Quantcast

Comments about ‘Delaware to become 11th state with gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 7 2013 3:21 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

Gooo, Delaware!

Next up -- Minnesota and Illinois!

George
New York, NY

thank you Delaware

worf
Mcallen, TX

This is something to be proud of?

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@worf --

"This is something to be proud of?"

Yup. The formal recognition of civil rights most certainly IS something to be proud of. :-)

George
New York, NY

@worf
absolutely?

worf
Mcallen, TX

Civil rights? Try justification.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@worf --

"Civil rights? Try justification."

Civil rights justify themselves.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Sound familiar? ;-)

And if that one doesn't grab ya, try this one:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I can't wait for the Supreme Court decisions next month. Exciting times are ahead!

Mike W
Syracuse, UT

Way to go Delaware!

It's no surprise that the states legalizing gay marriage are those with the highest education rates and lowest rates of religion. Once one educates themselves about the topic (Worf?) it becomes rather obvious we're trending in the right direction, even if Utah is one of the last states to do so.

George
New York, NY

@worf
Justification? Why would gay people need to justify themselves, they have done nothing that needs to be justified to you or anyone else,its simply about equal rights.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Justifying is the tool for gaining civil rights.

Civil rights is the tool for gaining government benefits. It's just that simple.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@worf
I think it sad that you view the world in such narrow terms that you beleive the only reason someone would want equal rights is to take from you through the use of government.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Worf --

"Civil rights is the tool for gaining government benefits. It's just that simple."

Yeah, who cares about that pesky old Constitution, anyway?

Jeff29
Draper, UT

I personally oppose marriage, but support the rights of a State to make that decision (although I would much rather have the people of the State make the decision than the State Legislature).

Regardless, nothing that any of you have said, or quoted, indicates that gay marriage (or even marriage is general) is a Constitutional Right or Civil Right.

@Contrarius - you said "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." My 13 year old son could use the same quote to claim that he should be able to legally drive. You are misapplying this section.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Jeff29 --

"nothing that any of you have said, or quoted, indicates that gay marriage (or even marriage is general) is a Constitutional Right or Civil Right."

In the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the judges' decision states, in part:

-----


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. 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.
-----

Just substitute "sexual orientation" for "race" now, and that decision will apply word for word to gay marriage.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

I totally agree with worf. God has always condemned homosexuality rather than condoned it.
The argument supporters are trying to use in the law were written during a time when this was not even an issue at all, so was not being addressed at all. Marriage between a man and a woman has always been the bedrock foundation of society and always will be, regardless of every weak rationalization made to the contrary, or how upset those who feel otherwise may get. Arguing won't change those facts. Neither will these weak attempts to change the intended purposes of the original Constitution.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

I totally agree with worf. God has always condemned homosexuality rather than condoned it.
The argument supporters are trying to use in the law were written during a time when this was not even an issue at all, so was not being addressed at all. Marriage between a man and a woman has always been the bedrock foundation of society and always will be, regardless of every weak rationalization made to the contrary, or how upset those who feel otherwise may get. Arguing won't change those facts. Neither will these weak attempts to change the intended purposes of the original Constitution.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Tators --

"God has always condemned homosexuality rather than condoned it."

Regardless of what you might personally believe about God's intentions, many religious people -- both gay and straight -- support gay marriage. In fact, a good number of Christian denominations, as well as non-Christian churches, are already happy to marry gay couples in religious ceremonies.

There is no reason why your personal interpretation of God should get to win over theirs, nor any reason why yours is automatically more "true" than theirs.

"Neither will these weak attempts to change the intended purposes of the original Constitution."

Even the Supreme Court justices themselves referred to the Loving v. Virginia case (the one that I quoted earlier) when they were discussing the DOMA and Prop 8 cases in March.

And, oddly enough, I trust them to know more about Constitutional law than you do. ;-)

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@Amazondoc:

It doesn't take much biblical research to find out that what I'm referring to is not just my interpretation. Its written very plainly and is right to the point in both the new and old testaments. If you have a difficult time, I will find the references for you. I'm writing this from my phone and am not at home, or else I would find and reference some of the quotes in this comment. I won't be home for awhile.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

Also, you should never trust any particular Supreme court's interpretation of the Constitution. That keeps changing every generation, depending on which political party has added the majority of its judges. That's also why God's word carries more weight with many people, since man's law keeps changing with the political winds. God's word and his laws are absolute.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Tators --

"never trust any particular Supreme court's interpretation...."

This particular Supreme Court is the one that's interpreting the Constitution right now, so it's the only one we really need to be concerned with.

"God's word and his laws are absolute."

Religion changes just like anything else. The LDS church believes in continuous revelation, remember?

Even the *Bible* tells us that God's laws change. The biggest example: a "new covenant" was established in the New Testament (Hebrews 8:6-13 and several others), which supplanted God's laws from the Old Testament.

@Tators --

"Its written very plainly..."

Remember, the Old Testament laws were supplanted by the new covenant when Jesus came along.

And -- guess what -- Jesus never said a single word against homosexuals. None of the four gospels even mentions homosexuality, aside from one passage in which Jesus acknowledged that some men are born "eunuchs" (Matthew 19:12).

**Paul** did speak against homosexuals -- but Paul was neither Jesus nor God. And, of course, Paul also supported slavery (Col 3:22) and believed that women were inferior to men (1 Cor 14:34 and others) -- so do you really want to insist that *everything* Paul said was correct?

to comment

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