"Republican political consultants who were advising the party — which
officially opposes same-sex marriage — to tone its rhetoric on the
issue.""The consultant class of the GOP has been
stupid," Eastman said. with such intellectual retorts like that
from top leaders of the opposition to gay marriage its hard to imagine why they
are losing, its mot like they are just using emotional reasoning like they
accuse others of, right?
God does not have a political party or affiliation and those who state otherwise
are surely using his or her name in vain.Think for yourself,
question authority. Just because religious, political or social authoritative
figures believe something doesn't mean you have to believe it. Use love and
logic when supporting a cause and don't fall victim to false traditions,
religious dogma or social pressures.
In other words a bunch of judicial activists twisitng the 14th amendmant to
include something it has no reference to have basically said the constitutional
power over marriage issues gauranteed to the states by the constitution
(recognized by the FEDERAL supreme court) and duley voted and supported by the
majority of the voice of the people in said states can elect to have gay
marriage if they want according to the 10th amendment but you cannot elect to
not have it. Tyranny of the minority has been given full power. Before somebody
ignorantly cries bigotry the issue is the Federal goverment does not have this
power the states do. If newyork elects to have gay marriage the constitution
states they can but that means Utah, California etc can elect otherwise and not
be held captive by judicial lawmaking from the bench.An amendmant to the
constitution must be proposed by either side if this is to be done legally and
without oppression from each and in the end the voice of the people must decide
and ratify it by 2 /3 majority of the states. Any other way is Tyranny and not
what founders intended.
Anyone surprised at all?
So if the central government doesn't like a state's decision they
overrule it via a federal judge, claiming that the law is unconstitutional. If
the Executive cannot persuade the Congress an "executive order" is
issued to circumvent the process? That is how it is looking more and more. I
am very glad to see some of the states seeking to establish their rights over an
increasingly assertive central administration.
It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central
aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that
marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court
has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of
marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process
Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the
State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”The Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the
state’s citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate
constitutionally protected rights. And “while the public has an interest
in the will of the voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound
and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional
rights.” Awad v. Ziriax 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012).
Just because men in black robes make something legal, that does not necessarily
make it right, or moral, or beneficial.
They are "scrambling" because they are rightfully losing.The
can no longer hide behind thinly veiled dogma, nor any of the other specious and
outright ridiculous arguments, including procreation, tradition,
'natural' law, optimal child-rearing... none of that tripe is under
judicial review here.The sole issue under review is: is the
state's interest furthered by denying a minority segment of the citizenry
the same civil rights the majority enjoy?Of course the the answer is
no, if one applies logic and reason.
Our nation has seen sweeping changes before that involved strong religious views
that impacted how the issues were viewed. Notably, early in the slavery debate,
it was widely seen that the Bible sanctioned slavery, and abolitionists really
were unable to counter that argument, on religious grounds. Of course, today
that issue is seen entirely differently than in the early days of slavery.What we're witnessing on gay marriage is social change before our
eyes in how the issue is seen. While most opponents of same-sex marriage base
their arguments on religious grounds, it's also quite true that many
supporters of same-sex marriage base their position on a very general
interpretation of Jesus' teachings, emphasizing love and acceptance.I predict in 10 years the formal religious understandings will begin to
emphasize acceptance and the commitment and love aspects involved in same-sex
marriages, and emphasize less the Old Testament condemnations.Politically, Republicans are noting the sea change in viewpoint among the
public, and are less likely to support discriminatory legislation. They see the
wind changing directions.Fascinating to watch.
It's very simple. If you support "liberty and justice for all",
then you support SSM. If you want to force your will upon the minority and
discriminate against people, you are for "traditional" marriage. When
you loo back, which side of history do you want to be standing on?
Here's the bottom line regarding SSM: One camp wants laws reflecting their
subjective morals (Justice Roy Moore) and the other wants limits only on
activities producing objective harm. America isn't a
theocracy, so those wanting laws to reflect their morals try to uncover how SSM
causes objective harm. Their focus is on children. They claim that since SSM
can't produce kids, it provides no societal benefit warranting the rights
and benefits awarded traditional couples. The problem comes from their logical
inconsistencies since they allow the aged and those knowingly infertile/sterile
to marry. They also forget that same-sex couples use surrogates and AI to
reproduce. Denying the benefits and protections that those children receive
from having married parents objectively harms them. SSM opponents' position
objectively harms children.SSM opponents state that kids are harmed
by being denied parents of differing genders. Perhaps, but aren't kids
harmed more by parents who smoke, openly deal drugs, are verbally abusive,
criminals, provide unhealthy food, are indifferent to children's education,
etc..? Yet such are allowed to marry. Why?Should marriages only be
allowed to those who can reproduce and then raise those kids in healthy
"Same-sex marriage foes scrambling after court setbacks"-------------------I guess if figures that a reporter for the AP
would phrase the headline like that.Had there been a more accurate
and objective take it would have read something like, "Advocates for
traditional marriage defend it against continuing assault."I
would have added, "...by many forces, including the mainstream press."
Representative Steve Hickey, pastor of a Sioux Falls church that opposes gay
marriage: "I'm saying keep the state out of my church."Pastor when did your church include every city hall marriage license bureau?
Every bakery in town? Every florist, caterer, limousine driver,
photographer?When you give up the tax-exempt status for your
"church" you can tell the state to get lost.
@samhillOf course you would phrase it in a way that ignores the fact your
side has lost something like a dozen court cases in a row on the matter.
“I'm saying keep the state out of my church. I only promote and
perform traditional marriages."Where on earth does this pastor
get the idea that the government will try to require him to perform same-sex
marriages?Has the government ever required a Catholic priest to
perform a marriage where one partner isn't a Catholic?Has the
government ever even hinted that it would one day require the Mormon Church to
allow a non-Mormon partner to be married in a temple?There is (to my
knowledge) absolutely no precedent in this country for forcing any religion to
do such things.I suspect the reason this pastor (among other
religious figures) is so defensive about this is because he, himself, has tried
to do the same with gay people: allow the state to interfere with what gays
value most (just as he values his church). In short, he's afraid
he'll be treated just as he's tried to treat others.We'll gladly agree to keep the state out of your church, pastor--if
you'll finally agree to keep your religion out of the state. Deal?
Folks, let's try to see this as it actually is:--- Of course,
the opponents struggle, because they have nothing solidly legal to go on.--- It is foolish to call grandstanding like the Kansas vote a
"setback". Everyone knows it is Republican legislators voting on
something they know will not pass the Senate, in order to please older voters
and contributors. Ditto similar actions in other States.--- The
article mentions NOM, which has lobbied for hate to Russian legislators, and is
only still going because of a few donors.--- As for "protecting
the religious by allowing them to discriminate: where do you draw the line?
Which taxpaying citizens can expect to be humiliated when shopping? How do we
make a law that is Constitutional, but allows discrimination against Gays, or
mormons, or Martians?There was a startlingly blunt decision in
Virginia on Thursday night, making it more and more obvious that the tide has
turned. The above article refers to it only in passing.---
Personally, I say the DN perhaps owes the readers a fair and plain
representation of events, so that they can see more of a world view, and not be
so shocked when their side loses.
I implore those on the anti-SSM side to read Judge Heyburn's opinion in the
Kentucky decision. He directly addresses the fears discussed in this article
and that I read on these threads, and he does so with great respect and
understanding. For example, from p. 19:"Many others may wonder
about the future of marriages generally and the right of a religion or an
individual church to set its own rules governing it...Must churches now marry
same-sex couples?..."[N]O COURT CAN REQUIRE CHURCHES OR OTHER
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO MARRY SAME-SEX COUPLES OR ANY OTHER COUPLE, FOR THAT
MATTER. (emphasis added) This is part of our constitutional guarantee of
freedom of religion. That decision will always be based on religious
doctrine."It is very disappointing to read of legislators who
don't know or appreciate this basic truth about our Constitution. They
should be counseling their constituents about this and calming their fears
instead of stoking their panic and indulging hysteria.Judge
Heyburn's opinion can be found scribd.com. It is document no. 206728126,
or you can search using "Heyburn" and recognition-gay-marriages".
@samhill: The other side are "gay activists" and judges decisions
make them "activist judges" but you think "traditional" marriage
just has "advocates?" Legal cases constitute a "continuing
assault?"I cannot speak for the AP, but like them, would suggest
you look up definition of words, including "accurate" and
"objective."'Lies is lies Pip ... that don't make
you uncommon.' Dickens, Great Expectations, Chapter 9
Ok mormons this case over, the church and the state lost,now lets all get on
with our lives.
