plainbrownwrapper (from another article since apparently I cannot comment more
than twice)My point about bisexuality and committed relationships
still stands, apparently.From the BC polygamy case summary: "The
subsequent trial heard from a range of academic experts, former polygamists and
current plural wives, focusing ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY on Bountiful and the
FLDS". This was the judges' sole frame of reference.Also
from the article: "It (the ban) also shouldn't apply to common-law
relationships involving more than two people, Bauman wrote, as long as the
people involved don't formalize that relationship in a ceremony or have it
sanctioned by a church or other authority." So, polygamy IS legal as long as
there is no record of it?And then there is the repeal of Prop 8
predecessor, Prop 22, where the CA Court specifically cited the 1950s
overturning of anti-miscegenation laws as a precedent to allowing gay marriage.
So, 60 years ago, the people and courts distinguished between inter-racial and
same-sex marriage while today they do not. The same will occur over time with
polygamy. There is no reason for it not to. And many of your gay marriage allies
"LEVITICUS 26, is a real eye opener, of destructions that are comming to
pass, for BREAKING God's Laws. "So what you guys are saying
is that you want me to base my political believes on your fairy tales.
Little Kahuna,In spite of your opinion, The U.S. Supreme Court is
the supreme law of the land.Let the marriages begin!
To use a football analogy, it seems like Chief Justice Roberts would easily be
an exceptional punter. It's been disappointing to see him avoid some
difficult decisions. Maybe he is wiser than I give him credit, but this is one
of his disappointing decisions.
Sodom and Gomorrah here we come.
In spite of everyone's opinion,religious or otherwise, the fact remains
that we have a system of checks and balances in America. That was violated
Wow! It's almost like the Supreme Court said that the Constitution of the
United States says that there is such a thing as "SEPARATION of CHURCH and
STATE.". * shudder* gasp* What's next? The Supreme Court will rule
that "All men are created equal"??? Oh, my ! the blasphemy!
We are continuing in the moral decline of the United States. To be a successful
country, we need to return to the Christian ideals that made our country great.
Mark 12:31 says: "Love your neighbor as yourself."Matthew
5:44 says: "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you."Matthew 7:12 says: "In everything, treat others as you would want
them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets."If you go to a business, how do you want to be treated? Do you want to be
refused service because the owner doesn't like your race, gender, weight,
hair color, sexual orientation, religion, etc.?I doubt it.Then why would you want to refuse service to those who come into your
business? Is that how you demonstrate your love for your neighbor (or your
enemy)? Is that treating others as you would want them to treat you?
1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither
the woman without the man, in the Lord. Leviticus 26 is an eye opener of a list
of disasters that are happening, and will continue to happen if we break
God's laws. Examples are destruction of hurricaine Sandy, sinkholes in
Florida and Clear Lake, CA. Earthquake of 5.7 in Greenville, floods in
Mississippi, and fires in Colorado.
LEVITICUS 26, is a real eye opener, of destructions that are comming to pass,
for BREAKING God's Laws. Compare that list to the destruction of
Hurricaine Sandy, sinkholes in Florida & Clear Lake, Ca, 5.7 Earthquake in
Ca, floods in Mississippi, fires in Colorado. Christians are trying to avoid a
repeat performance of destruction, like Soddom & Gommorah's, and trying
to avoid losing our tax exempt status, if we refuse to marry gays in our
re: Mr. Bean**@RanchHand:"If you own a business you should
be required to obey law relating to non-discrimination."Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish... except for
race, religion, national origin, etc.**So? Not everyone is what you
@Mr. Bean – “It's not a matter of decision making capacities...
it's a matter of Constitutional rights.”Agreed –
and the laws regarding what children can and cannot do have been made, by the
people, for many many years, so I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that if two children want to get married, contrary to all laws
in every state (i.e., the overwhelming will of the people), the SC should find
that right in the Constitution and allow the marriage (somehow based on
today’s precedent)? Sorry, I’m just not following the
dots you’re trying to connect…@Mr. Bean –
“The point being... the Constitution says nothing about marriage or
abortion.”Exactly – and so in both cases today the S
Court essentially kicked it back to the states (as they should have done in R v
W).Again, not sure what your point is… and I’ve reached
comment limit so feel free to make whatever final points you want and I’ll
try and follow along.
@Eliot: "I am genuinely interested in how LDS people reconcile their
personal ideas on homosexual marriage with the doctrinal declarations of their
church."It is OK for you to make this statement and to have this
interest; I have no problem with having my actions and beliefs put under the
microscope.Please, please, though: remember that the personal
statements of belief made by one member of the LDS Church, who has not been
authorized to speak in behalf of the entire Church, but only
"authorized" to speak for one member: himself, remember not to take that
belief as the belief and doctrine of the entire church. That happens far too
often in public discourse, and it always bothers me. So, if you will remember
this one thing, I will not hassle you for observing what LDS people do vs. what
their church leaders say the Lord has instructed them to say. Those members who
oppose their leaders on something so vital as this should have no difficulty
seeing for themselves just where they stand in relation to the God who they
claim to worship and obey.
While members of the Church understand the significance and importance of the
Church's stand on the sanctity of marriage, they must also understand that
they cannot force others to live by their beliefs, standards, or desires, but
obey the law of the land regarding the rights of others. This does
not mean that the Church must perform or recognize same-sex weddings, or that
the fabric of society will crumble, but simply that the government must
recognize them for what they are: legally binding contracts, and behave
accordingly.We live in a mortal world where celestial thoughts,
desires and actions often run afoul of mortal realities, and while we must
recognize that our brothers and sisters are not always perfect, they are trying
to find happiness.I hope that we can allow our "better
angels" to shine through and remember that our actions toward those we may
disagree with may affect their future decision and acceptance of gospel
principles, and that we choose to follow Heavenly Father's example of
loving our brothers and sisters, regardless of their differences.
The first wedding recorded was not in Rome, but in the Bible: Adam was given
Eve. A Bride is given in marriage by her Father. The premise that
God "Made Us", is just not so. We are co-eternal with our Father. We
are the product of our own decisions. Our Father is the protector of our Agency,
our choices, even He will not force us to follow his Will. The human
status can be affected by many things, but to think that God has given us our
'handicaps' is against the law of Agency.Same sex attraction is
a condition. Sexual behavior is a decision.The study of history testifies
to the destruction of civilizations because they fail to heed the warnings of
their Creator. To many the commandments are considered optional, failing to
realize that they are given out of compassion and love and to prevent the
end results of breaking them which are eternally set.Should be interesting
when the SC Judges stand before an even more Superior Judge than themselves, and
it is reveals to them the depravity of some of their decisions.
It is OK for the federal or state governments to rule regarding the temporal
assets of a couple, whether gay or hetero. I don't recall God getting
involved with such things at all; I do recall Jesus saying
(paraphrased):"give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto God
that which is God's", when asked about paying taxes etc. It
is also OK to enact laws that govern the tax status of couples regardless of
religious beliefs about marriage, as long as those laws cover only "that
which is Caesar's". However, what has been done by these rulings is to
make a statement about homosexual behaviors which has never been acceptable to
any orderly society. NEVER. Homosexual marriage only makes sense when considered
on the basis of the sexual relationship of the partners. Otherwise, it is simply
sharing a domicile. These decisions are forced by homosexuals who, in my
opinion, want to make homosexuality equal to heterosexuality beyond the issue of
temporal laws, and that is impossible. One is a natural act, the other is not.
