U.S. & World

Calif. gay marriage argument heard, compared to interracial marriage ban


Return To Article
  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    the truth
    Holladay, UT
    To compare homsexuality to race,is an insult to blacks and other minorities.


    "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," Coretta Scott
    King. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.

     The Rev. Sharpton wrote, “I believe in equal human rights, before the law, for all human beings, and race, gender, disability, class or sexual orientation should not be a factor under the law. "

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 27, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    @patriot --

    "You MUST prove homsexuality is congenital, and that has NEVER been shown."

    That isn't quite true. For instance, women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia are known to have a very high rate of lesbianism.

    Also, several other biological linkages are known. For just a few examples:

    1. there is a proven genetic linkage with homosexual behaviors in at least one non-human species.
    2. in humans, there has been shown to be a higher percentage of homosexuality in the relations of homosexual men than in a non-related population, which appears to be inherited through the maternal line (see research by Hamer for details).
    3. there are physical differences in the brains of homosexual men compared to homosexual men, especially in the hypothalamus.
    4. the neural structure of the brains of homosexual men actually resembles women's brains rather than heterosexual men's brains.

    And these are just a few examples. So, you see, there's actually quite a lot of biology that can distinguish gay from straight.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:47 p.m.


    Why "MUST" we prove it is "congenital"? The comparison stands on the ground that a group of people are being denied access the right to make the choice to marry based on charctrisics about them that have no baring on their fitness to do so.

  • Sentinel Ogden, UT
    March 26, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    @ Tators: I am Christian, have been my entire life, and I support gay marriage.

    You cite the Bible as "plainly showing the immorality of homosexual". If my counting is correct, there are six passages in the entire Bible that could possibly be meant towards homosexuals. And, hundreds of "call outs" to heterosexuals to watch their minds, their actions, the ways they treat their spouses, etc. Seems the Bible had much more "plainness" aimed at heterosexuals than homosexuals. Six to over four hundred? And, homosexuals are evil? I think not.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 26, 2013 6:08 p.m.

    To compare homsexuality to race,

    is an insult to blacks and other minorities.

    You MUST prove homsexuality is congenital, and that has NEVER been shown.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 26, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    if you allow gays to marry then by the same argument you cannot stop polygamy either. A man can then marry 50 women and we all know the ugliness that results from that.... Actually - a man should be able to marry 50 other men too!! Why not - the more the merrier? There is no number restriction here - love is all that matters right?? Our society will soon be 'unlivable' and normal families with mom and dad and kids will have to restrict themselves to either home schooling or private schools because the public institutions are going to be nothing but moral sewers.

  • bob j Maryborough, 00
    March 26, 2013 4:45 p.m.

    Forty States - hold to your stay
    And time will tell, you will have your way
    For right is right and wrong is wrong
    So carry on - keep in the strong
    And with God's help there soon will be,
    No longer there - the enemy.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    March 26, 2013 3:38 p.m.

    Lane Myer,

    There is virtually no legal difference between a black person and a white person and there shouldn't be. Thankfully there are still legally recognized differences between men and women. I pray it stays that way.

    All of those things you cite - inheritance, tax benefits, etc, can (and should in my opinion) be addressed with civil unions. That's not what this debate is about. It's about saying there is NO difference between traditional marriage and same sex unions. There are plenty of differences between men and women, mothers and fathers, etc and the law should continue to recognize that.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 3:12 p.m.


    The comparison is happening today in the Supreme court. They did not question the comparison to interracial marriage and Loving v. Virginia. Read todays transcript. There are plenty of simularities.

    Are gays citizens with all the rights and privileges that you enjoy? Do you think they should be treated as less than equal?


    Wrong, gays want to DO many things that they are not allowed right now. They want to be able to have their spouse inherit their property without a large tax bill. They want to file jointly on their tax returns. They want their spouse to be able to be their social security beneficiary. There are over 1100 benefits that they cannot receive on the federal level that they want to be able to enjoy, just like the rest of the citizens in this great country.

    If you think this is just about some militant gays trying to force you to recognize them, you would be totally wrong and have not been paying attention. Most gays do not care if you like them or respect them. They want to be treated equally under the law, as promised in our constitution.

  • Pack Layton, Utah
    March 26, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    Claiming same gender marriage is no different than interracial marriage is impossible, since they can't be compared to each other. They are completely different issues.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    March 26, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Same sex marriage proponents are not demanding a right to DO anything. They're demanding that their relationships be VIEWED by society the way they want.

    SSM is NOT the same thing as traditional marriage, and calling it the same thing will only lead to confusion and a huge legal can of worms. Our kids will be part of a social experiment that won't turn out well, just as most leftist experiments have turned out to be disasters.

    Civil unions are a reasonable and appropriate accommodation for gay couples. But the militant gay agenda is sadly more about destroying Judeo-Christian values than about gaining any new rights.