"Our nation's uneven but dogged journey toward truer and more
meaningful freedoms for our citizens has brought us continually to a deeper
understanding of the first three words in our Constitution: we the people.
"We the People" have become a broader, more diverse family than once
imagined. Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices
suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed. We
have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more
inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”-Judge Arenda Wright Allen“It cannot have failed to strike you that these men ask for just
the same thing, fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they
and all others shall have.” -Abe Lincoln "Gays and
Lesbians, and their children too, whose voices are in harmony with
constitutional guarantees, also ask for fairness, and fairness only. This, so
far as it our courts power, they and all others shall have."
How Prophetic the First Presidency was more than ten years ago when they issued
a plea that the U.S pass an amendment to the Constitution protecting marriage.
Others are realizing too late what the First Presidency knew more than a decade
@ Samhill: Sorry - the newspapers, in this case the DesNews, write their own
headlines. If you don't like the headline, blame the
DesNews.If you don't like the facts presented in the story,
well - that is hardly the fault of the AP is it?
Where does this end? If three women wish to get married, is it polygamy?
Should that be legal? What about 3 women and 4 men? What if a man loves his
now grown son, and they wish to marry? What about a man and his now grown
daughter? How do we decide if all that matters are the desires of those who
wish to be together?The traditional, God-inspired definition of
marriage has served society well for a long time. I would say we are headed
into uncharted waters that could be dangerous, but I think they have been
charted. Sodom and Gomorrah didn't work out so well.What if
God really exists, really inspired the Bible, and really considers homosexuality
a sin? What if He really is the rightful ruler of all He created? It is a
possibility, you know.
Why is it that common sense cannot prevail rather than letting this issue divide
so many. The fight is over the word "marriage" for most. The legal
recognition and rights can be wrapped up in a domestic partnership contract that
is administered by the states. Everyone walks away with the legal rights and
priviledges they need and seek and we keep the word marriage out of the fight.
Everyone is recognized for their commitment and love. Yes, understand that same
sex partnerships are different than a man-woman partnership. Get over it, they
are different. Don't fight about the difference, recognize the needs of
both sides from a legal perspective and keep it simple. Society has lost
it's understanding of common sense in so many things. Keep it simple never
applied more than to this issue.
@equal protection: Well said and entirely correct. Any attempt to argue against
what you've written, is simply and ignorant attempt, at justifying bigotry
and discrimination from anti-constitutionalists and these anti's are on the
wrong side of a losing battle.
Sigh, so many republican legislators sworn to uphold the Constitution of the
United States displaying how little they actually know about the constitution.
They and their supporters cause the founding fathers roll in their graves.
Keep religion out of government and off the public square. If society and
community have a concern for a political issue then it needs to be resolved
though civics and not conflicting religions or bigoted zealots.
@ gridlock: Have you read the definitions of marriage in the Bible? The Bible
fully supports polygamy. Speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah, do you remember how
Lot's daughters conceived their children? Sara was Abraham's
half-sister. Nachor married his niece, Melcha. Amram married his aunt.
Depending on which version of the Bible you read, 1 Corinthians 7:36 has been
interpreted to support fathers marrying their virgin old-maid daughters. And
there are numerous places in the Bible where cousins marry each other.Of all the relationships you mention in your comment, there are only two that
are not supported by the Bible - women having more than one husband and same-sex
relationship - regardless of any other relationship between the parties.There are valid social/health reasons to limit marriage of closely
related individuals. There are many logistical issues that must be worked out
before polygamy/polyandry/etc. can be legalized.None of what you
suggest provides any reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.@ Deuce:
The problem with your suggestion is that those who oppose same-sex marriage
oppose any relationship giving same-sex couples equal rights - or, at least they
did until they started losing.
This has never been a fight about rights. It is a strict and adhorrent moral
issue that the LGBT has tried to make in a rights issue. Unfortunately, they
have deceived people to believe it is a right issue.No matter
whether this becomes a law of the United States or not doesn't matter to
me. As has been stated by so many you can make a man made law but you
can't change a law of God. If it happens then all it does is prove the
Prophets of the Book of Mormon and modern day Prophets to be true. we have
taken an evil and made it good and made a good thing evil in the sight of many
people in then country. In the end it won't matter because the only
marriage that will be recognized will be those marriages of man and woman or a
polygamous marriage between one man and several women. Those marriages will
stand but any same-sex marriage will be done away when the Lord returns which
can be sooner than anyone thinks thanks to this starting to be law.
It is really wrong when people state that religion needs to be kept out of
government and off the public square. That means there is no religious freedom
in this country. That it is being bottled up to be just a meeting and not to be
in the forefront. That is what is wrong with this nation and why it is loosing
its faith by keeping it bottled up in the homes and churches only.I
fought so that we could have freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom
of the press but I did not fight to be oppressed by those who do not share my
views. That is right when you tell me to keep quiet that there is no place in
the public square then you are no better than Russia, Iraq, Syria or a tyrant
like Hitler.We allow it here because that is what our forefathers
fought for to allow us to speak and to be heard. It is tyrannical to allow
For those who think the popular tides are turning toward same-sex marriage, then
why are they afraid to make their case in the court of public opinion? Why do
they bully and vilify those who disagree? Why do they run to the courts? As for the constitutionality, the courts also gave us the Dred Scott
decision. Men and women are equal in the eyes of the law but men and women are
not the same. Biologically, physiologically, and emotionally they are quite
different. Marriage between a man and a women is a relationship that brings
children into the world and studies show it as the best environment for children
to be brought up. Therefore, government sanctions it and protects it. Marriage,
from a society standpoint, is not intended to validate a relationship and that
is really what gays want. If same sex marriage advocates truly feel
that same sex marriage benefits society in the same way traditional marriage
does and receive the same benefits then they should make their case in the court
of public opinion and stop the hate and bullying.
As an Gay activist leader pointed out, and I paraphrase,the gays do
not want marriage, they not care about marriage, they believe institution of
marriage should torn down and done away with.It is all about legal
rights and privileges that go along with marriage, and the forced acceptance and
embrasure of their lifestyle CHOICE,which, despite there denials,
will lead to future legal attacks against churches. It is not about
loving relationships nor about children, not the constitution, or states rights,
not about the country or society,it is about immorality and
selfishness,they do not care about the negative or detrimental
affects their lifestyle CHOICE will have on society, regardless of their
repeated and deceptive denials of these bad affects.Unfortunately we
see before very eyes the destruction of moral foundation of this country and the
foundation of a good and strong society, the holy institution of marriage and
the family. With, as some have pointed out, the full support of the
@bl-hp, Sure, we all have a right to our own believe in our chosen fairy tales,
but we don't have the right to inflict them on to others.
A polygamous marriage between one man and several women is acceptable by law
now?Apparently, it just depends on which judge gives the ruling you
@ Getting: They go to the courts because it is the job of the courts to protect
people's rights. No one has to convince you to change your opinion -
rights are inherent, not given. (And should never have been up for a vote to
begin with and should not be put to further votes.)@ bj-hp: "I
fought so that we could have freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom
of the press but I did not fight to be oppressed by those who do not share my
views." So instead you are trying to oppress those with whom you
disagree?@ rivers: The polygamy ruling just brought Utah's
laws in line with the laws of the rest of the US - bigamy is defined as having
multiple marriage licenses - Utah added to that by including cohabitation with
someone other than your spouse. No other state includes that and the judge
ruled Utah should not include cohabitation either.
@ Getting OlderI think the anti-SSM side chose the battleground when
they banned SSM. It was clearly unconstitutional and their leaders knew or
should have known this. Did they think such a blatant disregard for
people's rights would go unchallenged?And I disagree. Marriage
from a society standpoint is absolutely intended to validate a relationship. We
want and encourage people to marry rather than co-habitate, thus the many laws
and benefits surrounding the institution. The State argues this itself.
So gay couples are not asking for anything that is not already being
enjoyed by heteros. The courts are agreeing. It's discrimination. The
majority of Americans may believe that homosexuality is immoral (and I'm
not certain this is the case any longer), but our Constitution does not allow
the majority to impose its moral beliefs on another absent a rational basis.
And the anti-SSM side has been unable to show one.
Here's a thought. Since it looks like states are now going to be forced
into marrying same sex couples, (even if its citizens don't want it) what
if the state passed a law that took the word "marriage" out of any legal
contract between two people who want to share/live together in a legally binding
contract? Marriage was a religious principle long before any American laws were
passed, and its traditional definition has been for two opposite sex people. I
believe that most Americans are not upset at two same sex people having a
relationship, with all the benefits of a marriage. It, for me at least, is the
use of the word "marriage" that I think offends many. It is changing
the meaning of a word that most of us have held to a singular tradition. So if
the state just legally coupled people, and then let the churches deal with
making it a marriage, (which is where it should have stayed in the first place,
religion) then maybe some of the angst would be defused. I, and I believe most
Americans are OK with two people having a legal, living arrangement that denys
@happy2bhere, Perhaps Shakespeare said it best: "A rose by any other name is
still a rose". So if you wish to call it something different, then go ahead;
but you may sound a little fatuous when conversing with others.
@ happy2bhere: You do realize that many religions support same-sex marriage
and, under your suggestion, would marry same-sex couples resulting in same-sex
couples having marriage and no actual protection of the word "marriage"
occurring, right? All your suggestion would do is cause a great expenditure of
time and money bringing every thing in to accordance with your idea while
actually accomplishing nothing whatsoever.And for the record,
marriage did not become a Christian religious sacrament until the 1500's -
which, yes, predates Christians in America, but post-dates most other Christian
countries and societies. Prior to the 1500's, it was strictly a legal
ordinance in Christian countries.I find it interesting that now that
opponents to same-sex marriage are losing ground they are all willing to give
same-sex couples the benefits of marriage (even if they only want to do it
without the word "marriage" being attached to the relationship) but
until recently they were not even willing to give them that. Amendment 3 specifically prohibits any recognition, rights, benefits, or
responsibilities associated with marriage to same-sex couples - no matter what
it is called.
All you have to do is to see the comments after my comments to see the hate for
anything religious and then you say there is no attack on religious freedom.
"Keep your god to yourself". This is hate speech and should never be
allowed. Or they are just fairy tells. Again hate speech. You can voice your
opinion but you are taking my right to voice my religion in the public square.
Your are the ones who are being the oppressors not I.
First, I am not a hard-core religious fanatic about this topic. I do believe
that religious, moral values, have a definite place in society. I do not pretend
to be a Bible scholar, however, many of the key laws we have in this and other
countries seem to be taken directly from the 10 Commandments. I respect the
opinions and choices of others and always look for a civil dialogue in all
discussions. However, I am a betting man by nature. I find it interesting that
some people make comments that relate anything religious to "Fairy
Tales" or "Keep your God out" of the discussion. I have lived long
enough to realize that there is more to life than we realize or understand.
Therefore, to those of you that think of religion as a "fairy tale", do
you really want to take that bet or are you simply more interested in seeking
only what you want at the exclusion of any possible higher ideal?
@ The Deuce who wrote:"...laws we have .. taken directly from the 10
Commandments."No. This is a popular meme on the religious right.
But it just isn't true. Our law is based on English Common Law, which was
based on Roman Law -- not Hebrew law.But let's look at the Ten
Commandments:1. Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Beside Me -- would
violate the 1st Amendment2. Thou Shalt Not Worship Any Graven Images
-- would violate the 1st Amendment3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of
the Lord Thy God in Vain -- would violate the 1st Amendment4.
Remember the Sabbath Day to Rest and Keep it Holy -- would violate the 1st
Amendment5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother -- good advice, not a
law6. Thou Shalt Not Murder -- an actual law7. Thou
Shalt Not Commit Adultery -- grounds for divorce, but not illegal8.
Thou Shalt Not Steal -- an actual law9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False
Witness -- perjury, libel, and fraud are illegal, but lying in general is
protected by the 1st Amendment10. Thou Shalt Not Covet Anything That
is Thy Neighbor's -- the basis of capitalism
Also, the Ten Commandments are just the first of 613 commandments given in
Deuteronomy. The remaining include prohibitions on pork and
shellfish, making garments of two different fabrics, mixing dairy with meat,
etc. The vast majority of these laws never made it into American law either.In addition much of the Old Testament is dedicated to teaching people to
be subject to kings and rulers. While the New Testament leans toward socialism.