Why can't we just focus on financial rights of couples under the law? That
would be OK with me.
@PortlandOregon500:"Gays who get married in one state where it is
legal.. and then move to another state where it is NOT, must now be recognized
as being married."Not so. When I moved to another state I had
to get a new driver's license and hunting and fishing licenses in the new
state.@RanchHand:"If you own a business you should be
required to obey law relating to non-discrimination."Businesses
have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish... except for race,
religion, national origin, etc.@amazondoc:"Every citizen
of this country must live by the laws of the land..."Where you
getting this nonsense? There are folks today who do not obey immigration
laws... In fact, there are leaders in our government who turn a blind eye and
let them do it.@Tyler D:"If cannot make any distinction
between the decision making capabilities of adults vs. children, then you
desperately need..."It's not a matter of decision making
capacities... it's a matter of Constitutional rights."Why
would you assume that I agree with the R v W decision?"The point
being... the Constitution says nothing about marriage or abortion.
@zoar63 --"polygamists can hammer the courts with
lawsuits...."That's their constitutional right. However,
that's unlikely to change what the courts already know -- specifically,
that both polygamy and incest cause high risk of harm to others, while
homosexuality does not.@Voice ofReason --"1. An old,
cynically legalistic argument..."-- Homosexual couples
"conceive" by the same means that infertile heterosexual couples do. You
can't invalidate one without invalidating the other."2a.
Gays suffer STDS at orders-of-magnitude higher rates. "-- which would
be a reflection of lack of protection, not homosexuality.2b. "They
suffer depression, suicide and self-harm higher than normal, and highest of all
where it's most accepted."-- It isn't actually true that
they suffer more problems in areas with more acceptance. The preponderance of
evidence supports the conclusion that emotional problems of gays are subject to
societal prejudice."3. They die 20 years sooner... "--
I don't believe it, but even if true -- how would laws against gay marriage
change it?"4. Studies showing gay-raised kids do OK are fatally
flawed...."-- Sorry, but this simply isn't true. Regnerus'
"study" was ludicrous -- it compared stable straight homes with unstable
gay homes, and had a predictable result.
@Mr. Bean – “Why do the marriage partners have to be
'consenting adults?' What about the Constitutional rights of
'consenting children' to marry?”If cannot make any
distinction between the decision making capabilities of adults vs. children,
then you desperately need to crawl out of your Wittgensteinian rabbit hole of
illogic (dug by Rush Limbaugh, no doubt) and rejoin the world of reason and
rationality.@Mr. Bean – “Where in the Constitution is
there any mention, explicit or implied, of abortion?”Why would
you assume that I agree with the R v W decision? Personally I think it was an
overreach and a big stick in the turning spoke of democracy and States rights.
Contrarius,1. An old, cynically legalistic argument easily
discounted. Virtually everyone knows that a man and a woman are inherently
necessary to conceive a child. “Non-natural” means still follow or
reflect that immutable pattern. In every single case, without exception. Even
“clones” are really just identical twins with the same father and
mother.2. What harm? Seriously!? Gays suffer STDS at
orders-of-magnitude higher rates. They suffer depression, suicide and self-harm
higher than normal, and highest of all where it's most accepted. They die
20 years sooner than normal. So-called "homophobia"; causes none of
that. If disapproval really caused gay suicide, then why don't we see
conservatives offing themselves en masse in San Francisco?3. You
need to read more on this. Studies showing gay-raised kids do OK are fatally
flawed because they use self-selected study samples, i.e. only highly
politically motivated gay parents "applied" to be in the studies. More
rigorous studies have found that children in gay households suffer higher rates
of depression, self-harm, suicide, and later-life divorce and relationship
problems just as their gay parents do.
This is so very sad for all the children who will not have the right to know who
their father and mother are. Genealogy pedigree charts will really be
confusing. And the work to fix all the confusion and to break all these
families up in the next life will be greater. God continues to protect our
agency and this is how we thank him. 5-4 votes by the Supreme Court show how
very agenda-oriented we are being steered, rather than by law or principle.
@bandersen --"Will you now stand by the court's ruling that
marriage can be defined by a state?"Of course I will. Why
wouldn't I?I will also stand by the provisions of the
court's decision on DOMA which make it very likely that state bans on gay
marriage will be declared unconstitutional in the very near future.I
will also use my constitutional rights as a citizen of both this state and this
country to overturn existing state bans."Polygamy wasn't
forced on anyone, unlike Gay marriage."Nobody is forcing you to
get a gay marriage, b.@Tators --"Since Reagan was an
avowed right to life person, this would not be a happy day for him"What does right-to-life have to do with gay marriage??I recently
read a statement by some old friend of Reagan's, saying they believed he
would have supported gay marriage. I don't remember who said it, but if I
think of it later I'll try to look it up.@zoar63 --My apologies. In a previous comment I mistakenly attributed quote to you which
were actually made by Redshirt. I'm reading these comments too quickly!
Contrarius,Well I guess the people who are polygamists can hammer
the courts with lawsuits until they finally relent. After all, the road to same
sex marriage was a long and slow process.
@MGB: "... than polygamy and incestial marriages must also be legal as long
as they are consenting adults."Why do the marriage partners have
to be 'consenting adults?' What about the Constitutional rights of
'consenting children' to marry?@TA1: "To all who
claim that the will of the people in California was overturned - please remember
we live in a Republic not a Democracy and not a Theocracy."We
also live in a country run by majority... Or at least, we used to. That's
why we go to the polls and vote on people and laws."We live in a
land where all should be treated equally. And we are moving down that road -
finally."There are many who hope you're right...
polygamists, people who want incestial marriages, etc. Their rights continue to
be denied... Grossly unfair.@Tyler D: "... where in the
constitution is there any mention, explicit or implied, of the Federal
government's authority to regulate marriage?"Where in the
Constitution is there any mention, explicit or implied, of abortion?@amazondoc: "Courts have proven they can easily distinguish between
homosexuality and both polygamy and incest.Courts have often been
TA1 says,"To all of those who are arguing about whether or not these
legal rulings impinge on religious freedom - photographer, baker, etc –
they do not - if you operate a business in the public place, you cannot pick and
choose your customers - period."That is, in fact, almost
completely opposite long-established constitutional precedent. The
constitutional freedom of association, and the right to refuse service, is
inclusive, not permissive. This means you can refuse service to whomever you
want in your store, with only a few very specific, narrowly defined exclusions
on which you cannot discriminate, as defined in the Federal Civil Rights Act:
race, color, religion, or national origin. And even among those there are
exceptions, i.e. the LDS Church doesn't have to let nonmembers into their
temples, etc. Also, the ADA requires reasonable accommodation for the
handicapped.A tiny handful of states, including California, have
unfortunately raised one particular sexual behavior (homosexuality) to the level
of a protected class, forcing tyrannical situations like the wedding baker who
is forced by government to subjugate their conscience to someone else's
sexual behavior.But other than those narrow exceptions you most
certainly CAN pick and choose your customers.
