your Family.Seems they will have no other choice.The Judicial
System has no WISDOM.Quite clear neather does anyone else in this
matter.They, The Gay's deserve to be together and off the streets.
RE: Dear Vince, Vince is smarter then you... deal with it.
Well, I guess Vince has all the answers!! Looks like we should just make him
our fearless leader 'cuz he knows everything!Dude, Vince,
seriously...give it a rest.
to 11:40 a.m.,I disagree completely. Vince is FAR more reasonable
and intelligent and UNannoying than John Pack Lambert!Keep it up,
Vince! I love reading your stuff.Lambert needs to go bury his head
in a deep dark place.
I admire your stamina and appreciate your attempt at reasoned argument, but why
do you feel the need to numerically dominate every comment thread and respond to
every statement you don't agree with? After a while, people just skip over you.
Same with your homologue on the other side, John Lambert.
Do you actually believe that a family together by CHOICE is really inferior to a
family that is together because they are forced/"circumstances"? Really, how
bizarre. Clearly children, by those standards, are more happy in arranged
marriages over love marriages. It would seem that by your logic the most
superior of all would be forced arranged marriages! Let's put all the foster
children into FLDS homes!! As for me, I've seen a disproportionate
number of gays, volunteering in foster care medical step-down facilities. It
seems clear to me, that while Christians profess that abortion is a sin, Gays
actually take care of the end product that is often ignored by those very
Christians who care about babies so long as they are in the womb.Want to hear something really disturbing? Transgendered people have been
marrying their own birth gender for years.
Hey Vince | 5:33 p.m. May 29, 2009 I guess you read my posts but did
not understand.Wrong interpretation on what I said on so many
"Where do the rest of us Americans fit in if we don't agree?"The
same place you fit in if you do agree. You go to the voting booth, and you vote
on what societal mores you feel are acceptable and which ones you feel are not,
based on your own conscience and beliefs, just like the rest of us do. If the
majority of the voters in your society feel as you do, you get your way, and
those mores become lawfully acceptable. If the majority of voters in your
society feel differently, then you don't get your way. You're allowed to
continue trying to pass laws in order to eventually get what you want, but
you're not allowed to harm people or their property and income just because they
disagree with you.
To the extent that gun ownership and speech are regulated, there is a sound
societal reason for those regulations.What sound societal reason is
there for regulating marriage such that gays are prohibited this (by your own
"I believe we already have laws effectively prohibiting convicted criminals from
procreating. Incarceration is, after all, segregated by gender. I would be glad
to stand up for any law increasing prison terms for violent criminals."Ever heard of conjugal visits? Are you telling me that when these criminals
are released, they are not allowed to procreate? Murderers, Rapists, Child
Abusers and violent criminals are all allowed to MARRY. Gays are not, even
though they are law abiding.There is something wrong with this
picture. Can you say bias?
I believe we already have laws effectively prohibiting convicted criminals from
procreating. Incarceration is, after all, segregated by gender. I would be
glad to stand up for any law increasing prison terms for violent criminals.
To Hate to InterruptAnd also, I have taken a look at the eyes of
children of gay parents.They do just fine.
Hate to interrupt once moreYou wrote,"Vince, there's
this little thing called "history" - have you heard of it? It's hilarious to
suggest that thousands of years of natural procreation through husband and wife
unions (i.e., marriage) have been, um...ineffective in furthering the human
race?"Yes, I have read history. Usually when advocates of
traditional marriage advocate it in terms of preserving traditional marriages
they quote examples that it is good to preserve marriage because it has always
been good.Marriage has not always been good neither should all of
its elements be preserved.I take you to examples of:*
polygamy --- rampant in ancient history, typically to favor one male having
multiple wives* women having little rights in respect to rights*
lesser forms of marriage - such as the practice of concubines* the
practice of miscegeneration, much of it having been eradicated with people
living in our lifetime. At that, many people still have issues with people
marrying outside their race* the practice of institutions going from a
married priesthood to a celibate one - only because they wanted to protect the
property rights of the medieval church* people losing their right to
marriage through slaveryHistory.
Heterosexuality: Number one cause of Homosexuality.
To Hate to Interrupt, once moreAnd I am sure you make a fine mother
and your husband makes a fine father.I would be wrong to say that
because gays are asking for same sex marriage that somehow it makes traditional
marriages any less.Traditional nuclear families are great. We do not attack them.We just want the same of what you
have.Moreover, the research shows that same-sex parents make as good
parents as nuclear two-parent households. Again, I posted those findings when I
responded two pages back. This research has been going on for years.The campaign and the findings that purport that nuclear families are better
than gay families leave out the equation of gay two-parent families. You need
to take those findings that such research to only promote traditional families
were published with that bias in mind.
A man "fathers" 21 children in 11 years by 10 different women and you are
concerned with whether or not gays "effectively" raise children? BTW, many
studies show that children raised in gay parented homes are successful, more
likely to be educationally successful and yes, more likely to experiment in same
sex relationships. If you are so concerned about "the children" why not do
something about Peter Rabbit and over 50% of children being raised by single
mothers in poverty and undereducated?
To Hate to Interrupt, once moreYou wrote,"Homosexual
"marriages" are an imagined ersatz solution to a problem that doesn't exist."I think most heterosexuals are glad that their spouse is not gay or
there would be a problem.The problem does exist when one of the
spouses finds out that their spouse is gay.Therein lies a
problem.Problem #2 --- If gay people cannot marry heterosexuals,
because by the very essence, they are not compatible, that what do gays do?
Live together? Have domestic partnerships (which do not have the same
extensions of rights as granted by marriage) --- sorry, but they don't.Converting gays from gay to straight does not work. I am still waiting for
the answer, after six months of writing about the subject. Professional
counseling, psychology, and other institutions have been writing about this for
decades. I posted their finds a couple of pages back and I won't use time to
repeat them right here.Never mind that the Church recommends
celibacy for Church gays. Think about gays outside the Church. What do they
do?What do people do about obtaining the same equal treatment under
Hate to interrupt, once more | 1:46 p.m. May 29, 2009 Using your
logic, then, that children need a father and a mother.Do you know
how many children belong to "traditional" heterosexual families?The
nuclear family is only a subset of what it constitutes to be a family. There
are other alternative types of family --- all of them, having other than both a
mother and a father.Examples:* relatives who raise
children* single parent families* parents out of wedlock*
foster homes* adoptive parents* divorced parentsAll of
these quality as non-traditional. Yet, for all the talk about
"doing it for the benefit of the children, because children need a father and a
mother" --- Prop 8 targeted, specifically, gay parents.There is
nothing to outlaw the other types of alternative families.We know
the doctrine about the LDS Church respecting the families. However,
nothing is taken to legislate that all families should fit the norm of the LDS
family model. Only the gay households are targeted.Is that a little
bit narrow?From 1970 to 2000: The percentage of nuclear families
went from 40 to 24%.
"You cannot seriously look me in the face and say that giving a child both a
father and a mother as loving role and gender models is not the ideal for
raising families and thus strengthening and preserving society."First pass laws that murderers, rapists, child molesters and violent
criminatls cannot procreate. We know these people have a much higher chance of
hurting their offspring than gays do.Are you ready to put some
action behind your words, or are you just against gays?
to - Hate to interrupt, once more | 1:46 p.m["You cannot
seriously look me in the face and say that giving a child both a father and a
mother as loving role and gender models is not the ideal for raising families
and thus strengthening and preserving society."]what does ideal
have to do with anything? do we actually base laws on the "ideal"? if so, why
is anyone allowed to drive cars run with gasoline anymore?your post
Ready?Ever heard of the constitutional convention?I may
be wrong, but I do not believe the LDS church was around then! There were
several other Christian congregations, however.You, seriously, need
to either study a little more American history, possibly to include a study of
the constitution, or not!
["The Prophets and Apostles have spoken exhaustingly, extensively on this
topic as it has been revealed to them by God"]I thought they all
died a long time ago...["Is your mind open enough to accept
their findings?"]please don't use "open mind" in a mormon
discussion. It's a little too oxymoronish.
"Then why do you continue to argue about who's God is right?"Because
you keep mentioning that your God has ordained marriage to be between a man and
a woman and you think our civil laws should reflect your gods ideas.Where do the rest of us Americans fit in if we don't agree? What if we are in
a minority? Do you get to pass legislation that set your gods morality as the
law of the land, even if it discriminates against us?
"We are talking about civil laws". Then why do you continue to argue
about who's God is right? And why is there so much hatred toward the
LDS church?I am honestly trying to keep up!
Vince wrote:"You show me the research that shows that hetero
traditional two parent households make marriages than gay two parents
households.For as long as I have been extending the invitation, NO
ONE has come forward and said, here is the research, here is the source."Vince, there's this little thing called "history" - have you heard of
it? It's hilarious to suggest that thousands of years of natural procreation
through husband and wife unions (i.e., marriage) have been, um...ineffective in
furthering the human race? You cannot seriously look me in the face
and say that giving a child both a father and a mother as loving role and gender
models is not the ideal for raising families and thus strengthening and
preserving society. Your so-called "evidence" of same-sex unions
being equally effective in independently creating, sustaining, and furthering
the human race only exists in your dreams. My husband can provide a
unique perspective that only a dad can provide to his children. I provide a
unique perspective that only a mom can provide hers. Homosexual "marriages" are
an imagined ersatz solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Why are gays fighting me on this? "to - re: huh? | 12:12 p.m." asks
how multi-party unions could be "voided" in the case of divorce. The answer is,
in legal proceedings, partnership dissolution is not rare at all. In the
business world for example, partnerships between multiple parties that share
assets are dissolved all the time, with the assets being divided among them. It
requires a court, a judge, and lawyers. If a civil union is a contract based on
love, the government can't restrict the number of parties that enter into it any
more than it can restrict the number of parties that enter into a business
contract. Then to the question, "what would women do who want
multiple partners?," it's called polyandry, and it works just like polygamy,
except there is a woman with many husbands. The way you handle it is you let
them get a civil union too. Otherwise you're discriminating.The
love each one of my beautiful wives and I share deserves legal protection and
benefits like the monogs get. Gays and polygamists should work together to
raise awareness and get the public to accept our natural behavior!!!
"I am not concerned with my Temple marriage being acceptable to the state, I am,
however constantly vigilant that my Temple marriage is accepted of God."But, isn't adultry having sex with someone that you are not "legally and
lawfully" married to? "It was not members of the LDS faith
that made the laws regarding marriage, it was God."We are not
talking about God's laws here. We are talking about civil laws. And My God
says gay marriage is all right. Why does your God get his way over mine?
"Arguments like yours are the same ones that activist gays spout ad nauseum -
"JUDGMENTAL!" or "HATE! HATER!" or "HOMOPHOBE!" Such ad hominem attacks not only
reduce the debate to absurd simplicities, but their shrillness indicates a
hypocritical lack of tolerance for opposing viewpoints." So, I guess
we are trading insults then...hypocritical lack of tolerance....I
don't know why you use the word "professed". That word, among its meanings, is
to openly affirm. Unfortunately, it also means to make pretense or pretend.
Given the tenor or your message, I assumed you were using the latter definition.
Could be my mistake.From your original post:"I don't
care what you think "makes" you gay, or if you've "tried" not to be gay, or even
that you define yourself as gay. Big whoop, good for you."I guess I
somehow fail to feel compassion or empathy in those sentences. Again, could be
my mistake. However, your use of parentheses makes it seems like you don't
believes gays are honest, which only reinforces my assumption on "professed".I'm feeling that all you have gained from your encounters with gays is
lack of empathy, not hate.My bad.
The Prophets and Apostles have spoken exhaustingly, extensively on this topic as
it has been revealed to them by God.Is your mind open enough to
accept their findings?If not, this is where we will have to part ways.
"You have every right to believe that. You do not have any right, because of
that belief, to run my life with laws that you pass that takes away my religions
right to its beliefs"Nor do have the right to suppress my voice and
beliefs.I claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according
to the dictates of my own conscience, AND ALLOW all men [women] the same
privilege.It was not members of the LDS faith that made the laws
regarding marriage, it was God.I am not concerned with my Temple
marriage being acceptable to the state, I am, however constantly vigilant that
my Temple marriage is accepted of God.
to - re: huh? | 12:12 p.m. | 12:36 p.m. May 29, 2009 The other
layer to the polygamy debate, in an era of equal rights is --- if such a thing
were to be considered for legality, what would you do for women who want
multiple husbands?Equal is equal.When you say "You're
counting the days..." haven't polygamists been doing that since 1890? That's a
lot of days.
@Vince | 10:10 a.m | 11:07 a.m. May 29, 2009 I would examine the
evidence. Many times I have blogged and I put both sets of my findings on the
blogs for anyone to refute, and so far, nothing.So far, all the
evidence I have been shown is anecdotal - as in "My cousin used to be gay."
This is so typical of many of the stories I read from the ex-gay movement,
etc.On the other hand, there are tons of other research with
numbers, data, etc.On the point of two parent traditional
households, they ALWAYS leave out the gay two parent household out of the
equation.If you have something to show me, please do.
["As a polygamist, I'm counting down the days until consenting adults can be
united or "married" without having to meet arbitrary criteria made up by the
majority to oppress minorities with different points of view."]lol. unfortunately, the govt will insist the civil union be a two-party
contract. Trying to "void" (ie - divorce) multiparty contracts would be too
difficult to manage. How would property be split if the first wife leaves when
there are 3 other wives wanting their share of the properties?how
would that work?
"We believe the fundamental principles of our Faith began in the
Pre-Existence."You have every right to believe that. You do not
have any right, because of that belief, to run my life with laws that you pass
that takes away my religions right to its beliefs. We were conducting gay
marriages in California that were accepted by the state. With the passage of
Prop 8, are gay marriages are now NOT acceptable. How would you
like it if I passed a law that states that your temple marriages are not
acceptable to the state? Can you see where you have trampled on our
beliefs? Why doesn't this bother you? Don't you think you could be next?
I hope you're right. As a polygamist, I'm counting down the days until
consenting adults can be united or "married" without having to meet arbitrary
criteria made up by the majority to oppress minorities with different points of
view. If my wives and I love each other, why should we be denied the rights
given to "monogs?"The debate is OVER!!! Marriage rights should be
based on love and love only!!!
God's law? R U SERIOUS?????why should everyone believe in your
fairy tales of mystic beings, Dennis?is that a law too?how funny that you think everyone should abide by the ramblings of your god.
Question: How far back do the Quakers go?Answer:"The Religious Society of Friends, also known as The Quakers, is a
movement that began in England in the 17th century.The word "Quaker" means to
tremble in the way of the Lord. In its early days it faced opposition and
persecution; however, it continued to expand, extending into many parts of the
world, especially the Americas and Africa."We believe the
fundamental principles of our Faith began in the Pre-Existence.Do
you want to discuss how man has changed principles through the centuries?Unfortunately, such a discussion would only serve to confuse and
rationalize deviation from an undiluted conversation about who God is. No wonder, "God will do nothing, but He reveal His will through His prophet".
People fail to understand everyone has the right to be married, traditional
marriage is law, God ordained marriage between men/women, Gods law should up
held, the LDS church is not the only ones who took a stand in favor of prop 8
yet you attack us why? Is it because of your hatred for the LDS faith and it's
people, if I were Catholic you would not condemn me or even if I were
evangelistic it would be the same they believe the same as we do yet we are the
ones who are codenamed why? I doubt your answer would be logical you just want
to heat us and that is sad, you don't have to believe the way we do nor do we
expect you to. We don't hate people with same sex attraction we prefer to
follow Gods law and it says that same sex is wrong. Who should we follow? man
or God? I choose God and there is nothing anyone can do to change me if that
makes you angry so be it thats your problem Gods law prevails.
why are you people still debating this? the laws will be changed so everyone
has civil unions. states will no longer recognize "marriage", they will
recognize civil unions for everyone. (makes sense - after all it is a civil
contract.)"marriage" will be something between you and your church
and your god(s). of course, anyone will be able to get "married" as long as a
church is willing to do the ceremony, and I think there are plenty of churches
that will allow gay marriage.so the word "marriage" will go back to
what you want it to be - a religious term. it will have no legal standing. you got your way - only churches will be able to "marry" people, so now
all you have to do is control your churches. good luck with that.and in the end, after you say "I do" in your church, you will be able to say
you're "married". But then so will the gay couple right behind you - so it's
not really clear to me that you came out ahead. But you got to keep
the word "marriage" so that should be some sort of consolation prize...
Would you accept, [the evidence], if it were presented to you?
this should be called prop H8. people's rights are being stripped away. wait
till your rights are taken away, and no one stands up for you. if you don't
stand up for minorities in need of help, soon there will be no one left to stand
up for you when you too are in need. good job on your quest to spread hate.
@AdamsSaint Serge and Saint Bacchus were married by the early
Christian Church. Many Ancient cultures had gay life partners sanctioned every
bit as much as marriage, including dowery, and land and property going directly
to the widower. Thebes, Sparta, Athens, Mespotamia, Persia, Egypt, Japan, Native
Hate to interrupt, again... | 9:38 a.m. May 29, 2009 With the story,
yes, it's sad, I admit, sorry to hear that.It's one of the points I
have been making - A gay person married to a hetero marriage for the most part
doesn't work, and yet, people want gay people to act and convert to
heterosexuals, as if it was something they could turn on or off.