    Have all the tax, insurance, legal benefits you want that exist in marriage by way of civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc., but don't confuse our kids and don't open a huge legal can of worms by redefining marriage.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    March 26, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    To Lane Myer and Vince Here:

    First of all, Lane Myer, I never said that the Bible stated to "hate the sin, but love the sinner". But it seems pretty obvious when throughout the entire Bible sin is always condemned, while Christ also plainly states that we should love everyone, and he didn't make exception. The only way to accomplish both is to love the sinner and hate the sin.

    Vince Here asks how that can be done. It's easy. You must not have children of your own yet. Every parent hates some of the actions (sins) of their children. At the same time, we never stop loving our children, regardless of how much we may disagree with some of their actions. I imagine God feels much the same way toward us when he sees us faltering so often.

    You can make all the rationalizations and self-justifications you want, but it will never change what is inherently wrong into something right, nor anything right into something wrong. It's been tried throughout history and always with negative results. It won't be any different now. Hopefully, we won't have to learn the hard way... again.

  • pd ,
    March 26, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    I have five children. Four are adopted; two of these were given up at birth by a woman who conceived then in an extramarital relationship; the other two were removed from their heterosexual birth homes because of abuse and neglect so bad it is almost incomprehensible.

    Can we FINALLY put this issue behind us and realize that it is the QUALITY of the parenting, not the sexual orientation of the parents, that determines success or failure with child-raising?! There is something good to be said for a modern world that understands the difference.

  • UU32 Bountiful, UT
    March 26, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    Lane Myer -- "love the sinnner, hate the sin" -- Do you have children? If so, you understand this statement. I love my children without hesitation. Sometimes they do things that are not right. I don't like it that they do them, but that doesn't change my feelings for them. No matter what, I love my children. But that doesn't mean I always like the decisions they make. Maybe that helps?

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    March 26, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    What's missing from this article is some of the quotes from the justices that don't paint a pretty picture for prop 8. The conservative justices were focused on "standing" because California didn't even bother to defend the lawsuit brought against the state after prop 8 was passed. If we know anything about the SCOTUS, they love to throw cases out on standing alone. Kennedy seemed to have concerns about the legitimacy of denying rights to gay couples.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    March 26, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    What a laughable argument--as if racial marriage has anything to do with government-defined morality, as desired by all same sex marriage proponents.

    Ask yourself a few questions. Should the government ban all blood transfusions in support of the moral beliefs of Jehovah’s witnesses? Should the government give tax money to Latter Day Saints to support their missionary work? Why not?

    I’ll tell you why not. Because the government should NEVER be in the business of choosing sides on morality issues or personal beliefs. The government should never snub the beliefs of one segment of its people in favor of the moral beliefs of another.

    It would be nice if gay marriage was just an act of tolerance and an extension rights to people. But tolerance is not what is being sought. Tolerance would be to allow gay marriage to occur without penalty. Legalizing gay marriage, on the other hand, is supporting the moral beliefs of gay couples over the moral beliefs of others. Every tax credit penny paid out to a married gay couple is a clear message that homosexual behavior is good government-approved behavior.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    The worst conservatives were against interracial marriages as well.
    Gay marriage will happen at some point and in another generation nobody will care. It's not going to ruin man-woman marriage any more than polygamy and polyandry did.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    March 26, 2013 10:52 a.m.


    Heterosexual communities have traditionally endorsed plural marriages, marriages where the age has been lowered, marriages within families (i.e. second cousins, etc. - in fact, several states still allow for second-cousins to marry).

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    "We can still love the sinner, but hate the sin."

    Please, Tators, tell me how you do that. Are you in touch with gays and helping them to get rid of their "sins?" Or is showing love making them live the way that you believe by passing laws that will not affect you or your family, but definately affect these gay couples? How exactly do you show your love.

    Everytime I hear someone say that they can love the sinner, I have yet to hear exactly how to do that. I think most just think that if they are not being mean it means they are being loving. It doesn't in my book. You really need to feel love for the most flamboyant gay - and not repulsion - to live that law. Pretty hard to do. Especially since one would then want that person that they feel this love for to have all the rights and privileges that every American citizen enjoys, per our constitution.

    How do you do it, Tators?

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    March 26, 2013 10:36 a.m.


    What Bible verse are you quoting from, exactly, when you say, "love the sinner, hate the sin?"

    About the argument of "every child deserves a father and a mother."

    The wording of Prop 8 is not about "having every child have a father and a mother." Where are you getting the background to make that argument?

    Well, it comes from the way opponents of equality are fabricating the argument to suit into something that it is not. By lumping the fatherloss or motherless argument into the debate they miss the target and instead try to pin the argument into some vague notion of traditional values. Moreover, if traditional values were at stake, an amendment to guarantee that every child have a father and a mother would have been introduced decades ago, before children growing up today, half of them, in a household where their parents are divorced.

    At that, thousands of children in foster care go unadopted and yet, they argue "every child deserves a mother and a father." So foster care is better?

    With LGBT families, just for the record, every child is planned and wanted.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:29 a.m.


    Polygamy has traditionally been abusive to women and children, If it was between consenting adults, I have no problem with it. There are other laws that would have to be adjusted (ss benefits, inheritance, etc.) but not impossible.