Contrarius: You seem so certain about following the constitution. Will you now
stand by the court's ruling that marriage can be defined by a state? Or
does the constitution only work when it coincides with your opinion? Exactly! I
would prefer polygamy a thousand times over Gay marriage. Polygamy wasn't
forced on anyone, unlike Gay marriage.
Thanks Ronald Reagan for Appointing Judge Kennedy. Now is the time to step
across the line and love are gay brethren. I hope we can soon attends some gay
and lesbianism weddings in this state!
To fmalad and mormonmeuk:It seems rather pathetic that you and other
like-minded people are now passing judgement on others for having spent their
own money in ways that were (are) personally important to them and consequently
using your "shame" thing on them for "wasting" their money, just
because it isn't in alliance with your ideologies.I'm
proud of my fellow traditional marriage backers for being willing to stand up
for their beliefs by spending their time and money in doing so. It's never
a waste of money to use it to further causes that are important to you. It
should be "shame" on anyone else who would deny them that right and
criticize them for doing so.And don't be thanking Ronald Reagan
and Thomas Jefferson for decisions they previously made that are now being used
against their original intent. Since Reagan was an avowed right to life person,
this would not be a happy day for him, nor would he be happy about this specific
vote of Anthony Kennedy. Also, there was no homosexual marriage issue when
Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal". Therefore, you are likely
misinterpreting his original intent.
"The purpose of marriage is to link men to their children and encourage
their participation in child rearing." John LambertJohn--you are
too smart to use that reasoning. Stick to arguments that actually make sense.
There is no one purpose of marriage. Given this logic, sterile people or those
who don't want kids shouldn't get married. Among other things,
marriage conveys many legal rights.
@Ohio-LDS"Also, the Proclamation is not scripture. It is a
policy statement."Were the conditions met when the proclamation
was proclaimed?"And this is the ensample unto them, that they
shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.And whatsoever
they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be
the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the
Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."
I wonder what Brigham Young or Joseph Smith would say to someone who thought
that marriage between a man and a man was superior to Polygamy? How anyone for
Gay marriage could say that it is superior to polygamy defies not only logic but
exposes an intolerance that Joan of Arc would turn away in shame!
I am happy this is happening. I don't see how people think that gay couples
can't become a "family"...my cousin gave her baby up for adoption
to a nice gay couple and her little boy seems like he's doing just fine (it
was an open adoption). I think that things like drugs, alcohol, and child abuse
would have more of an adverse affect on children than being razed by gay people
anyhow!Even if a person thinks being gay is wrong i still think there is much,
much worse things they should be worried about.
@wrz and zoar --wrz: "Good news for polygamy, and a variety of
other abhorrent marriage combinations. They can now be judged legal."zoar: " Polygamy is must now be accepted in any form that a person
wants to define it."Dream on, guys. The courts are
quite capable of distinguishing between homosexual rights and polygamy -- and
incest as well. They have made these distinctions in the past, and they will
continue to do so in the future.For polygamy, refer to the 2011 case
in Canada which easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of Canada's
polygamy ban -- even though gay marriage has been legal there for years now.For incest, refer to SEVERAL US cases, both at Federal and state levels
(including in California, btw), which have very clearly declared that
homosexuality rulings do NOT apply to incest.zoar: "why does
that mean that only 2 people can love eachother enough to be married"Because some forms of marriage cause no special risk of harm to others
(gay and straight monogamous marriage) while other forms of marriage do
(polygamy and incest). Cmon, guys. Let's all try less hysteria,
and more rational thinking. These issues are NOT the same.
Ok, lets look at everything that this ruling leads to:1. The 10th
ammendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." since marriage was never listed in the
Constitution California defined it by the will of the people, and now that has
been invalidated.2. Polygamy is must now be accepted in any form
that a person wants to define it. If the purpose is to allow 2 consenting
adults to marry the person that they love, why does that mean that only 2 people
can love eachother enough to be married?3. Anybody who does not
agree with Gay Marriage can now be punished under the law.To the LDS
that think this is so great, lets look at the eternal picture of what you are
supporting. You are saying that you want your gay friends and family members to
have their progression stopped. An eternal marriage is necessary for
progression, and God has stated that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Would you encourage your kids to only get civil marriages?
@atl134"According to Lds doctrine,"Gay marriage" will not be
recognized in the eternities.Since I'm not LDS you don't
think any future marriage of mine (which would be a heterosexual union) would be
recognized in the eternities either since it won't be in the
temple."Actually all Christian churches to my knowledge with the
exception of the LDS Church see marriage as ending when a person dies but
correct me if I am wrong. I would be interested to see any information If other
Churches perform marriages for Eternity. The wedding vow says “Until
Death Do You part”
@Germanygator: a Drunk driving down the wrong side of a road has what to do with
Gays being allowed the freedom to love one another? I don't get your
perception that these two subjects have anything to do with one another. A
drunk- driving down the wrong side of a road has the chance of hurting someone
else, mortally. A Gay who loves and is loved by another Gay is harming no one.
There is no common ground on those two subjects, whatsoever.
@Voice of Reason --Your "real reasons" all fail
miserably.1. protection of natural human reproduction-- Many
heterosexual couples reproduce through "non-natural" means -- artificial
insemination, surrogacy, adoption, and so on. 2. avoidance of harm
brought by homosexuality-- WHAT harm brought on by homosexuality? The
SCOTUS has already determined, for example in the Lawrence decision as well as
in today's decisions, that there is NO public harm brought about by
homosexuality.3. encourage beneficial presence of both mother and
father for children-- a. all reputable groups of child-development experts
agree that children grow up just fine in gay-led households.-- b. gay
couples can and do raise children with or without marriage.4. strong
desire to help our SSA-struggling children overcome their challenges--
WHAT "strong desire"?? More than half of the country supports gay
marriage. We don't think gay people need to overcome ANYTHING -- except for
prejudice.5. "animus" -- In the legal sense, it simply means
"ill will, antagonism, or hostility usually controlled but deep-seated and
sometimes virulent". IOW, not rational or logical.-- All your
"real reasons" fail the test of logic, Voice. They are indeed powered by
Good news for polygamy, and a variety of other abhorrent marriage combinations.
They can now be judged legal. And, yes, good news for incarcerated polygamists.
When they get out of jail, which should be soon with this SCOTUS ruling, I
suggest they sue the government big time for denying your right to marry whom
The right of people to refuse to support something they object to on religious
grounds should be respected.In the Washington case the florist
involved had knowingly provided floral services to openly homosexual people for
a long time. Their refusal was clearly linked to their views on marriage and
what it should be, and their feelings about proactively affirming such a
relationship that they objected to.If those who want to redefine
marriage would not try to use its redefinition as a method to force everyone
else to proactively affirm their views things might be different. However the
whole project has always been about forcing a change on the views of people.That is actually the most disingenuous part of some of the arguments. It
is those who want to redfine marriage at least as much as those who want to
preserve its current definition who see marriage law as a moral teacher. Both
sides see that moral and ethnical principals are taught by the form of marriage
a government recognizes. In this case there is no way for the government to
avoid sending a moral message.
A victory for States' Rights. Perversion will be held at bay in Utah. Go
California! DOMA was futile to begin with and not according to the constitution.
