@Redshirt "As for seeing a significant upsurge in marriages between gay
couples. In the countries that have gay marraige, that never materialized. Most
gays will remain cohabitating, and little will change, except marriage rates
will continue to fall as people see marriage being cheapened."Those last three words give yourself away.You see, for us gays to
cheapen your marriage by having it allowed, you're stating that we are less
than you. You look down on gay people and I believe there is a word for that. It
starts with a 'B' and rhymes with "Schmigotry". We
are in a country that values equality. It's time the federal courts took a
stand for that.
@wrzI'm not a legal expert but your logic seems flawed to me...
otherwise why wouldn't the Equal Protection Clause already allow all the
combinations you mention? Why do we even need a SC decision? And it
sounds like Scalia would agree with me that ultimately it is a question for
citizens (i.e. States) to decide (Lawrence v Texas).
What would Jesus do (or WWJD), is a standard that long has been advocated by
certain Christians. Let's put that another way. If Jesus were on this
forum, 'What Would Jesus Say' = WWJS? I ask this in all earnestness,
because three times I've tried, and three times I've been denied
because of what I said.If the Supreme Court decides in favor of
'Gay Marriage', then I suppose the DesNews editorial board or staff
will get the clarity they say they want. But, would that be good?Having read what Jesus has said, whether by his own voice, or by the voice of
his prophets, which Mormons view as being the same, I do not think Jesus would
be for that. God instituted marriage on this planet in the beginning. And,
clearly, it was intended by him to be between males and females, and not between
persons of the same gender.God, speaking through Isaiah, speaking of
persons who have had and do have intimate relations between persons of the same
gender said this— (see Isaiah 3:8&9). Are we not as a society there
@Tyler D:"This argument is complete nonsense... you're letting
fear override logic. Society can simply define marriage has "between two
consenting adults."We're not talking about what society can
decide. We're talking about Equal Protection rights under the US
Constitution. We're talking about a potential ruling by the US Spreme
Court.If a person wishes to marry several people or their daughter,
etc., that person has as much right to do so as a person wishing to marry a
person of their same sex.
"At which time our society will begin to unravel, deteriorate, fall apart,
and eventually disappear."There is absolutely no empirical,
rational, or historical basis for, nor evidence to support, such a
fear-mongering assertion.Only the truth will set people free.
wrzOgden, UT"If gay marriage falls under the provisions of the
Fourteenth Amendment and becomes legalized, then any other combination of
marriage that humans can devise, such as father/daughter, mother/son,
sister/brother/, brother/sister/sister, Brother/sister/pet cat, etc., etc.,
should also be found allowable and legal."This argument is
complete nonsense... you're letting fear override logic. Society can simply
define marriage has "between two consenting adults."
@Flashback:"My prediction. Marriage will be defined as One Man and One
Woman. Federal rights will be extended to civil unions."A
distinction without a difference.
2RanchHand:"I am trusting this Supreme Court to determine that in
America, Equal Protection means EQUAL PROTECTION FOR EVERYBODY."Everyone wishing to marry already has EQUAL PROTECTION. Anyone can marry...
so long as the person they marry is of the opposite sex as per DOMA. This is
why the Court will find DOMA to be constitutional.If you want the
law to change so that other combinations are permitted, such as two men or two
women marrying, then you must extend that right to all other combinations such
as three men and four women marrying, and such as polygamy. At which time the
entire marriage ritual will vanish from the country. You cannot say
that equal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment extends only to gay and lesbian
marriages and no further.Given this, the Court will keep it wits
about it and support the marriage of one man and one woman intact.
@Henry Drummond:"It will be interesting to see if the Court invokes
similar logic with same sex marriage."If gay marriage falls
under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and becomes legalized, then any
other combination of marriage that humans can devise, such as father/daughter,
mother/son, sister/brother/, brother/sister/sister, Brother/sister/pet cat,
etc., etc., should also be found allowable and legal. I can even envision a
dozen or so close friends marrying each other (just think, they wouldn't
have to 'swing' anymore). At which time our society will begin to
unravel, deteriorate, fall apart, and eventually disappear.
