Published: Sunday, May 20 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
I appreciate the recognition that Obama still thinks it should be left to the
states. I find it interesting though that an editorial titled in part
"stand for traditional marriage" never really gave reasons to stand for
it. Plus it's kinda relative, I support marriage between a man and a woman,
heck I want to have one of those myself someday. Nobody's voting on banning
mixed-gender marriage though so it's not hard to stand for since nobody is
standing against it. Yes I know what is being meant... okay so there's got
to be a reason to be against same-sex marriage, and it has to be a
constitutional reason too since religious reasons for laws are unconstitutional
(that's why sharia law is unconstitutional).
Very well put, Deseret News. Unfortunately, there are few in the media with the
courage to stand up for traditional marriage and for the family. The family is,
in fact, the fundamental unit of society. Upon it rests everything else that is
good and wholesome. In order to be conceived we each required a mother and a
father. Nature decreed it thus. Who are we then to change the natural order of
things, to deprive a child who has no choice in the matter to be raised without
either a mother or a father?
A better direction for anyone that has a heart would be to support love and
commitment where ever it exists. This editorial sounds like something from
Little Rock AK in the '60's. Somehow I just can't understand how
someone else's happiness will diminish mine.
There are going to be LOTS of "events" and "happenings"before this next election. I wouldn't put too much stockin
anything either candidate decides to support in the next 6 months. That
"event" was to rally support from theleft-wing of the Democratic
party for Obama for 2012.Next week, it will be Seniors being targeted for
a big campaign. The following week, it will be something else.And
Romney will be giving luncheons all throughout the Deep South trying to
rally support from the non-denominationalborn-again christians. It is all
part of the campaign process.
Thanks for the valid points and we will continue to stand for traditional
marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. To me anything other than that
IS other, and should not be called or treated the same. If some want to act in
other ways that is their choice, but I wish they wouldn't continue to try
to impose such a distortion on the rest of us by using the force of laws, to
include them when it is biologically impossible for such a union to multiply.
In reading of nations like Japan now are selling more adult diapers than
baby ones and the crisis coming of not enough new generation to even just
replace their parents it is eye opening. Then like in China or other countries
who have restricted births of girls, by using abortion, what will happen in that
generation to their population? How important the laws of nature ( God )
are to the welfare of the planet! It seems some want to protect
"nature", save owls and lizards etc but can't seem to care about
saving our own species ? Some cry over stranded whales but what about
adopting abandoned downs babies?
Obama made this announcement purely for political reasons just as he was leaving
for a big fundraiser in California in which many of his big bundlers are gay.
They were putting heavy pressure on him to come out and he did. At
the same time, his announcement didn't take one step toward implementing
anything. It was only a statement. He hasn't done one thing for gay
marriage. This move was NOT courageous or sensitive. It was purely political.
It is telling that this editorial offered no evidence supporting the denial of
this basic civil right except through a vague appeal to religious authority and
popular prejudice. This is not surprising - the opposition to
same-sex marriage has nothing other than religious tradition to rely on - all
rational, testable claims in support of their opposition fail badly under legal
scrutiny.My heterosexual marriage is neither diminished nor
threatened by a same-sex couple celebrating their love and mutual commitment by
getting married. Neither is yours.Civil right aren't things
you vote on. That's why they're called "rights."
Like all the other editorials, court cases, and other arguments against marriage
equality, this editorial completely fails to make the case. There is no
compelling argument for denying marriage equality for same sex couples.Indeed, this editorial presents a false choice. Being in favor of traditional
marriage does not require one to be against same sex marriage, nor vice
versa.As a person who has enjoyed the blessings of "traditional
marriage" for several decades, I support and believe in traditional
marriage. But I also support same sex marriage for those who love in a different
way than I do. Legalizing same sex marriage does not weaken traditional
marriage, it only extends the blessings of marriage commitment to others who do
not currently enjoy those blessings.How is that a threat to my
marriage?It is not.
I just can't go along with this one. I know good, valuable people that
this affects, and I believe in my heart that it's not a choice. This
position seems cruel and unChristian.
What you failed to mention about the North Carolina vote is that the voters who
did turn out are not representative of the population. A number of polls show
the majority of Americans are OK with gay marriage, while those opposed are
rapidly becoming a minority. It's just that many of those who do not
actively oppose gay marriage were not motivated enough to show up for the vote.
And don't get too proud; the North Carolina initiative also restricted
same-sex civil unions, which most voters did not realize before casting their
vote. A well-informed demographic, yes? Unlike abortion, acceptance
of gay marriage has been a very rapid shift, and one that social conservatives
will likely lose in the future, just like the Civil Rights movement. So prepare
thyself, the world is changing around you. BTW, I've yet to
hear any argument that convinces me that civil marriages between members of the
same sex in any way diminishes traditional marriage. Nothing but illogical
slippery-slope arguments and unfounded religious regurgitations.