States' Rights won a victory here. It is the people that decide the law,
not the Supreme Court. Now, we can have all those who want gay marriage to move
to California. Utah has a chance to stand out, rather than being the sheep
following the pied piper.
Eliot – D&C 134, "[w]e do not believe it just to mingle religious
influence with civil government."The way I live my life is
informed by my faith in the LDS Church. I served a mission, married my
wonderful wife in the SL Temple, and do my best to treat everyone with love.The way I interact at a secular, civil level is informed by the COTUS
and laws that flow from it. I would never force anyone else to serve a mission
and I would never force anyone else to live by my precepts of what constitutes a
marriage. The Proclamation is what is “ordained of God”
per our personal convictions and it is therefore antithetical to our perspective
of “free will” for us to utilize civil means to force said beliefs
onto others. I can only speak from personal experience but I find people are
far more receptive to my personal beliefs when I give absolute merit to their
perspective and fight my tail off to ensure they are treated with the same level
of respect as us. Gay couples deserve every legal right/protection that you and
People who think multiple definitions of marriage can coexist do not understand
what is at stake.What is at stake is the very meaning of marriage.
Anyone who thinks that marriage other than between a man and woman is workable
with the Proclamation on the Family does not understand the proclamation.Marriage is about obligations and responsibilities, not validating
The question before us is not about civil rights. It is a debate about what the
purpose and meaning of marriage is. Those who favor Proposition 8 see marriage
as a system set up to create the best situation for child rearing and that it
needs to be in such a form. For them marriage is not about rights but about
responsibilities. It is also as much about the children as the parents. Marriage
is the union of two people, but impacts more than just those two.Those who oppose Proposition 8 see marriage in a fundamentally different way.
For them to act as if their view is the only possible one is to negate the
reality that there are different views. The defending of the true
form of marriage is important in the long run. It is better to focus on large
structural issues at some time, and having a proper structure of marriage is
I'm grateful that all of my gay relatives can now come out of the closet
and get married. Well, actually I don't know if any of them are gay, but if
they are, I'm glad they now live in a country that is more supportive of
the rights of all.
@The Deuce --"the ruling indicates that you can have whatever
type of union you want"Nope, the ruling does not actually
indicate any such thing.In comparison: Canada has had gay marriages
for years now. Nonetheless, in 2011 Canada very easily reaffirmed the
constitutionality of its ban on polygamy.If the same issue comes up
in US Federal courts, the result will be the same.Polygamy and
homosexuality (and also incest) are all separate issues. The legalization of gay
marriages does NOT require the legalization of any other sort of marriage.@PortlandOregon500 --"Yes.. I do get to decide what I
feel the "true sense of the word" is."But you
shouldn't expect anyone else to listen to you. ;-)@PHolley
--"Marriage is not simply about love; it is primarily to
procreate and bring children up with both a father and a mother."1. infertile couples are allowed to marry, despite their lack of
procreation.2. gay couples can and do raise children with or without
marriage. The only difference that marriage will make is that those children
will get to grow up in more stable homes. And that's a GOOD thing.
I have read both Supreme Court opinions, and these bare majority decisions (both
only won 5-4) are utterly chilling in their rationales. On the DOMA opinion,
the majority comes out and actually says that Congress - and by extension the
historic majority of millions of Americans - acted out of a "bare desire to
harm" gays. That's the SC's way of saying hate was the only
motivation for DOMA. Nobody in this country truly thinks that traditional
marriage supporters are motivated by purely "hate", unless they are
irredeemably ignorant. Every minimally well-informed gay activist, and
presumably every Supreme Court justice, knows the real reasons we support
traditional marriage: protection of natural human reproduction, avoidance of
harm brought by homosexuality, encourage beneficial presence of both mother and
father for children, strong desire to help our SSA-struggling children overcome
their challenges..."hate" nowhere to be found. "Hate" is, of
course, merely the left's cynical political hammer used to smash any
opposing reasoned argument, so no one has to actually hear it. It's just
very chilling to see actual Supreme Court justices play along with the lie. Just read Justice Scalia’s blistering and ingenious dissent. It
pulls no punches.
I look forward to '8 : The Mormon Proposition - Part 2' - With the
happy ending.Will the "Church" refund the $20 Million its faithful
The court has been wrong in moral areas before. How long was slavery
constitutional and women' s franchise denied before these issues were
corrected? history shows that a proliferation of culturally-approved
homosexuality was not in the best of strong sustainable societies. Unfortunately
the 3 percent of Americans that are requesting the legal rights of marriage to
be applied to their unions have not studied history or the ramifications of
their actions. I am not anti-gay, I am pro- Bible. Californians and the rest of
Us have the right to determine the laws they live under. The courts are once
again legislating from the bench; not constitutional and very self-serving and
The purpose of marriage is to link men to their children and encourage their
participation in child rearing. Marriage needs to be in a form that represents
the child creating process.
To all of those who are arguing about whether or not these legal rulings impinge
on religious freedom - photographer, baker, etc – they do not - if you
operate a business in the public place, you cannot pick and choose your
customers - period. That principle was established long ago. If you want to
operate privately - than a different set of rules may apply. Not a difficult
concept and it has nothing to do with religious freedom.
(Eliot – Part 2)3) "Children are entitled to birth within the
bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital
vows with complete fidelity."Again, this speaks to heterosexual
couples and I 100% agree. For gay couples, children are entitled to be raised
by the mothers or fathers that brought them into the world. Personally, I
believe we all have many mothers and fathers - anyone who serves as a righteous
example that points us towards our heavenly parents. 4)
"Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon
individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and
modern prophets."Could not agree more. I am greatly troubled by
the decline of marriage in my community. It is causing real harm. I take
strength from both straight and gay couples who work to build strong families.
I am particularly inspired by gay families that stick together despite so much
opposition from the world. They are truly a light on the hill.
Eliot, here is my reconciliation. I don't speak for other members and
certainly not for the church. Because of word limits I will split this into two
posts. As a general point, the Proclamation is not the final word, just
one of many limited and imperfect statements during our journey. Also, the
Proclamation is not scripture. It is a policy statement. 1) "We . .
. solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God
and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal
destiny of His children."God's approval of heterosexual
marriage does not exclude approval of homosexual marriage.2) "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."God only allows for sexual relations between married
committed couples who strive to become one. At the time of the Proclamation,
marriage was only open to heterosexuals. Now it is open to homosexuals too. In
my experience, I have seen God bless gay marriages just as he blesses mine. I
believe the general church membership is also seeing this truth.
First, we have a significant historical ruling regarding the legal rights and
the definition of what marriage means. I first want to say that this opens the
door for a new understanding of what marriage is. Therefore, I do not want to
hear anything from anyone on this site regarding polygamy, as this is now open
as the ruling indicates that you can have whatever type of union you want and
the Fedearl Government will recognize this for legal purposes. You can no longer
discriminate based on having more than 1 wife or more than 1 husband. The second
thing that impressed me as a US citizen, is that both the Fedearl Government as
well as the State of California can decide which laws they will and will not
enforce. Both agencies in this case would not support the current laws on the
books. I like this new freedom as it allows me to do the same. I can now decide
for myself if I want to support and follow a certain law if I believe it is
unconstitutional. I like this new freedom that anything goes now. I support
equality for all.
@ amazondocYes.. I do get to decide what I feel the "true sense
of the word" is. I am tired of people telling me that the definition of
marriage that has been defined as being between a man and woman.. is now no
longer valid. The small minority get to change the definition. So when you
change the meaning of the word I declare.. that is not marriage. If it is...
then it is a slang word because the true definition of marriage is and will
always be between man and woman ONLY!
If the Supreme Court says DOMA is "Unconstitutional", then it's
Unconstitutional.We are a country based on the
"Rule-of-Law". So when DOMA was passed... it was "the law" and
I can accept that. And when a higher court rules it Unconstitutional... I can
accept that. It's how rule-of-law works.I am dismayed that
yet again our "legal scholars" ended up with a split down ideological or
party lines (with the 5 liberal judges going one way, and the 4 conservative
judges going the other). IMO the court should almost never be divided along
political lines. Their decisions should be made ONLY by applying the
Constitution to the question they are given (not their political biases).Obviously political and social biases are a significant factor in
Supreme Court decisions, or we wouldn't have so many rulings where the 5
liberal judges see it one way and the 4 conservative judges see it the opposite
way. We have ONE CONSTITUTION.... The decision (IF based on only the
Constitution) should almost always be unanimous. But it's not. So much
for the Constitution being the only factor they consider. That's all that
@RBB --"No it is not equal protection - it is the selective
application of rights."Sorry, but your Constitution, your
courts, and your government in general all disagree with you."I
do not have the right to tell you cannot do something"That
depends on what it is you are telling me not to do.You certainly do
have the right to tell me not to break the law."but you have the
right to force me to do something I do not wish to do?"Nobody is
forcing you to get gay-married.We DO have the right to
"force" you to act in a legal manner."Equal protection
applies to the government, not to individual businesses."Sorry,
you'll have to tak up that argument with all the Supreme Court decisions on
civil rights -- starting more than 50 years ago.@Fern RL --"Marriage has a long tradition of being a religious issue"Marriage was actually a CIVIL issue long before it was a religious issue, if
you want to talk about history.In Western civilization, the first
officially recorded marriages were in ancient Rome -- and they were CIVIL
marriages, not religious ones.
On DOMA, it's fascinating to see the liberal SC justices suddenly become
Courageous Warriors for State's Rights. Quite a switch from virtually
every opinion that liberal SC justices have issued in recent years. I guess no
intellectual backflip is too big for them, as long as it gives them the chance
to say "Gay Is Great!" (in sophisticated legalise, of course)...never
mind the actual best interests of children and SSA-struggling citizens as
expressed by the thoughtful, well-reasoned judgment of the People. As for the Prop 8 ruling, I guess the Governor of a State can now overrule an
ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, passed by the People, by just saying they
won't defend it in court. That means, officially, the People now have
absolutely zero recourse, nada, if the Governor and his Attorney General say
nyet to a law or constitutional amendment. If that isn't literal, factual
tyranny then I don't know what is.Modern-day tyranny is
evolving in an intriguing way this time around. Today, intolerant tyranny
dresses itself in the sheep's clothing of "tolerance for
difference". Congratulations; tyrants now have something that can be used
to literally force anything on society.
@defender"According to Lds doctrine,"Gay marriage" will not be
recognized in the eternities."Since I'm not LDS you
don't think any future marriage of mine (which would be a heterosexual
union) would be recognized in the eternities either since it won't be in
the temple. Good thing we don't base laws on what you think is a valid
marriage for the eternities."but don't ask us accept
something we feel deeply is not right."Nobody is arguing that
you need to perform those marriages in your churches/temples. @Charlemagne"Deciding the DOMA issue as a civil rights matter is
wrong! Homosexuals can get married the same as everyone else but so-called
"Same sex marriage" is not real marriage. "So did they
decide Loving vs Virginia wrong because people could all get married the same as
everyone else before that decision (i.e. marrying someone of their own race)?
Unsurprising decisions today, narrow, specific and limited. Today marks a step
towards equality, but only a step.
Marriage is not simply about love; it is primarily to procreate and bring
children up with both a father and a mother.You don't need a
piece of paper to love someone else. If "rights" are a concern, in my
opinion there should be a union for adults, regardless of sex or number of
people, for them to enjoy many thing married people have. Then marriage should
be completely separate, something for heterosexual couples to raise children in.
That way, children have optimal protection and rights, whereas those that
don't choose to have children can still enjoy benefits in a contracted
relationshipChildren deserve a father and a mother. This in my
opinion would be an optimal situation.
Thanks for all the kind comments.I am fully supportive of
couple's rights, but as a group, a class, heterosexual and homosexual
couples are not the same.Congress and/or the Court could grant the
legal rights mentioned in the decision while recognizing that heterosexual and
homosexual couples are different. Logic and observation show this.
Dose any one here find it ironic that most of the people making comments about
wanting the Government to intervene and stop Gay Marriage are usually the same
people who want less Government in their lives? Congratulations to
those who now have the same rights as an American as I do.
Given the LDS Churh's large commitment of funds and resources to pass
proposition 8, it should have made a similar effort in the judicial system. It
did not and mostly left it to others.Good lawyers make a difference. The case
put on by the lawyers defending prop. 8 was pathetic and almost non-existent.
Now its too late to do anything about the outcome. A lot of time and money was
Oh how precious! One more reason for Heavenly Father to smile down on our
nation. The state (government) arbitrarily decides AGAIN, who gets special
treatment, and who doesn't. Marriage rights have been equal for everyone,
for decades. Yeah, gays may not have been happy about it, but it was equal. We don't hand out drivers licenses equally, just ask my 14 year old!
We don't give out building permits equally, just ask my neighbor down the
road who is ready to build! We don't even admit college students equally,
so why is this such a big deal?
And we as a society continue our ever accelerating slouch towards Gomorrah. Even
just one generation before us could not have fathomed how rapidly this could
happen. And all so cleverly packaged as "equality". Wow. It's
breath taking. These are interesting times indeed. Hold on tight, I think there
is much more of this to come...
Dear fellow readers: On the outset, let me say that I am just an ordinary
person ...just a common member of the Church. Many of you will not like my post,
and I know that I will receive a lot of negative comments about what I am about
to say. I don't really care. This is how I truly feel. Today I want to
say that I am more grateful than I have ever been in my life for the knowledge
that I have that I know that President Monson is a Proohet of God. I am
grateful for this last General Conference where Elder Bednar spoke about
chastity. As for me, I am going to strive to live the commandments even more
strictly so that this nation will not perish, and to repent of those things
which The Lord will show me I still need to repent of. There are those who may
change the laws of the land, but they can never take from me the laws that are
written in my heart.
It is interesting to me just how misinformed most of you people are. You really
need to do a bit more research before claiming this is over, don't take the
MSM's word for it.
Marriage has a long tradition of being a religious issue; and religions, in a
land where religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, do not need to
explain why they do what they do. Marriage has also been a
governmental issue, but there has to be a compelling reason for legal
involvement. It is logical that the state should have a means of identifying
paternal responsibility for children that are being born. There is also an
unequal biological burden of childbirth, recovery, and childcare for women. For
all this work and extra involvement, there is no Social Security benefits, or
consideration for what is "non-qualifying work." Women who have invested
a large portion of their lives bearing and raising future tax-payers deserve a
time of preferential treatment by society. If LBGT couples wish to
obtain children outside of the biological way, let them pay their own price,
knowing it is a price that also must be borne by childless Hetero couples. If
Hetero couples wish to use birth-control that is also their choice, a situation
where same-sex couples do not share the equal burden with Hetero couples.In short, marriage is a benefit for women.
@Arizonaboy --"Every individual business owner should have the
right to refuse service to anyone and not be punished."Businesses have not been legally allowed to discriminate since the days of the
lunch counter sit-ins. There is nothing new about that.@PortlandOregon500 --"Gays who get married in one state where
it is legal.. and then move to another state where it is NOT, must now be
recognized as being married."No. That's a
different section of DOMA. The court ruling today ONLY applied to section 3, NOT
to section 2.I'm confident that this issue WILL be going to
court in the near future -- but that is NOT what SCOTUS decided today."Two gay people will never be married in the true sense of the
word"You don't get to declare what the "true sense of
the word" is. Many many people disagree with you, and their views are just
as valid as yours."Yes.. people will be forced to accept this
lifestyle on a legal level."Every citizen of this country must
live by the laws of the land -- whether they agree with them or not. That's
what a constitutional democracy is all about.
@Arizonaboy;I suspect you also believe that blacks should be
required to eat at different establishments than whites and drink at separate
water fountains.What a sad existence you live.As for
those crying "sodom and gomorrah" - that was about how the people
treated the poor and needy amongst them.If you own a business you
should be required to obey law relating to non-discrimination. How would you
feel if some "Christian" baker said: "I won't bake you a
wedding cake because you're a Mormon"?
As in Biblical times, so it continues today..."The wisdom of man
is foolishness unto God." That has never been more evidenced as
with these particular court decisions and with so many of these posts who think
these decisions are so wise and right. What is actually right never can nor ever
will be determined in a popularity contest... whether from a court or in a
newspaper blog. It's rather amazing (and this time sad) to
think that so much in our society can be determined by the difference of just
one vote on a court. Just one vote the other way and the entire nature of most
of these posts would be completely different. Some day the real
light of knowledge will actually shine and the contempt of mankind's
foolishness will be shown for what it really is. People are not nearly as wise
as they sometimes think they are. And a lack of humility keeps that from being
@amazondoc No it is not equal protection - it is the selective
application of rights. I do not have the right to tell you cannot do something,
but you have the right to force me to do something I do not wish to do? That is
the typical leftist agenda. Keep your laws off my body, but I will use the law
to regulate every aspect of your life. It is not really about equality, as the
two are not equal Where A does not equal B, 2A cannot equal A + B. Two men or
two women is simply not the same thing as 1 man and 1 woman. They are
different. Equal protection applies to the government, not to
individual businesses. If gay people do not like the business owner they can
boycott the business but the business owner does not have the right to say
"thanks but no thanks" to participating in conduct which he or she finds
objectionable? Perhaps the black musician should be forced to entertain the
local KKK, or the local Christian Church should be able to demand that a muslim
restaraunt cater its ham bake. Freedom for Some! - its such a great motto.
I woke up in SoCali at about 5:00am today. The night sky was fading as the Sun
began to rise as it normally does at this time of year. My commuter train was
running on its normally late schedule behind the Amtrak train coming in from
Chicago. Yes, part of California will eventually break off of the Continental
United States but not because of the DOMA and not because of Proposition 8. I
think of all the California LDS members who were asked to make financial
sacrifices to help Prop 8 pass. I'm sure there is a bitter taste in their
mouths this morning. It will be interesting to see how the Church welcomes
Legally and Lawfully married Gay and Lesbian couples at the Sunday Block
This is wonderful news for civil rights. And the nice thing about this is for
those who do not believe in same sex marriage, for religious reason, this does
not force them to get married. And this has nothing to do with sacramental
marriages that are performed by different religious institutions so for those
who believe that marriage should be sacramental, they can continue to thrive.
I've never understood how this would destroy the institution as it only
adds to more folks getting married. The REAL discussion should be why so many
marriages end up in divorce. This is something that should be addressed towards
the heterosexual community. Statistics have shown that in those states and
countries where same sex marriage is allowed, divorce is lower with same sex
folks than heterosexual. The articles indicate heterosexuals take marriage
lightly whereas same sex know the right has been a long struggle and don't
enter into the institution as lightly. God Bless America and our Contitution.
You cannot both claim to stand with the prophet and the brethren and be pro gay
marriage. Pick a side. Please be very careful!
The Supreme Court has gotten it right two days in a row? Never thought I'd
see the day!
There are quite a number of people on this thread who would just love to live in
a theocracy based on their comments. I'd wager they'd scream bloody
murder if the theocracy that won out in the contest here in the USA were Hindi
or Muslim. Hypocrites. Fortunately for the rest of us, equality will
eventually prevail.For those of you crying "the sky is falling
on religious freedom" google "Paul Brandeis Raushenbush - I Do Gay
Marriage" and see what an ordained minister of 15 years has to say.
Here's a brief excerpt:"...there are thousands and
thousands of clergy who feel that our religious rights (and rites) have been
inhibited by DOMA and laws that limit the legal implications of the marriages we
have performed between same sex couples.Today is a clear victory for
religious freedom as it maintains the rights of clergy who say 'I
Don't' to gay marriage, but liberates those of us who say 'I
And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this
people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your
@amazondocOne needs to think ahead. Just because a court rules
today that something is illegal.. does not mean that tomorrow.. they can change
their mind and now make it legal. Funny thing about people in power.
I do not agree with the court, though why should our gay friends not have the
same right to pay alimony and child support? Just because they adopt a child
doesn't mean after they divorce they are free from the financial
obligation. Our constitution was set up to protect the rights of ALL citizens.
What worries me is the people who hold Christian beliefs who refuse to do
business with such an allegiance will be fined by a government who feels it has
the right to do so. Every individual business owner should have the right to
refuse service to anyone and not be punished. The gay right supporters however
will not fell that this right should be granted. Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah
our new country.
A little like watching a train wreck. It leaves a similar pit in my stomach.
DOMA was more than just recognizing gays to have a married tax status. Now
comes the real problem. Gays who get married in one state where it is legal..
and then move to another state where it is NOT, must now be recognized as being
married. Two gay people will never be married in the true sense of the word..
that word has just become a slang word. Yes.. people will be forced
to accept this lifestyle on a legal level. Yes.. forced! Another Godless
decision.. it is like lifting the quarantine of a killer disease while the
infection is still raging. The spread of the homosexual lifestyle being made
morally and legally acceptable is sickening. What a sad day! It is
becoming more apparent that this country and its leaders and decision makers are
morally corrupt. Yes.. the people of this land are dwindling in unbelief. This is not justice.. but evil that has won today! These are the last
days as prophesied. Oh how things quickly change and the hearts of a people
turn away from their God. The wrath of God will happen and we can expect
something along the lines of the Cleansing of America.
The left may be cheering this on.But they have no idea what these
decisions will actually do.They are cheering that government has
given itself more power over you, over bedroom, over your church.They are cheering on that they just let the government into their bedrooms and
their churches.They are cheering that government has place in their
marriage, in their bedroom, and in their church.They have no idea
the negative impact this will have on them personally, the increase of power the
government has over them personally.They are cheering now, but have
no idea of the insidiousness of these decisions, and misery they will bring.They would have had true freedom and liberty if they had desired the
government get out of their marriage.But they have choosen
otherwise.They are cheering now....
Deciding the DOMA issue as a civil rights matter is wrong! Homosexuals can get
married the same as everyone else but so-called "Same sex marriage" is
not real marriage. No single consenting adult should be kept out of the game but
that doesn't mean they have the right to have the rules changed just to fit
their preferences!Ruling that those defending Prop 8 have no
standing is also wrong! Prop 8 is a lawful amendment to the California
Constitution passed by the majority of voters. Allowing it to fall merely
because the California State AG disagrees with it gives the AG a veto over the
lawfully expressed will of the people! This is just one more step in
the moral decline of this once Christian nation!
Much ado about nothing, a pyrric victory for "Gays". Homosexual
marriage directly affects only a tiny minority of social deviants. Now they can
legitimately enjoy all the headaches and heartaches of marriage - as if the law
ever made any difference to those in question.Too bad the Court
cannot correctly adjudicate something important.
I am very curious about some of the comments that have been made here.
Specifically, Ohio-LDS, I am confused by your statement that you display the LDS
Proclamation on the Family, while at the same time saying "There is no
conflict between heterosexual and homosexual marriages." How do you
reconcile your "no conflict" statement with the following statements in
the proclamation?"We . . . solemnly proclaim that marriage
between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to
the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.""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.""Children are entitled to birth within the
bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital
vows with complete fidelity.""Further, we warn that the
disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and
nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."I am genuinely interested in how LDS people reconcile their personal ideas on
homosexual marriage with the doctrinal declarations of their church.
Thank You President Reagan for appointing the historic Judge Anthony Kennedy!
Thank You Thomas Jefferson for your influence in the Declaration of Independence
stating that all men were created equal and all have the right in the pursuit of
happiness etc. I don't recall him saying that happiness and equality is
just for heterosexuals. Shame on the religious Zealots teaching bigotry in
their sermons. Shame on you LDS church for wasting money on Prop 22 and Prop 8.
You could have spent that money on food shelter and clothing for the needy.Shame
on you Utah for not hearing and passing an equality law! It is a basic Human
need to have companionship regardless of ones sexuality. Thank You Ronald Reagan
and Anthony Kennedy!
Those who are celebrating right now would have us change the definition of
marriage. "Gay marriage" is not marriage. Call this counterfeit
institution what you will, but don't pretend it is equal to marriage
ordained by God. According to Lds doctrine,"Gay marriage" will not be
recognized in the eternities. Those who profess to believe in the church must
reconcile this truth. Those that don't believe in the church have a right
to their point of view, but don't ask us accept something we feel deeply is
I applaud the ruling that will go down as a landmark decision.
@MGB --"If homosexual marriage is leagl since there is no more
definition of marriage, than poligamy and incestial marriage must also be leagal
as long as they are consenting adults."Nope. Courts in both the
US and Canada have already proven that they can easily distinguish between
homosexuality and both polygamy and incest. Look up in particular
the 2011 polygamy case in British Columbia, in which Canada reaffirmed the
constitutionality of its polygamy ban.Look up **several** US cases,
in which both Federal and state judges in several different states reaffirmed
that homosexuality rulings do NOT apply to incest. If you're really
interested, I can post some specific quotes in future comments.Cmon,
people. Stop the hysteria. This is NOT the end of the world, and it is NOT the
end of marriage. This is ONLY a step towards full equality for gay people.
"We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically
adopted legislation."-ScaliaWhat a hilariously ironic statement
given how he decided the ACA case earlier this year. At least in the ACA’s
case one can find justification for it in either the Commerce Clause or
Congress’ taxing authority (which the court did).In the case
of DOMA, where in the constitution is there any mention, explicit or implied, of
the Federal government’s authority to regulate marriage?If
nothing else Scalia at least used to be consistent in his jurisprudence –
the man has now become a parody of himself.
I think it regrettable that a democrat choice to acknowledge something important
about the kind of relationship that keeps children and the people who made them
together should be struck down. I find it in no way obvious that the
"marriage debate" has to be about personal affirmation--that seems
thin--but such is the turn this has taken.
Yep. Just like the great prophet Isaiah wrote in his book. Babylon in the latter
days will lead itself down a path of self destruction. I wonder how many
poster's on here stating to be lds or any other christian faith have read
the bible, and understand it?
To all who claim that the will of the people in California was overturned -
please remember we live in a Republic not a Democracy and not a Theocracy. We
live in a land where all should be treated equally. And we are moving down that
road - finally.
@my two cents777-It is also understood that alcoholics are "born
that way", too. I suppose it's okay for someone to drive up the wrong
side of the road just because that person was born that way. At least
that's your logic.
I'm glad my Gay friends here in California may now marry. There was a great
deal of hysteria generated by the Proposition debate - most of it generated from
outside the State.On mature reflection, the people of California
concluded long before this ruling that allowing homosexuals the same marriage
right the rest of us enjoy does not harm anyone. I hope the State writes a
proper law into California's Constitution validating that reality, rather
than relying on the Courts, however. This is as much about acceptance as it is
If homosexual marriage is leagl since there is no more definition of marriage,
than poligamy and incestial marriage must also be leagal as long as they are
consenting adults. We are in a sad state of affairs.
Unconfirmed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork is rolling in his grave.
Slouching Towards Gomorrah indeed.
@RBB --"The greatest irony here is that the very same people who
assert the "civil rights" of two men or two women to have a
"marriage" will not support the right of freedom of association for a
baker who does not wish to make a wedding cake for the gay couple, or a doctor
who does not wish to do artificial inseminate a lesbian couple. "Discrimination by businesses has not been allowed legally since the days of
the lunch counter sit-ins. There is nothing new about that. It's a part of
what "equal protection" is all about.
Homosexual marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom. The moment
homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, all sorts of First Amendment
freedoms involving the free exercise of people's religion will likely be
infringed upon as a consequence. No pastor should be forced to marry a
homosexual couple. No wedding photographer, cake maker, caterer, or wedding
planner should be forced to be involved in these weddings. No church or any
other location should be forced to be the site of a homosexual wedding. Children
will be taught in schools that homosexual marriage is normal, legal, and moral
-- and it directly contradicts the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and
Islam. To create this special privilege for homosexual Americans would mean
impinging on the First Amendment rights of more than 300 million Americans
@Stalwart Sentinel:"We do not live in a theocracy therefore theocratic
arguments carry no weight in a civil discussion about a fundamental civil
right."I would like to live in a progressive liberals society so
if we strengthened marriage rather than redefining it we, as a society, could
send the message that fathers should be responsible for the children that they
father. We would have children being raised in stable families, less crime,
less angry young men, less prisons.How is that a theological
Good. Nice to see this move forward.
