï¿½t you spend the rest of your life disproving a big purple dinosaur did not create the world. You cannot prove a negative you already now that, stop with the ridiculous statements already.

To the wannabe lawyer | 2:52 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Boyd,

"Once the act of sex is removed from the equation, as mandated by the Texas Supreme Court, the argument of same-sex marriage becomes one of gender."

First, Lawrence v. Texas as a U.S. Supreme Court decision and didn't appear before the Texas Supreme Court but if you knew anything about the law or the case you cite you would already know that. You do not want this to be an argument about gender since both genders are treated equally under the law.

"As others have previously said, sexual orientation is not a protected class. However, gender is. Since we can not argue marriage on grounds of sexuality (for how many marriages are sexless?), we have to argue it on the grounds of gender."

You can argue it but you have to prove that there is discrimination based on gender or in other words that one gender can do something another gender can't which means that one gender would need to be able to marry a person of the same sex while another is prohibited from doing so. If both genders are treated the same then the law provides equal protection. Any change would therefore be legislative.

Cambridge | 2:54 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@@Cambridge,

So you only vote for those laws you consider amoral?

Boyd | 2:59 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@ Mike Richards (2:22pm):

I'm surrounded by carpeted cubicle walls. I wouldn't call them living or breathing. Do only living things prove God's existence? Why God? What about Vishnu? Or Zeus? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

No use arguing with egocentric | 2:59 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@Mike Richards,

"Mike, Mike, Mike, your ignorance is showing again, maybe you missed the part where I stated it was a poll that was conducted following the election."

Mike was responding to the post at 11:30 which said nothing about any poll. Here is the post: "The majority of voters voting Yes on Prop 8 had high school educations or less and were in the lower economic strata, while the majority voting No had College or Advanced Degree Educations and were in the upper economic strata. Could it be that the better educated and more well-off are aware that homosexuality is a naturally occurring human trait in a minority of the population and always has been?"

If we were to solely discuss the merits of polls we would have to acknowledge that sampling which takes place in polling may or may not be reflective of those who actually voted.

"So the claim was based on the polling not on pie in the sky beliefs like you usually do. Seriously do you even think before you post or do you just write the first impulsive thought that comes in your head."

Apparently you don't think before you post.

false negative | 3:03 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

All things prove that the spaghetti monster exists. So far man has not been able to breath life into even a leaf, but we're surrounded by all things living.

I'll leave it to you to prove that the spaghetti monster does not exist. Please take your time, in fact, why not take the rest of your life exploring every aspect of the spaghetti monster. Somewhere along the course of that kind of study, you'll find Him and then your life will change forever for the better.

There is no more evidance that god breathed life into anything then that the spaghetti monster did.

The point is that the lack of evidence that something does not exist does not prove that it does, you cannot prove a negative but you already now that donï¿½t you.

Lionheart | 3:03 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@@lionhart: I don't need to point to a particular law, the roots of marriage are ancient and the concept was well understood and incorporated into the US laws with a historical understanding regardless of race or culture, it has been heteroxeual from the beginning. So I don't need to quote law and case, this is not a lawyer's forum. Marriage and it's place in civilization has been understood for thousands of years. In recent times with the emphasis on personal acculization, marriage is being destroyed. It has already been weakened by co-habitation, no-fault divorce, open-marriage and all that clutter. Now people with a personal proclivity are attempting to change those ancient concepts and definitions, which in my opinion will lead to further chaos and bedlam. More aging boys and more vulnerable women and children.
Perhaps another way of looking at it, homosexual men as a group have failed in their obligations as men to women and children. For what?

Mike Richards | 3:08 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@ 2:09,

The PPIC, who conducted that poll, talked to 2003 voters. Can you imagine anyone thinking that a poll of 2003 voters out of the total number of votes cast on Prop 8 is statistically important?

There are more than 2003 High School students right across the street. If I interviewed everyone of them on any particular subject, would their responses tell us anything except that 2003 high school students had various opinions and that 2003 students had differing ability to logically explain their opinion?

Out of a population of more than 25,000,000, why would anyone draw conclusions when only one out of approximately every 12,500 people were asked how they voted.

So, according to you, the "educated" people voted against
Prop 8.

Oh well, it just helps to prove what Paul wrote to Timothy almost 2,000 years ago: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

@lionhart | 3:11 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

"Sometimes when (in my opinion) my arguments are too pointed and I am essentially offering the coup d' gras on the thread, they don't post it." I am not sure if this is what really happens but I think it certainly could make me feel better next time they donï¿½t post one of my comments.

Anonymous | 3:15 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Reading these, I fear if California fails to allow gay marriages California will descend to become like Utah; the Appalachia of the American West. Utah's voting is like other enlightened states like Mississippi.

posts ignored | 3:19 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Anonymous and Lionheart: I appreciate your feedback.

I do know that posts, especially in the dead of night (when I am up that late) are not immediately posted. Is the date stamp the time that the post is submitted I wonder. If so I think mine is agoner.

It's been a couple of hours already and unfortunately I didn't compose my contributions in "Word" but in the on-site space "add your comment" because the ongoing word count there is so handy.

I would recommend, at this point, that people do compose their post using their word processor, save it and copy (not cut) and paste to the Deseret News site, in case their message is lost for any reason.

I very much like the Deseret News Forum because you can usually get your point across. There are a lot of epithets hurled, though, which I generally avoid (I hope always). People type these epithets without let or hindrance at times. Just look above: "tyrant" and "moron" add nothing to an argument when thrown in at random. Perhaps it is not picked up because it's in the "user name" space.

:Lionheart | 3:20 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@Boyd: I could have left Jesus out, but that is in the known history of marriage and divorce. US law did not just appear out of the void.

2:09 | 3:57 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

ï¿½Mike Richardsï¿½ and ï¿½arguing with ego centricï¿½ you are saying that you would rather base your thinking on your own erroneous thoughts then a poll that while it certainly does have a polling error (which they publish)? I am sorry if I think that basing an argument on scientific methods that explain their methods and possible polling errors is not the as weak an argument as your own erroneous thoughts. I guess if that makes me ego centric then so be it.

Joe Moe | 3:59 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

As a Prop8 supporter, I cannot accept the Premise of this letter, namely, that Rights are created by a Majority of the constituency. What happened to the inalienable Rights, inherent to all Humankind, spoken of by the framers of our Constitution?

Some subordinate Rights may indeed by offered by Society -- and also withdrawn -- such as the Right to drive a Vehicle on certain Roadways, &tc. But there are those Sets of Rights which all Mankind have by Virtue only of being Human, although those Rights may at times be unjustly removed from them by Force.

This is not to say that gay Marriage is one of those inherent Rights; I believe it is not; but this was not the Statement of the Writer. His Statement was solely that all Rights are determined by the will of Society, which Statement I dispute.

@You are a liar | 3:59 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

"forcing the majoirty to do something" please you have to be kidding me! what a pointless waist of time trying to talk with you

John Pack Lambert | 4:01 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

The fact of the matter is that virtually everyone accepts laws against incest. I am still waiting for someone to say they support allowing a 26-year-old woman to marry her 52-year-old father or a 24-year-old woman to marry her 27-year-old brother. If anyone feels we have no right to refuse recognition to be a marriage to such relationships than the rest of my post does not apply to them.
However if you accept that the above are reasonable limits to marriage, then you accept the government has the right to set guidelines for marriage. Since the government has an interest in keeping child rearing within the bounds of marriage and done by the actual biological parents (studies consistently show these are the relationships where children fare best on average) than the state has an interest in creating marriages that present the outward form of child rearing.
Thus marriage needs to be of a form associated with child rearing, that is a man and a woman. It is the outward form and not the actual function that is the issue here.

Johny Fairplay | 4:09 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Sally, that's a truly Christian attitude, you have nothing to apologize for.

John Pack Lambert | 4:11 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

To Roland,
50 years ago only 24 states (or one half of the 48 then in existence) had laws against inter-racial marriage. The complexity of the statues alone, with some designating as many as six different racial categories, shows that the analogy to same-gender marriage is wrong.
Most importantly though the ruling in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia (which had no effect on Utah since Utah had repealed their ill-advised law against some forms of inter-racial marriage in 1963, before Wyoming and Indiana repealed thier laws, but a year after Arizona repealed its law) was based on the fact the 14th Admendment specifically makes race a category that can not be used to treat people differently. The ERA was defeated so the same rules do not apply to gender.

