The editorial is wrong on many levels, but the one that matters most is that
DOMA created 2nd class citizenship status for millions of Americans. The
court's decision affirmed that if our nation's constitution means
anything it means that there are no second-class citizens, and that the majority
may not vote away the rights of the minority.Your marriages are not
harmed one whit by either the DOMA or the Prop 8 decisions.Forty
years from now we'll look back on this and wonder how we managed to get so
worked over this issue in exactly the same way that today we wonder how people
40 years ago fought against permitting inter-racial marriages.
Gee, if the Supreme Court of the United States could just borrow someone from
the DN editorial staff maybe their decisions wouldn't be so thoughtless.
The judges are just so under-qualified.
Marriage not only lost, but children, our most important resource, took another
blow. On a day the selfish celebrate, the children mourn. Into the coliseum
they trod, another sacrifice in the uncaring search for fulfillment.
Sad to say, I see a great deal more wisdom in this newspaper article than I see
in the judgement of the Supreme Court. I think that they (the Supreme Court) had
a chance to find the middle ground and come up with a win, win situation. But,
instead of showing "supreme wisdom in handling this delicate subject, they
showed only their dedication to "Supreme" political posturing". When
I was young, the premise was that the Supreme Court was above party politics,
but those days seem to be gone forever. Sad, Sad, Sad, My next door neighbor is
Gay, and I am the religious father of 10 children from one wife. Neither one of
us is happy with how the Supreme Court handled this issue. Why, because their
political posturing had more to do with the outcome, than did any citation from
the Constitution of the United States. It has been our common belief (my gay
neighbor and I) that the Supreme Court is to interpret the law - not to create
the law - we both fear for the future of our country if this trend is allowed to
Well, in the opinion of many non-bigoted people around the country, this ruling
was Needed, Thoughtful and Healing. Needed because the clash between DOMA
and local state laws made a mess of commonplace things like filing income tax. A
married homosexual couple in Massachusetts could file as married in MA, but had
to file separately on their federal taxes. You would not believe how complex
this turns out to be (my wife is a tax preparer). And that's just one
example. Thoughtful because striking down DOMA simplifies things because
now the Federal government can harmonize with states. This is the American way.
States are supposed to have a level of autonomy, and really, what business does
the Federal government have in saying what constitutes a marriage? Marriage is a
local thing. It's a family thing. The Feds do not need to be involved.Healing because now there is one less government body passing judgement
dividing families into "legitimate" and "illegitimate" camps.
The march of history is against you bigots. Your words of hate couched in the
language of religion will soon seem as antique as blacks waiting hand and foot
In several years time, the world will still be turning and we'll look back
and think how petty it was to deny the rights and responsibilities of marriage
to gays and lesbians. The News may claim this ruling was needles, but tell that
to Edith Windsor who was taxed over $600,000 dollars in state and federal taxes
because of the inequality of DOMA. Tell that to the thousands of soldiers who
fight for our country and whose partners sacrifice along with heterosexual
couples yet receive nothing when their partners are killed.If you must
blame someone for the sweeping decision, blame the Republicans in Congress who
pushed the issue. They wanted a ruling and they got one. It's just a shame
for them it wasn't the one they, nor the News wanted. I'm sure if the
ruling had gone the other way, the News would be overjoyed and not criticizing
the Court for making a "needless" ruling.
"Historically, it has been our republican institutions of representative
government rather than our unelected courts that have done the best job of
balancing, tempering and accommodating passionate competing interests into
accommodative policies."Really? That would be "our
republican institutions of representative government" that made it a crime,
and prosecuted people, for engaging in homosexual acts? The "republican
institutions" that made it illegal to marry if the person you loved was of a
different race? The "Republican institutions" that put in place poll
taxes, and segregation? The "republican institutions of representative
government" that supported and made legal slavery and racism?
"Historically". That's the group that has
"historically" "done the best job of balancing, tempering and
accommodating passionate competing interests into accommodative policies"?
Really?This editorial is a joke.
The Deseret News and all of Utah should get used to the fact that gay marriage
is coming to Utah. The fact that the DN (meaning the Mormon church)
believes that these decisions are 'needless, thoughtless and damaging'
is totally irrelevant to that inevitable outcome, not to mention that your
conclusions are subject to serious dispute.Within very few years the
children of traditional marriage in Utah will have the children of same-sex
marriage as friends, playmates, classmates and even pew-mates. They will see
with their own eyes that these families and children are fine and that gay
couples and their families are just folks. And they're going to begin to
wonder about a lot of other things that they've been taught by their
parents and their church and their leaders and concept of "morality."America and the world have huge problems, including problems with
society and family and with children and growing up. This is not one of them.To the degree that marriage is the foundation of society, gay marriage
will only add to it and strengthen it.You and your church would
probably be better off worrying about the coming legalization of polygamy.
Oh, yes, extending the dignity of marriage is certainly "needless,
thoughtless and damaging". It no doubt makes perfect sense to you that the
military can't notify a LEGALLY MARRIED SPOUSE if their military husband or
wife is killed or injured because the federal government decided to encode
discrimination. You find it perfectly reasonable that a LEGALLY MARRIED WIDOW be
penalized with heavy inheritance taxes. And that is because of how much you love
and respect us so much and not because you're homophobic. Sure we believe
that. And are you going to penalize opposite sex couples who can't or
don't have children because the only reason (according to you) for marriage
is procreation? Of course not, because that absurd argument is only dragged out
when you try to justify denying gays the dignity of marriage.
The path towards freedom is still full of potholes. The people who claim that
their God is the only one want to impose their beliefs on others. They feel that
God has told them they are the only path . While the churches want freedom for
themselves, they want to restrict the freedoms of others.Their God is
vengeful and closed minded The right to practice freedom is not allowed. The
harms they perceive make them want to tell people what they think is the way to
live. My opinion is that I would like for all the religions to stay out of my
life. If Jesus came back to earth he would be disgusted at the humongous
churches and the big salaries paid to the leaders..My religion says that we must
help the poor and the sick. Same sex marriage is allowing people to live their
lives as they see fit.All I ask is that you do not try to harm me as I would not
try to harm you.I am not a homosexual butI believe that people should not be
denied the right to live as they see fit.
A mostly thoughtfully written opinion with many valid points - up to this
statement;"Historically, it has been our republican institutions
of representative government rather than our unelected courts that have done the
best job of balancing, tempering and accommodating passionate competing
interests into accommodative policies."I could not disagree more
with this statement. Congress has been one of the most weak kneed organizations
when it comes to the protection of rights by minorities - no matter how you
define that minority. The most discriminatory have emerged out of
legislatures.This ruling was no surprise. The Supreme Court has a
long and consistent reputation for ruling that actions between two consenting
adults will be legal. There are many things we final "legal", that we
still should be apposed of on moral grounds - drinking is one of those. Being
allowed to do something does not make it moral or immoral. We don't need
laws saying adultery is illegal to know it is wrong.Government
should not be the tool to enforce religious laws... it is a far too dangerous
path to head down.
Well said. The tactic of characterizing someone with whom you disagree as being
motivated by prejudice, malice, ignorance or just plain stupidity in the context
of any policy debate, including same-sex marriage and immigration reform, has
the very predictable result of dividing on superficial grounds rather than
uniting on common substantive ground. Setting up those with whom you disagree
as straw men (or women) recipients of these kinds of simplistic argumentum ad
hominem attacks is intellectually immature if not outright dishonest, and
ultimately serves no useful purpose. Such attacks certainly do not materially
advance the cause for which they are employed, and only make it that much more
difficult for constructive discussions to occur.
This article is beautifully written. I agree 100%.
Over twenty-six pages of dicta, Justice Kennedy refers to children only four
times and each and every time he does so it is only in a very minor, tangential
way while he otherwise directs his attention to expounding the rights and
desires of adults. Never does Justice Kennedy refer to any purported
benefits that will accrue to children who are raised by a couple whose
relationship by definition necessarily excludes one of the sexes. Instead, he
only catalogues what he views as deleterious effects of DOMA: —He speaks of "the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who
want to affirm their commitment to one another before their children" (p.
14); —He mentions how DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands
of children now being raised by same-sex couples," makes it "difficult
for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own
family" (p. 23), and "brings financial harm to children of same-sex
couples" (p. 24); —And he says, "DOMA instructs . . .
all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children,
that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others." (p.
25.) He otherwise is silent about benefits of SSM for children.
Good grief, DN editors. This is one of your most irrational, illogical opinions
to date. Everyone supports traditional marriage! Who doesn't?
Those who would deny same-sex couples the right to marry in the name of
"supporting traditional marriage" are just fooling themselves. It
amounts to nothing more than animus and malice (even if they refuse to recognize
it.) "Dialogue"? What sort of dialogue can there be when one
side states that homosexuality, by itself, is unnatural and "wrong",
when it's just a fact of nature?Legislation over court rulings?
What's the difference, really, if gay marriage happens via either route.
It's here - that is, if you really are advocating for honest respect of gay
people as you suggest in this piece.
It is clear that many advocates of same sex marriage believe that religious
doctrine.is an insufficient excuse for failing to wholeheartedly embrace same
sex marriage. The Washington Attorney General is prosecuting a florist for the
crime of declining to do special flower arrangements to celebrate a same sex
wedding ceremony, even though the couple was able to procure substitute
services. Presumably the same would apply to a wedding band or caterer or
photographer that declined to participate. The AG in our state did.not even
recognize First Amendment rights with lip service let alone real respect. The
couple was not harmed.in any material way, their only harm was to be told that
not everyone in their community endorsed their actions. On the other hand, the
hate of state government calling for the state to hate the florist is in the
tradition of totalitarian governments through history.
An opinion. That is all that the supreme court gave us. Opinions are not
inherently right or wrong. This is just their official response to the popular
thinking of the day that reflects their political will.Opinions don't
change reality. We all have our own opinions. When people use their political
power to force their opinions on others then it creates a false and temporary
reality but it doesn't change right or wrong.
Oh sat does the Star-Spangled Banner yet wave over the land of the free and the
home of the brave? When you get married, your liable for their debt
In the DOMA case, the issue that was decided was whether the federal government
can constitutionally give federal benefits to legally-married heterosexual
couples, but deny them to legally-married same-sex couples. Justice Kennedy
found that there is no legitimate cause for unequal treatment in this regard.
To deny federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples would indeed be
unequal treatment. Regardless of how the opinion was worded, the correct
decision was reached.
"against those who cherish how traditional marriage unites men and women for
the benefit of children."One More Time: gay marriage does
NOTHING to damage straight marriage. NOTHING. The vast majority of marriages
will ALWAYS be straight marriages. The ONLY thing that these rulings do is to
increase the number of people who invest in the TRADITION of stable, monogamous
relationships."He suggested that fundamental liberty interests
are at risk but couldn't elucidate the history and tradition normally
required to assert vigorous judicial protection of unarticulated
liberties."You're kidding, right?"Equal
protection" rights are in our Constitution. That's easy to look up.As for marriage itself -- from Loving v. Virginia: "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). ""supporting traditional marriage
is not the equivalent of disparaging, injuring, degrading, demeaning or
humiliating homosexuals."The **US House Report** on DOMA clearly
stated: "Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment
and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."That's a
very clear admission of animus, made by the House itself.
"there is something positive and irreplaceable for children when biological
parents are united into a nurturing household"Gay marriage will
do NOTHING to change that. Gay couples aren't stealing children
from happy stable straight homes; there won't be any fewer kids growing up
in straight homes when gay couples raise their own children.Gay
couples are raising children with or without marriage; denying marriage to gays
would not stop them from raising children.The whole issue of
"biological parenting" is **irrelevant** to the issue of gay marriage.
Neither allowing nor blocking gay marriage will change where those children are
going to grow up."it has grave implications for the rights of
conscience and the religious freedoms of those who believe that the traditional
ideal of conjugal marriage is a transcendent truth."Nobody is
forcing you to have a gay marriage."And across the nation, all
would benefit from increased fidelity to marital vows and loyalty to
family."Well, at least you got that part right.People who oppose gay marriage need to spend more time worrying about their
own marriages, and leave other people alone to practice their OWN beliefs.
With due respect to the editors, this editorial skips over a very important
fact: At the time DOMA passed, the House report explicitly stated that the
purpose of the law was to express moral disapproval of homosexuality and same
sex relationships. While some advocates of so called traditional
marriage may not be motivated by anti-gay animus, a great many are and
consistently spread lies about gay persons - which is why the SPLC identifies a
number of such groups as hate groups.Left unanswered in this
editorial is the question of how denying same sex couples marriage rights does
anything to protect heterosexual marriage. How is denying same sex couples the
right to marry anything other than an attack on their dignity? How is a
separate system - whether you call it civil unions or domestic partnerships -
anything other than a declaration that same sex couples are "less than"
heterosexual couples?How does denying a gay people the same legal
rights possessed by their straight brothers and sisters do anything to
Somewhere along the way the notion of private property has gotten out of hand.
No one should try to own the meaning of a word. Words belong to the people and
their meanings are what the people want them to be. And if the meaning of words
are different for some people, that’s OK but no one should force their
meaning on others. Freedom of religion is in jeopardy when churches
try to punish non-believers by using the force and power of government impose
their religious beliefs on others. It is exactly the thing the founding fathers
did not want in the Constitution. Close examination of the
arguments seems to show that the meaning of the word is only important because
of the special benefits that churches have been able to get into our government.
The value of those benefits increase the desirability of belonging to a church
and provide a punishment for those who refuse membership. I think the churches
are more interested in the punishment aspect rather that the benefits.
Judicial activism only occurs when the case doesn't go your way. DN was
destined not to be happy with any decision that didn't either maintain the
status quo or further restrict it.
When you agree with the decision, SCOTUS is a paragon of soberness and
intellect. When you disagree, they are rabblerousing activist judges.
I hate how people keep saying that gays are not equal citizens, or are treated
unfairly. They were not treated as 2nd class citizens. They had every right to
marry as anybody else. The thing that people confuse is that a man/man or
woman/woman is NOT a marriage. Gays don't want marriage. They are refusing
a right they have, and then telling people that they are being treated
unfairly.What they should do is live life how they want as a single
person. They can live together; we can't stop them. Many heterosexual
couples do. However, a marriage is a union between a man and a woman.The term "family" is often applied to close-knit groups, such as
sports teams or music ensembles or work staffs, but most people would agree that
those "families" are not the same thing as a true family with a mom and
dad, with or without kids (or without one of the spouses, in case of divorce or
death). They use the term "family" as a simile. Gay "families"
are likewise similes. They are not the same, nor should they be.
