i think everyone here needs to calm down because i think everyone is wrong on
both sides. the ones supporting prop 8 are wrong because they are trying to mix
religion with politics, and not everyone is the same religion, and not everyone
holds the same religious beliefs. The ones against prop 8 are wrong because the
unnessecary violent reponse to prop 8 was out of control and rubbed too many
people the wrong way. I think everyone just needs to step back and reassess why
you believe what you believe and why you think it is nessecary to make people
different than you believe what you do, even though they do not want to. I don't
believe in the Christian god; i'm not christian, yet people push that down
EVERYONE's throat by mixing religion with politcs [again]. I think we
should grant gays the right to marry and pass legislation protecting those who
choose to live a gay lifestyle. It's not deviant, and it's none of your business
if u dont support it. the only way it should matter to u is if u plan to sleep
with that person. wake up, people. please.
Re: Stalwart Sentinel 2:05 p.m | 5:53 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009"The 14th
Amendment & And yet gay marriage bans remain, even after Baker and the multitude
of lower court rulings. They all sidestepped the real issue (the one
you wont argue) which is not present in any of the holdings in any of your
cases. I have retrieved them for you to read in earlier posts. Remember? I've noticed an interesting pattern. You fail to address the points that
render your argument a dying cause.
Re: your "Wikipedia"-based argumentsFirst, they're not apparently
Wikipedia based, they are Wikipedia based. I read the site's synopsis. Second, your Wiki arguments are based off incorrect data, are overly
inclusive, and pejoratively unencumbered by rationale. You just fail to
acknowledge that. re: "case in a courtroom"I have not
asked much of you, only to address one issue and do a little research. You have
refused to do both. I would "love" to see you try to make your case in a
courtroom, especially the part when you completely fail to address the other
side's position. Re: "Its only a matter of time."It is,
sorry. While I dont waste time watching Mission Impossible, you have now moved
from basing your topical discussions off of Wikipedia to basing it off of
fictional television. Good show, great regression. Maybe you should watch
Desperate Housewives for some new talking points?
8:15 a.m. Feb. 4, 2009,Ok, lets not stereo type here. I am a proud
Democrat and still voted for Prop 8. Obama and Biden are Democrats and still
support traditional marriage. 2/3rds of the Californian ellectorate is Democrat,
yet the majority still voted for prop 8. Just because the left wing of the party
supports gay marriage and abortion doesn't mean that all of us do. Remember all the Regan Democrats in the 70's that left the Dems in droves
because they let the left-wing radicals take over the party? We are the reason
the Republicans have had so much power over the last few decades. Now that the
Repubs have abandaned mainstream values and have alowed the right-wing
extremists to take over the party, we are flocking back to the Democratcs. Do you see a pattern? Maybe we conservative Democrats should just form
our own party. Many Latin American and European countries have a conservative
Democratic Party, why can't the U.S.??
"I tend to be more lackadaisical in my postings on the desnews."Indeed.
"are you satisfied w/ tertiary simplifications of issues?"I know
this is overly-simplistic for some, but a few of us actually do care for the
rule of law. Gay marriage bans are, in fact, legal because they are, in fact,
constitutional. It doesn't get much simpler than that, as much as you appear to
enjoy the Rube Goldberg approach.SLCSKP 8:39 p.m. appears to share
your enthusiasm for the glorious future day of gay marriage. My reaction to the
conspiracy theory can be found at the end of my 5:22 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009 post.
"The 14th Amendment is the place to start. That is what makes gay marriage bans
unconstitutional...It works in my favor."And yet gay marriage bans
remain, even after Baker and the multitude of lower court rulings. I
rest my case.Regarding the "peaceful protests" that occur "every
single day of every single week," I've noticed an interesting pattern. You make
a nonsensical claim. Your claim is challenged. You fail to address the
challenge, so you restate your claim. So the pattern continues with
your claim that domestic terrorists are really just the "lowest common
denominator" because your spidey senses can detect the "peaceful protests" that
occur "every single day of every single week." I thought I was going easy on you
by asking for all the peaceful protests just this week. Im sorry I figured you
could manage such a simple task.
See my above comment regarding the rearview hypothesis."Marriage has
always been a fundamental right...people like you are slow to catch on."I suppose the framers of the Constitution were slow to catch on also.
What were we thinking?"why all the religious zealotry to combat
these few states?"It's become painfully obvious that precedent is an
impossible concept for you to grasp, but I'll try once more time in this
context. Here we go. Courts look to previous rulings from other
judges to help guide their decisions. Some judges are bad. These judges engage
in what's called "judicial activism," which means they try to create new laws,
instead of simply interpreting laws. Judges are supposed to interpret laws. If
an activist judge creates a precedent, for, say, gay marriage, other courts
might look to the activist judge for guidance. That would not be good. In other
words, judicial activism is bad. Some of these bad judges live in places like
CA, MA, and CT. I know that's what you dearly hope will happen, but judicial
activism is really is bad. Should I bring it down to the preschool level for
"Baker is crumbling, everyone knows it but you." I find it very
revealing that you, once again, dismiss the state gay marriage bans that have
relied on Baker and that continue to strengthen Baker to make your opinion
appear meritorious. Everyone indeed knows you and other gay-rights activists
hope Baker is crumbling, but that conclusion is simply is not supported by the
evidence. "not on Wikipedia?"I suppose you would need to
speculate wildly over the source of my information, given that you seem
unwilling, or more likely, incapable of dealing squarely with the
constitutionality of gay marriage. If you fail to rebut my apparently
"Wikipedia"-based arguments, I would hate to see you try to make your case in a
courtroom."Its only a matter of time."How very like
Gavin Newsome's "Mission Accomplished" moment. In case you fail to see the
irony, just as you fail to see so many other things, I believe there's a website
called Google that can help you learn more about how clairvoyant your hero was
in his moment of triumph.
Please cite a federal case that declares that same sex marriage is a fundamental
right under the 14th Amendment.
"You once again fail to make your case, another sad pattern in the history of
Stalwart Sentinel."you make me smile. your way of life is under
direct attack and being inundated by the growing number of individuals who
dispell your backward thinking. all this is occuring within the pages of the
conservative newspaper for one of the more conservative states of the union, a
stronghold, a mecca of shortshighted values, a bulwark for villifying the 'other
side', and you propose to deem my lot as 'sad' see, now
@ vinceMy apologies for past, present, and future grammatical
errors; I tend to be more lackadaisical in my postings on the desnews.
@re Stalwart Sentinel 5:59Re: the 4 part series are you satisfied
w/ tertiary simplifications of issues? I quote the holdings of the cases, and
you still want them to mean something they do not. I understand your reality
is crumbling, but maintain some dignity! Finally, As to your final
question, I think another poster at 6:49 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009 sufficiently
addressed your claim. the inability for some to read something in
its entirety never fails. Please see the response to that below it (among
others) posted by SLCSKP | 8:39 p.m
@re Stalwart Sentinel 5:29 a.m., 5:39 & 5:59you should consider that you
have still failed to refute that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Perhaps
that would be a good place to start before you resume beating the 14th amendment
and strict scrutiny horses to death.Uhm, the 14th Amendment is the place
to start. That is what makes gay marriage bans unconstitutional. It has been
throughout this entire conversation. It works in my favor, which is why you
continue to sidestep the issue every instance it is mentioned. Your
inability to conceptualize an entire sentence, let alone a paragraph is
unnerving. where were the peaceful protests every day this week? the list I
provided clearly stated at the beginning that it was comprised of my first
result of my first internet search, which took me a whole 0.000027694 seconds
according to google. In other words, that was the tip of the iceberg re: the
numerous and various peaceful protests that do occur every single day of every
single week. Are you that dense to not understand such a simple concept? Im
being sincere here.
@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel 5:27 a.m. | 9:20 p.m the rearview mirror
analogy. It's so odd, I could've sworn I remember hearing something about stare
decisisAh yes, the inability to appreciate a sentence in its
entirety. I referred to your incapacity to both look in the rearview and watch
the road in front. Youre all rearview. Marriage fundamental right
issue see above post. Marriage has always been a fundamental right but, as many
other fundamental rights which I make an effort not to invoke re: gay marriage
b/c those rights are not at issue, it sometimes takes a while for the right to
come to full fruition. IE people like you are slow to catch on. CT
and MA are now judicial bellwethers? Yes, so is CA. why all the
religious zealotry to combat these few states if that were not true?
Third, see SLCSKP | 8:39 p.m. adequate?@ I Smell a Rat | 7:02 p.mIm somewhat new around here but doesnt Mr Lambert further the exact
opposite I espouse? @Re: Stalwart Sentinel 5:20 a.m. | 9:00 p.m. First, I dont drink coffee. Second, your interpretation of
my post belies your ability to comprehend anything correctly, which helps me
understand how you are such a mess now. Parsimonious terms: Baker is crumbling,
everyone knows it but you. Cases like Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
are gaining momentum. LexNex: Citing Refs. With Analysis Available. Keycite:
Case has some history all positive. Im sorry I figured you could manage your
own case search. I vested too much in your own capabilities. Apparently not on
Wikipedia? It must be terribly frustrating Not really,
the way I see it: youre stance is mortally wounded vermin and, while you kick
and scream, the cat is free to stay and play with its victim or leave. Either
way, youre dead soon enough. Its only a matter of time.
@RE: SS | 6:49 p.m.Looks like you were working out your Wikipedia
muscles over the weekend, eh? First - If the 14th applied, then it
would be a federal issue....Truth: the 14th amendment applies. All
your cases cite it and consider it. Difference being, as stated over and over
again: they didnt view marriage as it is defined or understood legally today.
They even cited Blacks law dictionary which defined marriage as between a man
and wife then. Now, Blacks cites marriage existing between two parties and
(t)he essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of
contracting to marry, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual
contracting in the form prescribed by law.Read your own cases. Things, they are a changing! Its a guaranteed failure to use yesterdays
knowledge for todays issues.Second, marriage was fundamental long
before loving (see skinner v state of Oklahoma (1942), but using old dictionary
definition (see above). Now, it is fundamental using new understanding of the
word marriage. Finally understand?
"Sometimes it takes having a similar frame by which to understand why some gays
attempt suicide or undergo depression. If you have no close friends who are gay
and who have gone through this ordeal, there must not be a point of view by
which you can frame this"What on earth are you trying to say Vince?
You have to have "close friends" who are gay to understand why gays commit
suicide? The tragedy of a close friend's suicide may shed light on their
particular circumstance, but it is absurd to suggest you would gain some special
insight into the root cause of suicide for an entire demographic based on the
heartbreaking experience of one individual.
Further,Many religious sects, outside of the United Statesboth in
history and in the present, still practice polygamy --- and they call it
marriage.Just be careful when you say, "Since the beginning of time,
marriage has always been between one man and one woman."
RE: Stalwart Sentinel | 3:02 p.m. Feb. 4, 2009You wrote: "Since the
beginning of time Mariiage has always reserved only vetween a man and a
women,"Before I comment on that --- just a few words on your four
spelling errors --- sorry, I can't stand misspellings --- I believe you meant to
say,"Since the beginning of time, Marriage has always reserved only
between a man and a woman,"Now, as to the historical accuracy of
that statement, it is wrong ---If you define "beginning of time" as
being Biblical time, we'll start there ---1. The patriarchs of the
Old Testament had multiple wives as did King David and Salomon.That
alone shows that marriage has not always been between one man and one woman.but I will continue,2. Many Old Testament prophets and
other Biblical figures also practiced having concubines --- less than a wife,
but still legal --- again, debunking your view of one man and one woman kind of
marriage.3. The practice of polygamy itself existed in the Church
from 1830 to 1890 --- and even after that, the Church did not formally
excommunicate members from practicing it until fourteen years later.
Re: Re: JD | 10:47 a.m. Feb. 4, 2009 You wrote: "If being
homosexual is as inherent as being black, why were there not higher suicide
rates among those who were treated far, far worse than anything the homosexual
community has ever experienced?"I believe that sometimes it takes
having a similar frame by which to understand why some gays attempt suicide or
undergo depression.If you have no close friends who are gay and who
have gone through this ordeal, there must not be a point of view by which you
can frame this ---Depression --- and many times --- suicide attempts
are caused by self-loathing because people ask themselves ---* why
am I this way?* What's wrong with me?* why can't I change?*
If it's wrong, why can't I be cured?And these thoughts are
persistent and go on as long as there is a conflict with theology versus
personal identity ---
To al | 5:14 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009Comment was: "Sodomy is not even
related to the civil rights movement. It's more related to bleeding
hemorrhoids."How little people know.I will forego the
way the comment was written and say that the only reason why such a notion as
gay rights and why we pursue equal protection under the law is because not that
gay rights are apart and different than universal rights --- true --- they
shouldn't be --- but to lack the term of "gay rights" prevents homophobes from
discriminating against gays.Gay rights are no different than
universal human rights ---
RE: SS | 6:49 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009 You also have to agree that civil
rights take time ---If you will cite the 14th Amendment, for
example, how long did it take to fully implement the 14th Amendment, for
example? Methinks about 100 years. From the end of the Civil War to Jim Crow
laws, to separate but equal statues, to ending "separate but equal."And were the courts specially swift to end "separate but equal?"The court was divided.The only reason why it went to a unanimous
vote was because several Supreme Court Judges were swayed to forego their
personal biases and opinions so that the court would make a historical mark of
unity for such a historical landmark decision.
Re: And most LDS are opposed to gay marriage (as is the rest of the
country). With the first comment, I agree completely ---With the second comment, I disagree completely --- focusing in California,
specifically ---Going from the history of Prop 22 to Prop 8, I'm not
so sure you can say that that will ever change --- society's views are changing.
I'm not so sure that extending further rights to gays would essentially
demean or infringe on "the integrity of the constitutional right of churches"I believe that when Reynolds says that the Church's statement was
mis-construed there is nothing to be mis-construed about.If it were
so, has the Church, for example, lost its constitutional right in Canada,
Massachusetts, or Connecticut?I believe there are deep-seated
phobias when it comes to letting gays have their say ---Inevitably,
someone will say I'm off the mark and I'm misquoting facts ---Show
To Ads aren't always the truth | 4:01 p.m. Feb. 3, 2009We need to
look at the content of the ads --- not ads in general ---to say that
'ads aren't always the truth' is a very broad statement and to use the example
of cigarrette smoking is only using an anti-example.We need to
examine why, if for any reason, the ads are not telling the truth.Else, could we say the same about the Church ads? "Families: It's about
time"I, for one, say, let LDS families be what they may.But let gay families be gay families.Enough of the "we are better
because we are nuclear families"
"I can't understand why a state like Utah that has such gorgeous scenery would
allow billboards to block the beautiful vistas that abound there" Gorgeous scenery along I15??? You have obviously never been on I15 in
depression valley. The "scenery" all marred by architural disasters called
"Temples". Jehova & Elohim - oh my mistake ... Mormon Inc. are building a multi
billion shopping mall on sacred ground though, to block the worst "scenery". All
led by a profit who lead the Values Institute, while his accomplices put
electrodes on the genitals of young men attending BYU, while showing them porn
in an attempt to cure homosexuality. Quite a scenery! Why posting an
official statement from the LDS Church on 2 billboards is so upsetting to
disobidient LDS members beats me. They dont follow the profit at all! The LDS
Church loves their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. They want to give them
equal protection under the law. Only mrSS Gay(le) Ruzika and the Sutherland
Institute fighting against what the LDS Church CLAIM they stand for is not
questioned. Lying for the Lord is an artform for the those given the second
endowment. Still enjoying the gorgeus scenery?
Apparently the 10:14 p.m. didn't include the Re: before Stalwart Sentinel
either. It to is directed to Stalwart Sentinel, not from him.
In regards to your four part series on Feb. 7 at 1:33, 1:33, 1:34 and 1:35 you
once again fail to acknowledge (or perhaps realize) that these cases prevent gay
marriage, yes legally. I know that you would love to find some way to dismiss
them, but please do yourself a favor a make peace with the fact that those are
in fact the law.As an aside, it appears that my 9:46 and 10:02 p.m.
posts did not include the Re: at the beginning, which is likely to cause some
confusion. Those posts are addressed to Stalwart Sentinel's posts from those
times, not from Stalwart Sentinel.
I can't understand why a state like Utah that has such gorgeous scenery would
allow billboards to block the beautiful vistas that abound there. City councils
can eliminate billboards. That's what our city did in my state and it is
wonderful. Billboards are ugly, no matter what they are advertising.
"Please, tell me if there are any more 'challenges' you can muster."You seem to be under the impression that you've refuted any of the challenges.
Should I simplify them for you or do you prefer the broken record approach of
pontificating on how unjust the law is because gay marriage bans are
constitutional?As to your final question, I think another poster at
6:49 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009 sufficiently addressed your claim.
I see this going as the next Constitutional Amendment. Whether it defines
traditional marriage or not as Mitt Romney has suggested as presidential
candidate, I think a fair ruling would be for an adult to claim any other adult
legally as a co-dependent, but not "married".Civil union if you
like, I think a man or woman should be able to claim another adult: father,
sibling, child, same sex partner, even intimate friend (non-family) who claims
both state and federal tax breaks, exemptions, privileges, etc. that all legally
married couple are now entitled to per state and our nation.The crux
of the issue is moral and economic, and I think such a law would provide closure
for all sides.Marriage is defined excusively as a union as a man and
a woman; anything else is subject to large and beneficial economic rewards.
You once again fail to make your case, another sad pattern in the history of
Stalwart Sentinel. Shall I ask one more time, where were the peaceful protests
every day this week? Or would you care to revise your earlier statement that
"peaceful protests occur every single day of every week." (See 5:25 p.m. Feb. 4,
2009. I'm sure it's difficult for you to keep your positions straight so I
thought I'd help remind you of them.) You would be well advised to focus on the
news (any news, ADHD or otherwise) before you continue to undermine your
dilapidated argument regarding the domestic terrorists being the "lowest common
denominator." Which do you prefer "sorry" or "you lose"?
You seem surprised that you would be expected to cite cases in your favor. I
thought that would be old hat for someone so well versed and respected in the
legal system. I didn't realize your argument had reached such a level of
desperation that you would resort to asking me to provide cases for you to cite
in your favor.Before doing so, you should consider that you have
still failed to refute that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Perhaps that
would be a good place to start before you resume beating the 14th amendment and
strict scrutiny horses to death.
Ah yes, the rearview mirror analogy. It's so odd, I could've sworn I remember
hearing something about stare decisis. Must've just been my imagination because
it's not something you seem terribly familiar with either.How
intriguing...some courts have used strict scrutiny, others have not. What was
that about marriage being a fundamental right? So let me see, marriage isn't a
fundamental right but it's becoming one, is that it? Pray tell.CT
and MA are now judicial bellwethers? Now you've fully undermined your
credibility. I'll give you an opportunity to revise your statement lest others
think you actually meant that.
Should've had your morning coffee before this entry.Your argument has now
devolved into a sort of "O.K. gay marriage bans are legal, but since not
everyone likes them, that's only an annoying technicality" line of reasoning. I
guess that would explain why you have failed to advance a case in your favor,
you thought we were arguing not about the law, just about opinion this whole
time. It must be terribly frustrating for you that Baker (et al) don't comport
to your worldview and that of gays rights activists, but you have yet to address
the fact that gay marriage bans are legal and constitutional. Sorry.
It may very well be that one day the people decide to define marriage
differently than they do now. However, that is much different than a court
mandating such a thing on the people. The judicial branch interprets the law,
it doesn't make it up.
RE: SS@6:49pmIf you take a slightly longer view, you will likely see
a different picture. As I recall, the DOMA and all those states' constitutional
amendments were the result of mass hysteria whipped up over the last decade by
anti-gay evangelicals, looking for red meat to motivate their base. As older
voters age and the next (much more tolerant, overall) generation takes over, I
think we'll see those states start to undo those straight-only marriage laws.I can't help wondering if the real slippery slope that the religious
population fears is that gay marriage will happen in a few places, and the rest
of the country will see it for what it is: no big deal. Straight couples are
still getting married, and divorced, at the same rates as before. Marriage is no
worse off.Same with allowing gay couples to adopt. It's happening in
a number of states already, and we who live in those states can see what the
studies have already proved: gay parents are no worse, or better, than straight
parents. I think that's what scares the religious right: that
they'll be proved wrong.
You could be onto something. That or JPL is on vacation?
I find it curious that "Stalwart Sentinal" has posted so many times on this
board and yet not one comment made by John Pack Lambert.
First, if the 14th Amendment applies, why don't homosexuals bring their claims
in federal court? Answer: Because the Supreme Court has said that this is not a
Federal issue so the 14th does not apply. If the 14th applied, then it would be
a federal issue in federal courts. If something is in the Constitution, that
makes it a federal issue and means that federal courts have the power to resolve
the case. See Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, etc. Second, the Supreme Court said that marriage was a fundamental right in Loving
v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). The Baker case was decided a few years after
this, by a "liberal court."Third, no the tide is not on your side of
the issue. 30 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between
a man and a woman. 14 others have statutes proclaiming the same. Only 3 State
Supreme Courts, in cases decided by a single vote, have held that same-sex
marriage is lawful. And one of those (California) was overturned within a few
months by the people.
I don't know why this story is even news.Of course most LDS support
gays having basic rights. And most LDS are opposed to gay marriage
(as is the rest of the country). These two facts haven't changed and I doubt
they ever will.
What? You didn't like Steve Young?
al,That's not bigoted hate speech at all, is it! I suppose if the
monitors weren't bigoted, hateful Mormons, they would have refused your
Sodomy is not even related to the civil rights movement. It's more related to
bleeding hemorrhoids. Stop insulting Blacks and stop peddling red
Don't you just hate it when someone discovers you are a phony pretending to be
smart by using Wikipedia?!Hilarious!Good job SS!
I've never met a gay person I didn't like, and I've never met a Mormon that I
you say "a dismissal for want of federal question constitutes a decision on the
merits and is binding on lower federal courts until instructed otherwise."binding on lack of jurisdiction! you cite it yourself right
below: "branded a question as unsubstantial" & "without doubt reject the
specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction." Are you deliberately trying to undermine your own argument? DOMA?
this gets better and better! when you lose one argument, jump ship and get on
another. well, i'm getting into your mindset (by using your precious wikipedia)
and it seems all roads lead to rome - rome being fundamental rights/strict
scrutiny. SCOTUS has denied cert for all DOMA challenges. why? b/c it has been
a conservative court the entire time DOMA has been in place and they know the
outcome if there were to address it. is that not obvious? the SCOTUS has
shirked numerous tough decisions in the past and continue to do so now, any
revision of the history of the SCOTUS reveals that.again, i
reiterate the question: courts are gaining momentum in moving towards upholding
gay marriage as constitutionally protected. Do you disagree with that?
I live in California. I have never hear of a gay enemies list. I googled looking
for a copy of the gay agenda and never found a copy. What the name of Utah's
Limbaugh want a be? Has Glen been spreading lies again? I think gays realize
time is on their side. There will be gay marriage. I'm discussed
this with gays. That articulated they want equal treatment under the law. I have
never had a gay try to convert me.
@ RE: SS | 9:38 a.m.re: 14th amendment "(t)he 14th Amendment is not
used in State Courts because they rely on State law." States and
municipalities have to make laws that comply w/ the 14th amendment b/c it
applies to them. Do i really have to teach you about checks, balances,
sovereignty? your coveted baker explores the 14th amendment in full. sorry, yet
again. but....this is too rich! i just pulled up wikipedia's
'synopsis' of baker v nelson. is that where you are getting your info?! this
is hilarious! you are citing a distinguished case by using its run down from
wikipedia!!! that is surely reputable. forget the 'rearview' mirror analogy,
you're driving blindfolded!for more kicks and giggles: when baker
was decided (1971) marriage was not considered a 'fundamental right' but now is
per zablocki v redhail, et al (1978). they never addressed the same thing you
refuse to address. do i have to remind you what that is?
and 4/4Conaway upheld state law defining marriage between one man
and one woman in MD.Keycite Some negative history but not
overruledShepardization Caution: Possible negative treatment Conaway is probably your best bet but still doesnt address same sex marriage
as a fundamental right, but rather argues it based on a MD statute. As noted in
the case was subject to rational review. See the rational review situation?
That is because it is being tested against a statute, not as a fundamental right
which requires your favorite subject to dodge: strict scrutiny.
here is 3/4Lewis ruled same-sex marriage bans were constitutional in
NJ. Wrong.Keycite Some negative history but not overruled. Shepardization Caution: Possible negative treatment Holding The high
court affirmed the intermediate appellate court's ruling that New Jersey's
marriage laws did not contravene N.J. Const. art. I, para. 1's substantive due
process guarantee, but reversed its ruling that the laws did not violate the
equal protection guarantee. Within 180 days, the legislature had to either amend
the marriage statutes or enact a statutory structure that afforded committed
same-sex couples the same rights of married couples. IE barring same sex
couples the rights of married couples violated the equal protections guarantee.
Where have we heard that statement before? Hmmm.
2/4Second, burns does not recognize marriage as between one man and
one woman, it is a case re: visitation rights. Here is the holding: The Court
of Appeals, Miller, J., held that: (1) ex-wife and her female companion were not
married in Vermont, but instead entered into civil union which does not bestow
status of civil marriage, and thus, ex-wife violated consent order prohibiting
visitation with children while cohabitating with adult to whom party is not
legally married when ex-wife exercised visitation while cohabiting with female
companion, and (2) although there is right under constitution's due process
clause to privacy of intimacy between persons legally able to consent, ex-wife
waived that right, to extent it was interfered with in this proceeding, when she
agreed to consent decree. Affirmed. Gay marriage was not the issue! The only
mention is distinguishing civil union from marriage, which was already well
known. Sorry, wrong again.
following up 1/4Burns recognized marriage as between one man and one
woman.First, when I said I couldnt find any legal reference to Burns
it meant that Burns was not cited as referencing baker, which you claimed to be
true in you previous post of Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:25 a.m. you were wrong.
Everyone just stop it. PLEASE!!! Just read the book, In Quiet Desperation" by Ty
Mansfield sold at Deseret Book. It will soften your heart through the principles
of the Gospel.
Yes, Mormons, especially in CA. are becoming fearful of their lives thanks to
Homosexual terrorists. My husband was recently asked at a job interview in CA
the MOST illegal of questions before the interviewer even said hello..."What
religion are you?" He could see my husband was from Utah and he was MOST
unpleasant (we didn't sue but sure could have). Mormons in our early days were
treated much like blacks, howbeit not as bad, but awful close with whole
communities being murdered and their homes taken from them and being shoved out
of them in the middle of winter. Never heard of that among the homosexual
community at large. We moved to Utah to live religion in peace...homosexual
friends of mine moved to San Francisco to live their lifestyle in peace. I've
never and will never hurt a homosexual but I will also NEVER condone marriage
among same sex unions and no one in Utah is bying the lie from the homosexual
community that this is about basic rights only...that what the homosexual
community said in CA. till they bought off their JUDGES who made same sex
marriage legal till THE PEOPLE said NO!
First, the 14th Amendment applies in Federal Courts because it is Federal law.
The 14th Amendment is not used in State Courts because they rely on State law.
There has been no Supreme Court decision that overrules Baker v. Nelson where
the Court ruled that the challenger did not present a substantive federal
question. That means the 14th Amendment does not apply in a challenge
advocating same sex marriage until the court says otherwise.Unlike a
denail of cert., a dismissal for want of federal question constitutes a decision
on the merits and is binding on lower federal courts until instructed
otherwise."Until the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise,
inferior federal courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a
question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)"Dismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject
the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction". Mandel v.
Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) Currently, there are no federal
grounds for allowing same-sex marriage. Further support is found in DOMA,
passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.
Please, tell me if there are any more "challenges" you can muster. I am unaware
of any I have yet to address and dispel. Additionally, I have posted the
peaceful protests twice now but don't know whether such events are precluded per
the moderators, etc...Nevertheless, in all sincerity, I feel anyone
capable of posting on this site (ie you) should realistically be able search for
those things on your own. Hubris is not becoming of someone who apparently
lacks the ability to perform a simple google search. I understand
your frustration, your belief structure seems to be falling to pieces as we
trade posts. Like I said before, same sex marriage is a growing recognition
among legal scholars and it's unfortunate you have yet to embrace the reality of
the situation. That is not to say stare decisis should be fettered
away, I'm simply stating that stare decisis is as much a base for rendering past
holdings incorrect as it is a basis for upholding current cases dependent on
prior case law. And the issue at bar clearly is moving towards upholding gay
marriage as constitutionally protected. Do you disagree with that?
