Comments about ‘Gay-rights advocates begin media blitz’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 4 2009 2:07 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RE: Stalwart Sentinel

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

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.

mark

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 OVER.

Re: Stalwart Sentinel

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.

Stalwart Sentinel

@ RE: Stalwart Sentinel | 3:02 p.m

Absolutely, 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 Gods

Ever 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.

Re: Anonymous

That would be hard to do considering there isn't one.

Stalwart Sentinel

@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 4:25 p.m

You 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.

Stalwart Sentinel

@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 4:25 p.m

all 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. simple enough?

Re: Stalwart Sentinel

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

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.

Stalwart Sentinel

@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 6:10 p.m 1/2

you 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 our lifetime.

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? 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 God.

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? Same sex marriage does NOTHING to heterosexual marriage, not in the abstract nor in the specific!

mark

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.

Re: Stalwart Sentinel

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.

Stalwart Sentinel

@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:25 a.m

sigh, 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, dont worry.

Stalwart Sentinel

@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:25 a.m

Re; domestic terrorism

you 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: SS

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 federal court.

@Alex

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.

Stalwart Sentinel

@ 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

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments