Lets look at previous court cases on Prop 8. By our own Deseret news. **’Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ –
by Michael De Groote – Deseret News – 02/07/12
‘"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to
lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the
Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'
I agree with some of the Judges, it will be a terrible thing to allow gay
married, the consecuences in the future will be terrible, from my point of view
Man And Woman is the best for our future generations to survive,I don't
feel it will be good allowing this. Look Holland they did it and now their
goverment think has make their sociatity distance.Allowing this will bring
a terrible caos.
Its good to see the Supreme Court has slowed the excited anxiety level of Left
Wingers who think the supreme court should be building in more to the
Constitution than what is there. The left wing thinks marriage is civil? right?
but that is far from reality and basis of constitutional bill of rights. Marriage is not a right or entitlement, we have law and order limiting
entitlements to be fair and equal, singling out people and to finance lifestyle
is inequality of the rights and that makes this case unconstitutional and not a
matter for the supreme court to render any decisions or omission or
contradiction to our christian based governemnt. If the supreme court does
render any decisions, it cannot limit or expand the bill of rights for any
reason.Civil laws and entitlements are state and local government
based law and order. The left wingers think the constitution is the
property of the governemnt when the truth is its the property of the people. The
left wingers are in this with contempt for greed and money and tax fraud which
casts a lot of doubt in convincing anyone this is a civil rights issue.
There are many reasons why religions have a right to be involved in marriages,
and some very good reasons why government should be involved.Some of
the reasons why marriage should be a government issue, are:1.
Determining responsibility for illegitimate births, and child-support.2.
Assuring that women who bear children do not need to bear an unequal burden of
the responsibility for providing for them.3. Assuring that women who have
chosen motherhood are not disadvantaged as they mature beyond their fertile
years. 4. Assuring that the burden of birth control does not rest
primarily on the woman involved.These are reasons for heterosexual
marriages but not for same-sex marriages.If society turns away from
traditional marriage and toward same-sex marriages, there should be an over-all
"Man Tax" issued to compensate women for their biological disadvantage
where childbirth is concerned.
It appears that this SCOTUS is gutless and afraid to act, just like this
CONGRESS. It is THEIR JOB to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by
the states...There is really only one way out for the Supreme Court,
since they deigned to take these cases:The only Constitutional
question here is 'equal protection under the law'. The only way they
come out with a win-win is by declaring that Civil Unions would provide relief
for LGBTs from financial discrimination in Federal benefits, Insurance benefits,
etc., so if approved by a state, they will be recognized by the Federal
Government. However Marriage as an institution is basically religious, offers
the same legal benefits as Civil Unions, but should be only administered by a
religious institution, pastor, priest or other clergyman. So then Justices of
the Peace, Judges and Ship Captains would only offer Civil Unions.Really, any other decision is unfair to either side.No, I
don't believe in Same Sex Marriage. But I could at least agree to this
legal outcome. What are the chances out SCOTUS has the guts or wisdom to come
to this conclusion?
The argument that people will just stop having kids because gays can marry is
absurd (ticoloco).How much longer are we going to have to wait for
equality?Marriage is between the couple being married and nobody
else. Fern, if you get to vote on gay marriages, can we vote on straight ones?
That would only be fair.
Some of the language used in this thread is just plain silly. "Man and
Women marrying is the best for our future generatons to survive"..really.
You seem to not reckognize that a lesbian women could in fact produce a natural
child through insemination..just like many hetrosexual couples..but the point is
how many of these gay marriages do you think there are going to be. The gay
population is somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the poplation..that's
it. "If society turns away from traditional marriage and toward
same-sex marriages"..come on by allowing up to 10 percent of the population
to marry that are not allowed to now socity is not turning away from traditional
marriage..in fact nothing will happen to traditional marriage. Everyone who
wants to marry someone of the opposite sex will be able to do so, and there will
enough little rug rats running around to overpopulate the world and ruin a
dinner in any fine restaurant in Utah, many times over.
Pagan,what is the point of quoting a left wing jurist from a frequently
overturned court and how the DN reported the jurist's decision? It does
not prove anything.the fabricated "right" of gays to marry
will eventually trample the real and constitutionally defined right of freedom
of religion. We are seeing that already in Obamacare and in other cases where
religious business owners are forced to cater to gay couples or go out of
business despite strongly held religious beliefs to the contrary. Churches that
refuse to recognize gay unions will be denied buildling permits or zoning
requests or other matters requiring civil actions.Left-wing dogma
trumps religious rights every day in the Disunited States Of Obama and the left
Pagan; What is your point? I thought the purpose of a newspaper was to report
the news. What does quoting a quote from an old article have to do with whether
this article is acurately reporting this news?
No matter how you look at it, same-sex couples do not have the same issues to
deal with that straight couples have. They don't have to deal with birth
control or accidental pregnancies.What does the LGBT community want?
If there is some degree of happiness connected with having a "married"
label, then they could be "married" by some person who would perform the
ceremony without the legal involvement. If they want legal advantages that were
designed to help compensate women for some issues that apply to traditional
marriage relationships, then they are unfairly trying to dip their hands into a
Rush Limbaugh has commented that Justice Anthony Kennedy is the "swing
vote" and wants to send the case back to the Ninth Circuit which declared
the voters unconctitutional. The problem with this for conservatives is that
this would esentially overturn Proposition 8 which was a validly conducted
referendum of the people of California. The bottomline, whether for or against,
is that the legislative process would be overruled by the thinking of "nine
lawyers" or maybe eight if this is the case that Justice Elena Kagan has
recused herself. It is plain that it is the will of the people to allow some
type of accomodation in regard to gay relationships. However, the question is
whether you do this with "one sweep of the law". The legislatures have
to decide this issue since that is the way our system of government works. The
U.S. House of Representatives would never pass this in its present form. The
justices by 5-4 will never pass this in its present form. Legally, they should
uphold. In actuality, they will probably follow the lead of Kennedy and take the
easy way out which in reality will overturn only in California.
Fern,Most of your comments are taken care of by laws other than the
marriage law. Child support laws and custody laws are in effect whether or not
the parents are married.If a gay couple is raising children (if you
listened yesterday, there are about 40,000 children being raised by gay couples
in California), and one of the partners stays home with those children, should
he/she also be compensated with social security benefits of the partner who goes
to work?Why do you want to treat the children of gay parents
differently than the children of heterosexual parents? Don't you really
think that all families raising children (2 parents, one parent, gay parents,
grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) should have the legal benefits that can best
help raise these American citizens? Do we not want the best we can offer for
all children? What some here seem to be forgetting is that gays are
having and raising children right now. They are not waiting for the government
to allow them to marry and be a legal family. They are making their own
families with or without us. I say we support them with legal
I learned something on this issue by reading all of the major space devoted to
it in the media. Most know now that only nine States sanction gay marriage. For
me that fact alone is enough for the court to steer clear of making any sweeping
change at this time. What I didn't realize that another eight States
sanction civil unions. Added together that means 17 states now allow gays to
formalize their relationship. Further numerous polls say that over 50% of the
population now favor gay marriage and that those under 30 years of age favor it
by nearly 80%. Was it the Constitution or the Bible that enshrined the
admonition: "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the
wind blows" ?PS. The ruling of the California courts ARE
significant if the Supremes deny the proponents of Prop. 8 standing and refuse
to decide the matter. In that case, gay marriage will be legal in California
@RanchHand"How much longer are we going to have to wait for
equality?"Probably forever: Because regardless of marital
status; XX is not equal to XYFacts can be annoying to dogma
Can't believe this is even and issue. Truth be known, 99.9% of gays were
not born that way as it's an addictive behavior.Is this about
rights, or gaining benefits?
worf,How many gays do you personally know? Did 99.9% of them tell
you that they are addicted to gay relationships? Or are you letting your
opinion of them cloud your judgment and, without any research, lumping all of
them under what you think is fact? Can you cite a study that supports your
claims? If not, be careful.This is about rights and gaining
benefits AND being treated as equal citizens of the United States. Do you
believe in the constitution? Have you read it - Especially the 14th amendment?
How do you square your comments with our divinely inspired document?
@ FERNChurches in the U.S. have NEVER had full control over marriage.