I submitted a post re: peaceful protests a few days earlier. It appears either
my connection failed or was filtered by moderators. Here is the
first result of my first search for them: Tuesday, January 27th -
Equality on Campus Day! - Students across the country will wear the same shirt
to school as a way to show unity within the community. Friday,
January 30th in Fresno, CA - To protest California Eye Institute Saturday, January 31st same aboveThursday, Feb 12th Freedom to
Marry Day - Sit In - Steps of your City Hall and ask for a marriage license. If
you are denied a license, don't leave. Sit with your community, your allies, and
friends.Friday, February 13th same as aboveMonday,
February 16th - "Love and Equality Rally" Tuesday, February 17th -
Marriage Lobby Day '09 - CA Capital State Building Monday, March 16
- Rally in Tally for LGBT Equality at CapitolFriday, February 13th -
Every college campus in the USA and beyond leave your classes but show up to
school! Monday, February 16th - Gather together at the Capitol to
demonstrate that the LGBT community and our allies will settle for nothing less
than equality. Tuesday, February 17th - Marriage Equality Lobby
@To: Stalwart Sentinel | 2:21 p.m. Feb. 6, 2009How ironic,
considering you've cited no cases in your favor. Do I really need to cite
cases holding marriage as a fundamental right for you? Cases upholding the 14th
amendment? Have you digressed that much? Please let me know if you are truly
unable to find such cases. I am happy to provide them for you.
These next few may appear twice. Sorry if they do.Burns recognized
marriage as between one man and one woman.First, when I said I
couldnt find any legal reference to Burns it meant that Burns was not cited as
referencing baker, which you claimed to be true in you previous post of Re:
Stalwart Sentinel | 7:25 a.m. you were wrong.
Have the lower courts ignored strict scrutiny each time they've upheld bans? No, there are courts that have held same sex marriage is not a
fundamental right; again, those cases have been distinguished and are narrowing
in scope as the days pass. However, (repeating once again) courts today are
recognizing same sex marriage as a fundamental right, which requires a test you
obviously are not willing to attempt to overcome. Yours is a losing argument.
Whether you like CT, MA, or CA, they are bellwether states re: the flow of case
law and are nearly always at the forefront of most laws that permeate throughout
the US. Sorry, just the reality of the situation. Hence, my rearview mirror
analogy a few posts back.
@ @ Stalwart Sentinel | 2:05 p.m. Feb. 6, 2009First things first
LexisNexis Shepardization cites Baker as Questioned: Validity questioned by
citing refs and Westlaw Keycites it as Some negative history but not overruled
meaning it has not been overruled but is, as stated many times over, a last
ditch effort if nothing else exists. Youre digging yourself a deep hole relying
on it. sorry, its a failed argument. Hernandez is keycited as red
flagged and No longer good for at least one point of law by westlaw.
LexisNexis red signs Hernandez as Warning: Negative treatment is indicated.
@ RE: SS | 9:57 a.m.Sincere apologies, I have had other obligations
that have not allowed me to respond. However, I hope to get through all your
issues now. You ask "(h)ow does the 14th Amendment apply if the
Supreme Court says that it is not a federal question?" 14th amendment applies
to states re: due process. 5th applies to feds re: due process. come on, you
should know that.
QueerSaint,"Being gay is not a choice - but choice of religion is.
Interesting to read how the once "persecuted" have now become the persecuters.
Replace the word samesex couple with LDS couple or gay with LDS and you may
understand?"If you replace the word same-sex couples with LDS and
straight couples with non-LDS then you would have no discrimination. As it now stands the law states Non-LDS men and LDS men can marry either a LDS
or a non-LDS woman or in other words a homosexual or heterosexual man can marry
either a homosexual or a heterosexual woman. Both sexual orientations are
treated equally under the law. Heterosexuals aren't being given special
treatment because of their sexual orientation. They can no more marry a person
of the same sex then a homosexual can but both homosexuals and heterosexuals can
marry a person of the opposite sex and there is no law allowing heterosexuals to
marry one gender based on sexual orientation.Furthermore, there's no
gender discrimination either since a man can't marry another man and women can't
marry another woman.You will never understand because you are a
slaves is like not supporting same-sex marriage but being party to it.Anonymous,"How does same sex marriage "undermine traditional
marriage"? Jeff Reynolds spouts this off as if it is a given, and all the LDS
drones follow along. What support can you show for that claim?"Actually it does do something to marriage which is force those who want to
take part in a "traditional marriage" as you like to call it to take part in a
legal institution that they no longer agree with because it grants marriages to
persons of the same-sex. In essence it compels people to support an act they do
not agree with.You can disagree with this all you want but you have
yet to show how the majority GRANTING legal marriage licenses to same-sex
couples isn't an act of support by the majority anymore then being legally
married isn't benign support for the institution. The reason people get married
is because they support it. If they didn't they wouldn't get married so a person
who legally marries supports the institution and if it grants same-sex marriage
it means we support it as well.
@Alex,"I am not gay. I don't believe that homosexuality is natural
or right. However I do see that the rights of a group is restricted in
comparison to another."That's because you believe marriage is a
right but it isn't. Tomorrow the majority could abolish the legal institution of
marriage which makes it by definition not a right but a construct of society. As
a result all the majority is required to do is provide equal protection UNDER
the law which means they have to extend marriage to homosexuals on the same
terms as heterosexuals which the majority does. There is no box on a marriage
application asking for sexual orientation followed by a list of whom they can
marry."I would however like to see some evidence or a study that
indicates that allowing same sex marrage would have a negative impact on
society."Since it's not relevant I haven't looked into its alleged
impact. The majority doesn't have to support same-sex marriage if there isn't a
negative impact. It merely has to have no reason to do so thus you must prove
its benefit to the majority.
This is great. Your arguments become less cogent with each post."Not
all the acts were acts of terrorism (ie protesting outside a store)" When did I
say protesting outside a store was terrorism? For that matter, when did I say
"all" the acts were acts of terrorism? Does the phrase "Please don't put words
in my mouth to make your argument fit" sound familiar?I did,
however, mention mailing white powder, vandalizing private property, along with
beating, threatening, and harassing Yes on 8 contributors and supporters. You seem to have trouble responding when your arguments are challenged.
I figured this would have come naturally to a legal scholar such as yourself.
But I understand why you don't - you can't, no worries though. You claim the
above actions are those of the "lowest common denominator " since "peaceful
protests occur every single day of every week." Once again I ask, where were the
peaceful protests every day this week? Yes "spoon feed" them to me. Apparently
your spidey senses have access to information that is unavailable to the rest of
Baker "has bad history, has been distinguished, and would be a weak case to cite
in a legal forum. Cases like Baker should only be cited as a last resort, hence
your reliance on it."How ironic, considering you've cited no cases
in your favor. Your time is indeed being wasted, but that's only because you
continue to argue a position that ignores precedent.
"Hernandez is overrruled. I couldn't find any legal reference to Burns. Lewis
and Conaway both cited the case in the dissent!" Hernandez is the
reason gay marriage cannot be preformed in NY. Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47
(Ga. Ct. App. 2002)recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. Lewis
ruled same-sex marriage bans were constitutional in NJ. Conaway upheld state law
defining marriage between one man and one woman in MD.There are 20
others that could be rattled off upholding the gay marriage bans. Are you really
trying to argue that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?Your
obsession with strict scrutiny and dismissal of precedent is baffling. What more
needs to be addressed with strict scrutiny? Have the lower courts ignored strict
scrutiny each time they've upheld bans?"Courts are more readily
exploring the issue and realizing there are no compelling reasons to barring
same-sex marriage"Where? MA? CT? I hardly think those two states
constitute the definitive tectonic shift you seem so certain is upon us."Ignorance of the law"? That's rich coming from the guy who's ignored
every precedent for gay marriage bans.
@Alex | 5:19 p.m.Scientific studies of the impact of gay marriage on
a society would be difficult if not impossible to conduct. At best, all we can
do is look to contemporaneous and historical events.There are many
societies today that allow gay marriages. Gay marriage does not seem to be
destroying these societies.Historically, many societies have allowed
gay marriage. Probably most notable was ancient Greece from which we get our
ideas about equality and liberty. In ancient Greece, same-gender relationships
were encouraged in many areas of life, the military being most prominent. These
same-gender relationships were given official, public recognition that included
inheritance, power of attorney, estate, and other privileges and rights. In a
few cases, these relationships were even called a "marriage"
(γάμος), but that was because the majority of people in
Greek society were heterosexual, not because there was any principled opposition
to same-sex marriage. As to the "harm" same-sex marriages might cause, we can
see that Greece is here today, and the "society" of the Western World is built
on the principles and philosophies of those ancient Greeks! So same-sex marriage
didn't harm that (our) society!