There is no support for representative governments of any kind.There simply isn't any support for saying our law comes from any biblical
Take a hint from Utah for your defense. Claim to be affronted. That should stand
To: koseighty, Logan, UT - Thank you for making my point. As I stated, a few of
the commandments are related to actual law.6. Thou Shalt Not Murder -- an
actual law8. Thou Shalt Not Steal -- an actual law9. Thou Shalt Not
Bear False Witness -- perjury, libel, and fraud are illegal.These 3 alone
make a good argument and correlation. I do feel that your idea of Capitalism
seems to be somewhat skewed. A simple definition of Capitalism comes from
Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership
of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by
prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by
competition in a free market". In other words, it is the individual who owns
and not the government. There are as many ways to actually put this into
practice, some of which are greed. But then again, this gets back to my main
point of wanting something at the exclusion of a higher ideal. I do
appreciate the comments of other Bible scholars on this page.
Skeptic, to use your own logic, then why would gay/lesbians care what it is
called? A domestic partnership should suffice. Elton John thinks so.Kalindra, not sure you really understand my point. Marriage was Biblical long
before 1500s. And it really doesn't matter what other governments have
done with it. It is still a religious principle long before ever becoming a
secular legal one. As for losing ground, I don't know about most people
opposed to SSM, but I believe that a legal, equal rights partnership has always
been the way to go. Much like a legal business arrangement that two people can
make. Address the main point I made though. Is the word "marriage"
essential to your cause if you can have all rights under another legal title?
@The DeuceNobody needs Christianity to know that stealing and murder
should be considered crimes..."Therefore, to those of you that
think of religion as a "fairy tale""The only thing that
separates you or I from atheists is that they believe one more religion is not
true than we do.@bj-hp"It is really wrong when people
state that religion needs to be kept out of government and off the public
square. That means there is no religious freedom in this country. "If hypothetically 62% of people voted to incorporate Sharia Law, do you
believe that'd be constitutional and allow for religious freedom in this
country?@the truth"the gays do not want marriage"1,500+ couples in this state alone disagree. Don't pretend that
some random statement from one gay rights activist is what the entire movement
bj-hp, happy2, deuce.You claim that you are being attacked or
religion is being attacked because someone uses the description of "fairy
tales"to describe your beliefs. The words being used to describe the
LGBT community by the religious right makes "fairy tales" a completely
benign statement. You also dwell on the word "Marriage" as if
religion has the corner on it. It was fine for as you put it 1000's
of years, then religions decided to add a "New" definition to state
constitutions with animus. Why else would they add "anything that resembles
a marriage is illegal."By the way the father giving away the
bride, is a symbol of women as a possession being traded to another man.Tradition should never be an excuse to behave badly.
In response to Happy Valley Heretic, Orem, UT - I am not quite sure where you
came up with the idea that I said religion was being attacked. In my original
post, I state no such thing. In fact, I said the following: "I respect the
opinions and choices of others and always look for a civil dialogue in all
discussions." My point was that based on my life experiences, do you really
want to take the bet that religion is a "fairy tale", or are you simply
more interested in seeking only what you want at the exclusion of any possible
higher ideal? I am going to bet that there is a higher ideal. You can define
that as you want. Furthermore, nowhere in any of my statements did I ever make a
negative comment related to any group of people. Quite the contrary, I stated
that "I respect the opinions and choices of others and always look for a
civil dialogue in all discussions." Your apology is accepted.
@happy2bhere;Why don't you take the term "civil union"
and let us have the word marriage?No?Then why do you
expect us to call our MARRIAGES something else?
@SchneeNo, they want rights and privileges that come with marriage.
Which requires them to be married.What they want and how they get
it, or what they need, are two different things.Marriage has no
real meaning to gays but for its legal value to them.
@the truth"No, they want rights and privileges that come with
marriage. Which requires them to be married."If that was really
all they wanted then civil unions would be sufficient. "Marriage
has no real meaning to gays"That's about as logical as
saying that Christ has no real meaning to LDS members because they are using it
differently than the Trinity doctrine.
Same sex marriage is not a special privilege, it is equal rights. Special
privilege would be if gays didn't have to pay taxes. You know, like
@ bj-hpYou are not being oppressed. You are free to worship,
believe and express your opinions just like you always have been. However, you
are not immune from criticism or from other people giving their opinions in
return. The fact is SSM has no effect whatsoever on you or your religious
beliefs. And you can't use your personal religious beliefs as
justification to deny rights and privileges to other people, since that would be
an infringement upon their freedom. It begs the question, why do you care how
two other consenting adults choose to spend their lives? Live, and let live, my
This isn't a new news article, it's a rephrasing of what's
already been established in media, including on this site, but with a twist to
try and make it sound as though people who desire the integrity of the family
unit are some small group of people who are defeated or routed in some way.
@ happy2bhere: I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I attended
the legislative sessions in 2004 where Amendment 3 was discussed. As an ally of the LGBT community in Utah, I emailed my legislators and asked
them not to include the second part of Amendment 3, the part that states,
"No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a
marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."I was on the receiving end of the animus directed towards the LGBT and
Ally community.Once the Legislature passed Amendment 3, the
LGBT/Ally community asked the citizens of Utah not to pass Amendment 3 as it
went to far. We asked Utah citizens to leave civil unions available.On November 2, 2004, 66% of active Utah voters decided that not only should
same-sex couples be prohibited marriage, they should be prohibited any other way
of recognizing their relationships.If you voted in favor of
Amendment 3, than you voted to deny same-sex couples "a legal, equal rights
partnership". The only way Utah same-sex couples get anything is
if Amendment 3 is overturned completely. Once that is done, why should same-sex
couples settle for less than marriage?
Getting Older:For those who think the popular tides are turning toward
same-sex marriage, then why are they afraid to make their case in the court of
public opinion?KJK:For the same reason that those who believed in
mixed-race marriage rights in the South went to court rather than trying to
persuade the public that their ideas were wrongheaded. SSM opponents likewise
haven't been swayed by reasoning. SSM advocates are going to court to force
the opponents to offer objective reasons for denying those couples equal rights
and their kids equal rights. The opponents are justifiably losing.the truth:the gays do not want marriage, they not care about marriage,
they believe institution of marriage should torn down and done away with,which,
despite there denials, will lead to future legal attacks against churches.KJK:Sorry, but the absolute worst case scenario would be for churches to
quit performing legally binding marriages and have their members get married at
City Hall and then return to have a religious ceremony that holds no legal
weight. The government hasn't even tried to force churches to ordain women.
Women are FAR more powerful than gays.
@happy2bhereTo your main point as expressed here:"I, and I
believe most Americans are OK with two people having a legal, living arrangement
that denys no rights."Were you a resident of Utah back in 2004
when Amendment 3 was passed? Did you vote in favor of it? If so, did you
understand the significance of the second part? I'm quite surprised at the
number of DN commenters who seem not even to be aware of, let alone comprehend,
the full effect of the state's Amendment on same-sex couples. But maybe
that's a testament to the dramatic shift in the cultural landscape in the
last decade. At the time --(2004)-- I remember discussion of how
nothing in the bill prevented any two people (including same-sex couples) from
entering into private contracts with each other. What's the problem, right?
-- well, besides the enormous cost, I've never seen an adequate explanation
of how you privately contract for the spousal privilege, for example.
@Jamescmeyer 8:01 a.m. Feb. 18, 2014This isn't a new news
article, it's a rephrasing of what's already been established in
media, including on this site, but with a twist to try and make it sound as
though people who desire the integrity of the family unit are some small group
of people who are defeated or routed in some way.-----------------------The problem with your comment, of course,
comes from the fact that SSM does not threaten "the integrity of the family
unit". In fact, the people who are attempting to ban SSM are threatening
the integrity of the family units of a lot of families, including those with
children, because the family heads happen to be of the same sex.I am
a woman in her 60s. My husband and I have been married over 44 years. The
integrity of our family unit is in no way threatened by SSM. In fact, a family
unit's integrity would have to be incredibly weak for SSM to threaten it.
Those people whose family units' integrities are threatened by SSM should
work to strenthen their families instead of trying to destroy someone
I am pretty much ready for a refuge in Zion. How about you? The Constitution as
our basis in law, the Gospel and the Holy Spirit as our guide.