@Blue:"the majority may not vote away the rights of the minority."
Well, let's think about this. The Constitution did not ban slavery. So
in the first 90 years of our republic people had the right to own slaves.
Slavery was banned based on the actions of elected officials. So, to the degree
that the leaders represented the will of the majority then the rights of a
minority, slaveholders, was voted away by a majority.The Bill of
Rights says nothing about a minority or a majority. It gives individuals
rights.Anyone can marry anyone of the opposite gender. It a
bisexual man and a bisexual woman want to marry, that is no problem. If a
straight man wants to marry a straight man that is not a marriage.I
think that in 40 years we are going to see same sex marriage as being one more
step in the undermining of traditional marriage which has only created more
poverty, more of an underclass and a whole lot more problems than we can foresee
now. History will view this as a horrible mistake.
A newspaper that serves as the mouthpiece of the LDS Church is complaining about
the DOMA ruling. In other news, water is wet and fire is hot...
That last paragraph is good. But also highly idealistic. Who is going to do
I totally agree with this opinion.We are sliding down the slippery
slope as we celebrate selfish, lame, behavior and call it "good".
libs,rather than getting worked up with the Deseret News' opinion
read another newspaper. Interesting the the majority of comments come from the
great liberated states of ny, ca, ma and or. your states and liberal ideas have
really made you the best of the best........ how your taxes and unemployment,
and underfunded pensions doing? you might worry more about where you live than
the great state of Utah
Bigotry is alive and well in American. Shame.
I'm rather saddened by the fact that the newspaper run by my Church has
such a thoughtless, disparaging "opinion" of one of the greater civil
rights victories in my lifetime thus far. Indeed, I would love it if the
DesNews would promise to re-print this garbage in 30 years; people will almost
certainly think it is a joke. However, after reading this article,
I am also extremely optimistic because it makes the same tired, old arguments
that always lose at the district, appellate, and now Supreme Court levels. If
this is the best that anti-SSM advocates have in their arsenal, then Windsor and
Perry are just the beginning.
@TwoBitsWorth;The law is already written. The 14th Amendment states
that we are all to be treated equally by our government. This is only one step
in achieving that equality. Was the ruling perfect? No. IMO, the court should
have ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny LGBT Americans the same
protections their heterosexual fellows receive. We'll get there eventually
though.This editorial is a sad commentary on the LDS church,
Gay marriage destroys traditional marriage just like Rosa Parks destroyed
traditional bus-riding.Gays and lesbians want the benefits and
responsibilities of the secular contract known as marriage. A religion's
desire to restrict gays from using the term "marriage" is remarkably
immature and unreasonable.
I agree that the ruling was needless, thoughtless and damaging but I take issue
with this statement: "Historically, it has been our republican institutions
of representative government rather than our unelected courts that have done the
best job of balancing, tempering and accommodating passionate competing
interests into accommodative policies."In the beginning we had
to have a republic of representatives but that system led to a government of
special interests. We need more democracy and less governing of representatives.
Where is the wisdom that gives a 5 person majority the power to make such
policies? If the American people are too apathetic, stupid or wicked to govern
themselves then no other system of government can save them. We need a another
review of judicial review.
Stephen Kent Ehat, Yes, let's talk about children. in the Prop 8 trial, the
proponents (those against marriage equality) only put up one witness. In his
testimony he conceded that anti-marriage equality laws like Prop 8 and DOMA harm
children. And now, he has come out for marriage equality. Regardless of whether
Prop 8 or DOMA existed, the reality is there are children being raised in homes
with same-gendered parents. Children who might not otherwise have a permanent
home. DOMA nor Prop 8 do not change that. In states like Utah, it is these
children who suffer because they don't enjoy the same protections that
children of heterosexual unions enjoy.
This article was very sensitive and thoughtful regarding marriage in out
society. We should have more discussion regarding marriage in out society rather
than assume that those who believe in traditional marriage have animus toward
those who don't. This will prove to be a very damaging and ill-conceived
ruling to our society in the future. It will create division rather than healing
in our society.
If the editorial board had used this headline in response to the evisceration of
the Voting Rights Act, I would not be so dumbstruck.
@Stephen Kent EhatGreater legitimacy of their parents relationship tends
to lead to more stability and access to benefits available to straight couples
is helpful financially which of course also helps the kids in the family
(contrary to what one derives from Will & Grace gay people tend to be poorer
on average than straight people).
Marriages entail improved and more sustainable support for children - which is
why striking DOMA is a good thing. I find it baffling when people claim to
support marriage, and all it entails, yet stand against same sex marriage.
Either marriage is a good thing or it is not. Make up your minds.
Re:coltakashiWashington state nondiscrimination policies protect gay
couples from any business that would try to refuse them service, whether the
service was related to a wedding or not.Washington Attorney General,
"it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington. Under the
Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers based
on sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to
opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same sex couples
the same product or service."
“damaging because it has the effect of stifling meaningful dialogue about
the nature and purpose of marriage.”This article’s
“reasoning” is entirely backwards. What striking down DOMA did was
to START the conversation; and to start it where it belongs… in the
states.As a recovering conservative (who simply couldn’t stand
the hypocrisy any longer), I’m rarely surprised anymore when those who
scream the loudest about Federal power want to use that power in the most
intrusive and damaging ways (wars, allowing corporations to run amok, regulating
the bedroom, etc…). But in the grander scheme of things this
is just one more temper tantrum from those who have been making the rules for
thousands of years, watching their gripe on the hearts and minds of society at
large loosen a little more each day.
@coleman51 --"We should have more discussion regarding marriage
in out society rather than assume that those who believe in traditional marriage
have animus toward those who don't."This very statement
proves your animus, whether you will admit to it or not.Gay marriage
supporters are NOT against traditional marriage. Heck, traditional marriage is a
great thing!Traditional marriage will NOT be harmed by gay marriage.
Continuing to make false claims about gay marriage somehow damaging straight
marriage only reveals what your real motivation is. @DanO"in the Prop 8 trial, the proponents (those against marriage equality)
only put up one witness. In his testimony he conceded that anti-marriage
equality laws like Prop 8 and DOMA harm children. And now, he has come out for
marriage equality."That's great. Who was that?
What makes anti-SSM advocates assume that gays and lesbians are against
traditional marriage? We are joining the institution, not destroying it. We came
from "traditional" families, and we love and honor our parents and
siblings. Traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are not mutually exclusive.
If you fundamentally change the definition of marriage it not only affects those
who gained the right, but affects the perception of what marriage is for.
Marriage is for children to be raised by heterosexual parents who have certain
attributes,as given by their sex, for them to be most well rounded and capable
in society. When you let this definition change then those children
who are raised by straight couples are bombarded with messages that marriage is
"just" for the pleasure of the parents and all of the other things are
secondary. This is a great lie. Marriage is as it is defined above. Anything
else is misleading to families and children. Now when I say this I
don't mean that it is OK to be bigots or rude to others who believe
differently, and children must be taught this. However, to share with children
an idea which is false (that marriage is just for couples to find pleasure) then
they come to view the world as not a place of sacrifice or giving, rather a
place where the most important thing is your own satisfaction and pleasure.
That's why people care about opposing gay marriage.
A great deal of this dialogue will improve when some people realize that the
Supreme Court did not "insert itself" into the lives of the American
people, and stop whining about it. They did not ask for this case. They ruled on
a case that was brought before them by an American citizen. The Supreme Court
fulfilled its role as expected, and this is how it is supposed to work. That
they didn't rule in your favor doesn't mean that the ruling was wrong,
or that there's a problem to be fixed... unless you want it to be
"fixed" in your favor from now on, but that's not actually
justice... that's having justices in your pocket. Moderators:
Is that better? I would have looked anyone dead in the eye, and would have said
that, before passing them the microphone. Since when does the media restrict
freedom of speech to that degree? It's time that people stop being so
concerned about who's doing what with who, with they both are adults, and
they both are consenting. Unbelievable.
Lots of good comments to this article that are well thought out. There are also
lots of comments filled with bigotry that are ironically directed toward the
people that are supposedly the bigots. Whatever your stance is on this issue,
there are some really smart, good people out there that don't agree with
you. Labeling them as bigots really only labels yourself as a bigot.
I hate this, I really hate this. The Deseret News used to be my preferred source
for informative and reasoned news reporting. It has now become this type of
emotional-based rhetoric without enough substantial facts to back up your
opinions. I am afraid that if the editorial board keeps this up, it will result
in more layoffs at the newspaper and an eventual end to it all together. Please
return to reporting the news and stop this nonsensical battle.
@coltakashi;;When a heterosexual couple, one of whom is a convicted
killer comes to your florist, should she refuse to provide flowers for their
wedding?How about when a serial adulterer comes for their 4th or 5th
wedding? Should she refuse to provide flowers for their wedding? How about when a wiccan comes to her? Should she refuse to provide flowers
for this wedding?A florist's business is to provide flowers (a
baker's is to bake); it is not their job to cast value-judgements on their
@Inhliziyo --"Marriage is for children to be raised by
heterosexual parents"Are you going to ban all infertile
marriages?Are you going to deny marriage to straight people who
simply don't want to have children?If not, then your claim
doesn't hold any water."messages that marriage is
"just" for the pleasure of the parents and all of the other things are
secondary." This statement reveals your true attitude of animus
towards gay couples.In reality, gay people do not believe that
marriage is "just for pleasure" any more than straight people do.In reality, hundreds of thousands of children are ALREADY being raised
by gay couples -- with or without marriage. Marriage supports the
creation and sustenance of stable, loving family relationships. Marriages
benefit both straight AND gay families in the very same ways -- and gay people
can fulfill ALL the purposes of marriage in the very same ways as any other
infertile couples can.
@ Inhliziyo: "...[If you] share with children an idea which is false (that
marriage is just for couples to find pleasure) then they come to view the world
as...a place where the most important thing is your own satisfaction and
pleasure. That's why people care about opposing gay marriage."Well, I would much appreciate it if you wouldn't stuff words into the
mouths of gays who want to get married. What you are doing is an error in logic
called a Straw Man.GLBTs value children and the virtuous qualities
implicit in marriage vows just as much as heterosexuals. Many of us already have
children we're trying to raise in an environment hostile to their healthy
development, for no fault of their own. Please allow us the honor of marrying
for their sake, if no other reason can be found in your heart.
re:Really?AMEN!Newspapers--DN--used to be vehicles for
educating the public. Has there been even ONE article in Deseret News outlining
the measures contained in the recently passed Senate immigration bill? Not that I've seen. Instead, Deseret News fills its pages
with reports about the controversies surrounding various issues--the
back/forth--devoid of any facts. DN has become more Jerry Springer
and less Walter Cronkite.
I get it now, when a straight couple wants to make a public declaration of their
love and commitment to each other, it's a selfless and noble act. When a
gay couple want to do the same thing, they are selfish and thinking only of
their own pleasures. Now I understand why we can't allow those selfish,
self-serving, and people to marry. After all, gay people NEVER sacrifice or
think about others!
Gay marriage does damage Traditional marriage. It further teaches our children
that a mother and a father are not important. We already live in a society that
devalues marriage and the original reason it was created. I will continue to
educate my children against gay marriage, against this idea that it's ok to
be gay. I don't want my children to be brainwashed into seeing gay
marriage as acceptable. The media is doing its level best to convince us that
homosexuality is just as normal as the color of your hair. No, this will not
reinforced in my home. Even Disney Channel is getting into the act. Time to turn
that crap off too. The Mormon church will never recognize Gay marriage as
legitimate in the eyes of God. It is spelled out very clearly in "The
Proclamation on the Family". These decisions being made at the National
level further illustrate the terrible decline of this country.
This editorial is absolutely correct on every level, and establishes the truth
of the matter in a compelling, thoughtful and respectful approach. The sacred
institution of marriage has already been defined by Heavenly Father Himself, and
by our government and society as a legal and lawful union between one man and
one woman. Diminishing or diluting this eternal definition only seeks to satisfy
those who would burn down a cathedral to fry an egg. I am not anti-gay, I am
pro-family. Same sex marriage opens the door to other perverse versions of
marriage, such as pedophiles who want to marry a child or those into bestiality
wanting to marry their dog. Justice Kennedy's pathetic pandering to gays in
society has basically castigated those of us who embrace traditional marriage.
The fight for right is not over with this judicial overreach, and begs the
question "Who's on the Lord's side, who?"
Fifty years from now, the Deseret News will not dare to publish anything like
this editorial because values held from the earliest of history are being
castigated and thrown to the side as bigoted and perverse. I personally know,
and admire the gay people I have come into contact with, and I wish them a long,
happy life. That said, couldn't we reserve the word "marriage" to
be used in it's original context as marriage between a man and a woman?
Further, the federal government officially acknowledges, and celebrate Gays,
Lesbians, Transexuals, and Bi-sexuals. Therefore; let's create a separate
institution where LGBT's can become legally bound to each other - just
don't call it marriage. Christians, and I feel safe to say, Mormons do not
wish harm on any LGBT. But to introduce LGBT inside the most cherished of
institutions is difficult to accept, to say the least. Semantics. Isn't
that a large part of this controversy?
When all the cranky, old-fashioned people die off, this issue will resolve
itself. Old people have a hard time with change, especially social change. Some
of the same arguments used against gay marriage were also used against
interracial marriage. Once those older generations died off, interracial
marriage became much less controversial.
--- "supporting traditional marriage is not the equivalent of disparaging,
injuring, degrading, demeaning or humiliating homosexuals."Maybe
not. BUT, there is a difference between supporting traditional marriage and
denying LGBT people equal rights. Actively legislating to deny civil marriage
rights to our fellow LGBT Americans IS THE EQUIVALENT disparaging, injuring,
degrading, demeaning and humiliating homosexuals.
"...Needless, thoughtless, damaging...".An epitaph etched in
stone regarding the legacy of the Robert's court.
M Russell Ballard Oct 99 mentioned one of false prophets is people who want to
live in same gender marriage situation.
You treat Kennedy unfairly. He and the intemperate Scalia are both
conservative, Republican appointees. Kennedy, however, does not let his
personal beliefs interfere with his constitutional reasoning. Mormons were persecuted in the 19th century because Washington explicitly did
not want to violate Missouri's states' rights. Prophets condemned
that failure to protect an unpopular minority. Then the Fourteenth Amendment
prohibited state penalization of groups for innate characteristics. The
church's website on homosexuality belatedly recognizes the genetic basis
for that orientation, leaving no grounds to criticize the court's
jurisprudence.Your statement of the various reasons for forbidding
marriage equality appears disingenuous. The word "or" in that list is
instructive, meaning that you don't want your readers to analyze any
specific argument but rather to accept that there "might" be grounds to
treat gays differently. Are you willing to stand behind any argument other than
"theology?"Finally, why does your article ignore the demise
of Proposition 8, which leads more directly to gay marriage? Could it be
because the church was forced to "voluntarily" pay a fine for violating
the federal campaign finance laws? Or because members wasted so much time and
money fighting that ultimately Pyrrhic battle? Difficult times.
Wow, the Deseret News editorial board is opposed to gay marriage? What a
"In our opinion: Needless, thoughtless, damaging" Not to
mention stupid, idiotic, ridiculous, immoral and unconstitutional.
@SLCDave: separate-but-equal isn't equal. The Supreme Court ruled on this
sixty years ago in Brown -v- Board of Ed. So, if you'd like to rename
marriage "Fred", then states can legally Fred straight couples AND gay
couples, and you can call only church-wed straight people's Freds
"marriage" if it makes you feel good. But you can no more have one
institution for homosexuals and one for heterosexuals than you can whites-only
This was an accurate, thoughtful analysis of the Doma case. Justice Kennedy
seemed to be motivated by political expediency and political correctness than
the rule of law. It has done much to increase the divide between the opposing
sides. The liberals on the court acted as Obama's political appointments
not as Supreme Court Justices in my opinion. Hopefully the damage done by the
mean spirited views of Justice Kennedy can be overcome and a better dialogue can
We are all familiar with the iconic image of a young black woman - one of the
Little Rock Nine - walking into Little Rock High carrying her books. Over her
shoulder, you can see a white woman shouting an angry tirade.This is
the legacy that same-sex marriage opponents will leave behind. They will have no
more adherents that laud their stalwart defense of morality than do George
Wallace or Strom Thurmond today. In twenty years, their children and
grandchildren will ask them why they fought so vehemently to deny rights to
their fellow man. Their only defense will be the same hollow excuse that
segregationists have used for decades: "Those were different times."
Thank you for speaking the mind of the majority who get shuffled off so easily.
Regarding "banderson" comments on the selfish celebrating and children
mourning: I'm a straight male with children, and I most definitely was
overjoyed to hear the news. This is a great country engaged in a grand
experiment in social, economic, and political freedom. What true patriot could
argue with this recent advancement?
A well-written opinion that supercedes in wisdom the opinion of the court. The
descenting opinion of Justice Scalia was right on point: the Supreme Court
should never have heard the case and used its power as a bully pulpit to call
people who are concerned about the sanctity and value of traditional marriage
madatorily evin and worthy of striking at from the bench when there was no
provocation. Further, the rights of states was just handed another blow - a
favorite tactic of the current administration who is running to the finish line
of court-derived monarchy.
Not sure this will get printed.... but it was the church itself that argued that
the federal government had no right to determine what was a legitimate marriage
when it tried to defend the practice of polygamy. How times have changed...
evidently it is the place of the government some 120 years later.i
say this not to disparage the church, but to make the point that to ensure we
have our rights protected, we also have to grant that same latitude to others
with whom we don't agree. I get the emotional side of this... but once you
enshrine governments role in determining who gets to do what with whom... it
opens the door to all kinds of other restrictions on personal liberties.Conservatives should be fighting tooth and nail to protect peoples
rights to choose... not to have the government become the enforcement arm of
religions. Mankind lived through 1700 years of that, and it was not pretty.
FIght for others to do things you don't agree with, so that you
will be ensured the right to do things others don't agree with.
@tellitstraight"Grand experiment?" You mean like the grand
experiments conducted in the Soviet Union, Germany 1930's, Burma, Sodom and
Gomorrah? If I recall, those experiments didn't work out too well.
We read in the Bible that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world,"
and we hear time and again that Christians strive "to be in the world, but
not of the world," yet what could be more "of the world" than
getting involved in political squabbles, engaging in political campaigns, and
funding ballot measures that attempt to impose one's beliefs on others by
means of the law?If you don't believe in same-sex marriage,
marry someone of the opposite sex. If you believe that an intact family requires
a man and a woman, then provide such a family yourself. If you feel that people
should live as you live, teach by example rather than using coercion. Practice
humility: Consider the possibility that you might be wrong. And stop fretting
about what you perceive to be your neighbor's sins. "Why do you see the
speck in your brother's eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your
The Court gave the people what some of them wanted - another Golden Calf so that
they could be just like everyone else, a people who rejected eternal law so that
they could indulge in wanton sex. Not much has changed in 4,000 years. The
"priests" now wear black robes, but they still have no understanding of
the necessity of upholding "righteousness" when some of the people wail
and whine that they are too special to only have the same choices as everyone
else, to marry someone of the opposite sex or to stay unmarried.
Twenty plus years of hearing the same baseless arguments not supported by the
research or the known facts for apposing gay marriage, all the while research
and the facts pile up In Support for gay marriage so at some point the question
becomes how long are we suppose to wait around for a act?
@Mike Richards:Let's try a hypothetical, shall we? Let's
say that the state of Nevada, for some inexplicable reason, decides to legislate
that marriage shall be between persons of two differing religions, and that
marriage between two persons of the same religion shall be illegal. When church
leaders inevitably question the fairness of this, the state replies, "We
didn't curtail your rights. You have the right to marry a person of a
different religion just like everybody else, or stay single." Would this be
acceptable or constitutional?
Re:MikeRichards"people who rejected eternal law so that they could
indulge in wanton sex"Uhh, actually what LGBTs want would be sex
within the bounds of monogamous matrimony.Something religious people
purportedly advocate for--monogamy, matrimony.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
"Nobody is forcing you to have a gay marriage." No one is forcing anyone
to have a heterosexual marriage, it is a choice. But will there be attempts and
acts for forced "acceptance?" That is already happening in other
states, who have legalized SSM, and on TV. No, one doesn't have to watch
TV. But in our schools, will children have the choice to "opt out" of
accepting "classes" on these issues if they wish? If someone owns a
restaurant, will they have the choice to hang a sign on their door (for
everyone) about their PDA rules? What about opinion, what about dissent (for
everyone)? The main troubling issue at hand here, is, I believe,
that of free speech. Will the believers of traditional marriage be shouted down
or shut down? I hope not. People will believe what they believe. They will live
what they wish to live. They will teach their children their values. Those
values will reflect refusing other values. How we deal with civility with those
issues involving values will, I think, reflect our truer motives and intent.
If you think this is the end of it you are mistaken. Those religions who refuse
to marry in their churches will loose tax exemption. You've all heard of
the irs and the criminal organization it is? Well they will be after the
churches and shame on you who believe in God and his plan!
@Star Bright: "Those religions who refuse to marry in their churches will
loose (sic) tax exemption."I expect the number of the above to
be identical to the number of Catholic dioceses that have lost tax exempt status
because they refused to give communion to abortion proponents - zero.A church wedding has exactly zero legal status without the supporting
documentation from the state. Therefore, the state has no compelling interest in
mandating the church to perform an entirely symbolic act, and a very strong
compelling interest to the opposite -- namely, the 1st Amendment of the
Constitution and the sheer amount of antipathy that would rain down if they even
tried to do so. On the flipside, now ceremonies performed by churches that DO
allow homosexuals to marry will not be simply symbolic, as the parties involved
will now be able to obtain the actual legal licensing that marries you.
We ask the courts to intervene when we find rights in conflict with one another.
Indeed, equal protection under the law seems to be coming at the expense of some
people's religious views. The same was true of civil rights legislation. We
can't outlaw certain kinds of marriage, even when they have been approved
by the voters, because some people are offended religiously or otherwise.
Justice Kennedy was hardly polemical in ruling accordingly.
The Courts and Supreme Courts of the United States of America have become
legislators and executioners of the law versus defining the law. They
didn't define anything in this case, rational and with a valid rationale.
They have become the late night shows with the liberal justices the talk show
hosts seeing if they can boost their rating in a Court that is made up of
entrenched and enabled lawyers. They will never have to worry about a
retirement or even a workday check and are in a world of special light and
knowledge.It is amazing how far these justices and their Senators
and Executive branch have stooped to fill the court with puppets on a whimsical
cord that stretches from sea to shining sea.We have become a country
with laws and disorder as determined by the men and women in the black robes.
They definitely are not secretive black robes but have made a pact that
doesn't agree with the Constitution of the United States of America and the
200 plus years of a nation that was designed to be special for all. Instead, we
have slipped to the bottom with a President that bad mouths.
Truthseeker, I sincerely doubt you are correct about LGBT persons
wanting monogamous relations; they could enter & stay in those if they
wanted were they granted "married" status or not. I have had gay
friends and co-workers, and with no intent to disparage them, historically LGBT
have many times more sexual partners than straights. This is maybe changing
today in a world of loosening moral standards, which is not a matter of
equality, but simply unfortunate and there are a host of ills which befall on
promiscuous societies, which are well documented. I think the
question has long been, do the majority of US citizens want the freedoms
associated with keeping a government and law based upon Judeo-Christian
standards, which are the greatest the world has ever known, while remaining
determined to demonstrate tolerance for those who chose not to live up to those
standards. It seems this country is about to say no, and the day will come that
non-Christians here will wish this country had never left its Judeo-Christian
moorings. When the church is required to perform a gay marriage,
this court decision will be viewed as the codification of tyranny of the
Contrarius, The one witness for Prop 8 was David Blankenhorn. All the other
witnesses feigned fear of "persecution". You definitely should look up
his testimony. It was a doozy. But then again, even the Prop 8 lawyers
couldn't identify any actual harm from marriage equality when directly
I am the progeny of polygamist Mormons on all sides of my family. Their
religious views of marriage were overturned by the Supreme Court in the late
1890's leading to the end of my family's practice of this marital
belief, and causing many of them to go into hiding to avoid being arrested by
the Feds. I would be much more inclined to agree with supporters of gay
marriage if they took a more expansive view of the issue. I hear so little
about the persecution my ancestors endured, yet I am a supposed bigot if I
don't support their non-traditional view of marriage. If you are LGBT,
most of us don't care who you love, who you spend your life with or what
you do in your bedrooms. But, I am sick and tired of having it flaunted in all
areas of society. I don't talk about my intimate moments in public and
neither should you.
My support for the notion that marriage is between a husband and wife, and not a
husband and husband or wife and wife, is not bigotry, rather it is a recognition
that our societal traction doesn't support your view. Else, we would have
vocabulary to describe the situation. So, will someone please suggest some
terminology to differentiate between grooms and brides in LGBT marriages?
Otherwise, I feel like we're just hearkening to the sitcom of old with a
bad "another brother Darrell" routine.
It is not lost on me that the establishment behind this paper has over the years
fought against the abolition of polygamy, fought the civil rights movement and
said that the policy on blacks holding the priesthood would never change, fought
the ERA on grounds that were dubious, and overall resisted a lot of changes. It
is an establishment that has wanted and sought the protections of the government
when convenient, and attacked the government when the same government follows
long-established processes to resolve disputes and issues in society. It is the
same establishment that wants independence from government yet at the same time
wants the government to enforce the establishment's religious views, which
actually flies in the face of the very Constitution that the establishment
claims was inspired. The inconsistency over a long period of time causes me to
question motivation and inspiration.
Let me add that weeping and wailing over the Court engaging in
"legislating" falls on deaf ears here. Just in the past few days, that
is exactly what the court did on the Voting Rights Act decision, substituting
its judgment for that of Congress. And on the Citizens United case, the
conservative majority actually instructed the parties to brief and argue on
issues that were NOT BEFORE THE COURT! What you have is a conservative activist
court that makes the Warren Court look tame. The right wing majority has a
mission. Where is your outrage for this?
The Court is liberal even with some leaning conservative justices and judges
behind them that vote liberal when their ratings will fall on the late night
circuit. The Citizens United was not a win for conservatives and the liberal
justices knew that. The Unions and special interest groups that supported a lot
of the movements in the 1970s to eventually force multi-national companies and
corporations to move overseas with their money and jobs have a big say in the
Supreme Court of the United States of America. Those people make the ratings go
up and down.With a single judge in California or even a panel of 3
that overturns 7.5M votes of the citizens can impact on what a State has voted
on. We live in a time when the king is now the Supreme Court who
has justices who retire fortuitously to bring in their Chicago controlled legal
experts to not only testify but to determine who testifies in their court.We have Senators that change parties to make it on the late night
circuit and the balance the people wanted. Integrity doesn't
reign. Where is the honor of the men and women in high places?
If DOMA 'humiliates' so many children because it doesn't put
their family on the same level as married (man and woman marriage), then the
court better DECLARE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH A CHILD/CHILDREN MARRIED TOO. 40%
of children are born to single parents, and 30% more will end up with divorced
(single) parents. So 70% of the children are in the minority being discriminated
against by DOMA.Great job supreme court, bringing that 30% of US
children blessed by a family with married status up to 30.01%! Isn't that
just wonderful?And in the same stroke of the pen you insult the
people, who want 100% of children to live in a home with married parents,
calling them bigots and haters. And so many think this is something
Churches in the U.S. have long been given wide latitude to practice defacto
discrimination against women (and minorities) in leadership roles and priesthood
ordination. States rightsIsn't that what
Republicans have long championed?Conservatives who supported DOMA
should, after 17years reflection, want the act overturned because its purpose is
constitutionally improper.DOMA defines marriage for the purpose of
federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. Because
approximately 1,100 federal laws pertain to marriage, DOMAs defenders argue that
Congress merely exercised its power to define a term used in many statutes. But
before 1996, federal statutes functioned without this definition, which
obviously was adopted for the defense of marriage against state policies
involving a different definition. Before DOMA an amicus brief submitted by a
group of federalism scholars notes, federal law took state law as it found
it.The question now is whether DOMA is necessary and proper for the
exercise of a constitutionally enumerated congressional power. There is no such
power pertaining to marriage. This subject is a state responsibility.
Editorial: "...to bully those who, for example, seek an honest and
fact-based discussion..."We denizens of the several DesNews
online comment threads this past week who favor gay marriage have begged and
pleaded for an honest and fact-based discussion from the opponents of gay
marriage. Instead, we have been treated to an endless parade of quotations from
Leviticus, references to Sodom and Gomorrah, the Proclamation on the Family, and
statements by LDS general authorities-- as if any of them were definitive on
matters of civil law.It's fine to let your faith inform your
political opinions, but American public policy and law have to be grounded in
rational, secular arguments. "Because God said so" by itself is not a
sufficient case to make policy, which is not to say that divine plans and civil
plans can't be congruent, but sin isn't necessarily illegal and vice
versa. God's commandment says lying is wrong, but we don't outlaw all
lies-- "Those pants don't make you look fat" and political promises
are not illegal. We do outlaw lying in contracts and court testimony, however,
because those lies objectively and rationally negatively affect social function.
To "Ranch" a person should be able to refuse service to anybody they
want. A baker's job is not to bake cakes for anybody who wants them. A
baker's job is to make a profit to feed their family. If they choose to
not serve somebody, that is their problem. Forcing them to serve does nothing
more than turn that baker into a slave to the legal system and the person who
brings the law suit.
People jump to the conclusion that "unelected courts are out of step with
the will of the people!" First, we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. The
founding fathers wisely balanced our lawmaking process to guard against the
tyranny of the majority; for example that is why we have to Senators from each
state to ensure equality, why we have an electoral college and why we have a
system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is the highest court, the final
word, like it or not (and often I do not). Their function is to evaluate all
laws in light of what is written in the Constitution, not the Bible. We live in
a secular society (and did when the Constitution was written) and the promise of
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" belongs to all of us, not
just those throwing a temper tantrum because rights being withheld from a
majority were just extended in fairness.
Irregardless of the Supreme Courts decision, I think I will never visit or live
in California....California is a Huge Target for God's wrath when it
comes.BTW, I think I will buy that "Beach Front" property in
" A baker's job is not to bake cakes for anybody who wants
them."As long as the customer can pay for the cake, that is
exactly what the baker's job is. "Forcing them to serve
does nothing more than turn that baker into a slave to the legal system and the
person who brings the law suit."So does filing taxes, staying on
top of OSHA requirements, and paying a fair minimum wage. It's that crazy
part of having a business license. How dare the government require business
owners to treat everyone with fairness!?! The baker's job is to
worry about baking the best cake for all of his customers. Don't worry
about who is going to eat it. Their morality is their choice, not the
To "Really???" you demonstrate why it is that Liberals do not understand
capitalism.The goal of a job is not to build widgets or perform a
specific task. The goal of a job is to put food on your table and to care for
your family. If you bake cakes, and you want to stay in business, you should
(not have to) do the best job you can so that people will come back to you over
and over again.If you are a baker, and I use the legal system to
force you to do something you don't want to, are you more free or have you
become a slave to the system.If you want to discuss fairness, that
is another matter. Fairness is an arbitrary concept. In the case of the baker,
I think it is unfair to force them to sue them over a cake they don't want
to bake. Fairness, according to psychologists, is a concept that most kids grow
out of by the time they are teenagers. Fairness is not equality, and is not
@Redshirt --If you don't like the US Constitution or our
Federal and State laws, then you can go right ahead and try to change them. But
in the meantime, businesses do NOT have the legal right to discriminate against
their customers.From LegalZoom -- "public accommodation"
means any business open to the public --"The Federal Civil
Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of
the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of
any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the
ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."[....]In
addition..., many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide
broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example,
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate
against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference."
"If you bake cakes, and you want to stay in business, you should (not have
to) do the best job you can so that people will come back to you over and over
again."Yeah, that's exactly what Really?? said: "The
baker's job is to worry about baking the best cake for all of his
customers."So why is it you think liberals don't understand
capitalism? "If you are a baker, and I use the legal system to
force you to do something you don't want to, are you more free or have you
become a slave to the system."A slave to the system? Why is it
you guys are so dramatic? No you are not a slave. But no, what it
means, if you are a baker and you are forced to do something you don't want
to do, is that you are part of society and there are laws. You
don't want to pay taxes? You don't want to follow building
codes? Fire codes?You don't want to follow OSHA? Or labor laws?Or equal protection laws? Oh well. That's the law. But
you're not a slave.
"The baker's job is to worry about baking the best cake for all of his
customers. Don't worry about who is going to eat it. Their morality is
their choice, not the baker's."I have participated in a
number of boycotts in my time. I don't think universities should hold
stocks in companies that do business in Israel. They should divest. By your
definition that is discrimination and they should not enfore their morality on
others. With this reasoning South Africa would still be under apartheid. In
the 1980's a lot of companies did business in Iraq. If they had taken a
moral stand we would not have had Kurds being gassed and Gulf Wars II and
III.Or all the sub-prime mortgages handed out and bundled as
securities. Companies made some really dumb decisions because they were looking
at $$$ rather than the morality of making loans to people who could not repay.
Now millions of people are out of work, we have revolutions in the Middle East
(there is a relationship).
To "mark" does the baker have a choice about serving? If they no longer
have the choice to serve, then they are, by definition, a slave.Lets
look at the codes have have been implemented. Would they be required if people
had simply built things better when better understanding or technology came
along? The system has to enslave us, or use force, to ensure that it gets the
outcome that it desires.To "Tekakaromatagi" very good. You
have just shown your first step towards understanding discrimination, and how it
can be used for good or evil. Keep working on it. Discrimination is not just
interpersonal.To "Contrariuser" pleae state federal law that
says that I have to provide a service to somebody that I don't want to
serve. There are job anti-discrimination laws, but I haven't seen anything
about having to serve others. Even the anti-discrimination laws would appear to
go against the our civil rights to freely assemble and associate with whoever we
@Redshirt --"state federal law that says that I have to provide
a service to somebody that I don't want to serve."I already
did. The Civil Rights Act.Again, "public accommodations"
means any business open to the public --"Title II of the act
rendered illegal barriers imposed by owners of restaurants, motels, and other
public businesses against people of color, stating, "all persons shall be
entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public
accommodation... without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race,
color, religion, or national origin."""The Civil Rights
Act served to unite in federal law a number of important principles. Primary
among these, of course, was the clear statement that discrimination on the basis
of race, color, or national origin was illegal when practiced by public
officials or those providing public accommodations. ""The
Civil Rights Act's prohibition of discrimination by those providing public
accommodations also made possible a giant step in racial equality, preventing
most local businesses from refusing service to people of color."This was later expanded to include other groups, and state laws also expand on
it.Keep trying, Red.
To "Contrariuser" so we turn the oppression on the oppressor.