"Nowhere has our Creator granted a right for people to engage in homosexual
relations, let alone homosexual "marriage." "That might be YOUR
creator, not mine. I am Quaker and we have absolutely no problem with gays and
gay marriage. Why should we use your creator over mine? After all,
my church was here before yours!
What is going to help the nation the most: allowing gays to marry or not? Look at what France did: one of the most liberal countries in the world,
and it doesn't allow gay marriage. Why? After research and several studies,
they found that it is not beneficial to society as a whole if they allow gay
marriage. Less children, less progress, fewer people to pay taxes. From an economical standpoint, it is not beneficial to legalize gay marriage.
Hate to interrupt this love spat | 1:43 a.m. May 29, 2009 Great.You show me the research that shows that hetero traditional two parent
households make marriages than gay two parents households.For as
long as I have been extending the invitation, NO ONE has come forward and said,
here is the research, here is the source.I have shown evidence based
on research --- point for point. When your side faces the absence of data to
back up your claims, all you can do is downplay my arguments, but you have
nothing to prove the point.What is your argument, besides your
opinion?Anyone can have an opinion, however lacking with evidence it
There is no such thing as gay "marriage," regardless of what the homosexual
lobby or a state legislature may say. Marriage is between a man and a woman (or
women in the case of polygamoy) and has been since the dawn of civilization.
Calling a homosexual relationship a "marriage" doesn't make it a marriage any
more than calling a weed a "rose" make it a rose.Moreover, there is
no such thing as a "right" to gay "marriage." The country's founding political
philosophy is contained in the Declaration of Independence (and other
documents), which indicates that we have been "endowed by [our] Creator
with certain unalienable Rights," and that governments are instituted to "secure
these rights," not to create them. In other words, the unalienable rights we
have are granted by our Creator, not the government, state, federal, or
foreign.Nowhere has our Creator granted a right for people to engage
in homosexual relations, let alone homosexual "marriage." To the contrary, the
basic texts of our Judeo-Christian tradition uniformly denounce homosexual
relations as an "abomination." The same for Islam.One can reject
the country's founding political philosophy but one cannot change the facts.
"With your obvious lack of compassion as demonstrated in your post, I believe
"hate" is a proper word for you to have chosen for its title."This I
get a kick out of...how about before passing judgment on people, you should get
to understand them...have you ever even talked to a straight person?Arguments like yours are the same ones that activist gays spout ad nauseum -
"JUDGMENTAL!" or "HATE! HATER!" or "HOMOPHOBE!" Such ad hominem attacks not
only reduce the debate to absurd simplicities, but their shrillness indicates a
hypocritical lack of tolerance for opposing viewpoints. My uncle
professed his gayness about 10 years into his marriage. It devastated his wife,
and really messed with his sons' heads. Any infidelity, gay or straight, within
marriage is wrong, but the gender confusion for his children on top the
infidelity only made a bad situation worse.I've also directed
university-level discussion groups that hosted members from the GLBT community
to communicate the unique challenges of being gay. A few of my suburban
neighbors are gay. The gay couple are exemplary neighbors. The lesbians have
very public domestic violence issues. You asked, didn't you?
["They are different. I thought they were proud of that... so why can't we
call their union something different?"]you really don't get it,
do you. Their union won't be called something different. EVERYONE WILL HAVE
CIVIL UNIONS, and after they (and you) have the civil union, then they (and you)
will be able to say "yes, we're married".so I don't know what you
mean by "call it something different". Yes, you'll be able to have a "marriage"
ceremony in your church, but SO WILL THEY! (well, probably not in your church,
but in theirs if they have one.it's clear most of you don't
understand this simple concept.... everyone will have civil unions for the
legal aspects, and everyone will have church "marriage" if they choose to have
one.your heterosexual "marriage" won't mean any more than a SSM.
Hope that meets your needs....
"For the professed homosexuals: I don't care what you think "makes" you gay, or
if you've "tried" not to be gay, or even that you define yourself as gay. Big
whoop, good for you."With your obvious lack of compassion as
demonstrated in your post, I believe "hate" is a proper word for you to have
chosen for its title."professed homosexuals"? Before
passing judgment on people, you should get to understand them. Have you ever
even talked to a gay person?
"fortunately, what you believe doesn't matter. To say "as far as I am concerned"
means absolutely nothing."It does if it is the truth. Marriage
is NOT a right granted by the Constitution of the United States or the
amendments to it. As I pointed out, it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court has
ruled in the past, they have made a lot of boneheaded decisions. What matters is
what they currently rule. As I see it I eventually win in the short term by a
5-4 vote, when this all gets appealed.As for you declaring victory,
I haven't lost yet. This is just wishful thinking on your part assuming it will
work out the way that you want it to.In other words, for you to say
what you think will happen means absolutely nothing.
But it's clear that much of the recent "debate" here has boiled down to a
handful (if that) of folks who like to listen to the sound of themselves
typing.For the professed homosexuals: I don't care what you think
"makes" you gay, or if you've "tried" not to be gay, or even that you define
yourself as gay. Big whoop, good for you. What I do care about is
that you are trying to force public validation for your supposed "private"
lifestyles and equate a homosexual union to that of a traditional marriage based
hugely on the criterion of love being the great equalizer. Such behavior has
major social implications, not the least of which is the further diminishing of
gender roles in our society, especially in relation to raising children. And just because some gays may already have children doesn't negate the
fact that, overwhelmingly, children are better off with a father AND a mother in
the home. This is the model that works for society, and it has been proven both
empirically and practically through milennia. Activist gays' desires to have
their consciences massaged will come at the expense of future generations.
"marriage will revert back to a religious term as you wish. but you will have to
have a civil union to be legally "married" so everyone will win. You'll have
your sacred word "marriage" and everyone will have civil unions. Unfortunately,
since everyone will have civil unions, everyone will still be able to say "yes,
we're married"."I would be happy with that outcome. The news (I
know... not very reliable) made it seem like the gay community was indeed
fighting over the word 'married' saying 'separate is not equal' which I didn't
agree with. The word 'marriage' is indeed a big deal, it has been a defining
word of an important tradition for over 5000 years. To be forced to legally
change the definition of that word seems completely childish to me. It would be
like being forced to call homosexuals heterosexuals because calling them
something different separates them... They are different. I thought they were
proud of that... so why can't we call their union something different?(I agree that denying gays a union (even though I don't understand the gay
mentality) is discrimination)-Akellis
to - RE:to Dave in Midvale | 2:47 p.m | 4:59 p.m. ["As far as I am
concerned, rights are defined in the constitution or its amendments, and I don't
see anything in there about marriage."]fortunately, what you
believe doesn't matter. To say "as far as I am concerned" means absolutely
nothing.marriage will revert back to a religious term as you wish.
but you will have to have a civil union to be legally "married" so everyone will
win. You'll have your sacred word "marriage" and everyone will have civil
unions. Unfortunately, since everyone will have civil unions, everyone will
still be able to say "yes, we're married". You can't regulate speech...how's it feel to win by losing so badly?
To SS,Further,"Research does not support
conversion therapy as an effective treatment modality"Source:
American Counseling AssociationEthical issues related to conversion or
reparative therapy(News) 05.22.06By Joy S. Whitman, Harriet L.
Glosoff, Michael M. Kocet and Vilia TarvydasMoreover,From the APA,"In the last four decades, 'reparative' therapists have not
produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure.
Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical
practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation,
keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm."Will all
due respect, SS, I have made mention to these facts in the past, and how
reparative therapies have a history of not working.Further, you
wrote,"When I present these facts, I get emotional snipes rather
than facts to the contrary."Please show me how the data I have
shown, not my data, incidentally, is "emotional snipes?"And I
repeat, some of the questions I have asked towards your camp usually go answered
as in,"You have good things to say, Vince, but..."Never
acknowledging how the very reparative cure you advance does not work.
to SS,You wrote,"4) Other in-born and/or developed
tendencies, such as alcoholism, pedophilia, etc are treated, often at great
cost. Why is homosexuality the exception?"Because the great
overwhelming amount of information shows that reparative therapy does not
work,From an article as old as 1997,Psychologists
Reconsider Gay `Conversion' Therapy; Group's Proposal Seeks to Curb Such
Treatment "The nation's largest society of psychologists today will
consider a resolution aimed at discrediting the controversial practice of using
psychological therapy to try to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. The effort by the American Psychological Association to severely
restrict the circumstances under which it would be ethical to practice
"reparative therapy" has the support of many medical and professional
organizations, and is in keeping with the association's 1973 resolution that
homosexuality is not a mental illness. But the new proposal is vehemently
opposed by a vocal minority of psychologists, psychiatrists and religious
groups"Source: Washington PostAugust 14, 1997Another source,"Reparative Therapy Not Effective"Date,
January 15, 1999Source: Psychiatric News Professional NewsStill another,From the American Academy of Pedriatrics, "Therapy
directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated"
Further, to SS,Vince | 7:40 p.m. April 8, 2009 Empirical
dataThe topic of whether gays experienced sexual abuse as children
keeps returning. Does anyone have empirical data?There are the
anecdotal references of "I know three friends and two of them were abused" etc.,
However, statistically, we have to account on empirical scientific data.* The APA says that there is no conclusive reason as to what makes a
person gay or not* In a research done by Ratner P.A. et al (2003)
the research for one specific data on a control group showed that, "14% of gays
were sexually abused as children"In general, "Researchers estimate
that, in our country, about 10% of boys and 25% of girls are sexually
abused."In 1994, the American Psychological Association, the
American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers
submitted,"We begin with a discussion of the latest scientific
research on the nature of sexual orientation. This research firmly and
consistently rejects the widespread assumptions that sexual orientation is the
same as sexual conduct, that sexual orientation is freely chosen and readily
subject to alteration.Source: Romer v. Evans, Full Brief, 1994.
To SS,When you wrote,"1) Not all gays are born that way
as I have cited you example after example of men I know who are sexually
confused after being assaulted as adolescents by older gay men"You
are corect when you say that not all gays claim to be born that way.I don't know the numbers for how many claim to be born way versus how many
found out later in life, as in when they were adults. (I know, go figure, some
of you might be surprised that I don't have stats for that)From
APA,"Is Sexual Orientation a Choice? No, human beings
cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For MOST (my caps) people, sexual
orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience.
Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not
consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily
changed."Further, when you compare the numbers of heterosexual
people who were abused as children versus gay people who were abused as children
there is no significant difference.
The supreme court has also ruled in the past that States could forbid women from
voting, that "separate but equal" is alright, that the eugenic practices of the
early 1900s were OK. Shall we go back to those based on precedent? As far as I
am concerned, rights are defined in the constitution or its amendments, and I
don't see anything in there about marriage.
Bill to Vince| 2:58 p.m. May 28, 2009 The big mystery behind this
whole scenario is that there are contradicting lifeviews on being gay vs.
"protecting traditional marriage." And the views go and on, without anyside
seeming able to compromise on anything.The big mystery, as I was
saying, is that it does not take reading a book or two about being gay. It does
not take pouring through blogs of the gay side or the blogs of the LDS side.I do not need to remind, for those of us who are gays, there is a
transition time for those who come out of the closet. Many gays struggle coming
out, and for those closeted, they stay closeted forever. It's everyone's
decision.For the LDS perspective, not the time or the place here,
there is a certain change, etc. conversion process, if you will. But enough on
that...Am I surprised that many will not want to hear gays when
tensions run high? No, it does not surprise me.But it does surprise
me when people believe ANYTHING, superficial as it may be, without digging to
see if there is any truth.
Re, Bill to Vince | 2:58 p.m. May 28, 2009 The best case scenario is
this, looking at legitimate doctrine of the Church.* Homosexuality
is not allowed* Not in the Plan of Salvation* Hopefully gays will
be changed in the life hereafter.* the official doctrine of the Church,
"We don't know what makes people gay."Research indicates that
changing from gay to heterosexual fail in the most extreme.And so,
on the one hand, we have the doctrine of the Church, which we cannot refute.On the other, we have our self-identity. I, for one, don't live in the
closet anymore. Can't go through life pretending someone I am not.Moreover, on the topic of making choices ---When
people constantly speak endlessly on and on and on about how being gay is a
choice.Excuse me...I didn't choose to be this way.Were it up to me, in fact, I would have changed for the advantages of
being heterosexual. The point of the matter is, such attitudes drive toward
self-hatred and they are, in the end, counter-productive.
Re: Bill to Vince | 2:58 p.m. May 28, 2009 essence what it boils
down to.Gays who are doing the question phase try to date women.And the research shows that gay LDS men who marry women are by an
overwhelming majority doomed to fail.And people talk about having
the change --- I guess from gay to straight.Again, tried, and
tried.I, for one, have had many things to gain from "converting"
from gay to heterosexual.1. a chance not to be harrassed anymore.
Really, who needs it?2. a chance to be accepted3. a place within
the plan of salvation4. promises/blessings - you know, the whole
packageAnd so, you come into the inroads of your life and you say
----really... you followed the instructions... you followed the
gospel, and I, for one, know the power of prayer and the Priesthood, you're
preaching to the choir.Then you search inside and you find out...I'm still gay.To date women would be to lie.Have
you ever been rejected by a woman because you were gay?How many
times can you hit yourself against a wall till you say it hurts?
Bill to Vince | 2:58 p.m. May 28, 2009 Thank you for your kind
words.Yes, I know everything you're saying. Believe me,
these are the very principles that I have used.When you speak of
"urges" it sounds as if heterosexuals don't have urges.True, urges
to be controlled and used within the bonds of matrimony/marriage, etc.When I speak, I don't mean to come across as anti-Church, which some readers
have mistaken me for, but rather, as pro-gay.And true, you have
touched on The Plan of Salvation, a plan, which, frankly, we gays look at it,
and boom, we ask, where is our place in it?Joseph Smith taught that
about the plan of happiness. And we know that "man is that he might have
joy."Automatically, without being able to marry a woman, we are not
allowed to have happiness?Then, some would say --- don't date men,
don't give up on women - or whatever they might say.Date women?
Hmmm.And as people have recommended in this blog, ask for the mighty
change of heart. I am making light of the subject, this is in...
"Your statement is false. Try reading Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court
states that marriage is a right."And Virginia has a constitutional
amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Make sure you
don't take things out of context. The supreme court of Virginia
ruled that marriage is a right, and that right only goes to one man and one
woman who consent. In Virginia, marriage is not a right extended to
persons of the same gender. Get your facts straight! ;)
Dave,What is the legal difference between a "right" and a
"privilege"?Please cite case law to show that this difference does
not just exist in your warped head.
No one said they were. You are perfectly entitled to any and all religious
beliefs you have. It's when you assert that your religious beliefs should be
law do people have a problem with that.
"But is somethings is "regulated" then it is NOT a right."Gun
ownership is regulated but it is a right.Free speech is a right but
has limitations.Freedom of religion is a right but you are not
allowed to offer human sacrifices - it is regulated to an extent too.Your statement is false. Try reading Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court
states that marriage is a right.
"Why are my religious beliefs any less valid than your urges?"Prop 8 did NOTHING to make homosexuality illegal. It had nothing to do with
urges. If gay marriage is the law of the land, you will still have
your religious beliefs. You will still be worshipping as you wish. It will
change nothing for you. Talk to some members in Mass. They have had gay
marriage for 5 years and they still believe, are still attending the Boston
temple, and are getting along fine with their gay neighbors who have married.
Isn't that amazing?It has done absolutely nothing to their
Since when has contract termination complexity been an issue in contract law or
legal structuring? Lawyers will push multiple partner union
discrimination lawsuits (to make money) and then be chomping at their respective
bits to get in on the contract termination action once those unions start
separating (to make money)!!! My prediction: Hugh Heffner and
several bunnies will be the first in line for a multiple partner union.
Vince,I have been reading your comments for a while now, and I must
say I would like to meet you someday. You seem intelligent, rational,
reasonable, kind and well-educated.Amazing that you are gay, too!(just joking)
I was raised in a family with heterosexual parents and was not exposed to and
"formal homosexual relationship(s)" as you so put it. So why am I gay? It
wasn't nurtured into me. And before you play the choice card, I
will ask... Why would I choose this?
"You can teach same-sex marriage in public schools if I can teach about the Book
of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the Restoration. Tit for tat...if we're really
going for equality, let's level the playing field."All that is
already in American History books. Gay marriage is a fact in Mass, Maine,
Vermont, Iowa, and Connecticut. It will be in the history books too.
To SS (continued)You wrote,"And finally to Vince, we
just have to agree to disagree as the facts I have presented repeatedly are
falling on (your) deaf ears."Sorry --- my last comment will show how
I recorded my views in the past. You and I have spoken before. I do believe I
have answered the questions.However, on the other hand, I have
presented many facts related to how the "solution that is presented to gays - do
not work" and no one answers to those questions.Whose deaf ears are
"People who practice homosexuality should not be allowed to adopt children
because the cause of homosexuality (nature vs. nurture) has not been
determined."They can and do have their own offspring. Should we
take those children away from gays? Heterosexuals that are child
abusers, murderers, violent criminals can all marry and procreate. There is NO
limit for them. What is wrong with this picture.If you start
limiting who can raise a child, start with those we know will probably harm
their children, not those that we do not have any facts to back up our
Only 18,000? | 9:18 a.m. May 28, 2009 This is not news to the
gay community.Many gay couples go through the routine of getting
married, getting a civil union, domestic partnership, as the laws in the state
change.They are married now.Then they are not.Then they are.Not.And so forth.With the
current ruling, we are looking with the benefit of hindsight. Many gays would
like to be married until they know that their marriage will stand the test of
courts, votes, time, etc.
re: marriage will cease | 12:04 p.m. May 28, 2009 This is the
difference between same sex marriage and polygamy or marrying someone's cousin,
etc.Gays have two "choices" according to people to want gays to
abandon their "lifestyle."Either get married to the opposite sex or
live celibate lives.Studies show that neither of these work.What are other alternatives are there?On the other hand, I
do not believe that "research indicates that people are born to be polygamists
or marry their cousin."There is nothing out there.However, on the issue of gay marriage, studies continue to indicate that gays
have little choice in the matter as to whom they love.Polygamists
and incestors, adulterers, etc. --- do not have a social movement that says
"there is little choice in the matter of how we are. We were born to be
polygamists."Are there such studies?Please show.Until then, please stop making the comparisons if you cannot back up
with research and a legal basis.
to - re: marriage will cease | 12:04 p.m.a civil union wil be
between TWO consenting adults. Anything else gets too complicated for contract
termination. so no - you won't have your polygamy wishes come true...