Everyone who wants to get married needs ro get a marriage license provided by
the state. Sometime some marriages need/want to be dissolved. Then those couples
don't go to church, but they appeal to the state that control the binding
powers of marriage. Regarding yesterday's hearing on Prop 8. I
don't think we had anything new. The judges asked questions in their
'devil's advocate fashion" to probe the various parties.Scalia as usual, having politics and no justice in his mind asked "since
when SSM is unconstitutional?" I would answer: since the constitution was
written. The difference is that we as a nation were not culturally prepared
and/or aware to deal with this issue. However, as Judge Ginsburg has expressed
(paraphrasing), the constitution should be able to expand and include those who
by neglect or ignorance were not protected by it.I wouldn't
read too much in these hearings. The questions not necessarily represent the
thought of the judges. The only remark I would consider seriously is Judge
Kennedy's about the 40,000 children of gay parents in CA.
If we redefine marriage then does that include Polygamy?Or is that
I can't even believe we are having this debate. Where has this planet gone?
Worf -- "Can't believe this is even and issue. Truth be known, 99.9% of
gays were not born that way as it's an addictive behavior."Homosexuality isn't "addictive" any more than heterosexuality is.
Unless you truly believe that being gay is just that much more pleasurable than
Pagan Oh wait a second... You only quoted one court case. How is
that fair? twisting some facts there?
@Grover"...Was it the Constitution or the Bible that enshrined
the admonition: "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way
the wind blows" ?...".Subterranean Homesick Blues sung(?) by
Bob Dylan enshrined the admonition...
One has to decide if Marriage is a religious institution or a government
institution.If it is religious only the God of each religion would have a
say in the issue.If it is governmental then we ask What business is it to
the government?Keeping things simple: Making new tax payers is the only
legitimate interest of the government.Then the government has interest
only in potential breeding pairs. Benefits are granted in marraige to
keep breeding pairs together.No other issue matters. Not equal
treatment, not love, not a desire to raise children, not a fainess issue, not
rights, nothing.Breeding pairs is normal to the goverment
interest.If you aren't a breeding pair but you want to produce
taxpayers, they don't need to encourage you so the government would have no
interest. Homosexual couples who have children are a free bonus to the
state.Providing benefits to non-breeding pairs has no value to the
state.In it's simplest form this is the state interest in this
issue. Many will find this heartless.It is non emotional.Being a couple in love is wonderful, beautiful, joyful and of no interest to
The great thing about this debate is that citizens are actually thinking about
Whether God exists, what does the Constitution really say about the proper role
of government, etc., all of which will create division until those issues are
decided. Since God does exist, and since our government has far exceeded its
bound for over 80 years, the repercussions will be awesome. Treating Gays with
dignity is one thing, allowing them to destroy the fabric of society is quite
another. Gay marriage advocates can come up with all the heart warming stories
they want, God will still hold them, and those who side with them, accountable
for standing against His plan. Those who stand for the truth will assailed as a
bigot, including eventually God, but it will be for not. Citizens will have to
decide who and what they stand for if they want America, the standard for all
nations, to continue as a beacon for freedom and liberty.
"Making new tax payers is the only legitimate interest of the
government."-------------I think you are looking at
this too narrowly.Marriage is also about inheritance, and social security
(keeping elders out of poverty).Can you imagine the courts loads if
there was no marriage law stating that the spouse inherits their partners
fortune? We would have to double the judges, courts, and time spent deciding
these cases. Right now, legal spouses have over 1100 federal benefits that they
enjoy because of their legal marriages. Do you think that they only deal with
those couples who have children? NO. They deal with socail security, medical
privileges, not having to testify against your spouse, etc.The
government has many reasons to have an interest in marriage. Your defination
suits your argument, but is blantantly false.If the government were
only trying to perpetuate new tax payers, why would they grant a marriage
license to older, infertile couples? Why would they allow couples who do not
want to have children a marriage license?
Oh for goodness sake! Is there anyone else in America that took my comment as
serious other than someone from St. George. I guess I should be thrilled that
someone from Dixie would catch my Dylan quote...you do however remember that
Shakespeare said: "the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
and tenement halls!"
Are we really ready to say it is a "right" and hence a duty of govt. to
allow/promote same-sex marriage? We have had heterosexual marriage for
thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is barely a decade old anywhere on the
planet. The simple question is, are we sure we really know what we are doing
and are ready to "fix" something that does not appear to be broken? Do
we truly know all of the consequences?