How does the 14th Amendment apply if the Supreme Court says that it is not a
@ RE: SS | 2:55 You're just wasting my time now.Dismissing a claim for want of a federal question means the SCOTUS has no
jurisdiction over the matter! With no jurisdiction, the SCOTUS will NEVER issue
a decision w/out jurisdiction lest it be considered an 'advisory opinion' which
the SCOTUS is precluded from doing. Re: controlling precedent, I
never stated Baker was overruled. Please don't put words in my mouth to make
your argument fit. It has bad history, has been distinguished, and would be a
weak case to cite in a legal forum. Cases like Baker should only be cited as a
last resort, hence your reliance on it. Of course it's a state
issue! And as you backtrack in your dilapidated argument, we are finally
circling back to my original argument: marriage is a fundamental right and the
14th amendment (which applies to states, not feds!!!!) grants due process,
privileges or immunities, and equal protection under the law. And the strict
scrutiny test applies. Hence my earlier point, that "courts are more
readily exploring the issue and realizing there are no compelling reasons to
barring same-sex marriage..." sorry, you lose
Let me Clarify my comments earlier in regards to Martin Luther King Jr. and
Caesar Chavez. The civil rights movement faceed extreme opposition no question.
These men were hard working and determined to not give up on something they
believed in. Something that directly affected thier lives and thier rights to
equality. They did not give up and neither should gay rights activists. I agree
that one should not be militant in their persuit of equality. This may be why we
celebrate a national holiday for MLK and not for Malcom X. I am not gay. I don't
believe that homosexuality is natural or right. However I do see that the rights
of a group is restricted in comparison to another. This is not right. Many will
disagree but that's what makes the debate so heated. I would however like to see
some evidence or a study that indicates that allowing same sex marrage would
have a negative impact on society. This is one thing that I have yet to hear
anything on though I am new to this debate. If anyone knows where I could find
this please post.
Baker v. Nelson was not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It was dismissed
"for want of substantial federal question." 409 U.S. 810 (1972) This amounts to
a decision on the merits and established the case as controlling precedent.
While Baker has been "questioned" it has never been overruled meaning it is
still the controlling precedent. That's why the decision to allow
same-sex marriage have been based on STATE constitutional interpretation because
the US Supreme Court has already ruled that the Federal Constitution does not
grant individuals the right to marry an individual of the same gender. It's
also why same-sex marriage advocates file these claims in state rather than
@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:25 a.mRe; domestic terrorismyou can bash what you deem 'disregard for the rule of law' but given your
understanding of baker, et al, your ignorance of the law is clearly more
dangerous. i do not sympathize w/ any act of terrorism. but
neither do i esteem the word 'terrorism' lightly. i am merely stating: one - not all the acts were acts of terrorism (ie protesting outside a
store). sorry, your inability to properly perceive and willingness to lump all
things you deem negative into the jumbled mess of 'terrorism' is invalid. two - there were far more peaceful engagements based on opposing prop 8
than the few that turned violent. i can spoon feed this information to you if
you want? that makes those few bad apples the lowest common denominator of the
opposition to prop 8. understand? third - the acts of sending
envelopes w/ white powder are deplorable and have no place in this forum. gays
and straights have decried it as such. i know your spidey senses want to make
things easy for you by assuming it was a certain group but you cant pass
judgment. sorry for you.
@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:25 a.msigh, first, for someone so intent
on focusing on case law, i would expect you to actually address the strict
scrutiny argument (but i understand why you don't - you can't, no worries
though). Second, SCOTUS never upheld the case. They dismissed it
for want of jurisdiction. We already established that. Third, bad
law doesn't evaporate. It is eventually overturned. Keycite or Shepardize the
case. Baker has negative history. Hernandez is overrruled. I couldn't find any
legal reference to Burns. Lewis and Conaway both cited the case in the dissent!
Ask a local law professor whether citing a case w/ that history would be
prudent. Actually, i'll save you some time: the answer is no. sorry for you.
i think the problem is you are trying to look in the rearview mirror
to see where you're driving. true, you may be able to determine what road
you're on after you pass landmarks but you are not percipient to the direction
the road is going. rights for same sex couples will soon reach your doorstep,
For someone so intent on lecturing others regarding fundamental rights and
strict scrutiny, I thought you'd be more interested in case law. Guess not. That
"single case from Minnesota in the early '70s" became precedent for the
constitutionality of gay marriage bans when the SCOTUS upheld it. "Good luck
with that sticking around"? Right, I forgot how cases just evaporate after a
while. But since that hasn't happened yet in lower court cases like Hernandez v
Robles, Burns v. Burns, Lewis v. Harris, Conaway v. Deane, etc. that have looked
to that "single case" from "the early '70s" for precedent in upholding their gay
marriage bans, I guess Baker v. Nelson has a little "staying power." (Shocking,
isn't it?) But what was I thinking? Somehow I still fail to see that
your argument is, in spite of all of this, based "on the principles espoused and
protected by the Constitution." Is your sympathetic attitude for the domestic
terrorists' tactics rooted in this same disregard for the rule of law?
"Alarming" indeed is an understatement.
Those who chastise gays/lesbians over any MLK comparrisons. MLKs inner circle
included a gay Quaker Baynard Rustin who organized the Poor People's March on
Washington. Baynard stayed out of the limelight so his being gay wouldn't
distract from the Racial Civil Rights issues. Coretta King was a champion of
equal Rights for gays and lesbians.The Feminist Movement also had lesbians
who selflessly put aside some of their Rights to fight for Sexual Equality.You can't seperate these various Human Rights Movements from LGBT Equality,
because many of us were members of other Movements too.
How does same sex marriage "undermine traditional marriage"? Jeff Reynolds
spouts this off as if it is a given, and all the LDS drones follow along. What
support can you show for that claim? Same sex marriage does NOTHING to
heterosexual marriage, not in the abstract nor in the specific!
Being gay is not a choice - but choice of religion is. Interesting to read how
the once "persecuted" have now become the persecuters. Replace the word samesex
couple with LDS couple or gay with LDS and you may understand? This debate about
equal rights for gays and lesbians, and the LDS Church role in the passage of
Prop 8 in CA show that the line between church and state has been crossed.
Imposing religous beliefs on others to prevent equal rights for all citizens, is
something seen in theocracies like Iran. To see this happening in CA and Utah is
a huge dissapointment. Equality in Utah is as utopic as mormonism or religious
freedom in Iran. Equal rights for all citizens - gay or straight - do not take
away any of your rights. Only your right to choose to impose your religious
beliefs on others. Want to protect marriage? Banning divorce and adultery would
be more logical, than denying equal rights to gays and lesbians. What's
next? Courts of love - followed by stonings on Temple Square. As if the rocks in
Utah were not red enough? Selfrightenousness is a heinous sin in the eyes of
@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 6:10 p.m 1/2you may find the
conversation hilarious but i find it alarming that your 'main issue' resides in
a single case from Minnesota in the early '70s. good luck with that sticking
around. On the other hand, i prefer to base my argument on the
principles espoused and protected by the Constitution and the growing
realization among the legal community, and others, that gay marriage is a
fundamental right and a ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. If you
can't see that writing on the wall, you'll just have to remain 'shocked' every
time a court declares a ban as such. don't worry, we'll see Utah follow suit in
I was hoping you'd respond that way because it brings us to the real issue: you
only care about laws when something adversely affects others. In other words,
you believe there are "victimless crimes" that should not be prosecuted. You
probably also take umbrage at seatbelt laws and suicide laws among other
"victimless crimes" like using illegal drugs. You're unlikely to get far in
playing the "victimless crime" card.Homosexuals consistently
regurgitate this argument: "it doesn't hurt anyone" is the common refrain.
Here's one reason homosexual marriage doesn't fit within your "victimless crime"
worldview: it undermines traditional marriage which is the foundation of
society. It affects everyone. Apparently millions of Americans are "illogical"
and the argument is "outside the scope of rational analysis." If only we had a
stalwart sentinel to guide us.Tid bit - Have fun studying the finer
points of Utah's incest laws. I couldn't be less interested.
This is hilarious how you keep beating the "fundamental right" and "14th
amendment" drum and ignoring the main issue. Apparently you missed
the part in Baker v. Nelson that reads: "The equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the
states classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or
invidious discrimination." In layman's terms, once again, gay
marriage bans are constitutional. It became precedent decades ago. Lower courts
have consistently looked to Baker v. Nelson as precedent for their gay marriage
bans since. The more you argue against it, the more you undermine any legal
scholarship you lay claim to.You keep dodging another issue: where's
the outrage from the gay community regarding the domestic terrorists? The
silence is deafening. Where were the peaceful protests every single day of this
week? Throw me a bone, they never come across my ADHD news but you shouldn't
have any trouble documenting them since they are apparently so multitudinous.
@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 4:25 p.mall your points are generally
considered illogical and outside the scope of most rational analysis. 1 - incest - first, when dealing with a minor there is no consent so it is
illegal. second, when two consenting adults engage in incest, their children
are likely to have severe physical and mental difficulties. hence their actions
directly, negatively affect a third party which is unacceptable (not true of
same sex marriages b/c no direct offspring). tid bit - i actually think Utah
allows incestuous marriages of first cousins after both parties reach an age
beyond that of child bearing. i could be wrong but am pressed for time and will
'pass the buck' for you to look that one up. 2 - marry a dog? come
on, spring chicken? see above, no consent. illegal and non-binding. 3 - 'getting high' in what regard? what substance? in their own home? then,
yes that's completely fine b/c no direct, negative affect on others. driving
intoxicated? clearly not okay. distributing to minors? clearly not okay.
@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 4:25 p.mYou say "(a)rguing over whether
marriage is or isn't a "right" misses the point because even so, all rights have
restrictions." Finally, you are at the precipice of a sound argument! Now,
since marriage is a fundamental right, and the 14th amendment assures equal
protections under the law, we are able to assess what 'limits' may be imposed on
said right. Limiting a fundamental right can only be constitutional
after passing the 'Strict Scrutiny' test as applied by the SCOTUS. The interest
for infringing on the right must be COMPELLING and the means must be NECESSARY.