There is often a conflict between different pieces of democratically enacted
social legislation. One example is the democratically enacted Virginia law
entitled the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" that banned interracial
marriage in the State. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1967 that this
violated the democratically enacted 14th Amendment. Their rationale is germane
to the current debate and reads in part: "Marriage is one of the
"basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and
survival."They went on to say racial discrimination was
unsupportable and deprived citizens "of liberty with due process of
law."They concluded:"The Fourteenth Amendment
requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious
racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not
marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be
infringed by the State."It will be interesting to see if the
Court invokes similar logic with same sex marriage. I suspect that they will
strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and punt on Prop 8 by striking it down
on technical terms.
My prediction. Marriage will be defined as One Man and One Woman. Federal
rights will be extended to civil unions.
If the knee-jerk conservatives on the Court have their way, this could be the
conservative's Roe vs. Wade and end up creating unnecessary divisiveness on
this issue for decades to come. I'm actually surprised Roberts (known for
his judicial restraint) is taking this on. I would have thought he more than any
of the rest would have seen the wisdom in letting the country continue with its
democratic conversation at the State level.
@redshirtSince we are laying blame for social ills based on weak
correlations should we also give gay marriage credit for the fact that the
Netherlands has done very well economicslly while countries like the us that
does not have a nation wide law legalizing gay marriage has struggled? Why not
it is no less logical.
there not their sorry.
@redshirtthe article you quote from the Australian times does not seem to
exist anywhere on the internet, care to tell us exactly what research they make
reference to in support of their claims?
@redshirt So the article on the Netherlands at best shows a weak
correlation between the gay marriage debate and the decline in marriage but as
usual fails to provide any evidence of a causal relationship. I can make
erroneous correlations between the number of dead rabbits on the side of the
road and the number of telephone poles per mile but that does not mean their is
any casual relationship. Now if you have some evidence of a causal relationship
lets see it.
Let's get gay marriage legal and move on.
@ RedShirt: Marriage in the Netherlands has been in decline for many years -
the decline started before gay marriage was allowed. And, yes, you can argue
that the decline started as soon as gay couples started to ask for permission to
marry and you may even be able to find support for that position - but, if the
gay marriage debate was handled in the Netherlands the same way it was handled
here, the only people you have to blame for the decline in marriage rates are
those who argued that marriage really isn't that important in all
situations and gays really don't need it since all benefits are available
without marriage. In other words, blame the decline in the desire to get
married on those who oppose same-sex marriage - they are the ones who talked
marriage down and devalued it.The "Man and Wife?" article
you reference is actually in the Sydney Morning Herald, was written by Chris
Meney, the director of the Life, Marriage and Family Centre in the Catholic
Archdiocese of Sydney, and is an editorial - not a fact-based article. All it
proves is the Catholic Church thinks people should be married before having
Judge Roberts showed his true liberal bias last summer so I suspect gay marriage
will be forced down our throats - like Obamacare - very soon. Every state -
including Utah - will be forced to recognize homosexual marriage regardless of
the what the people of the state say. Socialism doesn't regard states
rights - just the all powerful federal government. Get used to it.
To "Tolstoy" once again, try reading what was posted, and the
researchers that were interviewed about their scientific research.Just because it is a news article about a study published. The article from
Australia is not an opinion piece. It is reporting on a study that was
published. It is no different than the AGW articles that you believe.Just because you reject the truthes contained in the article does not mean
they are invalid. You should try reading articles before you lie about their
content, that way you don't appear to be as ignorant as you do right now.
@redshirtonce again opinion pieces and pieces that use the erroneous
assumptions of the writer are not the same as research redshirt, try reading the
credible research the facts clearly contradict your opinions.
@Redshirt"marriage rates will continue to fall as people see marriage
being cheapened."'Gay people can get married? Well
that's it, I'm not going to bother marrying anyone myself.' -
said no straight Dutch person ever.
I think DOMA's going down, as it should, since it clearly violates Article
Four Section One of the constitution, the 'full faith and credit'
clause. I think Roberts will craft a narrow 6-3 opinion striking down Prop 8,
but only in California.