One court case and we want to talk about fair? Where is the factual
context of using your faith to oppress others? No facts there. Only belief. But I am used to the double-standard that only ONE side has to provide
facts. Here you go: 'Judge Ware Denies Motion To
Vacate Decision OVERTURNING Prop 8' - By Barry Deutsch - Family Scholars -
06/14/11 To be clear, to even GET to the Supreme court, cases must
be vetted through many lower courts. Just like some can post on the
Deseret news. But fail to do a Google search about the topic they
@Twin Lights --"Same-sex marriage is barely a decade old
anywhere on the planet. "This is not true. The ancient Roman and
Greek civilizations both encouraged homosexual relations -- and at least two
Roman EMPERORS are known to have married men. Homosexual relations were also
encouraged in some cultures in the Far East -- for instance, in Samurai
culture.If you're really interested in more historical details
about same sex relationships in history, one good place to look is the book
_Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe_, written by John Boswell.
@My2Cents"Marriage is not a right or entitlement, we have law
and order limiting entitlements to be fair and equal, singling out people and to
finance lifestyle is inequality of the rights and that makes this case
unconstitutional"So you think they ruled wrong in Loving vs.
Virginia? And no, don't give me that "that made everything equal"
thing because everyone was equal before that too (in that they could marry
someone of their own race) just like a lot of people on your side argue now (in
that they could marry someone of the other gender) and will still be equal in
that regard with same-sex marriage (in that they could marry someone of either
gender). @ticoloco"Man and Women marrying is the best for
our future generatons to survive"Actually, to continue the
species marriage doesn't matter, only procreation. Besides, gay people are
gay. Banning them from same-sex marriage isn't going to make them start
having sex with the other gender. So if you aren't getting kids out of it
anyway then it really makes no difference.
@banderson"Since God does exist, and since our government has far
exceeded its bound for over 80 years, the repercussions will be awesome.
"I'd argue that suppressing rights by instituting
religious-based law on the nation is what is exceeding its bounds. @Twin Lights"The simple question is, are we sure we really know what
we are doing and are ready to "fix" something that does not appear to be
broken? "50% of marriages end in divorce and we have a group of
people who want to marry but can't. That seems like a broken system to me.
"the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that prevents gay couples
legally married under state law from receiving a range of federal benefits
afforded to straight married couples."I hope this is not what the
Court is considering. This is a false premise! The Defense of Marriage only
defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It no way tries to take
away federal benefits, or the rights of any individuals. If same-sex couples
want to enter in to a legal union, that is fine, just don't call it
marriage. That term is reserved for a union of a man and a woman. It is simply
a matter of definition, and should be decided on that same merit. I don't
think it will be, and I am not for a law that takes away from an
individual's choices. But I am in favor of the Defense of Marriage!
@Lane MeyerI noted this is the arguement in it's simplest
form.It is not blatanly false. Marriage benefits do cover a wide
range of issues but underlying all of them is the issue of preserving the
nuclear breeding family.Inheritance and Social security are actually good
examples.Giving fertility tests or cutting people off for age or desire to
not have children is making law to the exception rather than the rule.The
argument stands.Sorry you can only see it in an emotional way to preserve
So far only a few people have touched on the Constitution and laws of the US.Lets look at the the US constitution and see what is going on here.The 10th Ammendment states "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people."Since the US
constitution does not define marriage as a right, it is left to the States or
the people to decide.California, like Utah and several other states,
excercised their Constitutional given authority and has defined marriage.If the Supreme Court rules against, or allows the 9th circuit ruling to
stand against Prop 8, then that has greater ramifications than just gay
marriage.If the supreme court rules against does anything besides
rule in favor of Proposition 8, then that means that the States are no longer
protected by the 10th ammendment for defining the rights of citizens within
their state. It will also show that the people cannot determine what their
rights are.Is good to take away Constitutional authority given to
SLCWatch.Don't be surprised when, like Loving v. Virginia, we
have a reversal of all the anti-gay marriage laws that have passed. There is
something called the constitution, and no matter why the amendment was written,
the 14th amendment will not allow you to discriminate against citizens who are
simularly situated. In other words, since we allow older couples
and infertile couples to marry, we MUST allow gays (who are simularly situated
in a much as they cannot create children) to marry. You cannot treat citizens
who are alike differently - unless there is a valid harm that would occur with
treating them the same. That is not a harm to one's beliefs, btw. What would you argue in front of a court to keep gays from marrying?