The greatest irony here is that the very same people who assert the "civil
rights" of two men or two women to have a "marriage" will not
support the right of freedom of association for a baker who does not wish to
make a wedding cake for the gay couple, or a doctor who does not wish to do
artificial inseminate a lesbian couple. What you do in your bedroom
is your business, but you have no right to compel me or anyone else to
participate in any way with what you do whether you are heterosexual or
homosexual.The second great irony here are those of you who purport
to be mormons and then cheer on a decision that goes directly against the
position taken by their Church. If you claim Thomas Monson is a prophet it
seems a little odd to be happy when his position is rejected.Finally, the standing issue is a cop-out that should frighten everyone. The
people of California. The State refused to defend the vote of the people. Now
no one has standing to defend it. In other words, citizen initiatives are
useless if the government does not like them.
A worthless bunch of political appointees have overruled a majority of voters.
The social and moral disintegration of the American Society continues.
A great day for equality and a great day to be LGBT citizen.
For a long time I, too, was anti-gay and wrongly thought it was a choice made by
those who are gay. Some years ago I had an "epiphany" and realized that
many, many Gays are born that way. They were created by a loving Heavenly Father
just the same way that those of us who are not Gay were created. Thus, who ,
among us, has the right to condemn them (or anyone) for having been created by
our perfect Father? It is HIS plan and HE is perfect and who are we to go
against Him and his creations? All things will be divulged in time- maybe this
is the Time for this particular issue to come forth. Until HE tells me not to- I
will be in favor of allowing anyone who loves another to flourish and grow-
legally. The world NEEDS more love and less condemnation.
Tekakaromatagi - as a child of the south, I can attest that Jim Crow laws were
ananthama to progress. Jim Crow was an attempt to hold onto the racial
divisions that the law previously allowed, but which were undone by the
13th/14th amendments. As to history bending towards justice, I
could not agree more. Today is a big step in that progress.
@Ernest T. Bass: "Prop 8 appears to be done as well!"The
right of the people of California to decide things is done as well. Good-bye,
rule of the people.
re: Ernest T. Bass"After yesterday's horrible decision,
they made a great one today."to Riverton CougarThere
are some who live in a version of reality where moral/ethical (for lack of a
better term) should *NOT* be legislated. The irony is; this is a center-right
court.Overturn Citizens United & Kelo v New London and
we'll be getting somewhere.
"We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically
adopted legislation."-ScaliaOk, So Justice Scalia, what is you job
then? If it's not to determine if legislation is valid under the
constitution, what do you do? Maybe you think this law is not unconstitutional,
but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court shouldn't be making decisions
about laws. It's what we pay you to do.
I can't help but wonder about the history of Sodom and Gomorrah and want
they might think of these rulings, both before and after their demise. As a
nation we can't afford to bring down the wrath of the heavens upon us, can
we?Well, each at least has her/his agency to determine what to do so
in that regard I suppose the rulings are a good thing, but be careful when going
contrary to the advice of one's Creator. It will have lasting
"What a pity, it could have been spent to help the needy."I
disagree. Strengthening marriage rather than redefining is a social, liberal
good. Children have the right to be raised by a father and a mother.There is all this talk of history. I am sure that White Southerners in the
South in the 1890's viewed Jim Crow laws as progress. Eventually, the road
of history bends towards justice.
A hollow victory victory for those who choose the State as their moral
DOMA ruling in my opinion? No real surpriseSpecifics of Prop 8
ruling? No real surprise there eitherWhat did surprise me? Judge
Scalia voted with the majority in striking down Prop 8 while Judges Kennedy and
Sotomayor voted in dissent.Big, big surprise there.
Riverton Cougar - As a fellow member of the Church, I disagree; I think this is
great news. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" is, as you can
clearly see in the first sentence, referencing our view of marriage as
"ordained of God." It is not speaking about marriage as a civil
institution, there is a difference. We do not live in a theocracy therefore
theocratic arguments carry no weight in a civil discussion about a fundamental
civil right. Further, the last sentence is actually upheld via the two SCOTUS
rulings today. Granting the ability to marry to more citizens further
solidifies our Nation's commitment to allow people, of all backgrounds, to
marry the person they love and start a family. Indeed, if you want to argue
that a gay couple getting married in CA will somehow "cheapen" your
marriage or your perspective of family, I would submit that the problem is not
the gay couple. To be sure, I know I am in the minority among my
fellow Church members but, despite the terrible rulings from earlier in the
week, consider me one happy Mormon.
If anyone needs further proof of the hypocrisy of the so-called
“constitutionalists” on the SC, this case should put to rest any
further discussion. The four dissenters have long been champions of
States rights and have made careers out of checking Federal power – I
guess all that goes right out the window when the Federal government wants to
forbid something (beyond their enumerated powers) that either goes against these
justices’ religion or that they just think is “yucky.” What little respect I had for Roberts after the ACA ruling is now gone
as he and his three ideologues have revealed themselves to be agenda driven
dictators. As flawed as Libertarianism is as a modern governing
philosophy, at least it is a consistent ideology that can be squared with the
Constitution - and the only champion it has on the SC today is Justice Kennedy.
What a great day. The sun is shining in Ohio. So very happy right now. I just
congratulated my co-worker. She and her wife are married under DC law and are
raising a son together. Today their family is finally recognized by our federal
government. I also proudly display the Proclamation in my
family's living room. There is no conflict between heterosexual and
homosexual marriages. Both strengthen each other. This is a great day for all
By a 5-4 vote, the justices held in Hollingsworth v. Perry that the traditional
marriage activists who put Proposition 8 on California ballots in 2008 did not
have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal
courts after the state refused to appeal its loss at trial.“We
have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the
constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not
to,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We
decline to do so for the first time here.”Roberts was joined
in his majority opinion by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Stephen
Breyer, and Elena Kagan. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion,
joined by Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.
Happy Day! Especially thrilled for my dear gay friends and their partners, and
my beloved gay son and his partner. Congratulations!
SoCalChris: "Welcome to the rule of judges in California."Wrong. Welcome to the end of a majority being able to vote away
the civil rights of a minority.
and to think, all the money, time energy spent to fight Prop 8 could have been
put to good use... I don't know, maybe feeding the poor? Ministering to
the sick? You know, things that Jesus would have done?
Hurrah! The witch of DOMA is dead!Prop 8 was dismissed due to lack
of standing. It will be interesting to see how the implications of both these
decisions play out.
Prop 8 is gone too which means same sex marriages can start again in California.
All that money spent to stop equality. What a pity, it could have been spent to
help the needy.
Welcome to the rule of judges in California.
Anyone who has read "The Family; A Proclamation to the World" knows that
this is NOT good news. Read especially the last paragraph. This is NOT good
Yay!! A great day for equal rights!
"we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically
adopted legislation." But apparently the Voting Rights Act is
Prop 8 appears to be done as well!
After yesterday's horrible decision, they made a great one today.
@CivilI guess my heterosexual marriage isn't worthwhile in your
view since we could not conceive. I thought two people in love, committed to
each other, and sharing a life was considered a "family." I guess I was
This is wonderful news!! Now waiting for the Prop 8 decision.
I'm sure the elderly and infertile, appreciate your "civility" that
invalidates their relationship because procreation is what binds a couple
together instead of love.They made the only decision they could in a
country that doesn't need a version of sharia law to govern.
Excellent decision. As it should be.
Marriage is about two people make a life commitment to each other. Some have
children, some adopt, some are childless. It's none of your
religion's business.DOMA: good riddance to bad rubbish.
Government gives a "right" or "status" that nature has not --
the ability to create a "family."