First off...God does not exist, so that and religion is not a valid argument
against gay marriage.Second, there is vitro fertilization that
people can use to get pregnant, along with adoption, foster homes, and other
government provided options available for loving same-sex couples--so the cannot
procreate argument is bogus. Third, if you recognize one form of
marriage but not another (namely, traditional marriage vs. gay marriage), then
you are discriminating against the one you do not recognize by virtue of the
fact that it is not eligible for the same benefits that other marriages get.
Procreation doesn't make a difference--that's just genetic sexual
makeup of one's body that's the difference. You can't bring science into
politics like that--it's illogical. Fourth, as far as this crazy
"nature vs. nurture" argument you're making, I don't think a psychological
theory flies. Same-sex couples have already shown they can raise strong
children as heterosexual couples in traditional marriages already do. To let
one type of marriage adopt while disallowing another is flat discrimination, a
lack of equality with regard to family structure, and ethically intolerable.
To Bill,Let the Church proclaim whatever it wants to for its
members. But stay out of the civil courts and the civil laws!
You didn't go far enough in your conjecture. Actually, if what you described
occurs, then all adult relationships will benefit from the same rights.
Polygamists, polyandrists, polyamorists, adulterers, etc. will all eventually
have their unions honored by the government because nothing makes the "love"
felt in those relationships any less legitimate than the "love" two people who
practice homosexuality together feel. If marriage is simply a legal
contract between consenting adults, and denying two adults who practice
homosexuality together the right to marry is discrimination, isn't denying other
combinations of adults the right to marry discrimination too?
Yes, that will make most happy. Allow civil unions for legally consenting
adults followed by religious marriage if desired. BTW, that is all that the LDS
Church ever asked for and I'm not LDS and don't honestly have an issue with gay
unions. The problem is that the gay side never listened or they would have
heard, instead they foamed from the mouth while screaming "you are taking away
my rights." Listening solves so many problems.
the end result of this will be a change in the code allowing civil unions for
all people. The word marriage will revert back to what all you religious people
want - a religious ceremony. Everyone that wants to be joined will have to go
to city hall (or other designated location) and get a civil union. If you want
to go to your church and get "married" you will be more than welcome to do so,
but it will have no legal impact and will just be between you and your
god(s).so the religious will get their way (you will "own" the word
"marriage" - good for you - have fun with it) but everyone will have the same
legal rights. And the people you were trying to stop from getting "married"
will still be able to say to people - "yes, we're married" - just to see your
deer-in-the-headlights look and to see you cringe.but hey - it won't
be called "marriage" so you will have won. Does this result make you happy?
["Besides, a person who equates the Bible to superstition and fairy tales is
woefully uninformed and obviously not capable of understanding both sides of
this issue."]actyually, the fact is people that try to impose
their religious beliefs onto the general population with actual laws are
woefully misinformed and not capable of understanding both sides of the
issue.my comment about fairy tales was meant to highlight that not
everyone believes as you do. But religious people still insist that everyone
conform to their standards, even when their standards come from what many
believe to be a mystical being and backwoods superstition...thats
To SS,1. I don't believe I have ever said that ALL gays were born
that way.2. I don't believe I have ever used or advanced the animal
rationale to explain human homosexuality. We can check the record.3. I
believe I have gone on record that the Bible says what it says and I have gone
on record that the Church teaches what it teaches. Church/state is what I am
arguing.4. Pedophilia, alcoholism has been talked about in recent
posts.However, other issues we have talked about remain unresolved.
That comment was NOT written by a gay person. You guys fell for a troll. There
isn't a gay person that would like marriage to stop between two opposite sex
persons. We love our families, and want EVERYONE to be happy with the life that
they choose.Sorry you had to read that garbage. Believe me, it
Way to actually read the conversation, "buddy." The commenter at 6:36 pm was
responding to Red, correcting his insistant accusations that LDS official
doctrine is inline with SSM, which it most definitely is not. They were not
preaching to anybody, they were not saying that anybody had to believe in the
doctrine, and they weren't using that doctrine to shout anybody down about the
validity of SSM. They were explaining to Red that he was purposely misreading
the doctrine, purposely skipping half the comment he kept quoting, to make his
point, which was inaccurate. He argued repeatedly that he was right on what the
official LDS doctrine on the subject is, and he was wrong, and that poster was
simply explaining that. Chill out, okay? There's no need to hurl insults at
somebody for pointing out the proper church doctrine on the subject. If you
don't believe it, don't read the post and leave it at that.
I have to ask if there is an acceptable "middle ground" in all of this.
First, to the guy/gal who told me to be quiet and allow civil debate, you must
not be reading the posts. They're anything but civil. I just see people
getting more hardened in their views.Second, to the guy/gal who
defended me, thanks, but I can defend myself. Besides, a person who equates the
Bible to superstition and fairy tales is woefully uninformed and obviously not
capable of understanding both sides of this issue.And finally to
Vince, we just have to agree to disagree as the facts I have presented
repeatedly are falling on (your) deaf ears. 1) Not all gays are born that way
as I have cited you example after example of men I know who are sexually
confused after being assaulted as adolescents by older gay men, 2) Studies in
the animal kingdom conclude that same-sex relations are about domination not
attraction, 3) Homosexuality is inarguably condemned throughout the Bible, 4)
Other in-born and/or developed tendencies, such as alcoholism, pedophilia, etc
are treated, often at great cost. Why is homosexuality the exception?When I present these facts, I get emotional snipes rather than facts to the
Have any of your read the ruling?The CA Supreme Court said that Prop
8 stands which is to say that they upheld the majority's wish that the word
"marriage" cannot apply to same sex couples. Then they went on, quite
pointedly, to say that there is no way in which same sex couples can be denied
anything other than the use of the *word*. They affirmed that same sex couples
-- already and not yet married -- were entitled to every other protection of the
law and could not be discriminated against in any way. They can
have "weddings". They can demand full recognition of their legal status in CA.
They can adopt. They can use the words "husband" and "wife". They can even use
the word "married" in their everyday lives -- they just will just have to expect
the law to use a different word. Was that worth what you guys paid
out to discriminate against your fellow Americans? Meanwhile, your belligerence
seems to have gotten NY, ME, IA, etc. off the dime. Well done!
I agree with ronald. It is baby steps... little by little each group that wants
their way will get it until this nation is so backward it cant figure which way
is up. Morality is beginning to wane and I feel another Sodom and Gomorrah
coming on... pillars of salt anyone?
John Pack Lambert | 11:34 a.m. May 27, 2009 You wrote,"Anyway, for some reason he does not tell us the actual rate of divorce in
Utah. That is very, very fishy on his part."Nothing fishy.I did post an entry with Utah divorce numbers and it did not get published.I will try again.2001 4.22002 4.02003
3.92004 4.02005 3.9Source: Utah Department of
HealthCenter for Health Data
Hey buddy---Who are you to sit here with your so-called Mormon books
from the sky and preach to the choir about this stuff?This stuff is
just your personal opinion of what you believe to be true in your own mind, but
you do not speak for the majority of Americans, nor do that majority share your
so-called faith. The day you arrogant Mormons learn that not
everyone in the world thinks and wants to be like you are is the day that maybe
people will start to leave you be to do your stuff. But until then,
don't be surprised when we think you're out of line by preaching your standards
to us--we don't appreciate being told we're wrong, and don't do to us what you
wouldn't want done to yourself if you were in our place.
You seem to be forgetting the rest of that statement you keep quoting. The full thing is: "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred
powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully
wedded as husband and wife." If you're going to quote it, quote the
entire thing, okay?
"Sexual relations between spouses in these couples is "legal and lawful" -- and,
therefore, chaste according to LDS doctrine." Sorry, Red. The Family
Proclamation is an outlining of official church doctrine. Is the Proclamation
official scripture? Not as such, but it is simply a restatement of everything
that the LDS churches as OFFICIAL DOCTRINE according to the family. The LDS
church considers sexual relations outside of a male/female marriage to be in
violation of their rules on chastity, per their official doctrine. That includes
all homosexual activity, whether in a legal marriage or not. That is
why, in every single paragraph you will find outlining the law of chastity, they
specifically mention consensual homosexual behavior as something that is
forbidden under any and all circumstances. That is the official church doctrine,
not the abbreviated version that you keep spouting off about. A
quick search of LDS.org, a look in the Church Handbook of Instructions, any
General Conference talk on the subject, statements from the First Presidency and
Apostles, and For the Strength of the Youth, not to mention the scriptures, will
tell you as much. Stop being deliberately obtuse, you know the doctrine as well
as any of us.
SS | 1:42 p.m. May 27, 2009 I think through discussion, people can
learn what is reasonable, logical --- what it is to be gay --- what it is not to
be gay.The exact opposite is true, as a matter of fact, the absence
of a civil discussion will not let anyone open/change his mind. People can peel
through the layers of what is faulty logic, what is hearsay, what is doctrine,
what is law, etc. etc.Were not for discussions like these --- I will
add, how would you explain that the vote with Prop 22 went from a high majority
to a slim margin with Prop 8? Granted, many will never change their
mind, for better or worse.
Red | 2:10 p.m. May 27, 2009 I think Red, the LDS Church governs
under two levels of relations when it comes to same-sex marriage.Yes, you are right, no sex outside of marriage.At the same time,
no sex with the same gender, regardless of how legal the wedding is.We might disagree in theory, and you and I might go back and forth as far as
what we think the doctrine is. The bottom line is when a gay person stands in
front of his bishop, a high council, stake president, and stake presidency in
relation to "conduct unbecoming an LDS member" I think excommunication,
disfellowship, or any other kind of ecclesiastical reprimand.I take
you to an article published by DN, March 15, 2006.Gay man faces LDS
excommunication over marriageBy Jennifer DobnerAssociated Press It reads in part,"SALT LAKE CITY A gay man who is a
lifetime member of the LDS Church could be facing disciplinary action and
excommunication after legally marrying his partner in Canada."
France has come up with a solution for this very polarizing issue - they have
removed the legal term 'marriage' and now issue civil-union licenses for any two
consulting adults. Couples may take their civil-union license and be married in
a church or leave it a civil union....The whole issue here is the term
'marriage' - the legal defintion and the religious definition. By removing the
legal definition, each church is free to establish their own interpretation of
the word marriage and set their own standards based on their beliefs. If one
church allows gays to 'marry' other churches can look upon it as invalid, but
the legal system would extend the same tax breaks, rights, etc. to all civil
union couples. This would remove the 'discrimination' arguement from the
gay side, but they would have to allow each religion to set their own
requirements for 'marriage' in their own institutions.Are there people on
either side of this issue that are looking for a reasonable compromise?
In many circles here in Utah, it is. I know people who have framed the letter
and hung it next to their University degrees.
Bill to Red 2:59 "It is a teaching of the LDS Church and doctrine that any sexul
relationship outside of marriage as defined by the Church which is between a man
and a woman is an abomination before the Lord." Sorry, I must
disagree. I'm thinking of the phrase "legally and lawfully wedded." Churches don't define what's "legal and lawful." Governments do. When the Church agreed to obey, honor, and sustain the law -- and then used
the phrase "legal and lawful" -- it committed itself to accepting whatever the
civil government defines that phrase to mean. And there are now
thousands of "legally and lawfully wedded" gay couples in California. Sexual relations between spouses in these couples is "legal and lawful" --
and, therefore, chaste according to LDS doctrine.
This is not about "gay marriage." It is about equal protection under the
law.The California Supreme Court's ruling only said that California
voters had a right to amend their constitution and that the initiative did not
violate the rights of gays under STATE laws. In doing so the majority opinion
took great pains to try and limit the decision's impact.Now it is
rightly being challenged in FEDERAL court under the equal protection clause of
the US CONSTITUTION. The fact that the State Supremem Court honored the
validity of the 18,000 LEGAL same sex marriages already perfomed will make it
very difficult for the US Supreme Court to deny equal protection. You religious conservatives have been out-foxed!
["Therefore, those living in a same-sex relationship will be subject to
excommunication from the Church"]isn't that a good thing?
I can tell somebody to be quiet if they're trying to silence me from having a
voice.In the meantime, I agree with what you said. People are
waking up to this, especially the younger people, and this issue will be a moot
point in 10 years indeed (yes, even in Utah, and all you Mormons will be eating
your own words).
stop being a religious robot. can't you people think for yourselves instead of
quoting people that don't know any more than you or me (and probably knows a lot
Good Day Sir!You are so profound! Why don't you spend
your time more productively and "PROVE" that there is no God? Then we will all
be free to do whatever we please, under the cover of the "equal protection
clause."I am sure you would win the NOBEL PRIZE if you could do
that. You would instantly become the most powerful individual on the earth. HOWEVER, you would also have to "PROVE" that there is no devil, because
we "so-called Christians" believe in him also. Which is precisely why we do not
exercise our free agency, and give into the PROCLIVITIES of the natural man or
woman and do as we please because the CONSTITUTION says we can? I am sorry to inform you, you and yours are living the fairy-tale of self
indulgence and extreme sexual fantasy at the peril of your own exaltation.
Seriously, why would you want to throw it all away? Could it be "free will".Are you, 'absolutely positive', your claims of "equal protection under
the law" will only go as far as homosexual marriage?Anxiously
awaiting your findings.Apparently you will have plenty of support in
Alcoholism is a Physical Disease and Pedophilia is a Mental Illness that preys
upon a minor, unable to give consent. Homosexuality is a Sexual Orientation,
classified as neither a Disease or Mental Illness. That is the difference.
don't tell him to be quiet. it is in fact ridiculous to keep debating an issue
that neither side is going to change their mind on.the fact is -
superstition and fairy tales are causing people to prevent everyone from being
treated equally. equal treatment for all isn't a tough notion - it's common
sense. But so many people believe in fairy tales and superstition that common
sense gets thrown out the window.more and more people are waking up
to this fact, especially young (non-utah) people, so the issue will be mute in a
decade or so.
Vince 6:56: "The church can accept or deny marriages, in this case, it is
altogether against same sex marriages, regardless of the the state sanctioning
marriages." You can certainly find lots of quotes from the Brethren
dissing same-sex marriage, but as far as I know, the only LDS *doctrine* on the
subject is: Sexual relations are reserved for, and only moral for,
those in a legal and lawful marriage. If a same-sex marriage is
legal and lawful, then those in that marriage remain chaste and moral if they
have sexual relations with each other. I'm pretty sure there's a
long standing LDS policy that a member with same-sex attraction "problems"
remains moral so long as s/he doesn't participate in non-chaste, immoral
activity. Since sexual relations within a legal, lawful marriage are
chaste and moral, my previous post still stands.
You be quiet. No one asked for your ideas--all you want to do is just demonize
civil debate that is taking place. We have the right to free speech
and media in this country to express our views, and we are doing so. There are
plenty of places you can go to do your thing, but if you are on here wondering
why we are having a civil debate on this issue, then you are in the wrong place.
You guys are all still on here arguing about this? What's the use? Do you
think one mind or heart has been changed by reading the attacks going back and
forth?Neither side is going to concede or compromise. At best, we
can expect that some states will recognize gay marriage and other states will
have the right not to have to recognize those marriages.
Hey it's me, re: Vince | 4:06 p.m.I'm not surprised, but you totally
sidesteped my comment. I wasn't saying that gay couples and
polygamous multi-couples were indentical. I was merely pointing out that their
"tactics" are identical to the gay agenda. You were attacking their tactics.
Clearly, the same tactics espoused by the gay community.Why
shouldn't polygamists use the same tactics as gays? If you can use the
"equality" subterfuge, why can't other minority groups. If it's equality for
ALL that gays are advocating, you had better mean ALL. Otherwise, you're just a
hypocrite and a bigot.
"To the 9:41 commentator,Are you serious?"Actually,
no.I thought it was laughable that someone (Vince) would quote two
separate pieces of data and not only attempt to claim a correlation, but
insinuate that there is a causal relationship, as well.Apparently,
sarcasm just doesn't always come across on paper very well.
John Pack Lambert | 11:20 a.m. May 27, 2009 Fine.You and
I have spoken long enough for you to know that I look up my information while
you on the other hand, do not have data to rebut some of the statements I
make.Please, go ahead and rebut.The one reader did make
a correct assumption that yes, I did not look 2007 data, the data I looked up
was more dated because I could not find 2007 data, but good enough, the 2007
data is welcome.Nonetheless I stand my ground, divorce is lower in
states where same sex marriage is legal.As another reader pointed
out, why does it matter?True, it does not matter. It should not
matter.The only reason why I brought the data is because someone
made the assumption that gays (gay men, for example) will start leaving their
heterosexual wives when same sex marriage becomes effective.To
counter wrong supposition with fact, show the data.
