tators: "When society finally learns it's lesson and discovers the
longer-term negative effects that go along with homosexual marriages, especially
regarding the rearing of children in most such relationships, the damage will
have been done and many current proponents will then change their minds.
"---------------What we do know is that child
molesters are allowed to marry and reproduce. What we do know is that murderers
are allowed to marry and reproduce. What we do know is that wife and child
abusers are allowed to marry and reproduce. What we do know is that there is a
very high possibility for these people to harm their children.What
we don't know about the children who are growing up in gay families is not
as little as you think. Check out what those who study these things have to say
about gay parents. There are some pretty good references from some pretty well
respected societies and associations that have done quite a bit of research on
this. Read up on them.And then tell my why we allow child molesters
to marry and not two loving gay people.
@ Kalindra:You are proving once again that beauty is in the eyes of
the beholder. As far as the reading of the judge's ruling goes, I found it
to be very convoluted to read... something that shows he wants to jump on the
bandwagon of political expediency and whatever is considered the current
politically correct thing to do. And yes, it did buy him his 15 minutes of
fame... just as intended. When society finally learns it's
lesson and discovers the longer-term negative effects that go along with
homosexual marriages, especially regarding the rearing of children in most such
relationships, the damage will have been done and many current proponents will
then change their minds. It's a sad fact that society often has to
learn such lessons the hard way. But that's just how this will eventually
play out, regardless of how anyone currently feels about it.It's obvious you and other known liberals feel the judge's ruling
was wise indeed. But as the Bible so poignantly states it, "The wisdom of
man is foolishness unto God." Unfortunately, it usually takes awhile for
mankind to realize just how true that really is.
@ Incite Full: There is not a single reference anywhere in the polygamy ruling
to same-sex marriage or any of the same-sex marriage cases including those heard
by the Supreme Court.There are multiple references to Lawrence,
which de-criminalized same-sex sex, but there are also many references to
Griswold, which legalized birth control and which Lawrence was based on, and to
Hialeah, which prohibited statutes prohibiting ritualized animal sacrifice and
which was used to find that Utah's bigamy statute is not neutrally applied.
If you are going to claim that Lawrence leads to polygamy, you must also claim
that birth control and animal sacrifice lead to polygamy.It is also
important to note that Brown, the polygamy case in question, did not actually
strike down laws against polygamy - it merely struck down the provision
criminalizing cohabiting with one person while married to another person,
particularly if criminal charges are only brought when the cohabiters claim
religious benefits to doing so (this is where Hialeah comes in).Polygamy - legally being married to more than one person - is still illegal.
Those claiming these legal procedings have no effect on polygamy are woefully
uninformed. Already Utah's own state law against Polygamy was struck down
by federal judges last summer, due SPECIFICALLY to the Supreme Court rulings on
gay marriage appeals.
The Judge's Ruling is a beautiful thing to read.It always
surprises me that so few of those who are opposed to same-sex marriage read the
rulings of the judges who uphold the right to same-sex marriage and then post
comments acting like they have thought of something new or different that the
involved state didn't argue and the judge didn't address.All those who disagree with this judge's ruling should at least have the
sense to read it so they know what they are objecting to and don't continue
to make baseless arguments that have already been addressed and refuted.
wrz,Phoenix, AZ, you don't seem to know your Constitution very well. The
Federal Judges better educated than you or I are ruling that it is a Federal
Constitutional issue. So your argument not only doesn't hold water, it is
upheld by Federal Judges sworn to uphold the Constitution.39 cases
so far ruled by our Constitution. So are these just "activist judges"?
That seems to be the next argument that is used.
Do anti-polgyamy laws serve any rational purpose in preventing harm and abuse in
closed faith promoting communities. Is there harm and abuse in FLDS like
communities? How can the practice eventually become legal? When the harm and
abuse goes away?When applying the rational basis standard, courts
will not invalidate a provisionof law on equal protection grounds “unless
the varying treatment of different groups or persons isso unrelated to the
achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [a reviewing court]
can only conclude that the government’s actions were irrational.”
When addressing a spectrum of risks and harms, a line may need to be drawn. If
a line has to be drawn somewhere, it is the governments business.
@wrz "If you're looking to the Federal Constitution for authorization
you won't find it. There's nothing in that document about marriage.
Marriage is a state issue."Loving v. Virginia. SCOTUS disagrees,
at some point it crosses from a state issue to a constitutional matter of equal
protection. Citizens have brought cases, and 39 rulings have been made. "Soon polygamists will want the same benefit..."Polygamy is a different matter though I suspect some cases are coming. There
would be much less abuse of women and children if polygamy was regulated by law
instead of being underground and secret with no legal guidelines about the
relationship(s). "...Then incest couples. Them mom/son,
Father/daughter, grandpa/grand-daughter, etc."This sounds like a
line from Ghostbusters (use your Billy Murray voice): Human sacrifice! Dogs and
cats, living together! Mass hysteria!Marriage joins two "legal
strangers" so they form a legally recognized family, giving them certain
rights and responsibilities toward each other and toward their natural or
adopted children. Parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren already
have a legally defined relationship. Marriage does not apply to those
wrz writes, "Soon polygamists will want the same benefit. Then incest
couples."Polygamists already want it. The question is, does
allowing people to take more than one spouse benefit the social order? Do
multiple spouses make stable families and thus a stable society? No spokesman
for polygamy has ever come up with an argument that makes has convinced a judge
in the US to overturn the "one-spouse-at-a-time" rule. And polygamists
are notorious for "marrying" children under the legal age of consent.
Ditto with incest couples. However, wrz, if this "injustice" bothers
you, you are welcome to take up the cause.
@LovelyDeseret: "These rogue judges and their desire to legislate from the
bench ruins a democracy."Judge Bernard Friedman was appointed to
the Federal bench by Reagen. His reputation is conservative but fair and
impartial in court. Out of 39 rulings on gay marriage, his court is the first to
hold a full trial and not respond to requests for a preliminary ruling on legal
arguments. The trial lasted 9 days and included expert testimony from both
sides. The only witness not heard was a grad student who does not have the
professional experience to be an "expert." Friedman is known
to be very family oriented. Nineteen years ago he hired a lesbian law clerk who
became pregnant and had a child with her partner. He decided they were a family,
just like the families of every other employee in his office, and he treated
them as such. The judge said he was relying upon “the enduring
principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent
majority, the [constitutional] guarantee of equal protection must
prevail.” A "rogue judge" who follows the constitution
to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
@A Quaker: I truly admire your ability to articulate your position on this
issue. You eloquently make your point and maintain a civil tone. I wish more
people could "discuss" issues in this manner, including myself. My hat
is off to you!
@wrz"It is a threat to marriage. Soon polygamists will want the same
benefit. Then incest couples. Them mom/son, Father/daughter,
grandpa/grand-daughter, etc."-----Apparently, you think
polygamy and incestuous marriage are harmful, which I agree. But
what is at issue is not the harm of polygamy and incestuous marriage, it is what
are the harms of same sex marriage? And just like every other opponent of SSM,
Michigan state attorney's answer could not stand legal scrutiny either.
@higv: "Why are judges after judges not only overturning the will of the
people but the will of God. Not ours to redefine."Because we
live in a constitutional republic that is governed by the rule of law. The
constitution was carefully designed to give checks and balances, to ensure that
the "will of the majority" is not the "tyranny of the mob" and
abusive to the rights of any minority group to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. In Iran and Afghanistan the "will of god" is an
issue in laws because those countries are set up as theocracies. We are not a
theocracy, so the "will of god" has nothing to do with the rule of law.
You are free to live your life by whatever religious rules you desire, you are
not free to impose those rules on others by government force. The
judges are doing the job they were appointed to do, by conservative and liberal
presidents. They are applying the constitution, laws, and legal precedents to
cases brought before them by American citizens. This is exactly how our
constitutional system is designed to work.
@ higv"Gay people have existed for some time. Why are they just
now in last two decades finding a so called right to marry someone of the same
gender?"I agree, why would an oppressed group only now begin to
demand rights? Why did women choose last century to demand the right to vote,
they had been fine not voting up to that point, right? We've de-segregated
our schools at the insistence of the MLK Jr movement, but why did they wait so
long to voice their concerns? This happens way too often, I don't hear
about others' grievances until it becomes forced down my throat by judges.
@wrz and uncle ricoYour right just like every other time others rights
have been affirmed all sense of aw and order is gone, up is down, left is right
and I think I just got hit by piece of the sky . @lovely and stop As
was the case wiith every other such case you never have had the right to vote
others rights away
Why are judges after judges not only overturning the will of the people but the
will of God. Not ours to redefine. Pretty bad when they will face there maker.
Gay people have existed for some time. Why are they just now in last two
decades finding a so called right to marry someone of the same gender?
Hopefully some judges will uphold the will of voters and God. Or so called same
gender marriages will probably collapse under the weight of those that engage in
them. Laws will. A judge is not a King.
There is some clear misunderstanding in these comments. Your religion's
definition of morality is not universal. My religion finds nothing immoral in
an honest, loving commitment between consenting, unrelated adults. Several
Christian denominations share the same belief as mine. Your religion is free to
set moral strictures for your members. Your members are free to gossip about
the perceived moral failings of others. You are free to hold your brothers and
sisters in contempt for not meeting your personal standards.What you
are not free to do is impose your religious beliefs on others.There
is nothing illegal about being gay or lesbian. You may not like it, but there
are no laws against it. You may misunderstand the integrity of gay men or women
who stop pretending they're someone they're not. But, I have great
trouble accepting that you honestly believe that allowing them to marry each
other would have any real effect on your life, your church, your marriage or
your children. However, for your gay child, that hope for their own
future could be the difference between happiness and despair. God is love.
Well, looks like we can all stop voting now that the federal courts can just
decide everything for us. Who needs a state constitution, anyway? Plus,
it's not like civil marriage is governed by the states. Oh wait...
One by one, states are giving into the pressure of same-sex
"Marriage"I don't think anyone can understand the
repercussions this will create in the future as society begins to turn
morality into civil issues that can be debated and then outlawed.We are
all getting played here.
Blocked almost immediately by the appellant court. These rogue judges and their
desire to legislate from the bench ruins a democracy.
@Utefan60:"looks like the right of tax paying citizens whether we like
it or not are now being enforced by the Federal Constitution."If
you're looking to the Federal Constitution for authorization you won't
find it. There's nothing in that document about marriage. Marriage is a
state issue."This is no threat to traditional marriage."It is a threat to marriage. Soon polygamists will want the same
benefit. Then incest couples. Them mom/son, Father/daughter,
grandpa/grand-daughter, etc. You name it. There will be no restriction on any
combination. Anything less would be discrimination. Then it's good-bye to
marriage."It is only allowing citizens their legal
rights."I think you've got it right.
looks like the right of tax paying citizens whether we like it or not are now
being enforced by the Federal Constitution. This is no threat to traditional
marriage. It is only allowing citizens their legal rights. I think that this is
in the best interest of the children raised by these couples.
Love and commitment -- a beautiful thing. :o)