What would be your legal reasoning? Tradition, beliefs, and wanting to keep
things as they are are NOT reasons that a court would accept. Do you have
studies, expert witnesses, and facts to back up your side of the argument? Or is this your religious belief? If so, please keep it, embrace it,
but it cannot and should not be a part of our laws.
Marriage used to be a religious institution, administered by clergy, granted and
withdrawn (divorce) by the clergy. But it is NOT a religious institution
anymore.Today it is a legal status granted by the State and
withdrawn (divorce) by the State. Anyone wanting to perform a marriage ceremony
must have legal standing from the State to do so. Religion is not part of the
process. I'm active LDS, and I know that the Church's role
is parallel to the State The Church has no legal jurisdiction related to
marriage or divorce.The whole delimma of same-sex marriage has
turned into a religious debate, when in fact marriage is not a religious
institution. It is a government-run institution.Same-sex couples
should be given the same civil priviledges the rest of us responsible adults
Plainbrownwrapper,Yes, the ancient Roman and Greek (and some other)
civilizations were okay with homosexual relations (at least at times) but that
is not marriage.However, (as I understand it) marriage was not
legally recognized except between man and woman. As to the two emperors (Nero
and Elagabalus?) what they did/proclaimed was one thing, what would have been
legal is another. Seriously, who would stand up and tell Nero he was wrong and
live to tell the tale?
@Lane MeyerDon't jump to conclusions. You have assumed things
about me you do not know or understand.This is strictly legal.My
argument is to present the only legitimate reason for the government to get
involved in marriage is to produce tax payers.Historically the government
only got involved to follow the religious culture of each country but that is
not a legal reason to be involved. So religion is left out.The 14th
amendment argument does not apply-They are not simularly situated. Old
heterosexual couples can and do get pregnant. Infertile couples can and do
change and they can not be denied that possiblity. Homosexual couples can not
without resorting to someone of the opposite gender to intervene and thereby
negate the biological imperative.You relied only on valid harm. Actually
the reasoning in marriage is a valid positive...how would extending benefits to
homosexuals benefit the state. It does not.I have stated the legal
argument. All law to this point has supported that fundemental concept...why
should it change with no benefit to the state. I have thought long and
hard why the government should have a presence. Other than this there is none.
Article IVSection 1Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each
State to the public Acts, Records, ...(Marriage is a 'public
record').Section 21: The Citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. (Marriage qualifies as "privileges and immunities).Article [I]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (Many religions
believe GLBT couples should be allowed to marry, what about their Religious
Freedom? Laws can't favor any specific god)Article [IX]The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.(Marriage, and
other rights do NOT need to be specifically enumerated).Article
XIV1: ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; (Prop-8
& Amendment 3 = Unconstitutional).
Why don't we just let same sex couples get married? End the whole debate
and give over the cake. Then the debate ends and we go on with our lives. Let
the LGBT sit over in their corner and the rest of society can sit over in
@SLCWatch --"Actually the reasoning in marriage is a valid
positive...how would extending benefits to homosexuals benefit the state. It
does not."Of course it does.Many gay couples are
already raising children -- for example, more than 40,000 of them in California
alone. Marriage encourages family stability. Gay marriage would
encourage family stability in gay couples -- thus providing more children with
stable homes. And stability is a very important component of successful child
rearing.Many groups of child-development-related experts --
including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American
Psychiatric Association, AND the American Psychological Association -- have all
come out in **support** of gay marriage.The AAP's new position
statement declares, in part: “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" and
"“ ‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child
development".People who think children are important should
ENCOURAGE gay marriages, because marriage encourages stable families -- and THAT
Equal righta, or government benefits?
The article actually misstates the issue when it says the Court is considering
whether gays and lesbians will have the right to marry. Gays and lesbians do
have the right to marry--as long as they marry members of the opposite sex.
This has always been true. The issue is whether people--regardless of their
feelings of sexual attraction--have the right to marry persons of the same sex.