    Age limitations need not change. A child cannot consent to a contract (that is what marriage is, btw), but their parents can. It should remain the same with their parents guiding them.

    Family relations has potential harm with the children of the relationship ending up with birth defects, etc. Look at the inbreeding in the polygamous communities to see what happens when families are too close.

    Laws are put in place to protect. If you are going to limit someones freedom to do as they please, there better be a reason (harm) that you can show.

    Can you show me the harm caused by allow gay couples to wed?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    What church mistakenly got involved in this political mess?

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    This article states that more people in America are now "supporting" gay marriage. It would be more accurate to state that more people are tolerating it... not supporting it. And even then, the wording of any survey can effect the response received.

    As it is, the majority of America is still made up of believing Christians. The Bible states very plainly that homosexuality is immoral, an abomination and against nature (see Leviticus 20:13, Roman 1:26-27). It also stated that in later times (as in now), people would often call bad good, and good bad. That seems to be exactly what is happening now.

    Homosexual advocates like to say that the Bible says we should love everyone. However, that doesn't mean we should love and condone their conduct... especially when it goes against what God has so plainly stated. We can still love the sinner, but hate the sin.

    Current advocators think they are so full of wisdom in trying to get society to change and accept their liberal ideas instead of traditional morality of every major religion on earth. Concerning that, the Bible also addresses that in stating that "The wisdom of man is foolishness unto God."

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 26, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    @ Patriot
    You wrote: "liberals are all about choice so long as your choice agrees with their choice... otherwise they use their activist judges to overturn the voice of the people..."

    Judges Scalia and Thomas come to mind.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 26, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    @patriot --

    " so much for democracy."

    You seem to be forgetting that this country is a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy. That means that popular opinion is tempered by constitutional law. And that's exactly what the Supreme Court is there for -- to make sure that mob rule doesn't run roughshod over the rights of the citizens.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    March 26, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    Hmmmm....so the question I have for supporters of gay marriage is if you believe love is love and marriage shouldn't be constrained to what has been the traditional definition of marriage in the U.S. (1 man, 1 woman), how do you feel about other such relationships and barriers? Polygamy, Age limitations, familial relationships, etc. Are you okay with breaking down those types of barriers as well or are the barriers around those types of relationships different to you? And if so, why?

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 26, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    "Every child has the right to a father and a mother."

    Are you going to ban divorce? Are you going to ban women having babies out of wedlock? Otherwise, your statement has no bearing on this case.

    @Chris B --

    "You still had those, after they divorced."

    If you're going to look at it from the biological perspective -- as opposed to the perspective of family stability -- then EVERY child has a father and mother, whether they are raised by a gay couple or a straight one.

    Gay marriages **encourage** family stability. Stability and love are the most important components for successfully raising children. Therefore, people who are concerned about children should be fighting FOR gay marriages, not against them.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:06 a.m.


    So the majority should run roughshod over the minority no matter what? The minority has no rights so long as they remain the minority?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    liberals are all about choice so long as your choice agrees with their choice... otherwise they use their activist judges to overturn the voice of the people... so much for democracy.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:37 a.m.


    "So my sister and I should've been taekn away from our parents because they divorced"


    You still had a father and a mother right?

    I know you were attempting to trap Tekakaromatagi in his words, but you failed.

    He says every kid should have the right to a father and a mother.

    You still had those, after they divorced.


  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    So my sister and I should've been taken away from our parents because they divorced? We live in a state where a gay individual (or any individual) can adopt children if they're single but not a gay couple? Sure doesn't seem to put a lot of value on children needing a father and mother if that's how things are.

    Plus... you all repeatedly say that two men or two women alone cannot physically make a child. So the point about children is completely irrelevent. You should be opposing gay adoption, not gay marriage if that's your concern (though of course I already noted how our adoption laws make that idea ridiculous as well).

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    March 26, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    And Tekakaromatagi, the falseness of that assertion is that keeping marriage benefits away from gay and lesbians does nothing to further that goal. Procreation isn't hindered by lack of marriage. Children deserve to be raised in families where they have the protection and their parents the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 26, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    @ Tekakaromatagi

    "Every child has the right to a father and a mother."

    Every child is conceived by the intervention of a male and a female. Yet, I can assure you that gays are not kidnapping children.

    Most LGBT parents become parents of children who were conceived but have "no parents". May be because the conceivers, were dead, not able or not willing to take care of the children.

    LGBT people some time conceive babies with the help of surrogate.

    Today I read an article in the Washington Post. This lesbian mother who has teen children made the observation, that her children really don't care about their parents being gay. They just fume that gay parents are as uncool as straight parents, demanding homeworks done on time, chores, and other bothersome things that parents demand.

    My dear Tekakamoratagi, perhaps you could lead a research and qwuestion a large number of children being raised by LGBT. You may ask them about their feelings about their parents.

    You could also be cruel and ask them, what would be of them if they were not had been adopted by their parents. No! forget that! You may continue living in your bubble

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    March 26, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    This subject defines the media's obsession.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 26, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    Every child has the right to a father and a mother.