It is the most stringent test to overcome which is why courts are more readily
exploring the issue and realizing there are no compelling reasons to barring
same-sex marriage that cannot be adequately addressed by other means. It is
unconstitutional to bar same-sex marriage. Re: the powder et al...
I'm not condoning actions taken against our Church. I am stating not everyone
is so conveniently categorized. sorry. Nonetheless, peaceful protests occur
every single day of every week. You would be well advised to focus on things
other than ADHD news.
That would be hard to do considering there isn't one.
@ RE: Stalwart Sentinel | 3:02 p.mAbsolutely, unequivocally zero
rationalization here. Does your righteous indignation trump the authority of
all Bishops in CA who give Temple recommends to LDS member voting no on Prop 8?
I fight for my Father's side in every aspect of the way I live my
personal life. I do so with respect and the awareness that imposing said Gospel
on others is in defiance of His plan. It seems almost petty to have to explain
that to you.I simply follow the admonitions of Christ. I do my best
to "(r)ender unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things
that are GodsEver pay taxes and tithing using the same paycheck?
Drive the speed limit on your way to Church? I realize those are simple
examples but I hope they satisfy your understanding re: civil marriage.It is imperative to properly frame this argument lest you stand before your
Maker and fail to answer this simple question - "Did you treat all humankind
justly, regardless of their actions?" I will answer in the affirmative, it
seems that is still a difficult inquiry for you.
So let's take your argument to its logical extreme: "Allowing others to live as
they see fit while you live a life filled with the Gospel will engender
understanding, compassion, and soften hearts, rather than harden them." So if someone wants an incestuous relationship we should sit back and
let them enjoy and the world will be a better place as a result? If someone
wants to marry his dog, no worries, to each his own. Someone takes pleasure in
getting high... great, because by allowing him to do so I've engendered
"understanding, compassion," and "softened hearts." Sounds like one
myopic sentinel to me.
For marriage being so firmly Bible-based and since the "beginning of
time"....show ONE passage where a rabbi performed a wedding ceremoney in the
BIBLE.You can find plenty of wives who failed to bear children dumped for
a second wife, or polygamy. You can find King David who's love for Jonathan
SURPASSED his love for women. You can find Ruth and Naiomi saying whether thou
goest I go also.You can find St John define himself in Revelations as the
discipler Jesus LOVED.But NOT ONE marriage service. Marriage was a private
FINANCIAL agreement of a brides father providing the groom a dowery...service
So now you're arguing gay marriage bans are unconstitutional? Or you're arguing
the 14th amendment somehow supersedes Baker v. Nelson and essentially makes it
moot? Let me be very clear, Baker v. Nelson is the precedent for the
constitutionality of gay marriage bans. Arguing over whether marriage is or
isn't a "right" misses the point because even so, all rights have restrictions.
Gay marriage bans are constitutional.Maybe the white powder was sent
by kids? Yes and I suppose the vandalism to private property, and the beatings,
threats, and harassment of Yes on 8 contributors and supporters was done by kids
dressed as adults too. Come on, this is becoming almost comical how you're
excusing the behavior. You keep talking about "all the peaceful
rallies" and how these folks are the "lowest common denominator" in a much
larger group. Where are the peaceful rallies? Where's the outrage from the gay
community at the domestic terrorism? The best you can come up with is "most
would be best advised to stop"? I find the "lowest common denominator" and "few
extreme outliers" argument more and more laughable with each new excuse.
Rationalizations, rationalizations, rationalizations,When you go before the bar of God and He asks why you didn't fight for
the his side, that he will accept your rationalizations?You can
sputter all excuses you want, but the final analysis it's your actions that
determine whose side you are on.Since the beginning of time Mariiage
has always reserved only vetween a man and a women,anything else is
Mocking God, playing house, taking what is not yours, fraud both spiritual and
temporal.You can not say you love the institution of Marriage
Spiritually, then cast your pearls before swine.The rights you try
to say exist simply do not exist because some man wearing a robe in california
says so.But then again, anyone can rationalize.
@Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 12:49 p.m follow up...I think
it very plausible that those sending the white powder could be kids pulling a
prank, albeit a very offensive and illegitimate one. kids call in bomb threats,
etc... all the time. you think disinterested fence-sitters aren't going to try
to get their money's worth out of us who are involved in the fray? To be sure, some are gay rights activists and most would be best advised to
stop; however, there is a clear danger in sweeping all the peaceful rallies and
protests into one lump sum with the few extreme outliers. Sorry but that last
paragraph demonstrates your penchant to illicitly skew the scenario.
@ To Stalwart Sentinel | 12:37your dilemma is resolved: the Prophet
has told us we must support Prop 8 spiritually (which I do) but can oppose it
civilly (which I also do). Regarding your statement that "(a) prophet of God
has said that gay marriage is something that we MUST fight and that it WILL hurt
our nation" is taken as true but for some of us, the greater danger manifests
itself when individuals propose to usurp civil liberties from others in order to
pursue their religious agenda. Allowing others to live as they see fit while you
live a life filled with the Gospel will engender understanding, compassion, and
soften hearts, rather than harden them.@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel |
12:49please read the post carefully. I said marriage was a
fundamental right. then I juxtaposed it with the 14th amendment. Let me quote the entire SCOTUS opinion of Baker v Nelson: "The appeal is
dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." It is a
state issue but marriage is a fundamental right. Hence, the 14th amendment
secures the right equaling gay marriage. pick your poison: due process,
privileges or immunities, or equal protection
radicalism in any sub culture, religion, or organization makes me sick. grouping
all gays into that catagory isn't a fair assumption. also, marriage
is more than a "christian" ideal, it's also a legal matter, a legal standing.
and it's not like there trying to take away your birthday, they just want
Buttars is the SADISTIC MONSTER who ran your gulags.
Why don't you publish your GAY-BASHING pamphlet here, that you PROUDLY printed
for DECADES, to Young Men?
Domestic Terrorism, that's RICH coming from Mormons.You run boy's ranches
and West Jordon Academies which Kidnap gay teens in the night, torture them
tying wool blankets around their bodies, force them to run laps in the freezing
night temperatures in their underwear or nude.mormon gulag is what these
hideous CAMPS are called by gay survivors who spent 3 months to 2 years against
their will housed with JUNKIES, and no outside observers, no medical personel,
kept from contacting their parents for 4 weeks, and the websites of these HOLES
instruct parents to IGNORE any complaints of abuse.
You've got to be kidding me...Did you miss Baker v. Nelson, the case where the
SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of gay marriage bans? Nice try, though. You really think those that feel passionately enough about the issue to
send white powder in envelopes, vandalize private property, along with beating,
threatening, and harassing Yes on 8 contributors and supporters aren't gay? Just
a bunch of straight folks that are so outraged that they've turned to domestic
terrorism. Give me a break. I'll glady label the entire group as domestic
terrorists until one of them stands up to condemn the actions of the "lowest
common denominator." Until they do, they lowest common denominator is, in fact,
the common denominator.
Unfortunately, there are those LDS (among others) who are hatful to gays and
lesbians... something that had NEVER been approved of, or supported, by our
leaders. HOWEVER, there are also those, like yourself, who claim to sustain the
leaders of the church yet turn against the very words that come out of their
mouths. A prophet of God has said that gay marriage is something that we MUST
fight and that it WILL hurt our nation and has the potential to take away our
rights to practice our religion as we see fit in the future. I think it is sad
that you can not see this and that you profess to follow the prophet when you
openly go against his counsel. The parable of the 10 virgins comes
to mind here.
@Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:19 a.m. Feb. 4, 2009You say "(y)es
domestic terrorism is the epitome of tolerance, isn't it?"Only to
the point that labeling an entire group based on the actions of the lowest
common denominator (who most likely aren't gay) is accurate. nice try though.
@ can't even discuss itlet's discuss. En arguendo, I'll
stay away from 'appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the
argument' so long as you don't base your argument off those beliefs. facts
only. sound fair? we'll start with the indisputable fact that the
SCOTUS recognizes marriage as a fundamental right, a guarantee to all citizens
of the US, combined with Due Process for states under the 14th Amendment.
Sadly, homosexual teens, straight teens, and adults of any sexual orientation
contemplate suicide - and some will succeed. It is horrifically sad and we
should reach out to anyone who is a danger to themselves. I wish we could
prevent every suicide.That being said, I disagree that society is to
blame for a "severe self-loathing" of gays and that, if this problem exists, it
leads to suicide. Homosexuals frequently play the "civil rights"
card and try to hijack the African-American civil rights movement. If being
homosexual is as inherent as being black, why were there not higher suicide
rates among those who were treated far, far worse than anything the homosexual
community has ever experienced?
Have you noticed that gays will never debate the issue, but immediately move to
ad hominem attacks, which consists of replying to an argument or factual claim
by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the
argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or
producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the
claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the
subject. Hence, accusing people of hatred, referencing the black movement or
To JD: How we treat gays? I don't treat them any differently than anyone else.
Most of the people I associate with do the same. What is the basis for your
assertion about suicides among gays? A study or report? As far as
respect, I can respect others in many ways. I work with a gay and our sexual
preferences are not discussed. We are friends and I esteem his work ethic.
However, if confronted with his sexual orientation, I will not say that
everything is okey dokey, when it is not. I can not respect his decision to be
gay. So, his private sexual life remains private, just as mine does. What more
would you expect?Also, I don't think he has angst because of what
others think. He is a little tougher than that.Secondly, if as you
state and many gays have a low self-esteem, don't assume that it is always
because of how others treat them. Consider an alternative suggestion that it is
often due to their conflicted decision to accept that an unnatural life style.