To "Shelama" unfortunately for you, and so many others like you, the
assumptions you made are wrong.Read "Dutch Decline: Losing
interest in matrimony" in the National Review.It is also harmful
to children. See "Man and wife? That's best for baby" in the
Austrialian National Times.As for seeing a significant upsurge in
marriages between gay couples. In the countries that have gay marraige, that
never materialized. Most gays will remain cohabitating, and little will change,
except marriage rates will continue to fall as people see marriage being
@Roland Keyser"On the prop. 8 case they will issue a very narrow
ruling which will not change the states' ability to regulate marriage. They
may decide on technical grounds that prop 8 was either proper or improper. The
ruling will apply only to California, since California is the only state that
approved gay marriage and then rescinded the right to marry."That's what I had predicted until someone pointed out to me a detail that
gives me pause... since that is what the appeals court had come up with, why
would the supreme court take up the case just to agree with the lower court
ruling?@Happy Valley Heretic"Then the church could
reinstitute polygamy, since it was only abandoned for statehood to begin
with."The church would never re-institute it if for no other
reason than the fact that re-instituting it would likely result in half the
church membership to leave within 5 years. Plus it would still leave a mess
seeing as its now a global church and many other nations still wouldn't
Mike in Cedar City said: From the LDS standpoint however, this would not be a
welcome decision, and not just from a moral standpoint, it also could also raise
the specter of making polygamous unions legal.I'm not sure I
agree and think it might be a welcome decision.Then the church could
reinstitute polygamy, since it was only abandoned for statehood to begin
with.I know it had nothing to do with statehood just a quinkydink.Besides if all parties marrying are adults and can sign a contract, it
would be freedom of choice.
Yes, we wouldn't want the court to be ahead of some of the state's on
social issues. It was terrible that the court didn't let Southern states
work out their civil rights issues on their own without federal intervention.
Here's my prediction: The court will rule DOMA unconstitutional. On the
prop. 8 case they will issue a very narrow ruling which will not change the
states' ability to regulate marriage. They may decide on technical grounds
that prop 8 was either proper or improper. The ruling will apply only to
California, since California is the only state that approved gay marriage and
then rescinded the right to marry.
If it were not for the Federal pronouncements against polygamous unions in the
late 19 Century, I would not think that marriaage law is a Federal question.
Regardless, it would not surprise me if the court rules that it is a state
issue, but requiring all states to give "full faith and credit" to the
laws of states that do decide to permit it.From the LDS standpoint
however, this would not be a welcome decision, and not just from a moral
standpoint, it also could also raise the specter of making polygamous unions
legal. Simply put, if same sex mariages are legal, can the law really maintain
the illegalty of any form of mutually agreed to adult unions?
Ranch I thought the same exact thing when I saw the photo "Equal Justice
Under the Law" on the front of the building.
"...the importance of prudence when reviewing democratically enacted social
policy."The rights of minority citizens should have never been
up for "democratically enacted social policy" votes in the first place.
It is wrong to deny others the very rights you partake of yourself.I
am trusting this Supreme Court to determine that in America, Equal Protection
means EQUAL PROTECTION FOR EVERYBODY.
This article is predictably conservative, from predictably conservative SLC.
Recently a man I admire said that one of the problems that the GOP has, is that
it has difficulty understanding another person's position. Here's yet
another case. It is not a human right for two other people to marry. It is
"social policy". And legislating from the bench is just that, not
"guaranteeing a minority of their basic human rights". It is ironic,
considering that the Mormans have been so persecuted throughout their brief
existence, that the people of SLC would seek to persecute those that are
different. I challenge you to think differently. Consider that the
word marriage is a religious word. That the right to marry is established in
churches and before God. So stay the heck out of my schools and
government, thank you very much.
Sooner or later, whether from the Roberts-Scalia court or another, what we know
for sure is that judicial clarity will eventually clear the way for same-sex
marriage in all 50 states. And that there will be no damage to or diminution of
the traditional family. Gays and same-sex couples and their families will
continue to support, celebrate and honor traditional marriages among family and
friends and society at large.Traditional marriage will always
comprise at least 97-98% of all marriages and always be, by far, the largest
contributor to marriage and the family as the foundation of society. Gay
marriage and their families will contribute proportionately to that same strong
foundation. Their children will be just fine.The children of
traditional marriage will grow up with same-sex couples and their children and
families as friends, neighbors, playmates, schoolmates and even pew-mates. They
will see with their own eyes that they are just folks. There'll
be a brief period of unsettled administrative details and trivial lawsuits. Life
will go on basically unchanged except for same-sex couples and their children
and families celebrating their new found marriages.Time to move on
to something important.