The editorial is somewhat naive. The closer same-sex marriage gets to being a
fundamental civil right the closer it will become to being constitutionally
protected. At that point the states and the voters will lose the ability to
define marriageand the judges will decide. An amendment to the
Constitution is highly unlikely.
Admittedly same sex marriage is a weird idea. But take heart? Please explain
whyanyone needs to. Please explain how if gays are allowed to marry how
anyone'sTraditional marriage would be at risk.
What this article fails to mention (and other Robert George based editorials) is
the support for marriage equality in the Research Triangle and urban areas of
North Carolina, and the now almost cliche voting differences between older and
younger voters. Marriage equality for gays and lesbians has support from the
young, educated and urban demographics, while the older, rural demographic voted
against it. This split suggests an inevitable change over time.Perhaps that is why anti-gay marriage advocates like Mr. George and
conservative editorials like this one, ignore how few "traditional"
marriages and intact families actually exist. Rather than tackle the HUGE
problems impacting traditional marriage like divorce, financial insecurity, and
so on, they just focus on denying civil marriage protections to a politically
vulnerable minority group.To quote Doug from the Pixar movie
Same sex marriage is no threat to traditional "one man one women"
marriage. But, if same sex marriage is denied either by legislation or by
popular vote, there is unequal treatment under the law, a clear violation of
constitutional principles.Let's be honest, opposition to same
sex marriage is largely rooted in the notion that homosexual conduct is sin, and
that condoning same sex marriage promotes sinful activity. There is also the
question of where it all ends - an important issue in this state's culture.
If the law allows same sex marriages, how long will it be before someone raises
the issue of legalizing polygamous relationships? And,who might not want that
can of worms opened?
Thank you for highlighting the President's Moderate tone. Unfortunately,
far to many people, especially on the pro-gay marriage side, even make an
attempt to understand the real and valid concerns of the people on the other
side of the argument. Compromise is only possible when understanding and
compassion are present.
Setting religious arguments aside, I think there are good secular reason for not
changing the definition of marriage.1. I think it's important that we
continue to incentivize traditional 1 man - 1 woman marriage. Plenty of studies
have shown that this is the optimal environment for raising our future taxpaying
citizens (children). We also incentivize people to purchase homes, high mileage
cars, or energy efficient improvements on our homes. It doesn't mean that
society abhors those that chose not to do those things, it just means that
society wants to incentivize behavior that is in the best interest of society as
a whole.2. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, altering the
definition of marriage would create a legal "slippery slope" that would
provide legal footing to force society to begin incentivizing other marital
permutations such as incestuous relationships, polygamy, poliarmory,
beastiality, and eventually (once the "age of consent" is lowered in the
law books) pedophilia. I believe that those who say this wouldn't happen
are naive.I for one say - please don't tamper with the
definition of marriage.
I believe in marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman. I
don't, though, support governmental regulation of marriage. Two people
can't be married without government approval. A person can't perform a
marriage without government approval. Marriage is a social contract, and I
believe the definition of marriage should be left to social groups. It
doesn't bother me that the definition of marriage might vary from one
social group to another social group. I believe that social groups should be
free to define marriage however they want, and people considering joining a
social group can consider that group's definition of marriage when they
contemplate whether they should join that group or not.Government
does, I believe, have a concern about civil rights of people, and I think that
civil unions, or similar agreements, are a valid way for government to provide
for civil rights.
How about we take heart and stand for fairness, love and happiness?My marriage will never be threatened because two men get married. I love and
trust my husband, and he loves and trusts me. Nothing in our life or marriage
will change because two men or two women got married. Nothing.
How does same-sex marriage affect my hetero-sexual marriage? It dosn't
affect my marriage, but it affects me in other ways. If same-sex marriages are
allowed then my bishop/minister must perform these marriages just as he performs
traditional marriages. If our churches are used for traditional marriages and
receptions then they must be opened to celebration of same-sex marriages.Same-sex marriages will, if allowed, alter some of our traditiona and
even our places of worship. as we have been told many times,
"hate the sin, but love the sinner".
For those who believe that legalizing SSM has no impact on supporters of
marriage between a man and a woman, let me cite two examples in two separate
posts: First: Catholic Charities has closed its adoption services
because the law is a "no discrimination" law, meaning it was required to
abandon its religious tenet to place children for adoption in SSM homes, which
it refused to do. This is a religious liberty issue. That SSM will
affect YOUR marriage is entirely a red herring argument. To be
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments