@jazzbird --"Rather than have an argument over which experts are
agreeing..."The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological
Association, AND the National Association of Social Workers all **support** gay
marriage.From the AAP's position statement: "There is an
emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that
children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not
disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual
parents"."because it is based from my belief in God, and His
word."Remember, though, that many religious people SUPPORT gay
marriage. They don't believe that God's word is in conflict with equal
rights for gay people."The divorce rate between married
heterosexual couples is another issue that we need to work out. "IMHO people who are truly concerned about children should: 1.
SUPPORT gay marriage -- because it increases the number of stable homes for kids
to grow up in.and 2. concentrate on encouraging straight
marriages, instead of worrying about what gay people do.Divorce will
affect a LOT more kids than gay marriage ever will.
Dear Contrarius,I agree with 1,2, and 4. Rather than have an
argument over which experts are agreeing that kids grow up just fine, I would
just share a few thoughts... You and I could not exist unless there was a union
between a man and a woman (hopefully married) - I do believe that marriage and
children go hand in hand. This is a tough reality for those who seek to define
marriage otherwise. Married people must consider what their actions will do for
children. As for the issue of marriage... If gay people want to get
together, then they will. I simply want to see the word marriage preserved
between a man and a woman. It is the only way to bring God's children to
this earth. Ultimately, many people will despise my premise, because it is
based from my belief in God, and His word. That is all I have left, despite
government and/or popular vote. The divorce rate between married heterosexual
couples is another issue that we need to work out. It is much too high, and
children are suffering from that issue as well.
@Miss Piggie --"Case law decisions and laws are often
wrong."Loving v. Virginia, and the other cases cited in that
quote, were all Supreme Court cases. They do indeed know both the
law AND the Constitution.me: "There is a universally recognized
legal principle often referred to as the 'harm principle.'you: "Well then, lets outlaw hetro marriages" Aside from
other important considerations (like the many good things monogamous marriage
does for society), it's very difficult -- as well as disruptive -- to
outlaw rights which have already been established in law (like marriage). If something is harmful, it needs to be outlawed BEFORE it becomes legal
-- like polygamy and incest.@jazzbird --"children
deserve a mother and a father perspective in the home."I
appreciate your calm and rational approach to this discussion. :-)Nonetheless, your belief about children and parents is actually irrelevant to
the issue of gay marriage.1. gay couples are already raising kids
with or without gay marriage.2. gay couples aren't stealing
kids from stable straight homes. 3. experts widely agree that kids
grow up just fine with gay parents.4. we don't invalidate
straight marriages based on their success or failure at raising kids.
Contrarius"From Loving v. Virginia"Case law decisions
and laws are often wrong. I think you could cite a few laws that were wrong and
were overturned. Care to list some?"There is a universally
recognized legal principle often referred to as the 'harm
principle.'Well then, lets outlaw hetro marriages since
domestic violence often occurs there. Not only physical but mental as well.Isn't it about time you ceased posting your nonsense take on
Dear Leftbehind:One nation, under God.Those who believe
in God, and are Christian - vary in their interpretation of God's word.
Now add to that every other faith (or no faith) to the mix. This demands that
we allow freedom of religion/speech. Many Christians (including me) are trying
very hard to share their beliefs in order to help those who are vacillating.
Politics, liberals, and much of the media are sharing their side of the issue,
but not enough of us. I not only believe that marriage between a
man and woman is God-given, but that children deserve a mother and a father
perspective in the home. I believe homosexuality is a real tendency, but blocks
the opportunity to have children naturally, and it is extrememly difficult to
tell whether or not it provides all that a mother/father in the home can. I
have learned that when people/governments disregard counsel of God, whether they
believe in Him or not, there are adverse consequences. That is why I still
raise my voice, even though government will eventually be forced to allow
everyone to do whatever they want. Laws and perimiters are good - and prevent
@Miss Piggie --"Where in the Constitution justices are supposed
to interpret, do you find anything about marriage?"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).