Lionheart | 4:13 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@Boyd: Your cubicle walls may appear inert to you, (shouldn't trust your limited senses), they are actually an energy vibration, just like you, just different levels of vibration.

John Pack Lambert | 4:25 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

The definition of marriage and marriage itself is the most important thing to our lives, so it makes sense that we spend a lot of time discussing these issues.

John Pack Lambert | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

To the 2:22 commentator,
While your view that "sexual orientation is not a protected class" is correct, it is not the view that was taken by the SCOC to overturn Prop 22. The overturning of Prop 22 was directly connected to the view that "sexual orientation" was a protected class, so your logic fails.
ANother thing you ignore is the ERA was defeated. Thus gender is not a protected class, but the government can in fact consider males and females differently in divorce law and many other things.
The 14th Admendment forbids consideration of race in the law, which is the key to the ruling in Loving v. Virginia. Without the ERA the courts can not destroy the current laws on marriage with the constitution.
This is even more true because the state has a vested interest in keeping marriage between a man and a woman that has nothing to do with keeping people socially opperssed.

Darin to "King Darin..." | 4:38 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Geeez, I hit a nerve! I didn't mean to -- honest. I was simply trying to make the point that regardless of the vote on Prop 8, many people do view same-sex marriage as a human rights issue, and therefore, it's not going away any time soon. I think you agree, and this is what upsets you.

You attacked me for siding, but my previous post didn't argue whether gay marriage is right or wrong. True, I do hope that gay couples will be able to marry; I do believe justice will be on their side ultimately. I mainly suggested that those who fear same-sex marriage also misunderstand same-sex marriage advocates, and your personal attacks on me only suggest that you fear what I speculate is true.

Oh Sally! | 4:38 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

It gets worse. Now you say that you know "many" homosexual teachers ( as well as sympathisers and propagandists). It sounds as though homosexuals are not only represented but over-represented in schools.

I should think that most parents reading your comments are by now more worried than ever about their children.

For goodness sake! No wonder there is such a problem with low academic standards. I'm surprised there is any time to learn anything at all, with all your causes and crusades! I'm glad I have no young children left to raise. If I had, they would not be in the public school system as you make it appear.

Statistics | 4:53 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

There are a h-ll of a lot of people with HIV-AIDS. Estimates are just that; the numbers I've seen for this nation are well over a million, with about 600,000 deaths so far. We can only speculate about the full extent of the fatalities and casualties; I'm sure all do not report to a physician and all have not been diagnosed. There is no sure way of estimating but the numbers are, as has been said, very high.

If half or more of those who suffer from this scourge are homosexual and most of the rest are promiscuous it is easy to see how the disease enters the straight community. Promiscuity has become more dangerous than ever.

Boyd | 5:09 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@ Lionheart:

Are you suggesting then that my cubicle walls should be allowed to get married to a member of the opposite sex? :)

@lionhart | 5:10 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

it also did not appear out of the bible, so whats your point?

Boyd | 5:13 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

"To the wannabe lawyer":

My mistake on the Lawrence v. Texas case--it was before the U.S. Supreme Court (even better to favor my argument, in fact).

If I may tweak your argument a bit:

If a black man could marry a black woman, and was thusly not prohibited from doing so, how were the races not treated equally? Were they not being allowed full rights in being granted the ability to marry someone of the same race?

Now, how is that argument different from what you are proposing against gender?

Lionheart | 5:25 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

@lionhart: If you are referring to Jesus's disertation on divorce, it most certainly does appear in the bible, as Jesus refers to Moses granting of divorce and explains why it was granted, he still said divorce was not right. The Catholics hold these verses as the basis for a huge tenent in their religion and a reversal of Old Testament law. In the end, Jesus's higher proclamation was for celibacy for those who wished to obtain the Kingdom of God,(cosmic consciousness)

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.