What is really funny is that this is only an issue because there HAD to be a law
banning it. This mean that the law can be declared unconstitutional. If there is
no law, you can't strike it down.This puts the burden on the
proponents of SSM to get it legalized in the state. In an
overzealous effort to ban SSM the state has brought this upon itself. It's
almost like the state deserves this for trying to be so pretentious. Also, banning civil unions is a bad idea as it makes the marriage or nothing
closer to reality. Basically Utah got itself OWN3d
."Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to fulfill the
eternal destiny of His children. The union of husband and wife assures
perpetuation of the race and provides a divinely ordained setting for the
nurturing and teaching of children. This sacred family setting, with father and
mother and children firmly committed to each other and to righteous living,
offers the best hope for avoiding many of the ills that afflict society.
Marriage is and has been for centuries, by definition, a legal joining of a man
and woman. This union used to be considered a family with the potential to bear
and raise children. Our society's disregard for the importance of strong
marriages has led to cohabitation, single mothers (often teenagers) who often
raise their children in poverty, wide spread use of abortion as birth control,
and an attitude that getting sexual satisfaction wherever and from whomever is
more important than protecting a nuclear family. We are so consumed with our own
personal agenda to have what we want (particularly sexually) that we seem to
have lost sight of the consequences of our actions. Why do you think that we
have so many school shootings, so much abortion, so much drug use, and so many
abused children in our society? I don't think it is because we value
individual freedoms too little. Perhaps we value them too much and have become
so self-centered that the greater good is irrelevant to most of us. When a
civilization is centered in self-indulgence, it will not have the courage and
heart to remain great.
@ fireman: It's great that you believe that, and legalizing same-sex
marriage will in no way impact your ability to believe that nor will your church
be forced to change its teachings regarding same-sex marriage and homosexuality.
But the fact that your religion teaches that same-sex marriage is wrong is not
sufficient reason, under the law, for prohibiting it.Your religion
teaches shopping on Sundays is a sin - but there aren't laws prohibiting
it. Nor are there laws prohibiting the use of alcohol or tobacco. There are no
laws prohibiting the consumption of pork, shellfish, or cheeseburgers although
there are religions that teach these as sins.And in spite of the
supposed claims by some radicals, no one has any interest in forcing your church
to solemnize same-sex marriages. As a matter of fact, most proponents of
same-sex marriage would very vigorously defend your church's right to not
do that.Which is a totally different matter than making businesses
honor public accommodation laws and treat all citizens as equal.Your
religious beliefs are not sufficient reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage
nor are they sufficient reason for treating people as second class citizens.
SuziQ;I get the feeling you feel LGBT are being selfish to want to
marry the loves of our lives. Are you being selfish to want to marry? So why
"Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for fighting to display the Ten
Commandments in a judicial building, has written to all 50 governors urging them
to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between only
a man and a woman."If you were confused as to what an actual
"Activist Judge" would be, this is your example.
The same-sex marriage supporters are the epitome of moral relativism. Rights are
being given priority over responsibilities. There is no sin and if anyone says
there is then they are labeled as "judgmental". Only time will tell but
I can see the day that marriage will ONLY be a governmental definition used ONLY
for taxes and other benefits. Maybe one day, ministers will be able to perform
spiritual "unions" but not marriages. Seems a little backward.
This issue has far reaching and eternal effects for the world as a whole.Before
going further into the debate I encourage all to read The Family: A Proclamation
To The World. Below is a link to the site. www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation
@ fireman: Before going further in this debate, I would suggest you read the
It's funny that so many people comment on these stories stating that they
are members of this church or that church(many claiming the LDS church) but then
leave it at that. If you are going to bring up your religion, then you
can't leave religion out of it. God clearly defines what marriage is and
what it isn't. So the instant you state your religion, keep your comment in
check with your beliefs.I love all equally even if I don't agree with
what they are fighting for. Marriage is what it has been since the beginning of
time. It has been morally the same since then as instituted from God. Allowing
something that is immoral does not make it moral. So no matter what the laws say
or what people may do, SSM will always be morally wrong. If they want the
tax break that comes with being married, well that break won't be along for
too much longer as it is. The government will get rid of it. Also, by
calling people bigots, intolerant, and they're judging just because they
don't support your views makes you the same thing.