Isn't that nice. We now have the thought police.Does creating
a thought police help or hinder the cause of freedom.You will say
that it helps, but in actuality it hinders it. Think of it this way. If the
most reprehensible person that I can think of comes into my business I no longer
have the choice of serving them or not. The crafters of the Civil Rights Act
were clever in oppressing those that once were the oppressors.
Why would you not want to serve the gay couple that comes into your business?Because they're sinners? "Do not judge so that you will not be
judged."Because they're evil? "But I say to you, do not
resist the evildoer."To prove how righteous you are? "Why do
you see the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to see the beam of wood
in your own?"Because you just don't like them? "Love
your enemies."Because you don't like being compelled to
serve them? "If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two."How do you like to be treated when you go into a business? "In
everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills
the law and the prophets."
Redshirt1701 --"so we turn the oppression on the oppressor.
Isn't that nice. We now have the thought police."The Civil
Rights Act has been the law for more than 50 years now, Red. If you don't
like it, you'll have to take it up with the Federal and state
governments. Personally, though, I think it's pretty amusing
that you've only gotten upset about it -- only bothered to even notice that
it exists -- when gay people became involved. ;-)"If the most
reprehensible person that I can think of comes into my business I no longer have
the choice of serving them or not."Actually, you do. Murderers
and rapists are not protected classes, for instance.Are you going to
ask for a background check on all your customers before you serve them? ;-)Keep trying, Red.
To "Contrariuser" and how do you prove that you discriminated against a
person because they were a Murderer or rapist, or anything else? (quite often
news stories will let you know of quite a few criminals).Tell us how
you prove intent to discriminate if the business person never states why they
can't/won't serve you?The other question is why is it that
you allow a federal law to take precedence over a constitional right? Do
federal laws enacted by congress trump the Constitution. You are saying that
@Redshirt1701 --"how do you prove that you discriminated against
a person because they were a Murderer or rapist..."If you did
for some reason need to, first you'd have to prove that you already knew
that person's criminal status before you refused to serve him/her. "Tell us how you prove intent to discriminate..."Sorry, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know all the intricacies of proving
one's case in court. IMVHO, though, such things are decided based on
considerations like patterns of behavior, prior statements, membership in a
protected group, and so on. If you're truly interested, Google any of the
bazillions of racial discrimination cases that have been tried in this country
for their details."why is it that you allow a federal law to
take precedence over a constitional right?"Who says that anybody
is doing anything of the sort?The Federal Civil Rights Act was
enacted IN CONFORMATION WITH the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
That act has been constitutionally tested up one side and down the other. It
royally annoyed all the racists when it was enacted, and it's been
challenged all the way to SCOTUS.
"To "mark" does the baker have a choice about serving? If they no
longer have the choice to serve, then they are, by definition, a slave."Well, I guess in the same way you could say wage slave. It's kinda
cute, but it doesn't really mean you are a slave. If you want to run a
bakery business you have to follow the law. Doesn't mean you are a slave.
If you don't like it go make a living somewhere else where you don't
have to searve the public. "so we turn the oppression on the
oppressor. Isn't that nice. We now have the thought police."Wow. What a huge leap to get to thought police. But yes, if the
oppressor is oppressed (from being an oppressor) that is absolutely good. In
fact, that's kinda the whole point of law. Yes, we can stop the oppressor.
To "mark" but now you have a new oppressor, why is the new oppressor
good and the old one bad?That is like saying the old tyrant was evil
and bad, but the new tyrant is good. A tyrant is still a tyrant.
Shouldn't we look to abolish oppression of people? Just because you were
oppressed, doesn't mean that you are justified in oppressing those who once
oppressed you?If a law is based purely thoughts, and not on the harm
that you cause, then you have set up the "thought police."
@Redshirt --"If a law is based purely thoughts, and not on the
harm that you cause, then you have set up the "thought police."Anti-discrimination laws are NOT "based purely on thoughts". You can
think bigoted thoughts all you like.What you can NOT do is ACT on
those thoughts in ways that harm others. And that's the same for any of our
laws, whether they are about discrimination or murder or tax evasion or
whatever. They're all based on ACTIONS.
@Ranch:"... the court should have ruled that it is unconstitutional to
deny LGBT Americans the same protections their heterosexual fellows
receive."Would you feel the same if your statement included not
only LGBT but polygamy, incest, sib, adult/child, etc., marriages?"We'll get there eventually though."We need to draw
the line for marriage at one women/one man else there is no place to draw the
line. You can't just stop at LGBT and that's it if you intend to be
honest about it.@UTAH Bill:"Either marriage is a good
thing or it is not. Make up your minds."What marriage(s) are you
referring to? One man/one woman? Polygamy? Incest? Adult/child? Sibs? What?
@wrz -- "We need to draw the line for marriage...."Once again --Roughly 15 other countries already have gay marriage,
some for years already. NONE of those countries have legal polygamy or legal
incest. They prove that you CAN "just stop at LGBT".The
Canadian courts very recently proved that you CAN "just stop at LGBT"
when they reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban.*Multiple* US courts have proven that they CAN "just stop at LGBT"
when they reaffirmed, in MULTIPLE decisions, that homosexuality rulings do NOT
apply to either incest or polygamy.The facts are all against you.I'll repeat just one illustrative excerpt from a US court decision,
from another thread. -- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, (Mass.
2003): "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to
apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but this) DOES NOT MEAN that this
constitutional right...extend(s) to POLYGAMOUS OR INCESTUOUS
relationships....the state CONTINUES TO HAVE A STRONG AND ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION
for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships...the
state constitutional right to marry...DOES NOT AFFECT the constitutional
validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of
@cevanj:"The media is doing its level best to convince us that
homosexuality is just as normal as the color of your hair."My
question is... why isn't the news media, the Supreme Court, et. al., doing
their level best to convince us that polygamy is as normal as the color of your
hair? As a matter of fact polygamy is more normal than any other type of
marriage arrangement.My neighbor has a dairy. I notice he has one
male bovine for his herd of ten female bovines. That seems like polygamy, at
least in the animal kingdom. And what is mankind if not animals?@Kings Court:"When all the cranky, old-fashioned people die off,
this issue will resolve itself."In which case society will have
moved a giant step toward Sodom and Gomorrah. This is the eternal process of
societal move from good to bad then rotten.
@wrz --"why isn't the news media, the Supreme Court, et.
al., doing their level best to convince us that polygamy is as normal as the
color of your hair?"Because, of course, the courts already know
that the state has "a strong and adequate justification" for keeping it
illegal. "And what is mankind if not animals?"We
are much more than *just* animals, of course.Nonetheless -- if you
want to argue that polygamy is "natural", I will happily agree with you.
Polygamy is natural. So is homosexuality. Homosexual behaviors can
be found in a vast array of non-human species -- as can polygamy, and monogamy
as well. All of these behaviors are "natural". But that
doesn't mean that they are all equally **desirable** in our human
civilization.The courts already know the difference, even if you
don't.Here's another court quote for you:--
Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming polygamy bans: "Despite its use
of seemingly sweeping language, the holding in Lawrence is ACTUALLY QUITE
NARROW.....In fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM PROTECTION
conduct that causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law