Published: Tuesday, July 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
"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
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?
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.
Extremely well said. Amen.
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.
"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.
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!!!
35 states prohibit gay marriages. The will of the people was completely ignored
in this unfortunate ruling. Great letter, Cynthia.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
@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.
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
@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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments