Comments about ‘Hawaii gay marriage hearing stretches into 4th day’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Nov. 4 2013 8:58 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
postaledith
Freeland, WA

I look forward to seeing same-sex marriage becoming law in Hawaii. There is nothing but good that will come from this. Next up is Illinois!

Ranch
Here, UT

How does someone else's marriage affect you? Answer: it doesn't.

Equality for ALL Americans, not just those who believe "god" gives them special blessings.

LP Grad, BYU Alum
Provo, UT

Those opposing same sex marriage are not all about denying equality. Far from it. The real crux of the argument against same-sex marriage is that as laws are written and public opinion changes, there are no protections against those who oppose the measure.

Once same-sex marriage is legal, schools have to address it and give it the same respect and acceptance as heterosexual marriage. All of a sudden children are taught that homosexuality is okay. Whether it is or is not is up to you, but for those millions of parents who try to instill in their children certain values, all of a sudden the schools are legally required to teach contradictory to the values parents try to teach their children. Whose responsibility is it to raise a child, parents or the state?

Further, once it's legalized, the state will be able to remove tax-exempt status and prosecute those groups upholding what they consider God's will. Whether you agree with their views or not is irrelevant; until explicit protections are written in for religious groups, I'll fight against it. To say it's about denying equality is a stawman's fallacy.

Lightening Lad
Austin , TX

I have been waiting for at least 10 years for anyone to tell me how gay marriage harms traditional marriage or Christian churches. Not once has anyone come up with any arguments of substance just the old scare tactics that are so much a part of the political 30sec TV ads. The Deseret News has an obsession with porn and gay marriage. I feel as if I'm reading a church monthly magazine rather than a daily newspaper. I have no feelings one way or the other, just a lack of patience as to why religion has chosen to get involved with a state right rather than letting the elected do the job they are required to do. Hasn't the LDS Church suffered enough for becoming the Prop 8 point man? If membership growth is important one would think staying away from decisive politics would be the best strategy. When you consider how many errors you can find in the Bible and especially within the Old Testament with its 7000 BC creation and a flood that didn't occur with life that wasn't affected, yet sworn to be factual by most religions, how do we know they have gay marriage right?

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@Lightning Lad:
"I have been waiting for at least 10 years for anyone to tell me how gay marriage harms traditional marriage . . . "

Defining marriage as being between a man and a womano and giving a special status is society's way to promote the idea that men should be responsible for their reproductive actions.

If two people of the same gender, who have a fundamentally non-procreational union can marry then we have to let all sorts of other unions marry: two brothers, someone and his aunt, two roommates, Harry and his duck. Society has diluted the importance of the institution.

Consider a military medal for bravery. If everyone can buy a medal it dilutes the special status for those few who have actually earned it.

You waited ten years? You shouldn't have waited, you could have looked on the internet more. There are a lot of us out there.

Ranch
Here, UT

@LP Grad, BYU Alum;

You'll fight against equality and I'll fight for it. I don't give a hoot what your religious beliefs are, they apply to YOU and I do not have any obligation to cater to them. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't have one. And you do not deserve a "tax exempt" status when you're using those tax exemptions against your fellow citizens.

@Tekakaromatagi;

"If two people of the same gender, who have a fundamentally non-procreational union can marry ..."

Infertile heterosexual couples fit your description. Boom, there goes your argument down the drain.

LP Grad, BYU Alum
Provo, UT

RE: Ranch

You still haven't addressed my arguments, only criticized them because they are not your own. That shows a lack of willingness to see the other side's point of view. In either case, I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just trying to spur educated discussion. Once again, how do you address the issue of parenting? Or religious protections?

Is it worth it to remove parental rights/obligations/discretion and give it to the state?

Is it worth it to infringe upon the religious beliefs/practices of others, when they are now prosecuted by the state for upholding what they deem moral? Is religion now something that is practiced in the mind and not in action? You can argue all you want about my religion supposedly stripping you of alleged rights. In reality, my religion and I could care less about your orientation or what you do with it, but I do care that those who legitimately practice their religion (e.g. reserve their church buildings for heterosexual marriage, etc.) are protected from lawsuit.

Contrariusiests
mid-state, TN

@LP --

"All of a sudden children are taught that homosexuality is okay."

I think that Republicanism is morally wrong. Yet it is legal, and kids are taught at school that both Democratic and Republican parties are morally acceptable.

Should I push to have Republicanism outlawed? Or should I simply teach my children my own moral views IN THE HOME, where they belong??

"Further, once it's legalized, the state will be able to remove tax-exempt status and prosecute those groups upholding what they consider God's will. "

This is not a theocracy. If you are doing business you must obey the laws of your jurisdiction. It doesn't matter what you believe God's Will is. If your God tells you that black people are inferior, too bad -- you are still not legally allowed to refuse them service because of their race. If your God tells you that women should not work outside the home, too bad -- you are still not legally allowed to fire them, or to refuse to hire them just because of their gender.

@Tekaka --

"Consider a military medal for bravery. "

How do gay couples act any differently from any other infertile couples?

Ranch
Here, UT

@LP Grad, BYU Alum;

Conversely, is it worth discriminating against fellow citizens because they don't live up to your own version of "morals"? Businesses are not people and therefore have no religious beliefs or morals (i.e., they're amoral). No, businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against some customers based on the beliefs of the owners. If we allow that, then everybody and everything is open to being discriminated against because someone, somewhere is going to have an issue with that person/group. Religious organizations are already allowed to discrminate within their walls and that shouldn't change.

As for children, they shouldn't be taught bigotry. If that's how you want to raise your children, fine, do it in your home, but outside your home, they should be educated that, in America at least, we treat ALL our citizens equally, even when they believe/live different lives than we find best.

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

@Tekakaromatagi
The slippery slope argument? Really? That has been debunked so many times. A duck cannot give consent and I don't see any aunt/nephew pairing clamoring for marriage rights. Also, men should be responsible for their reproductive actions. What has that got to do with marriage? Men that were never married to their child's mother can still be required to pay child support. None of your arguments are valid. I was married to my partner in 2008. How has that impacted your life?

Esquire
Springville, UT

All the stalling in the world won't hold off the inevitable. Just pass it and move on.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

LP Grad: "Once same-sex marriage is legal, schools have to address it and give it the same respect and acceptance as heterosexual marriage. All of a sudden children are taught that homosexuality is okay. Whether it is or is not is up to you, but for those millions of parents who try to instill in their children certain values, all of a sudden the schools are legally required to teach contradictory to the values parents try to teach their children. Whose responsibility is it to raise a child, parents or the state?"

Schools teach values contradictory to parental values all of the time. Do nutrition or home economics classes limit their teachings to only kosher, hallal, or vegetarian fare? Do science classes teach evolution? Is photography taught even though many religions prohibit graven images? All of these go against somebody's parental values and somehow they deal with it. You are arguing from the privileged position of the majority that understandably is uncomfortable and reluctant to cede some of its hegemony to minorities. Try some empathy. Try substituting "interracial" for "same-sex" in your statement and see how it sounds.

J. S.
Houston, TX

@ LP Grad

"I do care that those who legitimately practice their religion (e.g. reserve their church buildings for heterosexual marriage, etc.) are protected from lawsuit."

If Mormon church can deny non-Mormon couples to get married in the temple, and nobody can force Catholic church to ordain woman priest, what makes you think that church will be forced to be open to gay weddings?

LP Grad, BYU Alum
Provo, UT

Valid points raised by several people here. That's the beauty of such a diverse society; there are good arguments on all sides, and through compromise we reach good policy.

You may not agree with the reasons why many oppose same-sex marriage, just as I don't agree with the reasons why many support it. I guess my original point in my post from 7:51 is that the issue is so much bigger than simply, "Such-and-such-a group wants to take away my freedoms." Calling those who oppose same-sex marriage bigots is no more productive than calling those engaging in the practice immoral.

Point is, we are all entitled to our own opinion, and I am tired of the strawman argument that "So-and-so wants to take away my freedom!" It's more like, "So-and-so has 17 separate concerns with the ramifications of legalizing same-sex marriage (e.g. schools, public assistance, government's role in general, taxes, deficits, religious liberty, etc.), none of which concerns the desire to limit others' freedoms."