""all they need do is determine the prevalence of same sex
marriage in their day. I think the number is zero, nil, nada."You could apply this same argument to interracial marriage -- none at that
time -- or to blacks serving in public office -- none at that time.Should we therefore conclude that racial equality is unconstitutional?"All people have the right to marry with but two
stipulations..."Racists used to use that very same argument:
"everyone has equal rights to marry. Everyone can marry someone of their own
race."That argument didn't fool SCOTUS when it was tried in
Loving v. Virginia -- and it doesn't fool them now, either.
@wrz --"Where's my equal protection?"Thanks
for giving me another opportunity to educate people about the difference between
gay marriage and other types of relationships. I appreciate it. :-)There is a universally recognized legal principle often referred to as the
"harm principle". Roughly, this means that actions which cause harm to
others, or which significantly increase the risk of harm to others, are wrong.
Harm is a valid legal reason for limiting freedoms.Our Federal and
State legal systems have acknowledged -- many times over -- that they have a
strong interest in keeping acts like pedophilia, incest, and polygamy illegal,
because of this "harm principle". The Federal and State
courts have recognized in multiple court decisions that the state does NOT have
an interest in banning homosexuality. The courts recognize the distinctions
between these acts, even if you don't.Here's one very
brief example. "Lawrence" is the SCOTUS decision that overturned sodomy
bans.-- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming polygamy bans:
"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 protects.'"
Dear Reasonable Person,The Bible is a wonderful and true book, but
unfortunately has been interpreted thousands of different ways. Hence, the many
different churches. As for whether or not there is doctrine on homosexuality
(man with man, or woman with woman in sexual relationships or marriage)in the
scriptures, my premise may be different in that the apostles and prophets(both
ancient and modern) such as Moses and Paul represent Jesus Christ. So, yes, I
believe there is very plain and plentious doctrine on homosexuality. Again,
this may be another case of agreeing to disagree. I believe there
is a prophet and 12 apostles again on the earth today, with the same authority
that ancient prophets and apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ had. Why
wouldn't the same church exist on the earth today, that Jesus set up
anciently? Independent of government actions, we are one nation
under God, indivisible. He is in charge, ultimately. My premise is my beliefs
and doctrinal study of the word of God. I believe that He will guide this
nation as long as we let him.
@atl134"Uh... if the court didn't have the right to strike down
unconstitutional laws, there'd be no balance of power."Where in the Constitution justices are supposed to interpret, do you find
anything about marriage? You don't. And, besides, the Constitution states
that federal powers not specifically spelled out is reserved to the states or
the people.If the court's justices are looking for the mind and
will of the writers of the Constitution, I think all they need do is determine
the prevalence of same sex marriage in their day. I think the number is zero,
nil, nada.@Lagomorph:"As it stands now, gays can't
access that ticket and therefore must show restraint for a lifetime, not just a
few years."Are you kidding us? Gays have all the access to
intimacy sans marriage they wish and engage just as much or more than
heteros.---------Re: Equal protection under the US
Constitution:All people have the right to marry with but two
stipulations... there be but one partner at a time and that partner must be of
the opposite sex. This applies to all people equally. There's your equal
@nonceleb:"Even originalist Scalia pointed out that the 14th Amendment
stipulates that citizens cannot be denied equal protection under the law and
states cannot deny those protections."Equal protection?? Equal
protection?? Protection against what? Not being able to marry whom you love?
I love my dog. Where's my equal protection? Some adults are physically
attracted to and love children (pedophilia). Where's there protection.?
Some men love more than one women (polygamy). Where's there protection?
Some people love close relatives including sibs, sons, & daughters.