Civil rights issues are NOT up for vote. Are you the same people that believe a
black and a white should not be aloowed to marry. Well that was the case 40
years ago. Bigotry and false allegations will never win...thank God for
America. Love thy neighbor is the foundation for EVERY religion, or anti
religion. Come on wake up people and let others live. This does NOT affect
Confused | 7:06 a.m. May 27, 2009 Why do heteros want
marriage?The argument against same sex marriage in California is ---
well, why, gays have the same rights.The counter argument, using the
same logic, is, if marriage and domestic partnerships are the same, why aren't
heteros happy with domestic partnerships? Then we will all be equal.There are inherent differences in both the word and the rights.We're going back to the same argument - separate is not equal.
re: Vince | 4:06 p.m. | 9:35 a.m. May 27, 2009 Identical - no.Gays are not asking to marry two or three people.Imagine the
ramifications for three-way divorce ---Two people want to divorce a
third or worse, one person wants out and the other wants to stay in but only if
the second stays out.Exactly identical? Not by a long shot.
The idea of gay marriage violates some of the most fundamental doctrines of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As much as God loves those who
self-identify as homosexuals, he can't seal a homosexual union, any more than he
can seal the union of two spouses one of whom is abusive or unfaithful (even if
that person was born with a predisposition toward abuse or infidelity). Neither
of those unions follows the pattern God has established for His children.I believe that if a pro-gay marriage amendment wins in California, most
people in the traditional marriage camp will accept it as the will of the
majority. They won't be happy about it, but they will let it go, unless the law
curtails freedoms for those with conscientious objections to the practice.
To JPL - Annulments are very difficult to get and are granted in very limited
situations. My guess is that annulments have very little affect on a state's
divorce rate. As an aside regarding divorce rates - A gay male
friend of mine is convinced in his experience that, if allowed to marry, gay men
would divorce at a VERY high rate while gay women would have a very low rate. He
believes gay men tend to be very promiscuous while gay women do not.
are you people really arguing about divorce rates, like that has some bearing on
SSMs?what on earth does that have to do with it? so people get
divorced. so what? it happens.marriage isn't the big deal you all
make it out to be. it's just a civil contract. it's not a religious
you all keep saying "wasn't adam and steve" and "bible says it's bad" and "we
think you're sinners", etc.you assume that:- there is a god- your books are right- your beliefs should be lawOnly thing
I can say about any of that is - that's totally ridiculous. Grow up and stop
believing in fairy tales. Or at least stop pushing your fairy tales and magical
superstitions onto others...
In support of the 11:09 commentator, Beyond this I am fairly certain
that entering into a claimed "marriage" agreement with a member of the same-sex
would be grounds for excommunication. This is a case where the fact of
making your relatonship a government recognized one would be seen as deliberate
rebellion and make you that much more likely to be excommunicated for not only
violating the law of chastity but for apostasy which is rebellion.
RE: Steve | 10:37amFor those of us who believe the Garden of Eden to
be a fiction inconsistent with scientific evidence, then your so-called
precedent doesn't apply. Since you've stated your explicit belief
that Adam and Eve are the role model for all future families, here's a
cautionary note before you bandy your simplistic (and unoriginal) little jingo
around to justify your prejudice: If you want to use Adam and Eve to establish
all future relationship rules, should we look to their offspring as part of the
same example, and therefore mandate only incestuous relationships for all
procreational activities? Is gay marriage really so distasteful by comparison
that you'd rather marry your sister than allow your same-sex neighbors the right
to solemnize their own partnerships?
To the 9:41 commentator, Are you serious? Vince threw out three
types of sttitics from two non-comparable studies. He never fully accepts that
the nature of his statistics is that they reflect the percentage of the
population getting divorced, which will be inevitably lower when lots few people
get married. His statistics tell us nothing about how likely a marriage in
Massachusetts verses one in Utah is to end in divorce. Probably the biggest
factor is that a higher percentage of people in Utah are married than in
Massachusetts. Anyway, for some reason he does not tell us the actual
rate of divorce in Utah. That is very, very fishy on his part.
To Vince, So why is it acceptable to prosecute people for practicing
polygamy, send them to jail for marrying multiple women who are all consenting
adults, but we have to give full state recognition to same-gender marriage. The Oler and Blackmore cases involve only women who are adults. There is
absolutely no grounds for claims of breaking statutory rape laws in this case.
It is completely consenting adults.
Among many other things Vince ignores the fact that there are a great many
Muslim polygamists in New York City, and I have ancedotal evidence to suggest
they also exist in Massachusetts. Since these men's second wives are almost
universally here as undocumented immigrants, and since there marriages are not
recognized they add to the population but create a class of people who do not
get legally divorced. I will hold the view that the polygamists in New York
outnumber those in Utah, and cahllenge anyone to prove otherwise. You are
going to have to re-examine all reported data on polygamists in Utah for three
reasons. One, the data does not reflect the recent migration of many FLDS to
Nevada, Texas and Colorado. Two, the data in almost all cases involves those in
"Utah and surrounding states", which I will state always includes Montana and
the large polygamist group near Stevensville, and may even be done in such a way
to include those in Canada. Thirdly, the statistics include all who accept
polygamy, while a large percentage of these do not practice.
ITS SAD HOW SUPPORTERS OF GAY MARRIAGE COMPARE THEIR FIGHT TO OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS
MOVEMENTS. IF I WERE AN ETHNIC MINORITY OR A WOMAN I WOULD BE DEEPLY OFFENDED.
THEY ARE COMPARING COMITTING A VILE SIN WITH BEING BORN A CERTAIN RACE OR
GENDER. THATS NOT EVEN APPLES AND ORANGES, THATS APPLES AND COW PIES.
Another response to Vince, You are engaged in lieing with statistics.
If you wanted to creat a real comparison you would actually list the divorces
per 1000 people rate in both Utah and California. Also, let me make
this clear. Vince engages in throwing in Unlike statistics. I wonder if this
is because if he threw in the actual divorces per 1000 people in the United
States and in Canada the rate in the United States would be higher.
Beyond all this, Vince engages in the false arguement that if the divorce rate
is lower in one place and they have same-gender marriage it proves that
same-gender marriage does not increase the divorce rate. While I have yet to
see strong evidence that same gender marriage does increase the divorce rate,
while at the same time there is strong and well-reasoned explanations of why it
does increase the rate of out-of-wedlock births, the only reliable comparison
would be in one locale before and after the implementation of same-gender
marriage, and you could still argue that such a case might just be false
statictics since there are many factors that influence the divorce rate.
With a Catholic majority and a bishop who vocally denounces Catholic
complacency in not standing up to same-gender marriage, Rhode Island is not as
close to getting same-gender marriage as Mr. Vince thinks. Beyond this,
the suit aginst the Catholic Diocese in Maine for supporting traditional
marriage and the attempts by members of the state legislature in Connecticut to
essentially dissolve the Catholic Church there should hopefully cause Catholics
in Rhose Island to wake up and see that the same-gender marriage people are not
their friends. My personal experience tells me that another reason why
New England divorce rates are so low is New Enganders seek the annulment route
instead of the divorce route. Of course one example does not a trend make, but
since annulments of marriages are not divorces it does make divorce rates as a
percentage of the totla population a questionable figure.
["Point: Civil rights are given to those things which can be identified by
the look of the person, not their choices. Blacks have darker skin, women have
different parts than men."]so how can you tell a different
religion? 'cuz I was under the impression religious freedom was part of civil
rights.... your argument is riddled with holes. But since the
religious zealots insist on pushing their fairytale morals onto everyone, I
guess it's ok since you are so intelligent. (yes - believing in tales from old
books makes you a real genius...)
To Vince, Divorce rates are calculated in truly bizarre manners. The
divorce rate is calculated as the percentage of the population who gets divorced
in a given amount of time. This will lead to higher divorce rates where there
are more marriages. Also, in general the longer people have been married the
less likely they are to get divorced. I am not 100% sure, but am pretty sure
that if we tract the divorce per years married rate a higher percentage of
people get divorced in the first year than later. This means that divorce rates
will be almost inevitably higher when the population is older. Thirdly,
and this is really hard to calculate, if people see nothing wrong with sex out
of wedlock, than their incentive to divocer will be lower, if they feel they can
move onto another partner without bothering to get divorced. As with
Sweden, so with New England. If marriage drops below a certain rate, divorce
rates are irrelevant. What is the out-of-wedlock birth rate, that is a more
1 - Except that not only is abstaining from sex before marriage necessary for
temple marriage, so is following other tenants of the Law of Chastity - which
expressly forbids homosexual behavior of any kind, even within the bounds of
matrimony. So even if they are lawfully wedded, they cannot ever be married in
the temple, because they are still violating the Law of Chastity, and keeping
that Law is a requirement for a temple recommend.2 - That is an
entirely different scenario than the one we're faced with today. If and when
that happens, we'll make up our minds as to how we feel about it. Until then, if
you really want to know so badly, call a pyschic. They'll tell you anything you
want to hear for only $9.99 a minute.
This is a falsely titled headline. It is not a ban on same-gender marriage,
it is a definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Beyound
the mere semantics of the issue, a ban on alcohol provides punishment for using
it, but this constitutional admendment in no way authorizes the criminal
punishment of anyone. The only people who would face punishment under this type
of law would be people like Newsom who arrogantly assume they know better than
the voters and try to use their official capacity to sanction relationships that
the voters have clearly rejected sanctioning.
For heaven's sake, it wasn't Adam and Steve that began populating the earth with
the human family, it was Adam and Eve. Do you think Adam wanted an amendment so
he could go back to the garden and live with Steve forever, ALONE? I don't
think so. I guesss we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?
Hopefully for the last time-- Animals, Children, Inanimate Objects, or Dead
People are NOT capable of giving legal consent, so even though you might really,
really want to marry one, it's not possible. And, it's a very poor smokescreen
in opposing marriage equality.
It will be very interesting to see how things play out if the following
happen:1. What if one of the thousands of gay couples who's marriage
was upheld through this ruling is LDS? They are now legally married in the State
of California. And even further, what if they abstained from sexual relations
until they were married - technically not needing to go through any kind of
repentance process? They could theoretically request to go through the temple
sealing process just like any other heterosexual LDS couple who were married
outside of the temple. I believe this scenario is one of the reasons the Church
has fought so hard against gay marriage rights. 2. What if this
issue is again put to the people of California and they vote in favor of gay
marriage? There is no chance the California Supreme Court would overturn that
ruling on any grounds. Would those commenters who are so supportive of the will
of the majority accept that decision? The reality is that this country is
becoming more moderate, independent, and accepting by the day. California WILL
vote in favor of gay marriage sooner rather than later.
No Church is forced to perform same-sex marriages. None--period. Churches are
allowed the right to determine who they marry. Thus, no divorced or non
Catholic allowed to marry in the Roman Catholic Faith, just as no unworthy or
Non LDS is allowed to marry in an LDS Temple.
I respect the fact that there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue.
For those who are LDS, please take to heart what the Church just put out
regarding this court ruling - "The Church believes that serious
discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of
the debate demonize the other."I understand why the LDS Church does
not support gay marriage. But I also have a great deal of empathy for LDS
members who are gay. They are in a VERY difficult situation. Made even more
difficult because I believe that sexual preference is a genetic trait. Nowhere
has the LDS Church said it is a choice. I firmly believe that those members who
"demonize" each other in this debate will have to answer to a higher authority.
You're absolutely right! Immorality is never equal to morality!
Wow, statistical analysis at its best.
Hmmm... your portayal of the polygamist tactics for gaining acceptance sound so
strangely similar to the gay "rights" tactics - I'd say identical!Hmmm... either marriage is a universal "right", as gays argue that it is, or
it's not. You can't have it both ways!Hmmm...
"If it were not for the religious beliefs of so many people, this would not even
be an issue. Same sex marriage would have been recognized as a fundamental
matter of equality and liberty.But NO, RELIGION POISONS
EVERYTHING!"Actually, if more people would follow their conscience
and not their urges, "this would not even be an issue". "Same sex" behavior
would still be recognized as the immoral act that it is.But NO,
IMMORALITY POISONS EVERYTHING!
It is not about hate and it is not about the Mormon Church. The people and the
highest court in California spoke and it is time to get on with life. This is an
idiotic issue that has absolutely nothing to do with abusing anyone's rights.
Get a power of attorney.
Forcing others to accept what they do not believe is right is tyrannical.
Forcing the LDS church (or any other church) to accept and actually perform
homosexual marriages when it is strictly against their beliefs is rule of
religion by the government.There is no room for the hand of the
government in religious doctrine. This country provides for freedom of
religion, not freedom FROM religion. You cannot force churches to perform acts
they find offensive or against their doctrine (whether you believe those acts
are offensive or not).If we are to allow homosexuals to marry, there
MUST be some kind of protection for the many churches that don't want to perform
those marriages. The LGBT community feels heterosexual beliefs are being pushed
on them; have they stopped to think whether forcing churches to perform
homosexual marriages is doing just the opposite?Just like private
schools can set their own rules and administrative policies (that are often much
stricter than the law), churches need to have the protection of setting their
own standards for membership or temple attendance.The LGBT community
must understand the religious folks are afraid that their beliefs will be
from Y'ner U. is!! Haaa Haaa
Anyone who tries to bring "marrying an animal" into this is being ridiculous.
An animal is not a consenting adult.
I agree with everyone who is saying that the real problem is government
involvement in marriage. EVERYONE should enter into a civil union
in the eyes in the land, and then straight couples can then be "married" in a
religious ceremony, if they so choose.Bam! Equal rights for
everyone, definition of "marriage" protected, everybody is happy.It
makes me sick to my stomach to be perceived as an intolerant person, simply
because I belong to a certain religion. This is a fixable problem.
Your very constitution and the principles upon which your country was founded
are at stake here. The people of California voted for a ban on genderless
marriage. It passed. According to your own constitution majority rules. Yelling
"shame on you" or saying this is unfair, means that you no longer believe in the
Constitution of your own country. Gay activists do not care about the
Constitution of the United States. The sooner you realize that the better.
I have been reading articles and threads on this topic for months and still find
myself confused- why do the gays want marriage? I have yet to see anyone ever
explain why they want marriage other than to say that they have the right to be
married because others can be. What exactly is the appeal? What is it about
marriage that the gay community wants so bad? After months of debate I'm coming
to the conclusion that they don't want marriage, just visibility and acceptance.
I really can't see why marriage is such a big deal when it's rare (excluding
public scenarios which are equally prosecuted for Hetero's and Homo's) that
anyone is arrested for practicing homosexuality. Will someone please
explain why the gays want marriage?
I am so glad that this turned out the way it did. Of course for a Liberal 6 to 1
is almost a win, very, very close they would say.I really fear the
back lash, of Voting against something and having your desires ignored.If Gay Marriage came up on a Ballot, I would Vote against it because of
personal beliefs and its gross.On a day to day basis I do not care,
as there are much more vital life or death issues to attend to.
gay marriage like a world of animal.
The states where same-sex marriage is legal are Connecticut, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, and Vermont. Here are the 2007 rates of divorce and marriage in
these states, (stats are from the Division of Vital Statistics, National Center
for Health Statistics):Connecticut: 3.2 / 5.6Iowa: 2.6 /
6.7Maine: 4.3 / 7.5Massachusetts: 2.3 / 5.9Vermont: 3.6 /
8.6For comparison, Utah's stats for 2007 were 3.6 / 9.5. Divorce
rates weren't available for all states, but Utah's was actually slightly below
both the mean and median rates for states that were reported. When it comes to
marriage, however, Utah ranks higher than any of the gay marriage states. It
stands to reason that the more couples get married, the more couples are
eligible (likely?) to get divorced.The statistics obviously don't
tell the whole story; they give no indication of how many couples begin living
together each year without getting married, and how many unmarried couples
separate each year without having the option of a divorce.
As before, the voice of the people has spoken and the "definition" of marriage
is as it should be. Regarding: "Wording the SAME" is right on!
Such a relief that there are some intelligent people left on the earth.
Prop 22 and Prop 8 has the EXACT SAME WORDING:'Only marriage between
a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'Rights in a
Civil Union are the SAME as in a MARRIAGE.The fight is over the
DEFINITION of the word MARRIAGE.
The benifits we call spousal should not be dictated by who we are married
to.They should be open to every man and woman married or not.Lets "un bundle"
these bennys from marriage and call them human civil rights in a free
society.Live your same sex relationship or hetrosexual relationship as a matter
of personal choice then apply for those benifits from "Uncle Sam" and call it a
day.There is little accomplished when we drag a minority through the mud and
call them less than moral.I'm not in favor of same sex relationships but I am in
favor of human dignity.
I find this topic hard to comment on as the concept of same sex marriage in my
own mind is insane.How many ballots or court decisions will we have to go
through before the losing side of this issue one way or the other will give up
the fight.Personally I dont care who won this. Just let me stay married to "Da
woman in my life!!!!!"
I know some want to get after the LDS church for this ruling, as it has been
wrongly accused of being one of the funders of Prop 8. There were many churches
who encouraged their membership to pray, and if they feel inclined, to give to
the organizations that were defending prop 8. It was the people who voted, not
the church's. What? I'm not allowed to vote now or give money to causes I feel
is right and honroable, because I go to a certain chruch? That's what your
saying. The LDS church did not give money nor sponsor prop 8. The MEMBERS did.