To trivialize someone's argument to mere bigotry is unacceptable and shows an unwillingness to engage in serious discussion.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

LP Grad, BYU Alum
Once same-sex marriage is legal, schools have to address it and give it the same respect and acceptance as heterosexual marriage. All of a sudden children are taught that homosexuality is okay. Whether it is or is not is up to you, but for those millions of parents who try to instill in their children certain values, all of a sudden the schools are legally required to teach contradictory to the values parents try to teach their children. Whose responsibility is it to raise a child, parents or the state?

KJK
It’s YOUR responsibility to teach your kids, not the schools. The schools say that other religions, drinking coffee, bikinis, etc…are all OK. It’s not the school’s responsibility to help you teach your morals to your kids.

LP
Further, once it's legalized, the state will be able to remove tax-exempt status and prosecute those groups upholding what they consider God's will.

KJK
It’ll never happen. Too many, including SSM supporters would pass a constitutional amendment protecting churches. Even the ACLU would join in.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@LP --

"To trivialize someone's argument to mere bigotry is unacceptable..."

Even SCOTUS has recognized that anti-gay legislation essentially boils down to animus -- IOW, bigotry.

In their decision on DOMA, the court specifically stated: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

Even DOMA's **own legal counsel** agreed that DOMA was based on animus.

Justice Kagan: "...I'm going to quote FROM THE [U.S.] HOUSE REPORT here... that 'Congress decided to reflect and honor collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.' Is that what happened in 1996?"

Paul Clement (defending DOMA): "Does the House Report say that? Of course, the House Report says that. And if that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute."

There's a huge imbalance between anti-gay and pro-gay positions in terms of real-life consequences. Anti-gay opinions KILL PEOPLE. Pro-gay opinions do not. Gay people in this country are still **eight times** more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people are.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

LP Grad @ 2:02pm: "Valid points raised by several people here..."

I really appreciate your tone in this post and your effort to raise the level of discussion above strawmen, logical fallacies, and ad hominems. We can always use some more of that here.

LP Grad @ 8:52 am: "Is it worth it to infringe upon the religious beliefs/practices of others, when they are now prosecuted by the state for upholding what they deem moral? Is religion now something that is practiced in the mind and not in action?"

A thought exercise: Substitute affectional affinity for religion in the statement and see if it alters the perspective.

"Is it worth it to infringe upon the affectional affinities of others, when they are now prosecuted by the state for upholding what they deem moral? Is affection now something that is practiced in the mind and not in action?"

This roughly describes the status quo for the LGBT community. The second sentence mirrors closely the predominant local "official" position on SSA-- it's OK to think gay but don't act on it. If your original statement describes an unacceptable state, does the revised one also do so?

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

It looks like Illinois will be the 15th state to allow gay marriage. Hawaii will be the 16th. Utah will be sooner than later.

stanJames
Baltimore, MD

I see commengts from BYU Grad.

I'm reminded of Russeell henderson who was one of the two vicious murderers of Mattew shepard in 1998

Perhaps if he had in school learned that gay people are good people also and a natural variation on humanity re sexuality he might have stopped the murder by his pal McKinney

Henderson was an eagle scout and a mormon.

BTW how does gays marrying stop parents from taking care of children . Lots of Gays adopt children or have their own from failed hetero marriaged that occur becausse of societal pressure

I wish the antis would work on fixing the 53% national divorce rate destroying marriage and realize that gay people want to support that institution

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

If I see two people of the same gender walking down the street, I instantly know that they cannot have children. Their union is obviously non-procreational. If I see two people of opposite genders walking down the street their union it is not obvious that it is non-procreational. Contrarius has been kind enough in the past to show examples of couples who are not obviously non-procreational who can marry, i.e. first cousins of the opposite gender provided they are above the age of 55.

If a man gets married and has a child and his wife dies and he moves in with his brother, or sister or aunt, or best friend from high school, how come he can't get married? That would give the children the benefit of living in a family? Why are they second class citizens? They aren't. It would not be obvious that their union is not procreational. They don't meet the requirements of the law, just like everyone else.

Marriage is society's way to give value to the idea that men should be responsible for their procreational actions.

to comment

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