Where's there protection? Huh?Give us a break, nonceleb. The
line on protecting marriage has to be drawn somewhere. And that somewhere is
one man and one women. Nothing else makes sense. If the justices think
otherwise, they are biased and there is something wrong with their sense of
Dear jazzbirdJesus never said one word about homosexuality. Not one
word.Two of the most devoted Christians I know, were in the first
group of same-sex marriages conducted on Monday (July 1st) in Orange County,
On the day after the Fourth of July, I am heartened to see that even on the
Deseret News, there are reasonable people standing up for the rights of the
individual.If Miss Hallen believes we should go back to a pure
states' rights system (and the "originalist" version of the
Constitution), then she shall quickly lose her right to vote, but she can marry
Every child is entitled to grow up in a home with a mother and father
perspective. Throughout the history of the world, divorce and homosexuality
have frustrated that ideal - but the ideal remains in tact. While divorce,
homosexuality, and even warfare are topics that are real, they are and never
will be the ideal. Someone who is gay, someone who is in a wheelchair, and
those who are tried in their faith by many temptations and troubles around them,
are all in this mortal world together. God knows us, and he knows HIs doctrine
- independent of any political or majority vote. Of course there
are people who disagree with me - I agree to disagree with you - because this is
a question about what I have come to know God has spoken, not government. Try
as you might, you can never take that away from me. Marriage has been, is, and
always will be defined as man and woman - as long as God is in charge.
Hopefully we go a step beyond that - do everything we can to stay together - our
children deserve it! As men begin to unite with men, time will tell the
consequences of social experiments.
Cynthia, you offend me! As a gay person I find it arrogant just how far some
people go with this issue I am a moral person! Being gay does not make me
immoral! My beleifs in God are as important as yours and who are you to tell me
who I am? We are not Dogs! We are people and how dare you treat us otherwise. My
intimate life is none of your business.It is so offensive! You do not own
God! You do not get to decide who we are because I deserve better than what you
dish out! We don't deserve this!Judge not lest ye be judged.My
beliefs in God go deep and I know my life is important. You have no idea what
you do! It is wrong! What it does is wrong! I have experienced some very
difficult things. I never would have guessed how viscous Mormons can be! Sit
down and seriously take a look because a lot of those horrible things you say
about gay people are simply not true! I can't imagine degrading another
person like some of you do! It is wrong
Repubs, stop complaining! You won the gun thing and we won the marriage thing.
If you want to trade then fine. But stop acting like the cards are all stacked
against you. You folks win some too. It's just... You pick the wrong
battles. And we are winning the hearts of the majority of Americans. Just look
at how unpopular the Cruz-Ryan led GOP is!
Wow! I ALMOST agree with ldsliberal. (Well with his counterexample, which he/she
thinks is ironic) The government shouldn't be licensing, defining or
sanctioning marriages at all. Never should have, never should again.It is not the government's business who is married and who is not, any
more than it is the governments business who is sleeping with whom. We
don't have sex police and we shouldn't have marriage police either.
When the government decided to insert itself into the family unit
with benefits and restrictions, it should have created its own family unit
government name and left "marriage" to the churches' discretion
where it originated and where it belongs. If marriage licensing
really was instituted to catch polygamists, it is all the more an egregious
oops, here not hear,I really do know the difference. Sorry
I find it so incredibly ironic, that so many "Mormons" today are
up in arms about the legal definition of Marriage, when the only reason we
even have required civil marriage licenses today, was due to the
Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, and it was intended to aid in the prosecution
of polygamy.[sort of like gun registration, the Government could
then keep tabs on who was married to who and how many.]
hear is were I have a problem with the letter writers reasoning, if there were
such dire "consequences for permissive behaviors." then why is it that
those that supported prop 8 and doma failed time and again to show any evidence
of such consequences in the many courts of law that these two cases worked their
way through? when the supports of these two laws failed to provide proof of a
compelling state/social interest being served by denying gay people the right to
marry the courts ruled as they should and had too. Failing to make your case in
a court of law does not make the decision wrong.
They promote the illusion that human beings can ignore the moral, social,
historical, physical, and biological consequences of permissive lifestyles and
promiscuous intimacies, whether heterosexual, homosexual or transexual. "
======= Newsflash Cynthia and all -- I
don't think those living "permissive or promiscuous" lifestyles are
the ones seeking the right to get "married" and be legally and lawfully
wedded and committed to a single individual for an entire lifetime... whether
heterosexual, homosexual or transexual.
@DN; please indicate why this comment was rejected.Cynthia;I find your particular version of "family values" abhorrent and
bigoted. Equality is part of the American heritage; just because you don't
like that LGBT citizens are going to be treated equally by the government you
throw a tantrum.Guess what, the SCOTUS did exactly what they're
supposed to do, they ruled on the constitutionality of a law. They found it to
be unconstitutional.@Sal;The Constitution does not grant
the "will of the people" to remove/deny equal rights to a minority of
citizens in this country. The Constitution says that we treat the various
groups of citizens equally. The SCOTUS ruled correctly.
The battle against non-believers by the religious forces of the world is a very
good example to the conditions that made the concept of America such a desirable
goal. Fleeing from a world of religious persecution the fear of government
enforcement of a particular religion gave birth to the idea of freedom of
religion. Although the founders probably didn’t have in mind
the freedom of religion for individuals, that’s the way the people wanted
it. So for a couple of hundred years, the battle over the minds of men has
waged back and forth, with the religious forces mainly winning. Using their
claim to religious freedom they have taken the religious freedom from others
with public prayers, words on our money, highway crosses and other advertising
in the public square. Most of the words in this battle speak of
morality, sanctity, historical and made up consequences, when the real issue is
economic. Since the non-believers seldom share their wealth with churches, the
religious forces have used the government to impose penalties on the benefits
going to non-believers.
...and the will of the people voted for Al Gore.We live in a
Republic, not a Democracy.With 3 independent and separate branches of
Government.Get over it.
Cynthia, I'm afraid you'll just have to hold your nose and watch as
Utah gays and lesbians soon receive the same rights and responsibilities that
Cynthia, the defenders of DOMA had no constitutional argument. There is nothing
in the Constitution about biblical or historical morality. Even originalist
Scalia pointed out that the 14th Amendment stipulates that citizens cannot be
denied equal protection under the law and states cannot deny those protections.
Scalia is the one who had a political agenda as he had to come up with some
convoluted argument for something he found personally offensive and immoral,
instead of sticking to what the Constitution says. Kennedy, in regard to Prop 8,
pointed out that there are 40,000 children in California who are not in legally
recognized families and do not have the protections federal and state
In Scalia we trust...
Letter: "They promote the illusion that human beings can ignore the...
consequences of permissive lifestyles and promiscuous intimacies, whether
heterosexual, homosexual or transexual... [T]hey deceive individuals and couples
by denigrating chastity, deflowering fidelity..."Your logic
escapes me. Far from ignoring the consequences of promiscuity, gay marriage is
a response to and a means to reduce it. Marriage, with the legal and financial
benefits entailed, incentivizes stable, faithful, monogamous relationships-- for
straights and gays alike. If you are genuinely concerned about reining in the
"promiscuous intimacies" in the LGBT community and reducing the various
consequences (e.g. STDs), then you should support gay marriage. On the other
hand, if you want to create a climate that drives gays to dangerous liaisons and
infidelity, make sure that you stigmatize them as second class citizens and deny
them access to civil benefits and privileges others have.As to
denigrating chastity, marriage is the ticket that lets straights do unchaste
things legally. The game is rigged. As it stands now, gays can't access
that ticket and therefore must show restraint for a lifetime, not just a few
years. That's just cruel. Gay marriage respects chastity by making it
"Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court upset our government's balance
of powers last week when they cast down the Defense of Marriage Act passed by
Congress in 1996."Uh... if the court didn't have the right
to strike down unconstitutional laws, there'd be no balance of power.
Cynthia, your description of gays and lesbians gives voice to the embedded
animus of our culture towards GLBTs. Most people, even when bolstered by their
religion, would be less enthusiastic about demonstrating it.Cultural/societal animus is one of the requirements for giving a minority
"heightened scrutiny" under the law, meaning that we must ensure there
is legislation in place protecting them. Utah desperately needs statewide
anti-discrimination laws for GLBT people. In fact, we need a law for the entire
U.S. precisely because there are states and locales, like Utah, that will never
protect gays voluntarily.
"...permissive lifestyles and promiscuous intimacies....""...denigrating chastity, deflowering fidelity and derailing the
DNA-bonded possibilities for nurtured posterity...."First, what
the heck are "DNA-bonded possibilities for nurtured posterity...?" Are
you suggesting that biological parents are better nurturers than adoptive
parents? I know many adoptive parents who would argue with you. Further, most of
the Utah GLBT parents I know ARE biological parents. They were pressured by
their bishops to get married so god would make them straight! After years of
struggle, they did a favor to their spouses, families, and society by being
honest about who they were.Second, you have fallen prey to the myth
that all gays and lesbians are permissive, promiscuous, unchaste, and
unfaithful. Are you aware that even without the bonding aid of marriage,
lesbians have a lower incidence of STDs than hetero couples? I'd wager that
they're more faithful, as well. Your objections tend to apply to men as
opposed to women, a fact you would probably acknowledge if you thought about it
a bit more. I also know many decades-long committed male couples.Please abandon stereotypes, and admit that GLBTs are human and deserving of
rights, just like you.
Wrz would have fit in well under Stalin or Hitler. Anyone look, sound, or think
different? Lets just place them into "reeducation" camps.Is
this really what the right wing wants to do to America? Thomas Jefferson is just
rolling in his grave.
@wrz – “If the line is not drawn at one man and one woman, it will
not be drawn at all.”Your response is entirely fear based and
simply has no basis in reality. Our entire legal system is based on drawing
lines (e.g., OK to drive 65mph but not 105mph). We do it all the time. The fact
that the line gets moved on occasion because our moral sensibilities evolve is
something to be celebrated, not feared. If this didn’t happen, we would
still be stoning people for “witchcraft” and worshipping other gods,
not to mention children talking back to their parents.@wrz –
“As to 'born different'... Almost everyone has some
'differences.' With some concentrated effort, the differences can be
ameliorated.”You are aware that the largest “reparative
therapy” clinic in the country recently shut down citing their virtually
100% failure rate. And they even issued an apology for their past efforts.And why do you even care about “ameliorating” any
non-criminal differences? What’s next… “ameliorating”
those with blue eyes or who are left handed. Your “concentrated
effort” sounds like what goes on in North Korea.
So apparently there are still people so ignorant and uninformed that they think
gays should just "ameliorate" themselves into being straight. Knowledge is power. Myopic denial of facts is just silly. Thanks for the
@LeftBehind:"... what legal remedies will you support to prohibit
people who don't believe in God from marrying?"You got it
backwards, leftbehind. It's not that you have to believe in God to marry.
It's that God (actually, Nature's God) designed marriage for one man
and one women. For sure, She didn't design it for two (or more) of the
same sex. That's just plain silly.@Tyler D:"I know
you're scared Cynthia, but your marriage is not threatened and extending
the benefits of society to those born different than you will make family values
stronger."There is little of no threat to individual's
marriage. The threat is to the institution of marriage. If the line is not
drawn at one man and one woman, it will not be drawn at all. Any combination of
marriage will eventually result. Perhaps even groups will marry... so they can
reap Federal benefits of marriage.As to 'born
different'... Almost everyone has some 'differences.' With some
concentrated effort, the differences can be ameliorated.
Cynthia, your beliefs are clouding your judgment and reasoning. First, the SC
ruling simply affirmed that the Federal government has no business regulating a
social contract the Constitution is silent on and should be left up to the
People (i.e., States).And how is allowing gays to marry promoting a
“permissive” lifestyle? If anything, it is providing an avenue for
gays to conform to the norms of society making it easier to call out the sort of
lifestyle many in the gay community have indulged in the past (which in many
ways is exactly what we would expect from people who have been systematically
rejected and marginalized). I know you’re scared Cynthia, but
your marriage is not threatened and extending the benefits of society to those
born different than you will make family values stronger.@Sal
– “35 states prohibit gay marriages. The will of the people was
completely ignored in this unfortunate ruling. Great letter, Cynthia.”Sal, please explain how the SC ruling strikes down the laws in 35
Sal, First off, I want to let you know that I respect your right to
believe anything you want. With that said, you wrote, "The will
of the people was completely ignored in this unfortunate ruling"Since you seem to believe that the will of the people should determine whether
or not each state will allow marriage equality, I assume you enthusiastically
support those states wherein the people have voted in favor of it? The fact is that the views of the American people regarding marriage equality
have shifted greatly in recent years and all indications are that they will
continue to do so. I feel very confident that one day, before too much longer,
I will be allowed to marry the man I love. I'm glad we can count on your
How do you think Joseph Smith felt about Missouri asserting its "states
rights" with the Extermination order that expelled Mormons from the state
and took their property? Somehow I don't think the letter writer would
support "States rights" in all cases, only when its a "morality"
that they agree with.
If you don't want to choose to turn gay and subsequently get married, you
should probably do that while you still have the chance to choose.
Hmm. Cynthia is very upset about the Court upsetting the balance of power in
government. And the Supreme Court she is criticizing is actually a conservative
court, on average. Based on their political leanings, the nine justices actually
favor conservative political views. So what are you complaining about, Cynthia?
Do we need to have all nine of them be ultra-wacko-conservative?But
I suppose you do have cause for concern. With current Republican policies, which
are unlikely to change anytime soon, there will be a Democrat in the White House
for a long time, which will eventually skew the court leftward.
But according to the gun debate people, making something illegal wont stop truly
committed people from getting what they desire. If homosexuals desire to be
together, what will making marriage illegal for them accomplish?It's so interesting to see some people demand the government stay out of
their lives on one hand and then demand the government intervene on another. Where's the consistency?
It would appear the author sleep walked through the last twenty years if she
thinks she has presented any arguments that have not been tried and failed a
thousand times before. After circling around through the same old arguments for
so long it stops becoming a meaningful discussion and becomes a time to move
Sal, you're arguing in favor of mob rule - might makes right - three wolves
and a goat voting on what to have for lunch.Bad idea.
We need a system where lower judges can remove higher judges if the judges do
not uphold the Constitution in their rulings. There was no constitutional
justification for taking this case since the litigants had agreed with the lower
court ruling against Prop 8. The five Supreme Court justices ruling in this
case should be removed for not upholding the Constitution.
35 states prohibit gay marriages. The will of the people was completely ignored
in this unfortunate ruling. Great letter, Cynthia.
It must be really difficult for people who know more than anyone else, that
their opinions are always more valid, that they're always the smartest
person in the room....In response to the letter I can only say:
Thank Gosh for the Supreme Court. Liberty and Justice FOR ALL!!!
"Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court upset our government's balance
of powers last week..."And right out of the gate, with the first
sentence, Ms. Hallen reveals her total ignorance of how a constitutional
republic works. The process of Judicial Review _is_ the
"balance of power." It hold legislation and executive action
accountable to the constitution.
What? Pretty interesting from an group of activists bought and paid for by the
Heritage Foundation and Koch Brothers, don't you think? Hopefully, gays
will treat marriage with more respect than heterosexual have and by what has
happened so far, they have. In 10 years you'll have wondered what all the
fuss was about.
Extremely well said. Amen.
Everything in this letter may be true. But this is "divinely inspired"
system at work. Amazing how it cuts both ways, sometimes in the same week.
Many opponents of same-sex marriage say that their opposition isn't to
homosexuals per se. They say that they are defending the God-Given institution
of marriage, which they say God defines as being between a man and a woman. Forget for a moment that we don't live in a theocracy. Forget for a
moment that an increasing number of churches, temples and synagogues support gay
marriage. If marriage is a God-Given institution, isn't it
logical to assume that only people who believe in God should be allowed to
marry? A greater percentage of Americans don't believe in God than are
homosexual. If people are concerned about preserving the 'sanctity' of
marriage as a God-given institution, why is no one talking about prohibiting
agnostics, atheists, Satan worshipers, Buddhists, et al from marrying?So if you are truly concerned about defending marriage as a God-given
institution, what legal remedies will you support to prohibit people who
don't believe in God from marrying?
"Such unions are not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable
results, such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. They are
productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."Ruling by the Supreme Court of Georgia upholding the law against interracial