Homosexuals don't understand that people who believe in the God of the Old or
New Testaments can not support them. To do so would invite upon them the same
condemnation and eventual destruction that awaits homosexuals. While some
sudo-religious people may join your cause, such a stance can only be possible by
a rejection of their most fundamental beliefs. The only references to
homosexuality in scripture utterly condemn the practice to the very death of
those who indulge in that abominable sin. Homosexuals have the free will to
reject the commandments of God and persecute the people of God, but they will
only find frustration in seeking the approval of God or His people. So, good
luck with that.
While I understand the hurt that has risen over these past months on both sides
of the debate, it is important to note that in this state, it will be unlikely
that any 'common ground' initiative will be supported. I do not believe that
being 'gay' is only a choice. Having friends who struggle with same gender
attraction, I see them work each day to overcome their specific trial, and while
some may never marry they take peace that they are following what they know to
be right. I am sure there are many in the GLBT community who would dissagree
with this thinking. It is how it is. However, in todays economy, I think better
time would be spent focusing on programs that will benefit all citizens, and not
pouring money into something that is so obviously wrong. Civil liberties are
enjoyed, and to compare this movement to historical ones in the past (African
Americans, women) is simply insulting. You have the right to voice your opinion,
isn't that evidence enough?
Sadly, as the argument goes on from both sides, today hundreds of young gay
teenagers will contemplate suicide -- and some will succeed. The petty comments
from both sides of this argument deny the basic fact that due to the way our
society treats gay individuals, many grow up with such a severe sense of self
loathing that taking their own life seems the only acceptable solution. Until we
begin to treat all people with respect, our society will continue to suffer the
consequences of the lost potential, lost productivity and lost spirits that our
ignorance and intolerance encourage. We are all one people. We live in one
nation. We are all children of God. Can we please start acting like it?
Dear "Democracy in Action": Actually, something additional I wish
the Des News had included is the information that, yes, the "Common Ground"
campaign DOES intend to phase out Amendment three, which protects marriage. One
of the bills in the package clearly states that it nullifies "the second part of
Amendment 3" -- which says homosexuals cannot be granted the legal equivalent of
marriage -- because that part of it happens to be inconvenient to them. Utahans
need to know this isn't about health care -- it's about slowly getting rid of
the marriage amendment.
It bothers me when gays compare their movement to the actions of Martin Luther
King. Being gay is an action not a skin color.I guess it stems from
their belief that they are born that way. I think that if the gay movement it
to be crushed, we have to crush the idea that they have no control over their
actions. Its a choice.
I think before Gay Rights organizations start asking for the support of the LDS
church here in Utah, they should consider an apology for their behavior first
and foremost. To demand, and unabashadely expect the church to support them
after the way they were treated is beyond reasonable. The Gay Rights
organizations, NOT the LDS church, has quite a bit of PR work to do.
I am so disappointed with so many of you who claim to be of my faith. Where are
the attempts to mend wounds? Where are the attempts to treat all people with the
dignity they deserve? Let's stop the childish "I'll stop when they stop"
attitude I am seeing here. Honestly, have you ever been in a
situation similar to what a homosexual goes through? While I am not gay, I was
labeled one in jr. high school, and it stuck with me through high school. I was
harrassed and mistreated for so long. I know what it is like, and I would take
the mistreatment I got for being a mormon over the way homosexuals are treated
Just a thought. If we keep encouraging men with men, women with women, and
abortion...after three decades there won't be many democrats left.Why,
they'll have to import more democrats from other countries.Wait...never
The GLBT community has taken over the comments on the SL Tribune website. Every
article, no matter how remotely related to the LDS Church, is another
opportunity for vicious verbal attacks, lies, slander, and other things, which
in a strictly legal sense qualify as terrorism with overt and covert threats
against all those who oppose the GLBT demands.One of the biggest
posters even admitted last week, that he doesn't live in Utah, but yet, he is
privy to a multitude of secret policies within the LDS Church to control retail
within Utah and squash the GLBT community. What rubbish. When I chided some of the posters for the nastiness of their comments one
replied, "Well, we'll grow up when you start treating us like adults." I guess
he flunked logic in school. You get treated like an adult when you act like
Those who oppose homosexual rights are human, worthy of basic dignity and
respect.Has your homosexual boss fired you when he found out you
contributed to Prop 8? Did your homosexual landlord evict you when
he found out you are opposed to homosexual rights? Do you live in
fear because your name, phone number and address is posted on a website because
you contributed $100 to Prop 8? Yes this has and does happen. Don't sit there and act like the victim. Typically you have more money
than we married folk with children. You travel more, you eat out more, you go to
more movies, you have more parties, you buy more clothes, you have nicer cars,
you are free to come and go as you please. You can live anywhere.
You can go see your sick partner in the hospital. You
can receive death benefits as a beneficiary.You can sue for wrongful
termination.You can sue a landlord. Give me a break with
this oppression bologna. You have every right straight people have. Why should
you have special rights because of the fact you chose to have sex with another
person of the same sex?
There is no reason why society should embrace or give its stamp of approval to
deviant sexual behavior. Sex and sexual attraction have an obvious biological
purpose. Men and women have complementary parts for a reason. "Same-sex
attraction" is an obvious dysfunction. The fact that, a couple of decades ago,
the American Psychological Association took it off the list in a purely
political move, does not change the facts. But we're all now supposed to go
along in this "Emperor's New Clothes" world and pretend this obvious dysfunction
is just lovely. And that doesn't even deal with the morality of it, which is
still important to some of us.There is nothing "gay" about
homosexuality. The homosexuals are threatening Mormons in California, and now
are trying to play "Gotcha" with the Church here in Utah. Enough.
To the GLBT community: Please, by all means, go ahead and take out ads and put
up billboards. It spreads a lot of money around the economy of the State.
Since I own a billboard site, I would love it. If you think it's going change
anyone's mind, you're living in space. But, hey, keep it up. I
could use the money.
Yes domestic terrorism is the epitome of tolerance, isn't it?
Gays want equality with other Americans period. I am a heterosexual married man
and when what you are is supported by society's norms you don't have to flaunt
it because it is the norm. People of priviledge are not conscious of how they
have priviledge. I support equal rights under the constitution of this great
land. Equality of rights is something we all should support. That is the basic
arguement if you throw out the fear and hate-mongering. Society will continue
to move forward as we go about creating a more just society that works for all.
Um... to those with short selective memories, envelopes with "white powder" were
mailed to a number of mormon sites including the LA and SLC temples the week of
the "outrage" over Prop 8. This is domestic terrorism, regardless of whether the
powder was harmless. It was not a harmless prank, its intent is to spread fear
and threaten people. Church houses and properties were vandalized. Even after such events, the LDS church has consistently stated its support to
those with differing political viewpoints regarding legal alterations that don't
impinge upon redefining traditional marriage. Gays need to appeal to
the membership of the church, and try to demonstrate some good will--perhaps by
refraining from attacking the church every chance they get (especially here on
these sorts of sites)--if they wish to be successful in convincing the citizens
of Utah that they have no hidden agendae...
I've seen written many times 'I don't go around flaunting my sexual
orientation.' Guess what, if you are straight and married and talk about your
husband or wife, you are displaying your sexual orientation.After
working with a homosexual co-worker, and having him talk about his partner, it
made me realize how my talking about my wife was just as much wearing my sexual
orientation on my sleeve as his talking about when he came out of the closet.Now, I will grant that protests and rallies in the GLBT community do
qualify as 'flaunting their sexual orientation.' But, the vast majority in the
GLBT community are not 'flaunting' - they're living their lives.
God lost patience with corrupt people in Noah's time as He did in the case of
Sodom and Gomorrah. Make's me wonder how much patience He will have with these
GLBT folks today.
Saints have free agency. If the Church recommends voting for a matter that
relates to morals, I am not required to vote for it. I have the right to choose
eternal life or eternal damnation. I choose eternal life. As a Californian I
contributed a substantial amount to Yes on 8 and I am happy I did and I am glad
I voted Yes.
Same slop, different day. It is not intolerant for gays to demand
equal treatment under the law. They are exercising tolerance for us, they
aren't seeking to take away anything from us straight, married folk. The problem is too many of us LDS have improperly framed the argument. This
is not a spiritual issue, it is a civil one. I live in CA and during the time
frame when the GLBT community was allowed to marry, my wife and I loved each
other unconditionally, went to Church every Sunday, went to the Temple once a
month, and had FHE most Mondays. When Prop 8 passed, we still loved each other
unconditionally, etc... yet others had to fend off would-be marriage
nullifications and, sadly, many succumbed to the horrible showing of moral
opprobrium by our own saints, among others. Gay marriage is on the
horizon and, as a nation, we will soon see the benefits of affording everyone
the same fundamental rights, regardless of our own perspective on their actions.
It is sad to see so many saints fall prey to hatred and anger with respect to
their brothers and sisters.
@@used to be tollerantPuh leeeeeze "political terrorism???"Blaming LGBTs for the public record of donors to CA initiatives, which has
been CA law for decades...you all knew that was the law, and the donors on No on
prop 8 are EQUALLY public. Unlike your side we didn't send out extortion letters
demanding $10,000.00 (a felony with 4 yr prison sentence)to YOUR donors, and we
never felt the need to keep OUR donations secret. We are PROUD of what we gave.
I agree - I believe that there is political terrorism going on with the
publishing of the donors and the way the homosexual community acted out after
the vote.No, my marriage was not torn apart - we won remember.Do I live in fear of beatings - Yes, now that those names and address
have been published I think that there are most likely many who live in fear
now.No, I did not lose my job - but I have heard of many who
have!The homosexual community asks for tolerance - I think if they
want tolerance then they should be tolerant of us and of our beliefs.... then
maybe we will be more willing to listen to what you have to say.
I won't support a group who threatens voters with physical violence if their
agenda is opposed. Gay and Lesbian community you have thumbed you noses at the
law far to many times. The "tolerance" you want is not what you are willing to
offer. You are hypocrites.
I hope they don't spend any money on all their adds, after all it' un-american
to spend money on something you believe in.
I'd be happy to answer those questions. In fact, I'll lump them into two groups.
The answer to questions in the first category is Yes. The answer to the
questions in the second category is No.1) Political terrorism?
Really? Tolerance? Did you bother reading any of the recent threads including
this one and seen the way some of those that appose gay rights speak about gay
people? Terrorism? really?2) Did your marriage get ripped apart with
prop 8? Do you live in constant fear of people beating or killing you simply
because of whom you are (yes this has and does happen)? Do you live in fear of
losing your job if your tolerant boss finds out or your apartment when that
wonderful Christian landlord finds out youre a sinner?
Political terrorism? Really? Tolerance? First of all I am not something to be
tolerated I am a human worthy of basic dignity and respect. Did you bother
reading any of the recent threads including this one and seen the way some of
those that appose gay rights speak about gay people? Did your marriage get
ripped apart with prop 8? Do you live in constant fear of people beating or
killing you simply because of whom you are (yes this has and does happen)? Do
you live in fear of losing your job if your tolerant boss finds out or your
apartment when that wonderful Christian landlord finds out youre a sinner?
I used to be tolerant of the gay community. I have friends that are gay. The
problem now is that some (not all of course) in the gay community are becoming
guilty of political terrorism. Members of the LDS Church were accused of being
un-american for expressing their opinion and exercising their right to vote. If
you ask me, those that are singling out Prop 8 supporters doing everything they
can to destroy their businesses and lively hood as well as threatening them with
violence and fear are the ones guilty of being un-american. I had no problem
with gay people have rights but the crybaby-pity attitude makes me sick. They
are hurting their cause and the more time goes on the more I wish they would go
We need to stop supporting the homosexual community's hijacking of the English
Language. You are not gay, you are homosexual. You have a deviant life style.
So please stop referring to yourselves as gay. Also will the sponsers of this
bill please tell me which hospital has denied you any visitation? Can you tell
me which employer has fired you because you are homosexual? Please...it might
make me more sympathetic to your cause. And then lets get the ACLU involved to
clear up these "unjust actions". I don't go around a profess my sexual
orientation to everyone. So please quit cramming your lifestyle down everyones
throat it is going to backfire on you.
Gays are more than welcome to share their opinions on the public square. But if
they start to skew statements to present something that was not the intended
meaning...I think that defeats the purpose. Comparing "fringe"
Mormons and "fringe" gay-rights activists is not completely accurate. The FLDS
Church has a membership 1/52nd the size of the mainstream LDS Church with no
connections between the two. My experience in California last year leads me to
believe the "fringe" gay ratio to the mainstream is more like 1 in 4 or 5. Also,
these "fringe" gay activists were actively involved in the all parts of the
campaign. FLDS are excomunicated from the LDS Church. Once again, quite
different.Also, the gay-rights movement is completely unique from
the Civil Rights Movement and should not be compared. Remember the Little Rock
9? They had to be protected by the military to enter school! One had acid poured
on her face!! Gays can vote, sit on any bus seat, use any restroom, enter any
resteraunt, use any drinking fountain. You could never convince me that
homosexuals today are treated in a way anywhere close to how blacks were
why am I always being asked to be tolerant?Maybe the gays should be
"tolerant" of my views as well.
I figured it would only take a few comments until a gay activist regurgitated
the "lie" attack.Ned, where are the non-radical gay activists? If they exist, I haven't seen them step forward to condemn the vandalism
and terrorism. If they have, they are few and far between and we're
not talking about a "radical fringe" at all.
Bad idea: highjack the African-American civil rights movement. Gay is not the
Show me a recovering african-american and you are allowed to lump the civil
rights movement of the past with the homosexual movement of today. There are
thousands of recovering homosexuals who have changed lifestyles. I know of no
To John Pack Lambert, Please show me where Equality Utah has ever said that the
LDS Church supports the bills in the Common Ground Initiative. The lie is that
the LDS Church is not anti-gay because it does not oppose basic legal
protections for gays. The LDS Church's statement was nothing more than a crass
PR move to take the heat off its efforts in CA.
Here's another hint:Stop comparing gay activism to the civil rights
movement. It's offensive to anyone who has ever read a history book.
I would hardly put MLK in the same category as gay rights activists. He
promoted peace, not bigotry and hatred. He actually had a leg to stand on. No
rights are being denied gays, no matter how much some scream to the contrary.
Blacks were enslaved, and hardly anyone had the guts to treat them with the
dignity they deserved. No one I know in UT, or in any mormon community, desires
harm on gay and lesbians. HUGE difference.
Do the three remaining bills have clauses in them that prohibit the new law from
infringing on the constitutional right of churches. Somehow that
probably didn't make the draft.
Hey Helpful Advice, thanks for lumping all gays into one big monolithic group
and judging all of us by the most radical fringes in the group. I'm sure you
Utah LDS love it when all Mormons are judged by the acts of fringe
fundamentalist polygomous Mormons. That's a fair comparison right? How would
it feel if someone suggested you better get those fundamentalist in line if you
want to gain the respect of the rest of America. Please.
If Equality Utah wants to pay for billboards and advertising that is a
completely legal and responsible forum for political discussion. I would think
the LDS Church would prefer an Equality Utah ad campaign (albeit an incredibly
mild one) rather than protests outside the Church Office Building being
broadcast internationally on CNN.Utah's gays and lesbians, and their
families, are not going to hide under a rock just to make social conservatives
comfortable. The Common Ground bills are simple, basic protections that are not
extreme, not anti-marriage, nor anti-family. To loudly proclaim that these bills
open the floodgates to gay marriage (when the state constitution specifically
bars it through Amendment Three) is just fear mongering and deliberate
distortion. It adds nothing of value to the discussion. If these
moderate bills about employment discrimination, housing, and visitation rights
get instantly killed in committee and can't even be discussed on the floor of
the legislature, then what other options do gays and lesbian have to get their
message out? I would request that everyone read the bills, and
carefully (even prayerfully) consider their implications before you
automatically reject them.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Caesar Chavez should have taken a time out too. Those
The less sympathetic I feel. Gays...If you really want acceptance, quit
cramming your special privilege legislation down our throats. You already have
the same rights as everyone else so please go about your lives and stay out of
the LDS Church "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding
hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, so long as
these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the
constitutional right of churches."This is a perfect opportunity for
the LDS church to demonstrate that they mean what they are sincere. If they can
spend 280,000 to support prop 8 and garner 20 million in member contributions to
passing prop 8, it shouldn't be difficult for them in their own state of Utah to
support and pass the very legislation they say they have no objections to. It
won't cost them anything near 250,000...because they won't have to travel to
another state. They don't even have to support the legislation, all they need
to do is tell their members and mormon legislators to get out of the way and not
hinder the proposed legislation. Members seem to follow the leaders on opposing
gay marriage, can they follow their leaders words on this issue? That is the
question...we'll soon have an answer to just how faithful their followers are.
Gays need to cool it. People in Utah don't want what you're peddling. After your
stupid behavior following prop 8, people are sick of your message so please just
take a time out.
Gay folks need to understand something.... after the prop 8 passage in
California, the entire country saw the ugly face of the gay movement displayed
all across the country. Now, gay supporters are seeking tolerance and open
mindedness toward their cause - something they couldn't and wouldn't show
themselves toward those which happened to have a different point of view toward
homosexual behavior (remember the elderly woman who was knocked to ground and
physically and mentally abused by the gay rights supporters). BECAUSE of their
recent show of classless hypocrisies, the gay movement is NOT something anyone
is ready shallow.
The truth and equality Utah have a constant relationship. They never touch.
To claim that the Church supports any of these bills is a lie. There is
a big difference between not opposing and supporting. The fact that
Equality Utah persists in claiming the Church supports its initiatives when the
Church has emphatically stated it has not taken a position on any pending
legislation in Utah shows that this group is willing to lie about anything to
advance its cause. If they are lieing in such an open way, what other
lies are they telling that we have not detected?
I am continually impressed how the LDS Church is consistent, fair, moral and
family oriented in their positions, comments and counsels. In fact, the Church
has shown vision in what they stand for and what they teach. In contrast, many
people or organizations have not shown commitment to moral principals.
Confidence in the quality of leadership in the Church is justified.
According to the tobacco industry smoking makes you sexy, makes it so you drive
a nice car and have lots of pretty girlfriends.Just putting it on a
billboard doesn't make it right.
Here's a hint for the gay-rights advocates: If you want LDS voters to take your
proposals seriously, you need to talk to your radical brethren in California who
are preparing an "Enemies List" of Mormons who donated money to help pass
Proposition 8.Some left-wing websites have already posted threats of
vandalism and harassment against members of the Church who donated."Respect" is a two-way street. As long as gay-rights activists are
threatening to harass Mormons for supporting what they believe, I don't feel
very inclined to support your agenda. And I will make it clear to any
legislators who support you that I will never vote for them.