BOBBIT | 5:44 p.m. May 26, 2009 Wrong --- on all counts.Divorce rates are lower in the states where same sex marriage is allowed or
where it is close to being passed.States where divorce is less
common:State Rate of divorce per 1000/yearMassachusetts
2.4 Connecticut 2.8 New Jersey 3.0 Rhode
Island 3.2 New York 3.3 Pennsylvania 3.3 On the other hand, California fares #17 and Utah falls in #21.In Canada, a study shows that divorces have leveled off since the 1970s. One
reason why the number of divorces has not not fallen further down is because
some partners marry, divorce, remarry, and divorce again, driving the divorce
rate higher than couples who only divorce once.Further, another
study finds that while the American divorce rate is about 50% in the United
States, in Canada it is 44%.
For the record I support the current laws against plural marriage. However,
since I also support pRoposition 8, I am not the one who has a troubled
John Pack Lambert | 6:42 p.m. May 26, 2009 JPL,Congress
took away women's suffrage in Utah in 1887 because it was trying to rid the
state of polygamy. It was a political move, agree or disagree, to discontinue
the practice of polygamy before Utah was admitted to the Union.As to
the question of women's rights, more recently, Utah did not fare so well, say,
for example, with the ERA. Like or dislike the ERA, agree or disagree, even
though the ERA failed, it set in motion a series of social movements that gave
women a more promiment place in the workplace, in politics, in the public
For all those who want to blame the LDS church for Prop 8 passing should also
blame the President for Prop 8 passing. His position on Prop 8 is the same as
the LDS church, check the transcript of the last debate. Also, if had not run
for president, the minority vote would not have been as high. Blacks voted over
70% yes; Hispanics voted 52% yes and Asians voted ~90% yes, The only group that
voted solidly yes were the white voters.The initial seed money for
the yes on 8 came from the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization. Many
other churches got behind prop 8 and urged its passage. The passage of prop 8
was not because of the LDS church (there aren't enough members in California to
pass it); however, we've taken all of the cheap shots.If you still
want to blame the LDS church, please be honest and include President Obama.
Red | 5:56 p.m. May 26, 2009 LDS gays have faced this dilemma ever
since Canada gave same-sex partners the right to marry.However, this
is where the separation of church and state play in. The church can accept or
deny marriages, in this case, it is altogether against same sex marriages,
regardless of the the state sanctioning marriages.
Shame on the LDS Church's members who fought so hard to pass this.Such a wasted effort in my opinion. To a Mormon, the only marriage valid inthe eyes of God is one performed in an LDS Temple. Do ye members doubt the
doctrine? No? Then why did you support this ban on non traditional marriage? It
doesn't affect you. Your actions make me question your testimonies.I
hope the world doesn't fight to ban LDS Temple marriages....why shouldn'tthey? Cause Mormons are Christians? Start acting like it!!!Really,
you had no right! You don't have to support an individuals personalbeliefs
or actions, but don't deprive citizens of a civil right.
To Vince, Women first voted in Utah in 1870. They were gauranteed the
vote under the Utah constitution in 1896. While some people can talk of the
coming of women's sufferage and Wilson's role in bringing it about, that has no
meaning to people who know Utah history. The process is way more complicated
and goes back much earlier than you admit. Wilson was not old enough to vote
when women first voted in the United States, and among those who voted against
Wilson's urged declaration of war when it came before congress was a women. So
the situation is more complexed than Wilson ram-rodding it.
funny thing I just came from the rally here in Union square in New York,. The
number of acts of violence? 0 the number of people calling for religions to lose
their right to practice as they please? 0 the number of times the LDS church was
mentioned? 0 funny how reality never squares with the rhetoric on these threads.
it depends on who you ask I know lots of people where I live don't think Mormons
are anything but a cult, you may want to be careful this country is a lot bigger
then your little Utah Utopia.
To Mr. Harvey at 1:36, The court did not read the constitution in
overturning Proposition 22, they invented meanings that in no way were intended
by the people who wrote the constitution of California. They also wilfully
ignored all the biological situations that were on the side of the law as it was
expressed in Proposition 22.
For the thousands of couples who are and get to continue to be married...live
your lives every day to point out the hypocrisy of those who prevent others from
Time to boycott anything Californian or relating to the LDS church. Bigotry should not be related.
The decision (especially the part that legitimizes the existing homosexual
unions) still poses potential problems for the LDS. LDS teaching: No
sex outside marriage. California: Sally and Suzy are married. Conclusion: Sally and Suzy, if they are true to their marriage vows, are
a chaste couple, worthy of LDS baptism and -- after a one-year wait -- a Temple
sealing. Ditto for Bob and Bruce. The old line, "Since
you can't marry your same-sex partner, abstinence is your only chaste
alternative," doesn't work anymore. The worms are already crawling
out of the can--
I wouldn't get too attached to the CA Supreme Court Justices...6 might be
working in another field next election.
Gay marriage is a matter of when and not if. It is unconstitutional to
discriminate based on sexual orientation. If people see gay marriage as a
threat it should say something about their character. There is too much hate
and not enough love in society.
many people feel that way about mormons....
Maybe divorce rates are up because so many GAYS are leaving their husband/wives
and kids for their GAY partners. I know about 5 or 6 people that gave
everything away because they decided they wanted to live out their GAY fantasy!!
To Doug at 12:12, You have some good points, and the language of
Proposition 8 seems to not be time limited. However on multiple
occasions the California Supreme Court has shown it has little regard for the
actual language, most importantly in their ruling that a doctor whose clinic had
a clear policy of not doing artificial inseminations on unmarried people was
somehow discriminating against a woman based on her sexual orientation.
I hope everyone saying that the will of the people should be recognized will
feel the same way when this is reversed in another proposition. The only reason
it passed is because Prop 8 wasn't taken seriously enough by the opposition and
that won't happen again.
Well if marriage is a right, then where do I go to getthose 'rights' for
my daughters? Obviously they are being denied something that is a 'right'. Thank you California for Prop 8, hopefully this will inspire yet other states
to take a stand. With a choice between being politically correct or religious, I
find that religion has better 'fire insurance', thank you.
Now they will have to Marry into your Family.I hope this will satisfie all
of you.Now you have all of these un happy people wondering the streets
without a spouse.Are you happy now, American Society is falling a part.Rights and Privileges, Really none of your business.
It's time to let it rest and accept the will of the electorate.
It's things like what you just wrote that we LGBT's use as fodder to get us
motivated at our rallies!
Hooray for the Mormon Church, sad day for human rights. Such a shame that the
church found it in their interest to create harm for select groups of people. I
only hope that the day comes soon when people in relationships are given equal
and fair treatment rather than being kept in oppression.
I still don't quite understand how the gay community wants marriage to be
absolutely "equal" when they are inherently unequal.Let me give an
example that I have yet to hear anyone claim can be acheived equally.There is not a gay couple in the world that by their own doing, without
outside help (ironically from the opposite sex) or by turkey baster that can
have a child, which to many couples is a purpose,a solemn and sacred part to
One hundred thirty-six well-thought out pages to confirm what can be said in
four words: "The people have spoken."
The guys and I are really proud of you. Even though the court decision didn't go
our way, you led a good fight. I am sorry you got knocked out of your chair in
the melee. I hope you weren't hurt. You really are a "pink panther" Anonymous.
You do us all proud.
Life used to be so much simpler. Your kid acts out at school and the teacher
can teach him a lesson... then when you find out... YOU teach him a lesson. No
worries of law suits or people thinking badly of you. That was good family
discipline! And the kids were better behaved.People all worked hard
for what they had. You didn't take things to court whenever you wanted
something done. Everybody was happy to earn their keep. You didn't sue
Mcdonalds because you burned yourself on the coffee. You didn't sue Torro when
you decided to put your foot under the lawn mower to see what would happen!And if you were Gay, you kept it to yourself! I undstand this is a
broad topic I'm diving into here. And I honestly don't care if a person wants to
be Gay or even openly display it. Everybody deserves to be happy. I'm just
pointing out that this world is really going down hill FAST. Fighting,
contentious people on both sides, hatred on both sides. There's got to be
better ways for people to express their opinions.
Re: Jack Lambert:Yes...the Mormons were denied the vote based upon
their religious beliefs. Funny, isn't it? How quickly they abolished an
everlasting covenant which most of them swore mighty oaths they would never
abandon?And all because the Federal Government was threatening to
confiscate their financial holdings, and properties, and buildings if they
refused to abandon the practice of plural marriage.So much for
mighty oaths to obey God's will.
John Pack Lambert | 1:10 p.m. May 26, 2009 JPL,I have to
take issue on both counts of women's suffrage and slavery.First
women's suffrage --- yes, the 19th Amendment had to be ratified at multiple
stages.However, keep it in perspective.It was President
Wilson who urged Congress to pass the legislation before it went on to the
states.Moreover, women's suffrage had a long way coming - 144 years.
Abigail Adams requested it back in 1776.Elizabeth Cady
Stanton and Susan B. Anthony made it the point of the Women's Convention at
Seneca Falls in 1848.144 years later, finally, suffrage.The voice of the people were not exactly on the side of women in 1776 nor in
1848.Social issues have since taken shorter to evolve through the
popular consciousness.As to the issue of slavery, it took a civil
war to end slavery. "The legislative process" (the 13th Amendment) which you
mention was a formality. It was enacted after the Civil War.Now
then, what point did Matthew 11:48 know nothing about?
Re: California Voter | 1:17 p.m. May 26, 2009"Amazing . . .my vote
actually meant something . .as it SHOULD BE ! ! ! The people of CA have spoken
and the will of the majority stands in tact. HURRAY! !"And had
the result been an overturning of the ban you would likely be whining about your
vote not meaning anything.At any rate...we all know it's all about
My opinion is that gays are a weight around the neck of society. Homosexuality
is an abomination in the eyes of God and most people. We cannot have this evil
rampant upon our land. Homosexuality is the cancer of the ages. It takes
maladapted people and congregates them in a way that deviant behavior is
reinforced. Is that what we want our society to be about? Gayness is not the
foundation of a strong society. It is the sign of a weaking one.
It is not appropriate to put down other groups or not be respectful whatever
your views are on this subject.
egairram, Separate is never equal...
Nice to see CA supremes get it right for once.
Divorce rate and same sex marriagePeople are going back and forth
debating what the rate of divorce is for gays.Here is some
information."In 2004, the state with the highest reported divorce
rate was Nevada, at 6.4 (per 1,000). Arkansas was a close second, with a divorce
rate of 6.3, followed by Wyoming at 5.3. The District of Columbia had the lowest
reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2"Source: divorcemag dotcom statisticsIt kind of makes you think,
maybe allowing gays to marry does have a positive impact on driving down the
heterosexual divorce.You think?The same source shows
that the states with the lowest divorce rates are also the states that are
extending marriage benefits to same sex partners, particularly, or they are
IslandNew YorkPennsylvaniaNoteworthy, California is #21
in divorce across the country, and Utah is below California at #27.
i couldn't agree with you more, but you see, they tried that in california and
many other states and the gays still keep whining. many states have civil unions
which 100% the same as marriage with a different name. i would be the first to
once again be in favor of this compromise but the gays do not want it.
Sad day indeed.Mikey
I applaud Stephen (Ogden). Thank you for being the first to point out the truth
here. When it comes to the belief of God, peoples arguements are
"scientific." But when it comes to same-sex attraction,
scientifically(physical, mental, emotional diffrences which complement the
other, etc.) doesn't work so they don't use that, they attack religion. Read
Stephen's comment at 1:14pm. It is very right on target.So should
alcoholics be able to drink alcohol all they want because their brains have a
tendency to get addicted to alcohol. Their decision to give in to their urges
makes life hell for everyone around them it is not healthy in any shape or form.
Alcoholics have to fight this everyday of their lives and its not easy but
doesn't mean we should just let them go down that path which they are going and
keep destroying themselves. It's because of the love of society and
to help people when they are having difficulties that such people get help they
need. It not because were taking away their rights. Its not making rights to
continue the behavior. We all have difficulties just in different forms.
Re: McGurkus | 11:26 a.m. May 26, 2009: I challenge you to provide some shred of
proof that every last gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered individual in this
country has participated in, or perpetrated the burning of homes and churches.
For that matter, provide credible references for GLBT's physically harming, or
murdering heterosexuals just because they happen to be heterosexuals. And here's
one for you...provide a credible reference for any individual or group of
individuals in this group who have lobbied to ban heterosexual marriages.
You can pass a law renaming oranges apples, but it still won't be an apples to
apples comparison.So-called "gay marriage" is just different from
marriage in so many material ways as to deserve separate legal status. And even
if courts, such as in MA, choose to call these two different things the same
thing, they will still be different.Finally, a prediction: CA voters
will reverse Prop 8 at least in 6 years, maybe in 2.
A clear victory for the rule of law. Yeah, CA Court!
This is a sad day, when rights can be voted away. While the 18,000 still stand,
how can people be happy when laws are afforded for some but not all?I
don't want to change marriage, I just wish I could get married too.
Ernest, are you advocating all those types of marriages that you described. You
aren't seriously thinking of hooking up with animals are you? You certainly
entertain liberal views. My Ernest, what would your mother say?
Will be the self-righteous religious types who think it's okay to legalize
discrimination. When you deny one group their rights, you're chipping away at
your own. This will come back to haunt them.
Re: Kevin | 1:35 p.m. | 2:05 p.m. May 26, 2009 Re: Gay marriage
extending to polygamy issueThe story to which you are referring
needs to be examined in its proper context.Isn't it wide known that
the FLDS off-shoot will take any and every opportunity to try to gain a foothold
on their representation for polygamous marriages?Does it not
surprise you, therefore, that the lawyers representing Winston Blackmore, 52,
and James Oler, 44, the two defendants to whom you refer to in the story, would
use the logic that "marry the person you love" to extend to polygamous
marriages?Of course they do. That is what the FLDS do.
They take every recourse to defend their stance for polygamy. Please don't drag this into the same-sex issue debate. The FLDS have been
doing this ever since polygamy was abolished.
Control thy wrath oh fellow. Do not become so disturbed! It is not becoming of
you. Anonymous, were you kidding about falling out of your motorized chair? I
hope you didn't get hurt badly. Things will look up soon. I am sure The Band of
Thebes will always be accepting of you.
If it were not for the religious beliefs of so many people, this would not even
be an issue. Same sex marriage would have been recognized as a fundamental
matter of equality and liberty.But NO, RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING!
The problem is in the name. Don't spoil traditional marriage by calling it
gay. Why redefine the word. Make up a new word like Egairram This would be
defined as a union between two people of the same sex. Then leave Marriage to
its traditional definition of a union between two people of the opposite sex.
Give each the same rights and then move on. That way, to those who hold marriage
sacred, it is not defiled by calling it gay.
Wow..nasty posts...seems some of you don't want to follow the law, the
constitution, the majority of voters. RELIGION has NO place in this.
I don't care what is written in your religious book or papers. This is a
matter of law...For once California did the right thing and held up
their own constitution. They have no right to make it up as they go along...and
over step the people's vote.
there is a difference bettween the gay marriage scenario and that of slavery and
women's rights. although the courts may have have voted in thier favor, but the
people supported these rulings by amending the constitution. please, stop saying
that if it wasn't for the courts we wou;ld still have slavery and women would
not be able to vote. this is not true. the courts may have started it, but i
promise you that if the people did not support it, they would have done exactly
what they did in california, amend the constitution.
It should come as no surprise that Mormons aren't crazy about gay marriage, or
that homosexuals resent Mormons for it. There are fundamental differences on
both sides of the debate regarding what's morally acceptable, and those are
probably irreconcilable. But surely we can find some common ground in this
debate. There's absolutely no reason why an individual shouldn't get to choose
who can and can't visit him at the hospital or inherit his property. If two men
or two women are willing to come together as a family of sorts and assume the
same obligations toward each other that a heterosexual couple assume, we ought
to grant them the benefits they need to fulfill those obligations (same as
heterosexuals), and hold them to those obligations.I'd be happy to
see the government get out of the marriage business and instead recognize family
units founded by adults willingly assuming certain obligations toward each other
and toward any dependents in their care. Such units need not be restricted to
sexual relationships or to units of two adults. They would come with benefits
and legal consequences for failing to uphold the associated obligations.
To:"Gays can already get married in all 50 states."You
mean to someone of the opposite sex. And heterosexual people can marry someone
of the same sex in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Canada, Iowa, etc.There now, you heterosexual people can also have same sex marriage.Is that supposed to mean that heterosexual people want it?Gays do
not want heterosexual marriage, so why bring it up as if it is supposed to be a
logical argument?Typically the person who makes this kin of argument
says "I just wanted to say that they have the right to heterosexual
The California Supeme Court made the right decision in upholding the new
marriage admendment to the State Constitution. The same California Supreme
Couirt made the wrong decision when the people through the initiative process
upheld traditional marriage only to be struck down by the activist court.
Therefore Proposition 8 became necessary. As long as government mandates what
marriage is, there needs to be only one standard; that is marriage is between a
man and a woman. This was decided by the Supreme Court in 1889 when it upheld
the Edmunds-Tucker Act.If you insist that homosexual marriage be given the
same legal standing as traditional marriage, then polygamists could also
petition the courts to have their lifestyle be given the same legal status. This
would occur under the "Equal Protection Provision" of the U.S. Constitution.