Marriage law is, in a very real way, already equal. This is not to denigrate
the feelings of gays and lesbians or to dismiss the importance of same-sex
marriage to them; it is only to point out that we're talking about a
universal right to marry a person of the same sex, and that one's
"sexual orientation" need not enter into the equation, legally.
I find it strange that Supreme Court Justices are arguing about how long Gay
Marriage has been around rather than the fundamental issue of whether the States
can define marriage to exclude same sex couples. What happened to all the
"strict constructionists" on the Court?
Mr. Bugg, marriage law is NOT equal. You can't marry your sister or other
close family members. There are age restrictions. There are restrictions
related to being able-minded. Within our lifetime there were prohibitions
related to interracial marriage. So, marriage is not equal for all people.
That said...the time has come to cancel the prohibition against same-gender
marriage. It has no medical or social standing any longer.
@Lane Meyer I laud your social belief in rescuing the shattered
lives of almost 40,000 children of broken biological relationships in California
and millions throughout the country. The professional organizations you named
support you. How many of them support taking children from loving, caring
biological parents so that they can be raised with a loving, caring homosexual
couple? Of these new couples how many will produce more children? There would
be a zero net increase. You are talking about loving caring relationships that
can only raise the results of failed relationships. But we digress from the
legal argument. The state has an interest in proper child rearing but there is
no advantage to the state to give children to homosexual couples over
heterosexual couples with all other things equal. You are basing the strength
of homosexual couples on the basis of a "better than nothing" premise.
Benefits to support child rearing can be conferred in legal means with out
resorting to marriage benefits. So I repeat, how does granting marriage
benefits to homosexual couples benefit the state by increasing tax payer
numbers?Would it not be more in the states interest to strengthn
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Nothing codified as "law"
can change that fact. Its a law of a much higher institution...God.
@Vladhagen"Why don't we just let same sex couples get married?
End the whole debate and give over the cake. Then the debate ends and we go on
with our lives..."Ok, sure. Then we can have 2 types of
"marriage" - - traditional/correct marriage (between a man and a woman),
and modern/incorrect marriage (between man and man or woman and woman..or
whatever and whatever)
@SLCWatch --" How many of them support taking children from
loving, caring biological parents"This is known as a "straw
man", aka "red herring".Nobody is talking about taking
children from ANY "loving, caring" couples -- straight or gay.Marriage increases stability -- whether it's a straight marriage or a gay
one. Stability helps kids."You are talking about loving caring
relationships that can only raise the results of failed relationships."Yes! Loving, caring gay relationships can help minimize the damage from
failed straight relationships. Very good point. Gay adoptions actually help to
make up for some of the problems caused by straight divorces, straight unwed
mothers, and straight abusive parents. Thanks for bringing that up!"there is no advantage to the state to give children to homosexual couples
over heterosexual couples"This isn't an either/or question.
Thousands of children grow up in foster care and orphanages because NOBODY wants
to claim them. There isn't any shortage of kids needing loving homes --
there's plenty to go around!"Benefits to support child
rearing can be conferred in legal means with out resorting to marriage benefits.
"But marriage supplies additional stability -- which we already
know is incredibly important to kids.
Amendment 10The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people. US Constitution, 14th Amendment,
section 1:"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws. "So what part of the Constitution do we consult when
debating gay marriage?It looks like there are two conflicting amendments
here. The only logical solution is to repeal one or the other.
To Lane Myer: Your comments were absolutely senseless. Why should innocent
children be brought into a family of two women or two men as parental guidance?
Well, let's see..who is going to play the father role? There should never
be a question in this. These children deserve to be raised in a normal
environment...not be subjected to the perverted way of homosexuals. It's
not right and that is not the way it was meant to be. Those children deserve to
be raised by a loving Father(man) and Mother(female).
@NT;Thor disagrees with you.
@suzyk --"Those children deserve to be raised by a loving
Father(man) and Mother(female)."When gay couples adopt children,
they are not stealing those children from happy heterosexual homes. Adopted
children come from places like broken homes, abusive parents, and single
mothers. Whether or not these children "deserve" to be raised by a
father and mother, that simply isn't happening. Thousands of kids grow up
in foster care and orphanages because NOBODY wants them. There aren't
enough good homes out there to fill the need. Many groups of child
experts have endorsed gay marriage. They realize that STABILITY is incredibly
important for children -- and marriage increases stability, whether the marriage
is gay or straight.The position statement of the American Academy of
Pediatrics reads in part: “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" and
"“ ‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child
development"."People who think children are important should
ENCOURAGE gay marriages, because marriage encourages stable families -- and THAT
is what helps kids.
The 14th amendment should be rescinded. Also, the argument in favor of allowing
gays to adopt is just another destraction and ploy from reality. the reasoning
goes something like this: First, we must get everyone to accept gay marriage as
something good and moral. Second, make it sound like those who disagree are
bigots. Third, skip all the details of history regarding the evils attendant to
the gay lifestyle. Fourth, exclude God's opinion on the issue. Fifth, try
to get everyone to believe that gay marriage is about equality. On and on it
goes! It is futile to write here. Those who choose evil cannot be convinced to
accept a concept that they have absolutely rejected. The only thing left to is
defend marriage as the Lord stated and stand firm on family issues. Gay
marriage is one of satan's best counterfeits for the Lord's definition
@banderson --"First, we must get everyone to accept gay marriage
as something good and moral."Not necessarily. I don't
accept that being a Republican is "good" or "moral" -- but I
recognize a Republican's right to have the same legal protections that I
do."Second, make it sound like those who disagree are
bigots."Not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot,
but a large percentage of them are. One sign of that? The number of people who
change their minds when they find out that a loved one is gay. It's hard to
remain bigoted against a family member."Third, skip all the
details of history regarding the evils attendant to the gay lifestyle."WHAT details of history??? The Romans and Greeks did just fine, for a
thousand years EACH, enjoying the "gay lifestyle". What are these
"details"??"Fourth, exclude God's opinion on the
issue."This isn't a theocracy. Your God isn't my God,
and my God isn't everyone else's God. Your God doesn't get to
"win" just because you say so."Fifth, try to get
everyone to believe that gay marriage is about equality."It
**is** about equality.
"Conservative" wrote, "Mr. Bugg, marriage law is NOT equal. You
can't marry your sister or other close family members. There are age
restrictions. There are restrictions related to being able-minded"All of those laws are applied equally. No one can marry siblings. No one can
marry under the legal age. Everyone is held to the same standard. As a matter
of law, the restriction to marrying only members of the opposite sex is also
applied universally--equally. Everyone is held to the same rule, regardless of
their sexual feelings. My original comment is meant to point out
that this is a debate about SAME-SEX marriage, and not necessarily about
marriage between homosexual persons. If the states, or the nation, decide to
grant the right to marry persons of the same sex, that right will apply to
everyone, regardless of their feelings of sexual attraction. So if someone
wants to get his fishing buddy better health insurance, he can marry him, and
then maybe wait until he meets a nice girl before divorcing his husband.
amazondoc: If I found out a relative was gay it wouldn't change my opinion
one bit. Thats like saying God will change His mind about the Ten Commandments
because His children don't want to obey them. How foolish! Doesn't
mean He stops loving them or helping them turn from their evil ways. It
wouldn't matter in a thousand years what kind of reasons that are
abundantly evident that show the deviance of said lifestyle, anyone that
won't listen is not going to hear! Whether you believe in God or not, I
believe in the Constitution and limited government, which clearly means that the
federal government shouldn't be involved in this anyway. I would prefer
chaos over state sponsored perversion. I'm prepared for both! So,go ahead,
see where it leads you.
@banderson --"If I found out a relative was gay it wouldn't
change my opinion one bit."I never said you would. I said that a
lot of people do.I'm still waiting to hear about all these
"details of history regarding the evils attendant to the gay lifestyle"
that you were so excited about earlier. What details did you have in mind?
Please be specific -- thanks!
NT,I did not know God was a member of the Supreme Court, and in the
US House, or Senate, or in the Whitehouse...Until America officially
and formally votes God into one of those key positions, then he has no more say
in the making or enforcement or interpretation of law than anyone else.
@RanchHand 1:11 p.m. March 27, 2013You left one thing out -- the US
Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) which states in
part: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). To deny this
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications
embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to
deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The
Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be
restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the
freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the
individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Marriage is one of
the unenumerated rights protected by Amendent IX (which you quoted). Racial
discriination in Loving is equivalent to sexual orientation discriination in the
current case. This case should persuade if not control the decision.