That would make all those people at Short Creek very happy. Beware of the Law of
Very few people outside of the Jello Belt don't care what the Church of Utah
It has been stated that California may have another homosexual marriage
Proposition on the ballot in the next year or so. If that wins, homosexual
marriage will still be illegal, because they will still be behind two
propositions (Prop 22 & Prop 8)to one. They will need to pass two more
propositions to gain the majority.
This is a step in the right direction. Nice move by the supreme court of CA.
Will people please stop calling marriage a "RIGHT". It's not a right, it's a
god given privilege! From the beginning of man and women to now, it has always
been and should always be a PRIVILEGE for a man and a women to marry. Nobody
has the "RIGHT" to be married. Trying to compare this to the TRUE civil rights
movement of colored people is insulting to say the least. Gay people have FAR
more "government and day to day RIGHTS" than colored people had. It's not even
close to being comparable in any way. As it stands right now, a gay person has
as many "rights" as a straight person. And for the record, mocking
ones morals or religion isn't exactly the way to go about getting what you want.
However I do love how the homosexual community want to take away the voice of
the people, the peoples Right's, to change something that isn't even a "RIGHT"
in the first place! AGAIN, it's a god given privilege to be married.
One of my favorite quotes from President Hinckley is "Now we have gays in the
church. Good people." Google it if you don't believe me.
"...solemnly proclaim that marriage between a *man and a woman* is ordained of
This issue keeps going to vote until such time that homosexuals win the
majority, at that time all the previous votes will be meaningless and invalid,
the matter closed, and it can never be voted on again.-------"Homosexuality, like androgyny, might be an instinctive racial response
to overpopulation, crowding, and stress. Both flourish when empire reaches its
apogee." - Edward Abbey
So, how many out of state people contributed to the No on 8 campaign? How many
non-Mormons contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign? You are whining--yes,
whining--about the LDS church being bigots yet you are really only showing your
See, CA isn't 100% corrupt....yet.
I loved the sign in the photograph, another of example of just picking words
without understanding them. The sign, "Faith demands Justice". Actually "Faith
demands Obedience". Obedience to what? The laws of the individual you're
claiming faith in which is God. So, if you have faith in Him you will obey his
laws. Just a correct thought.
Comparing gay marriage with religion and/or race makes no sense.
Stephen (Ogden) | 1:14 p.m. May 26, 2009 "... Sex is reproduction."I pity your wife or any woman that you get married to. Sex is SO much
more! It is a bonding that creates trust and fertilizes the love that is there.
Too bad for you and yours.
"Now Canada faces a nightmare of issues. There are many lawsuits hitting the
courts that challenge bans on plural marriage, adult vs child marriage, man vs
animal marriage."Please cite the case. I cannot find even ONE of
these cases. I think you have just heard this and have repeated it here without
knowing whether or not it is true. Am I right?
Political expediency. Lack of spine. CA supremes just landed a huge boost to
the economy - if you are a lawyer, that is.We now have 18,000
All right, let me explain something. This earth was created by God.
He placed laws that all who live here should obey. He placed man and woman
here to see if they will obey His laws or not. If they did not, they will be
judged accordingly and punished accordingly. If they did obey, they would also
be judged and receive "all that He hath." The two questions all men
must find the answers to:1.) Did a "GOD" create everything and we are His
children?2.) What are God's laws we are required to obey?If
you answered Yes to question 1, then proceed to question 2. I suggest one law
he has given us to obey is to "multiply and replenish the earth", according to
the Bible. Is this one of His laws? If you agree, then answer this question:
Are you obedient to this law? If you answer no to this question, then proceed to
learn about Jesus Christ.
"All political power is inherent in the people," quoting the Declaration of
Rights in the state Constitution. He said the voters' power to amend their
Constitution is limited - and might not include a measure that, for example,
deprived same-sex couples of the right to raise a family - but that Prop. 8 did
not exceed those limits.************************************************Thank You.Now it is time to put more Prop. 8s on the ballots
in Gay marriage approved areas and we need to cancel those Gay marriages that
were done in other states. The minority shall not rule the
majority.Power to the People!
I find it ironic that you say "Mormons would presecute people who want to
practice an "unusual" form of marriage."The problem is that we are
not persecuting them. We basically disagree on the definition of marriage. Our
definition is that marriage is between man and woman. Pologamy for which you
are referring to for calling us hypocrites is incorrect as it is not an unusual
form of marriage. When the Church practiced, it was by direction we believe
through a Prophet of God for the building up of the Church. This was much the
same as it was in Abraham's, Moses', Isaac's, David's and Solomon's time. Those
men asked to live the law of pologamy had to do quite a bit of soul searching.
Many of the wives were asked to live it as well before the marriage was
conducted. This is left out in many texts. When the Church stopped pologamy it
was at the direction of the Lord. This is our belief. Therefore, there is no
hypocritcal side to it.We don't ask you to believe it, we ask you to
respect our stand.
I believe that gays should have unfettered rights to practice marriage as they
see fit. I think that if someone wants to marry in another
manner--such as being gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, triad marriage,
polygamy, or to animal, they should most certainly have that right. People decide things like politics and religion based on the dictates of their
own consciences. Marriage is and really should be the same way in a country
that gives you the right to pursue your dreams according to what you feel is
right for you, not what some other thinks it should be.
That's right, blame the Mormons. Because after all, it has to be the Mormon's
fault for everything doesn't it. What happens when blaming the Mormons doesn't
work anymore? Who get's blamed then?I have nothing against
homosexuals in general. Just like every group, it's always the few bad apples
that ruin the bushel. Playing the blame game is childish REGARDLESS
OF THE ISSUE.
1% of the Total? No way! Please show us your sources--after all, Christmas IS
Good for California.
Anonymous at 1:41;I have yet to hear an LDS comment suggesting that
we toss all the HATERS out of the nation because they are minding someone else's
business. As humans, we are social beings, always interested in someone else
and their ideas, motives, their business, if you will. Is that an absolute
evil?I am not interested in spewing hate because you do not agree
with my point of view. You are entitled to your point of view. I am equally
entitled to my point of view. Our ideas on this issue are very different.
There is nothing wrong with that. In some cases, such as this one,
both sides of an issue build their case as both sides cannot tolerate another
view. Then comes the showdown. In America it is usually an election or a
legislative session where a decision is made. Sometimes it is a war. Whatever,
the decision is binding on all parties.Your venom betrays your real
intentions and biases. Smarter to keep hate to yourself. Didn't you learn
anything in kindergarten about "be nice and don't fight?"PS Get real
and have the guts to sign your name.
We do not loathe gays and lesbians. That is a total misunderstanding. The
problem is that the many gays and lesbians feel that since we oppose them
changing the definition of marriage from man and woman to whatever gender we are
bigots and haters. We are far from it but many are unwilling to accept this.We do not hate them at all. We just disagree of what constitutes
marriage. We believe that marriage is ordained of God and that marriage is
eternal. We also believe that marriage is gender driven, meaning man and woman.
For this we stand together with the President of the Church. Those members of
the Church who don't, it is their decision as they are not forced to adhere to
the Prophets voice. The extermination order in Missouri and the continued
mob violence that forced us out of Illinois were in direct violation of the US
Constitution and was extreme prejudice. Those who call the LDS Church racist
has very little knowledge of the Church's beliefs and understanding. We all
knew that someday the priesthood would be given to all men and was in the Lord's
Is that the Last Days are truly upon us.
JD apparently has a brain and he uses it. Allowing the 18,000 marriages to
remain valid does indeed open the door to further action in the courts, the
ballot box and national oppinion. The court is "slyer" then you think. You can't
have some people married and some not. Won't work. You have to free all the
slaves or none. You have to give all the women the right to vote or none.
when it comes to my right to live my life the way I see fit without someone
imposing their brand of morality on me the debate and the fight will never be
over until I have those rights and thats why we take to the streets tonight. If
everyone followed the logic the "people" have spoken and thats the end of it
then we would still have segregation and women would still be considered
propriety and have no right tot vote. Go ahead and blast me I really don't care
I am off to take it to the streets we will win our freedoms.
If this is a win for democracy, will all you right-wingers now support President
Obama? And what will you say if Prop. 8 is overturned by a vote of the people?
Or is democracy a selective thing?
18,000 gay marriages are recognized. If nothing else, this will be an
experiment to see if the world comes to an end because there are gay marriages.
My guess is no one will even notice. And domestic unions continue. I guess
that's the point. If we stop looking into other people's bedrooms, the world is
a better place.
The question of Prop 8 has been whether it is okay for the majority to overrule
the rights of the minority? My question is what minority lost its right to get
married with Prop 8? For example, I know Melissa Etheridge has
complained about being a minority not recognized by the government. Her and her
same-sex partner Julie Cypher were denied marriage. However, they broke and
later Julie married Matthew Hale. So what make Melissa more of
a minority than Julie? When did Julie cease being a minority that was denied
marriage? When she broke up with Melissa? When she fell in love with Matthew? The same thing happened with Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres. They
were a same-sex couple, until they broke up and Anne married Coleman Laffoon. Neither Anne, Julie nor Margaret Cho for that matter are straight,
but all of them seem to have been able to get married anyway. Gays can already
get married in all 50 states.
Finally, the people of California have been heard. Anyone who thinks that any
kind of union other than marriage is okay, you need to think again. Marriage is
a legal contract between two people of the opposite sex that gives this kind of
union certain legal tax advantages and benefits. When someone divorces, they
lose these benefits. They are not for everybody and shouldn't be. If you begin
to open this up, then pretty soon you have to give these rights to polygamists,
bigamists, rapists, and any other person that just wants to live with someone
else. This is not right and marriage takes work and commitment, and not
everyone should have a right to what I have had to work so hard to keep.
This is a very contentious issue with many emotions involved on both sides. I
rejoice in the decision upheld by the CA Supreme Court. To take away the rights
of the voting public would change our country in an irrevocable way. Each side
will continue to stand up for that which they believe and I'm sure we will see
this issue yet again on the ballot. What both sides MUST remember is that we
all have a right to freedom of speech, to peaceable protest, and we are all
brothers and sisters in the eyes of the Lord, no matter what stance we take on
this issue or any other.
The fact that existing gay marriages in California will be respected and
continue says much about how this will eventually play out. Changing
demographics and attitudes should result in gay marriage becoming a reality in
California (and most of the rest of the country) sooner than later.If there are gay couples enjoying a particular right which other gay couples
cannot enjoy because of existing law, it is only a matter of time before that
right is finally extended to include all gay couples.Why the
California Supreme Court ruled as it did may be found in the minutiae of the
law, but there will be a next time where voters will see the inequality.
Recess is over. Are you in 2nd or 3rd grade?
I love the people here trying to scare us with "gay people aren't going to give
up" and "they're going to try again." And I suppose that if Prop. 8 had failed,
you'd all say, "Oh well, gay marriage is legal. We give up."This
certainly isn't over. And it shouldn't be.
The voters in California have now stated that they do not want gay marriage and
they also do not want tax increases to pay for all the stupid things that state
does. I would say that there are too many liberals that have made a mess of
that state and I bet the next time they vote on gay marriage, it will be a
greater win for those voting against it.
The following is from MSNBC:Defense for polygamists cites gay
marriage Lawyers: Canada's step to legalize same-sex unions will help in
trialAssociated Pressupdated 4:10 p.m. MT, Wed., Jan. 21,
2009VANCOUVER, British Columbia - Canada's decision to legalize gay
marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer
said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their
first court appearance.The case is the first to test Canada's
to John Pack Lambert......which is all the more reason why it is so
puzzling that Mormons would persecute people who want to practice an "unusual"
form of marriage!The only word to describe it is "Hypocrites"!
Folks, Laws are enacted to protect the interests of the MINORITY, not the
Majority.I am very grateful to be among the 18,000 who were able to
wed. And this is NOT over. Not until there is equality for ALL. As I
often say, If YOU DON'T AGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE-YOU SHOULD NOT ENTER INTO ONE.
BUT LEAVE MINE ALONE.
@John Pack Lambert (1:23p)Yes, it is.If nothing else it
is more egregious because it is unnecessary. There must be a body with ultimate
legal authority to interpret the constitution, otherwise the constitution means
nothing because anyone is free to claim that it means anything. In California,
this body is constituted as the Supreme Court.Requiring a
super-majority of this body for a decision strikes me as unworkable. "We can't
decide" isn't really a viable answer from the body responsible for interpreting
the constitution.On the other hand, it is not necessary to empower a
bare majority of voters to amend the constitution. This is not permitted in
Utah. This is not permitted for the United States constitution. There are 34
states (including Utah) that do not even allow for a constitutional amendment
initiative process.I happen to think this process is important to
allow, but a bare majority for approval is not necessary, and I don't think it
is reasonable.In CA, it takes a 2/3 majority to approve a special
tax, but only a bare majority to amend the constitution.
The Church did make a statement about Proposition 8 , but that does not mean it
was the only religious group that supported it. The church gave less than 1% of
the total amount of money raised to support the prop. So why not be mad at the
other groups who contributed more.....
What's next? The GBLT Community is seemingly a very angry group. If Prop 8 had
been voted down then what would have been their next fight? When would it all
end? It wouldn't and couldn't. They are an angry group and will continue to be
so in perpetuity. Nothing will ever make them a happy people. Nothing.
another win for the moral majority of America
According to the court, only the designation -- the wor -- "marriage" is denied
to same-sex couples; same-sex couples are not allowed to use that as a
governmentally-granted "designation" of their relationship. All other rights
granted by the State of California to same-sex couples adhere; and the
approximately 18,000 interim same-sex marriages survive as marriages, both by
designation and in legal reality. Do those marriages enjoy more than the mere
"designation"?Perhaps the next step in California's journey will be
for state lawmakers to push through legislation that, at least by way of
"designation," takes California out of the "marriage" business altogether.
Maybe what presently are termed "marriage license applications" and "marriage
licenses" and "marriage certificates" issued by the state will soon be
transformed into "family relationship applications" and "family relationship
creation licenses" and "family relationship certificates." Only religious
institutions will be seen as creating "marriages."If in California,
Proposition 8 had no impact on the institution of marriage but merely on the
right to use of the mere "nomenclature" of "marriage"(see Justice Werdegar's
concurring opinion), what has changed in California? Not much, substantively.
But politically, the battles will continue.
Another reason to get religion out of our lives.
Perhaps you should think about fixing California's economy before you come
trying to fiddle with ours. Utah's economy is one of the strongest in the
country; California's economy is one of the worst in the world. Not hard to
figure out why people have been fleeing California in record numbers for the
psat few years, while Utah's population has been growing steadily.
Majority RuleMissouri and Illinois gave Mormons a taste of that, and
I understand them loathing you enough to run you out of their states. Next time
it'll be the NATION tossing out you HATERS who haven't learned to MIND YOUR OWN
haven't read all the comments but this one sticks out:This is the
way it should be.The majority rules. Really? Then
Mormonism would have been vanquished from Planet Earth. CAUTION!!
Serious need for civics classes in America. The sheeple don't even know what
type of govt. they are under. hint: A Republic, not a
I think most of the comments here misread the relevant rulings. In the first
round the court said the Constitution's requirement of equal protection requires
that homosexual marriage be allowed. Then the opponents of that ruling got Prop
8 passed. Then the Court said, given that we have found the process by which
Prop 8 was passed was legal the Constitution is now changed, equal protection
now no longer applies in this particular case.In both cases the
Court simply upheld the Constitution as written.
@Canada Example | 1:05 p.m. May 26, 2009"Now Canada faces a
nightmare of issues. There are many lawsuits hitting the courts that challenge
bans on plural marriage, adult vs child marriage, man vs animal marriage.."False. Where? What court cases are you referring?
To the 12:04 commentator, What do you mean that Mormons can count their
ancestors polygamous marriages as legal? First off, most Mormons have no
ancestors who were involved in plural marriage, because most Mormons have no
ancestors who were members of the church before 1945 let alone 1900.
Secondly, plural marriage was never recognized by any government in the United
States. If you want to talk about people who have ancestors whose plural
marriages were recognized by the state start talking about the Muslims, but then
of course your bigotry would be fully exposed instead of hiden in a false patina
of wanting equality. Thirdly, and I will not let people forget this,
Idaho banned Mormons from voting based on their belief in the teachings of the
Church, not on any actions. Yes it was 1890, but you do not understand. Not
only was practicing polygamy leading to hundreds of men going to jail, but
people were denied the vote because of it. If you want homosexuals to be
treated like Mormons were, than I guess you can desire stuff, but at least admit
how Mormons were actually treated for plural marriage.
How many times is the state of California going to come to the same conclusion.
The people have spoken...more than once.
I don't think anyone really cares much about your thoughts and frustrations. You
are your typical self, blaming Mormons. If you couldn't blame Republicans,
Mormons or conservatives, you wouldn't have anyone else to blame. Can't you
repect the law and judicial system? You are acting like a child who is lying on
the ground and kicking its feet. Stand up Anonymous, be a man or woman?
Sounds like you have an "ax to grind"! Good luck with that.
I'm a "Mormon" and don't think I'd want to know your thoughts under any
circumstance. Angry or Happy! So chop that wood til your hands blister!
@Gay ordeal sealed (1:06p)While I would expect the divorce rate in
this group to be significantly higher than the overall divorce rate -- while I
think many of these marriages were truly recognition of a serious, long-term
commitment, I would guess that many were married more to make a point or as a
spur-of-the-moment thing -- a 99% divorce rate in roughly a year seems unlikely
in the extreme.Do you have any data to support this claim?
Thank goodness!!! Democracy isn't dead yet.Now, let's hope THE
PEOPLE can repeal gay marriage in all the other states where it has been
established against the will of THE PEOPLE.
Marriage is a LEGAL union. The government issues the certificates, if we
left them out of it, there wouldn't be marriage, there wouldn't be divorce,
there wouldn't be families. If the government didn't run it, who would? The
people? Well the people voted, and they voted against gay marriage. :)
To Doug at 12:02, Is it any more egregious than that fact that a five
people when they number more than four can create a right out of thin air that
theatens the freedom of religions and the rights of conscience of religious
believers, and also overturns the will of the majority of voters in a state. What is worse, an actual majority of the people or the majority on a body of
less than ten?
You're right. Those heterosexual marriages rarely fail and end in divorce?Thank you for showing your level of intelligence to all of us.You can go back to watching cartoons now.
"of the 18,000 marriages only 180 are still together......by august all 180,000
will be history!"Well, I know of several hundred gay marriages that
happy and healthy, including my own.Please back up your numbers with
Yeah Mormons trumpet MAJORITY RULE, until it's YOUR rights being stripped away.
To the 11:55 commentator, Actually you ignore the fact that the
constitution bans ex-post-facto laws. We could pass a law today banning the
possesion of tabocco, but we could not punish someone for having had tobacco
yesterday before the law was pased. Hwever, this is not an issue of
illegality, but legal recognition. In the later case, I am fairly sure you can
retroactively rescind legal recognition of something. So Proposition 8 could
have ended any marriages that ever existed in California. The Supreme Court
evidnetly feels that the way the law is written it does not have any effect
before the day it was passed. I am not sure the California Supreme
Court's ruling on the issue is right, and it is based on the faulty theory that
their overturning of Prop 22 was a valid use of judicial power, which it was
totally not, but their upholding Prop 8 but not making it rescind the marriages
made before it is a workable legal action, and definantly shows that much of the
anti-Mormon hate spewed in the days after Prop 8 passed was 100% lies.
I'm not the clueless one. You're clueless because you simply don't realize how
misguided and prejudiced you sound. I can understand your
well-intentioned efforts to help me see the light, but it is YOU who needs to
see the light, pal. Gays and lesbians deserve just as much legal
recognition under the law as our ancestors who fought in the Revolution, as
slaves did during the Civil War, as women and minorities did during the Civil
Rights era. Get your facts straight and brush up on your American
history before you accuse me of being "clueless." I don't see you
citing American history or anything of scholarly substance to back up your
statements. You're probably just a bitter, anti-gay individual who
is upset that your narrow definitions, prejudices, and views of marriage are not
the only game in town anymore. Maybe you should look at your own
views and make sure Satan isn't the one wrapping himself around your finger in
your ignorance of history and unintended bigotry against those who are different
Amazing . . .my vote actually meant something . .as it SHOULD BE ! ! ! The
people of CA have spoken and the will of the majority stands in tact. HURRAY! !
I applaud the decision to support the gay marriage ban. I wish they would have
taken the next step and nullified the 18,000 marriages that were performed while
the courts made their biggest mistake of allowing them. I see them having a
fight about that.I, truthfully, am worried that it won't be long
before they start legalizing gay marriages everywhere. Gays are indiscriminate
about labeling anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view as a "bigot".
They think their cause is just and so anyone who doesn't support it must be
unjust. It has been shown that marriage isn't a right, rather a privilege. Gays
can have civil unions and be married in a few states. That isn't enough for
them. They will continue to yell and scream and demonstrate like a child
throwing a tantrum until they are given what they want. We've become a country
that is afraid to tell someone no. Get a loud enough attorney, and you're almost
guaranteed to be portrayed as a martyr and obtain the sympathy vote. Sickening
and pathetic. Courts should be about right and wrong. Today they were. Pete in Texas
LDS teams of gay lawyers will be watching your every MOVE. We will sue you every
time you BLINK.You made enemies which will HAUNT you for decades,
and the damage we'll cause Utah's economy will LAND ON YOUR DOORSTEP!
I refuse to be politically correct. The right and the left are ignoring that we
are dealing with a mental illness here. Sex is reproduction. It takes two
opposites to reproduce. That is the natural order of planet Earth. However,
people and animals being attracted to the wrong sex does happen. Praying for
someone to change will not help. However, Praying for medical studies into what
is wrong chemically or physically with a person attracted to the wrong sex is
not incorrect. We need to stop all the moral judgments and begin studies into
what is causing this abnormality. It is not learned. It is a real attraction,
and it is abnormal.
To 12:59 p.m."The question that pro-marriage people need to resolve,
at least for me, is the pro gay-marriage party's goal to destroy religion. I
know religion is attacking them, but religion claims it is self defense. Is this
true?"Christian religions have been on the offensive from their
inception. They claim Jesus told them to "preach the gospel to every creature",
and they share this widely-accepted quote: "All that is necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."Thus, they have gone
on the offensive (and is it ever offensive!) to purge the earth's inhabitants of
sin, regardless of whether or not those inhabitants believe in the same things
or the same god or not.There are no similar doctrines or policies
among gays and lesbians that predate the attacks of the religious upon them.We can safely conclude that religions "started it" and all gays and
lesbians are trying to do is defend themselves against the religious fascists
and bigots.I defy anyone to articulate a more accurate description
of the situation.
To wow -- tolerance is highly overrated.
MORMONS really don't want to know my thoughts, or the anger I'll be working off
in my yard today.here's a clue it'll be hours of hitting with an ax
To Matthew 11:48, Women's vote was approved by the people, not by
judicial order. Slavery was ended by the legislative process. So your
claims are false. Women's vote was approved by a process of the constitutional
admendment, which required super-majorities at multiple stages. You need
togo and study history before you start spouting off on things you know nothing
I think that if california passed prop 8 and they want to get around it they
need to have it put before the people and not let the courts make the decision.
It should be a vote of the people not what a bunch of judges think.
of the 18,000 marriages only 180 are still together......by august all 180,000
will be history!
Canada has gay marriage. The majority of Canadians were against it, but the
Socialist Canadian Government went against the will of the people because their
"activist" judges took it upon themselves to change the laws withou a vote of
the people.Now Canada faces a nightmare of issues. There are many
lawsuits hitting the courts that challenge bans on plural marriage, adult vs
child marriage, man vs animal marriage... And the analysts say they are going to
have a hard time not opening the laws to any whim or sexual deviant fancy
someone might have. How can you say that if you can marry a same sex partner,
why not marry two of them at the same time? What is that you say? We
have bigamy laws? Child Sex Laws?Well they used to have laws against
homosexuality also. They used to have laws that only allowed marriage between
one man and one woman.But now that those are history, all hell is
about to break loose.Glad to see we are not quite ready for sodom
and gomorrah quite yet. Give us a couple of more months?God help
us.God help us.
Two steps forward, one step back (18,000 couples are married... that's
36,000 people). Next time the ballot campaign will be even more
interesting. Once all the racial minorities - you know,
descendants from Cain - realize it was Mormons pumping money into the PR
campaign, as they probably do now, I think things will go more favorably at the
ballot in 2010 and/or 2012.It will be easy to campaign. Just
announce it has been a racist church that has wanted their vote. They may not
vote pro-gay, but they'll vote anti-Mormon... once they learn of the church's
racist history... if not its racist present... because scripture hasn't changed.
lol.The antagonists of homosexual marriage won't be able to rely
on reactionary tactics this time. The next campaign is going to be more
thorough, and the evils of religion will be on trial.Unfortunately
for our opponents - and everybody - this will come back year after year, day
after day, until we are successful. There's just no giving up. Enjoy your
temporary victory while it lasts.
. . . . At some point the California supremes will declare the California
constitution unconstitutional!And since the US Supreme Court has
already declared that the US Constitution does not require LGBT marriage, their
opinion will be based on the California constitution!That will be a
feat of legal legerdemain unprecendented in the field human endeavor! And, it will be proof positive of the depths to which jurisprudence in this
country has sunk.
I think who is being Wrong, off target and Bigoted is in the eye of the beholder
because I see plenty of nasty comments coming from the other side and lets not
even talk about the mere fact that gay people have once again been told they are
less the everyone else, so excuse me if I do not care if your feelings are hurt,
why dont you go cry on your spouses shoulder since you have the option.
Splitting the baby isn't always the answer. In this case, it will be shown to
have created a monster.
This is the biggest joke of my life. I cried and I'm sure many did. But if prop8
didn't pass NO ONE, and I can bet my life that NO ONE will cry.JSYK,
"internalized homophobia" means one who is homosexual and, due to social
pressure, had adopted a fear or hatred of homosexuals.
To the 11:39 commentator and others, The most detrimental ruling in
American judicial history, at least for religious freedom, was when the Supreme
Court upheld the Idaho Test Oath. This law excluded people from voting merely
because they believed in plural marriage as a commandment from God, irregardless
of whether they had in any way ever participated in it. Those who try to
compare banning Mormons and from marrying and defining marriage as the union of
a man and a woman ignore basic facts. Marriage as a union of a man and a woman
is the logical, historical and longstanding way. As I have said at least
25 times before, homosexuals can marry, and can continue to practicie homosexual
actions while married, they only have to find someone of the opposite gender to
marry them. So to a few previous comentators, your bigotry has caused you
to be blind to facts.
Curious. All those in favor of same sex marriage raise your hands? Question?
Would you have been in favor of same sex marriage say 10, 15, 20 years ago? Be
honest. If you weren't, what changed your mind? Also, are you in favor of
polygamy? They will be first in line if same sex marriage becomes law. Right
behind them will be the Lamba men. Do you favor sex between an adult male and a
boy? You are thinking this is crazy and will never happen. Well, I suggest to
you folks that same sex marriage was not on your radar screen 10 to 15 years
ago. I know for a fact that the power at the top of the Gay & Lesbian efforts
have one single objective. They have identified the enemy. All religion is
fair game. But, the largest Christian church (Roman Catholic) and the fastest
growing Christian chuch (L.D.S.)are in no mood to compromise a covenant ordained
of God. So, were you consistent? Or, as I suspect a bonafide hypocrite?
on trying to get any kind of ban on religion in America. Your threats in this
regard just show how delusional you really are.
If you need 136 pages to justify your decisions, that is a clue that you are
using faulty logic.
"We need an amendment that will remove the tax-exempt status of religions."I think I am for gay marriage. But it statements like this that scare
me. Is it your hope to help or to hurt? I would like to see people with rights
to religion and also the right to gay marriage. Is that possible? Or must I hate
one and Love the other. The question that pro-marriage people need to resolve,
at least for me, is the pro gay-marriage party's goal to destroy religion. I
know religion is attacking them, but religion claims it is self defense. Is this
This ruling does not correct the flawed reasoning in the Marriage Cases
California doesn't have Civil Unions, they have "Domestic Partnerships". And if
this is "the best day of your life since Prop 8 passed", that speaks volumes
regarding the degree of your internalized homophobia.
I am grateful that prop 8 has been upheld. Sad that the court failed to
articulate the law correctly.
you all make me sick to be american.you sad use the legislative process and not
circumvent the system .it is WE THE PEOPLE we all have the same legal rights to
life,liberte and the prusset of happyns .will the legislative process is full
of not in my backyard.
It appears that the majority of the posters misunderstand what this ruling was
about. The issue at hand was whether the initiative to amend the constitution of
the State of California was done according to the provisions of that document.
If you examine the proceedings, you'll find the California Supreme Court
justices had little choice but to agree the constitution was properly amended by
Proposition 8. The constitutional requirements were laid out very clearly and
compellingly by Kenneth Starr, the counsel for the defense.Bottom
line: this was not a case of the court upholding the will of the people, but
rather upholding the state's constitution, which is their sworn duty.
Weren't they grandfathered in by Prop 8 itself? I seem to recall something to
This a weak decision. The California Supreme Court has created a mess.
It was all the Mormons' fault to begin with. We got prop 8 passed single
handedly. So somehow, we are obviously in complete control of the universe.
Right. Still want to blame us for everything? We are a minority too... someone
else already pointed that out. A minority, yet it's all our fault. Stop
pointing the finger, spewing hatred and bigotry, and get on with your lives.
Take advantage of the blessings you do have, and make the best of the hard to
swallow stuff. Life's full of the hard to swallow stuff, no matter who you are.
Sadly I think they did what was best, I don't agree with allowing the married
gays to stay married, but you can't "UNDO" something you allowed. I don't agree
with it, but it's like giving someone a new car and then taking it back, that
isn't right either! I think the judges did what is wrong, but did the right
thing at the same time. I think Solomon would have done the same thing, only
bannished those who still wanted to stay married to another land, or a corner of
the kingdom where they could be immoral without affecting the rest of the
population. What's a state to do, I think I might have come up with the same
CA Supremes lack guts. No marriage is recognized except between a man and a
woman. The CA constitutions says it, but the supremes got it wrong.
Several years ago a Federal Court in Nebraska stated the admendment to the
Nebraska State Constitution was unconstitutional. The admendment stated that
the state of Nebraska would not recognize any marriage or civil union between
members of the same sex. It also defined marriage as between one man and one
woman.The issue went before the Nebraska Supreme Court and the lower
courts ruling was overturned. This is still in the court system but as yet no
state that has issued the same definition of marriage between one man and one
woman voted on by the people of the state as a admendment to the state's
constitution has been overturned.You have to remember the Iowa
Supreme Court overturned a law voted on by the people. This was very simular to
the Prop 22 passed in California. There are petitions out now to get it into
the current legislature as now it must go through to sessions of the state
legislature before it can be voted on by the people of Iowa. The earliest is
2012. The vote should favor the one man one woman definition of marriage.
Next thing you know they will outlaw polygamy or put an age limit on marriage.
Finally! The voters of the state of California's vote has been respected! :)
I am so glad that the Supreme Court respects the vote of the people.I believe fathers are irreplaceable. Not with a second mother, and not with an
uncle. We need to make families stronger and recognize the unique role a father
plays.I realize there are lots of other family types, including
single parents and same-sex parents. The more power to them. I'm glad California
law extends benefits to them to help them so they can raise kids, but I believe
marriage is the center of a family that provides a male and female role model to
kids.I believe the main reason for a marriage is to provide a father
and mother for kids. Love is also a reason, otherwise we wouldn't let sterile
couples get married, but the main reason is the kids. Others try to make it
about rights, equality and tax benefits. While the Supreme Court disagrees with
me, I'm glad they recognize my voice in the matter.
I'm beginning to think the reason gays and lesbians are not interested in the
civil union compromise and want nothing but marriage, is they have no respect
for religious views on marriage.What better way to thwart organized
religion than to paint them all as haters, bigots, homophobes.This subtle
but false campaign will succeedAnd, as a result, 10-20 years from
now, prop8 will be overturned, marriage will be defined as a union between any
We get to change the Constitution again.Next time in California, the
voice of the majority --- to extend marriage to same-sex partners.And then you get to change it back again, and then we change it again, and you
change it again, and on and on...Have you ever heard of anything so
absurd? But if it comes down to technicalities and you like to play
with technicalities and have your Church's name receive all kinds of bad PR
because of it, more the power to you.Eventually gays will get their
right to marry, but will your Church ever lose the stigma that it has earned
this time around?I seriously doubt it. It's adding more bad PR to a
Church which claims to be "coming out of obscurity, and out of darkness."
Whether you agree with the ruling or not, the CA Supreme Court did not uphold
the will of the people. That would be scary. Unlike Prop 22, the CA Supreme
Court found that Prop 8 was in harmony with the CA Constitution and therefore
could stand as law. That's all that happened. So let's leave the hate-speech
This is the best day of the year. I have since the day Proposition 8 was
passed known that if the California Supreme Court had even one ounce of respect
for the stability of law they would uphold this move. In the passed they upheld
the voters reinstitutting the death penalty after they had ruled the death
penalty violated the California State Constitution, a case that involved much
more important things for the participants than if they are recognized as
married. Marriage as an instutution is very important, and for the good
of society we have to keep child rearing as closely connected to marriage as
possible. However, especially with California's very broad and comprehensive
civil unions, marriage for individual couples in California is not as important
as the anti-poropistion-eight crowd would have us believe.
The big lie of the gay/lesbian community, is that their rights are taken away.
One cannot vote rights away that are Constitutional. Marriage is not in the
Constitution, so it can be voted on. Granted, I suppose that means that
heterosexual marriage recognized by the govt. can be voted away also. Therefore,
everybody, gay/lesbians included, have the same rights. Just because they don't
want to marry heterosexually, does not mean the right does not exist. The black
voters in California understand this, and thus 70% voted for Prop. 8.
(Incidentally, it is always very telling and interesting that the gays never
seem to target the blacks in California - it is always the religions - which
shows where their feelings are.)But you cannot vote to take away the
rights of Mormons to practice their religion. Freedom of Religion is
Constitutionally guaranteed. Just like you cannot vote to take away the right of
freedom of speech, etc.
Get your facts straight. If it had been left up to the people, we would NOT have
slavery. It WAS left up to the people, and we don't have legal slavery. The
people could have voted Abraham Lincoln out of office at his second term, an
antiwar president would have taken office, he would likely have agreed to a
split nation, and the South would likely still have slavery. The people voted to
reelect Lincoln long after he'd made his stand to abolish slavery.
boycott boycott boycott
Finally, a court that let's the people choose what it wants! Imagine that, a
Democratic Republic where the people actually rule! God bless the USA!
Now lets here the crying
Side with Gay People=Bad Activist Judge. Side with Anti-Gay People=Good
Activist Judge. That is all for today.
"In the continuing fight to preserve marriage, the next step needs to be a
law/Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman of
the same faith and religious background."mmhmm... and now we see the
REAL slippery slope.were you saying this tongue in cheek, or are you
Really all we're fighting over is the definition of the word marriage.Religious people take the word "marriage" seriously and will demonstrate that
in their protection of the man-woman definition even in the politically correct
secular world.Gays an Lesbians for the most part are not interested
in the definition of marriage, but seek equal rights afforded married
couples.It seems to me the only compromise is to afford equal
protection to gays and lesbians under a term other than marriage.hmmmm..."Civil Unions" maybe?
Sad day for California.
You're clueless.So clueless you don't even know it.Comparing homosexual "rights" and "advances" to the hallowed battles of those
who have fought and died to make and keep us a free nation?Puh-leeeeease.Satan has you wrapped so tightly around his finger I
seriously doubt you'll ever escape. Sad, and I mean that sincerely. Sad,
All the Cal Supremes did was determine if the prop 8 process was constitutional
or not. It left in place the existing legal 18,000 gay
marriages.Now we have a legal dysfunction: 1. This shows
how flawed the Cal proposition process is:2. 18,000 California
citizens who are now legally married and that now nobody else can gain that
legal right. Sounds like a case of government-imposed
discrimination to me.
@Close But No Bullseye (11:55a)I'm looking forward to reading the
portion of the decision related to the 18,000 existing marriages. I, too, am
having difficulty reconciling "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid
and recognized in California" and leaving the existing marriages intact -- with
one caveat.If the Court ruled that these 18,000 marriages were
validly contracted and thus could not be rescinded, I tend to agree. But it
seems that this should only mean that there would be no impediment to any
outside jurisdiction choosing to honor them; it seems patently unconstitutional
for any jurisdiction within CA to recognize these marriages. I only recently
managed to download a copy of the decision. It seems I wasn't the only one
interested in doing so. ;-) It will be quite interesting to see what the Court
actually says in this regard.
There's a Church of Utah? Cool! I thought only countries got their own official
churches! Where do they meet? What do they teach? How are they different from
every other church in the state?
"They, gay activists, will go back to voters...?" Using intimidation/violence &
coercion to get them to take your side?... It's easy to talk about
tolerance and equality when it's what they want for themselves, but they don't
want give the same to others. Don't try to redifine marriage; create
something else for yourselves, but don't try to change something that has been
since the beginning of times & emulate a heterosexual institution. How about
respect for that?
While I applaud the decision of the California Supreme Court to finally do the
right thing, I'm concerned over what is going to happen next. The gay community
in California, and in several other states, have been planning to demonstrate
tonight. It was either to be a celebration, or they were going to turn to the
streets in anger, depending on the outcome of this ruling. The organizers of the
demonstrations admitted as much in the national news. We all saw the
violence and intolerance they exhibited the last time they lost, so... what's
going to happen this time? Can we expect more attacks on people, property,
churches, etc., or can we expect civil behavior? Are they going to throw more
hissy fits, or are they going to behave like the adults they are, and accept the
court's ruling without violence?
So 18,000 gay couples have the right to be married, but anyone going forward
doesn't? How long before the first lawsuit challenging that ruling
is filed, probably already has been.This court just keeps getting
egg on their face don't they.This decision might insite even more
outrage than if they had overturned Prop 8. At least you wouldn't have had
people sitting on both sides of the law, one married the others not allowed to
What are you talking about? Everyone has the right in California to marry
someone of the opposite sex. They don't have to renounce anything. Everyone in
California can establish a civil union. They don't have to renounce anything.
But don't try to call a milk cow a slow elk. Marriage is between one man and
one woman, except for the few months when activist judges tried to change it
unlawfully, in order to cause that the law become more clear to them.
Well, I also am glad that the voice of the people have finally been heard.But, I do not believe that this is over by a long shot!I do
not believe that the people for gay marraige will accept this. They do not care
about the will of the people. They have been pushing this stuff down our throats
for so long and I believe that they will continue to push it down our throats
until they get what they want.I think that it is like the war in
heaven that we are still fighting here on earth - I think that this war will
continue until Christ himself comes and says NO MORE - It is done!
That's exactly what this means. And I must say if Mormons can count all their
ancestors' polygamous marriages as legal, then homosexuals today get to do the
same.Be very careful what you do when you're a prophet. It could
come back to bite you. Hard.
"Re: What minority next | 11:31 a.m. May 26, 2009 I agree with you. I say
we get everyone to give millions of dollars like the Mormon church did to an
initiative that bans Mormons from getting married in California. We're not
banning them from getting married if they denounce their religion, so they still
have the same rights as everyone else. That sounds fair to me."In
short, you're argument is ridiculous.You are certainly entitled to
waste your time, your money and your energy "outlawing" Mormons from getting
married in CA if you choose (personally, I wish you'd try...) but there's one
teeny, tiny difference: homosexuals getting "married" is a sin while LDS
marriages are not.Some day you'll see.
I am in favor of same-sex marriage, and I believe this was the right decision
for the Supreme Court of the State of California to make.The SC was
NOT ruling on whether or not same-sex marriage is right or wrong. They were NOT
ruling on whether or not Prop 8 violated basic human rights that ought to be
protected for all US citizens. They were simply ruling on an appeal that argued
that Prop 8 did not appropriately follow the amendment process. The SC decided
that Prop 8 DID follow the appropriate amendment process.In other
words, this appeal was an attempt to disqualify Prop 8 on a procedural
technicality. That failed, but that is only one of many weapons we (who support
equality before the law) have in our arsenal.We shall prevail.
Wow, talk about missing the issue. I won't go to the state to get baptized,
blessed or married. Yes, everyone should have equal protection under the law
as outline in the California State's consitution. But we need to move beyond
the government performing any religous ceramony.. Civil Unions by the state
and marriages by the church... A nice seperation...
Yes, this was a good decision by the Court.While it is unfortunate
that a few thousand signatures and a simple majority can eliminate
constitutional rights from a segment of the population -- and same-sex marriage
*was* a constitutional right in California when Prop 8 passed -- it is also
exactly the way the CA constitution is written.At the same time that
they're working to put a new constitutional amendment initiative on the ballot
undoing the results of Prop 8, as the opponents of Prop 8 are (unsurprisingly)
doing, I hope they will also work to make it harder to amend the state
constitution. A constitution that can be amended at the whim of a bare majority
of those who vote in any given election is all but meaningless. California
should update its constitution to make it more difficult to amend. It requires
a 2/3 vote in order to impose a special tax in California, although it only
takes a simple majority to amend the constitution. This is nonsensical.Bottom line: a good decision, firmly grounded in a flawed constitution.
So they upheld the wishes of the people of California for the second time. I
thought that's why we voted in the first place.
The government has no business being in the marriage business. Get the state
out of it so that we can move on.
You can teach same-sex marriage in public schools if I can teach about the Book
of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the Restoration. Tit for tat...if we're really
going for equality, let's level the playing field.
We are a country of laws and by majority agreement we support laws in our
communities that protect our people. Now, I am tired of the threats to outlaw
religion or tax-exempt status or threat of a fight. As I said previously, let's
focus on the the legal rights that the gay/lesbian group is asking for and write
them into civil unions. Let's leave the definition of marriage alone as this
seems to be the key issue to this fight. Let's stop trying to define what "God"
believes on this topic and simply address rights within civil unions. This is
quite simple and does not require all of the idiotic statements from people on
this site. We have too many more important issues to focus on rather than this
battle in California. Yes, I live in CA and have so for many years so I am
familiar with this issue and have seen it on TV and in the newspapers and on the
net everyday. I am tired of this old argument. Fix what needs to be fixed and
leave the rest alone.
I absolutly disagree with the sentiment against gay marriage, but the process
has played it's course in California, and the voice of the voters in that state
has been preserved. This being America, that is all you can hope for. Whether
you agree with the issue at hand or not. It was decided by a group of voters.
Good: upholding the will of the MAJORITY of California voters who voted against
legalizing gay marriage.Bad: leaving the current CA gay "marriages"
intact.Should have nullified them too because if something is
illegal, it's illegal.
Studies have shown that when couples from different religious backgrounds marry,
it often leads to divorce - especially when there are children involved.In the continuing fight to preserve marriage, the next step needs to be
a law/Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman of
the same faith and religious background.
Let's see what the Church of Utah has up it's slippery sleeve next time
around--any bets their lawyers are already working overtime on it?
The California Supreme Court based this on the constitutionality of the
amendment, nothing more, nothing less. As they stated, the oppositions stand as
to the constitutionality of the amendment had no merits.This means
in many ways that the person representing the proponents of the ban,
admendments, person was able to put it out there as a constitutional right to do
so. The Supreme Court regardless of bias concurred with the constitutional
means this was put to the vote. The people of California have voted for it and
with all of the negative bias against those who gave of their time, money and
talents for the passage of it hopefully will feel vendicated by the
upholding.It is true that this isn't over, not by a long shot, but I
wonder just how much the backlash is towards the gay community to get it to a
vote again in 2010 or 2012. The backlash could really be devastating or it
could make it where good people are afraid to vote their conscieous. If the
latter is true then the people as a whole will loose.
All you that are excited......do you realize that the decision opens up the door
for gay marriage?How can 18,000 couples have "rights" and others don't?
This will just lead to further changes,in a humane direction. So go ahead and
jump for joy, but the decision actually is a positive in the future for all
And it wasn't even Rosie this time!
If we left everything up to the people, we'd still have slavery and no rights
for women. One day gays will be allowed to marry in this country of ours, and I
for one cant wait. I only wish I could vote on your lifestyle.
Why exactly do all the Prop 8 opponents think that marriage is a right? It is
not at all
John, the CA supreme court became activist when they invalidated Prop 22, but
then immediately ruled that gay marriage was legal. There was no law on the
books to allow gay marriage. What the court should have said was that Prop 22
was invalid, but in order for gay marriage to happen, either the legislative
branch needs to pass a law or a voter initiative. Activist judges create laws
that were never there.
This isn't about conservatives vs liberals. Supporting marriage isn't a
conservative or a religious value. It is only a religious value if your
religion dictates you to be tolerant, to support freedom of conscience and to
fight poverty.There are serious freedom of conscience issues here if
we can accuse people who follow their conscience of being bigots. Supporting
marriage sends a strong message against out of wedlock births, and the povery
that they cause. It is the height of cultural intolerance to conclude that
someone is a bigot or a homophobe simply because of their cultural or religous
Let it go people! Stop wasting time and go do something good in the word for
The citizens in California spoke--twice--loud and clear. Thankfully they had the
financial support of people all over the country from a variety of backgrounds
Religion is specifically protected by the Constitution, gay marriage is not.
Not a hard distinction at all.
OK all of you gay marriage fans should read the court ruling. Marriage isn't a
right. It never was a right. So the people can pass laws to restrict marriage.
Utah knows that marriage has been restricted for certain reasons. Polygamy was
given up because the US Supreme Court ruled that the laws passed to ban polygamy
were valid. So Gay rights activist should use their power to convince voters to
elect politicians to pass laws allowing gay marriage. Once you do that, you will
get your chance to marry. Instead you hide behind judges that aren't supposed to
pass laws. The 18,000 marriages should never of happened because even though
they struck down a voter initiatives (which was a wrong decision), that didn't
mean that gay marriage was legal. Stop using this equality argument, unless you
allow people like Warren Jeffs to marry as many as girls as possible.
re: Anonymous | 11:20 a.m.Do you have any idea how intolerant your own
rant comes across?
I applaud this decision and am thrilled for the 18,000 couples whose marriages
have been saved by the California Supreme Court. I am disappointed
that the Court has again failed to see the discrimination in the Prop 8 bill,
but we are confident that over time the bridges of prejudice will be broken and
gays will receive full rights under the law in due time. The
anti-gay movement may have won this battle, but they will not win the war. Americans fought for their rights from the British--and won. Americans fought against taxation without representation--and won. Slaves fought for their rights of freedom--and won.Women fought
for their equal rights--and won. African-Americans and other
minorities have fought for equal recognition under the law--and won. As each of them have done so and been victorious, so will gays and lesbians.
When truth is brought out initially, first it is violently opposed,
then ridiculed, then ignored, then accepted. The day is coming, and
coming quickly, when gays, lesbians, transgenders, and bisexuals will be able to
enjoy equal rights under the law as other Americans do.
The courts already ruled against our 'minority religion' repeatedly. As I
recall, the most famous was the ruling against polygamy in the late 19th
century. Welcome to the club! Fact is, we live with what the majority want.
Now that gay couples can only enter into domestic partnerships and not gay
marriages they have lost all sorts of rights......oh wait. No they
haven't. They haven't lost any rights at all.This debate never
should have been about rights, or the majority oppressing the minority. It is
about a word and who gets to use it. So please stop your slippery slope
arguments of, "Who's rights are on the chopping block next?" and, "Now they
will come after your religion."
I applaud the decision. This is a great day for those who support freedom of
conscience against bigots such as Perez Hilton. By supporting marriage
Californians have sent an important message of the importance of marriage in
The Supreme Court of California is now facing a very difficult dilemma of their
own creation. Because of their prior departure from good moral judgement and
righteous truth, they created what will become a war as great as any this
country has ever faced. Unfortunately, it will be a war most ugly between right
vs wrong. On the good side, prophets have taught us that Jesus would need to
know who stands on His side and who would not. It will now become more clear and
make His judgement less disputable. There is no gay marriage in heaven, and so
it is again in California.
We need an amendment that will remove the tax-exempt status of religions.
Finally! The voice of the people have been heard! It's not about being a
minority or civil rights. This is about people trying to legalize and protect
perverse behavior that destroys families and ultimately the individual. More
than half of California said no and meant it!
Well I must say I'm surprised. I thought for sure they would over turn it. I
think they did the right thing though. Democracy wins.
The Supreme Court of California has honored the will of the people by popular
vote. I am grateful to see that the system still works.If the
gay/lesbian community desires to change the laws regarding same sex marriage,
let them work through the legislative process and not circumvent the system
prepared by our founding fathers by using lawsuits and activist judges to try to
force their agenda on the rest of the world.There will still be
opposition from the pro-heterosexual marriage who will continue to stand for
what we believe is right and will use our freedom of speech and our financial
support for our cause. Let the battle play out according to the
laws of our land in the electoral process, not in the courts!
I think the point that needs to be taken is - What law can the minorities pass
that will force the laws to bend to their will. Once this minority group gets
their way, which group will try to get their way next?
Oh yeah, oh yeah. I am so happy I think I shall celebrate tonight, tomorrow,
and the weekend. Wendover, here we come. Oh yeah, oh yeah...
To be able to vote on any rights one feels are unsavory.
I agree with you. I say we get everyone to give millions of dollars like the
Mormon church did to an initiative that bans Mormons from getting married in
California. We're not banning them from getting married if they denounce their
religion, so they still have the same rights as everyone else. That sounds fair
One state down, five more to go. When the voters in the state decide to let it
happen, that's another story, but forcing it on people who voted against it is
The fat lady has sung
Whether the decision was ultimately right or wrong at least the court did what
they are charged with doing - upholding the highest law of the state, the
Constitution. The judiciary is not charged with bringing ultimate justice but
rather to uphold the Constitution even if upholding it may ultimately be what
some term unjust. These men are not gods who rule according to the highest
principles of justice rather they rule based upon a man made law which though
imperfect is the law we have chosen to live by.
There will be no closure. The proponents of gay marriage will not accept the
voice of the people. They will continue to terrorize others by setting fire to
their church and home until they force this on the people.
What? I thought that, when Prop 22 was overturned, that CA Supreme Court was
found to be nothing but activist judges? And they upheld this? (btw-my tongue
is planted firmly in my cheek).Just goes to show that the Supreme
Court does follow the law of the land. The first Prop was worded in such a way
that it did not conform with the CA Constitution and therefore was overturned.
This one was worded more carefully to conform.Maybe now we can let
the term 'activist judge' go away.
Wow, the results of a legal election by the majority upheld. Those Californians
are so mean spirited.
Now comes the REAL FIGHT!
This is the first time I have ever heard of the California high court doing
something right.I am certain that they will take strong steps to
insure it is not repeated.
Where's all your prattle about the "activist judges" now?
Now the battle begins in earnest. I can only pray that religious people
everywhere will continue to vote for righteousness and moral rectitude.
Yes on 8! wins. And the court stated the arguments against it are without
merit. For once, this courts has heard the people, and has valued their votes,
and has allowed the will of the people to prevail. The court however, failed to
recognize an important fact - that the people have corrected the court's attempt
to force same sex marriage into the law by claiming it's the only way for equal
protection under the law to work. Well, we the people have corrected those
court papers. Next?
Good. Now, we get to vote it down and drive bigotry home to Utah.
My name says it all....Now that California voters have proven that
the majority can vote into law things that ban minoritys...who is next?Maybe you....and your religion...after all you are a minority!!!!
I believe that's a fair ruling. A few months ago the California Supreme Court
stated that if they upheld Prop 8, they would also invalidate the 18,000
marriages previously performed. I'm glad those marriages were left intact
(kinda hard to say "just kidding!" to a marriage that was previously performed).
This is the way it should be. The majority rules. If
you want changes...go about it democratically ......and legally..
Sad day when rights are voted away.
Hoorah! for California Supreme Court!
The political process has now played out, and we have some closure. Lets all take a breath now until the next battle.