Published: Friday, March 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
great and thoughtful summary. would be nice if we could approach this issue with
both sides coming together. sadly courts don't generally work that way.
There's a winner and a loser and neither side is ever fully satisfied until
they've ground the face of their enemy into the mud.
Mathew states a very nice sentiment but I detect a bias in his thinking. To
remove all pain we all need to accept that gay people are born the way they are
born. If that is the case then calling them sinners is supreme hypocrisy,
similar to me being blamed for "Adam's transgression". Once you can
get beyond the fact that being gay is not a lifestyle choice then it is easy to
want everyone to have equal protection and the chance to live a chaste, virtuous
life within the bonds of matrimony.
The love, the commitment, the religious significance, the shared property...none
of these need be exclusive to heterosexual couples. This article is an
endorsement of same sex marriage.
Kinda boggles the mind to think that a small fraction of people clam to be gay,
and less than a fraction of those who are gay stay together. Why wast the time
and money on this issue.
In his closing comment, MS states, "..the debate should focus on a legal
status based upon sexual orientation, while preserving traditional marriage,
households and families.""A" legal status? He's
obviously not advocating equality through marriage yet still seems to be in
opposition to the position Elder Lance B. Wickman, Church General Counsel in an
interview he gave along side of Elder Dallin H. Oaks on the Church's
Newsroom site. Elder Wickman rejected offering legal rights that are associated
with traditional marriage.Is MS opposing Elder Wickman's
position?MS seems to be arguing for the status quo and therefore his
idea about removing pain from the debate is baseless since the pain same-sex
couples feel due to being denied the rights and protections offered
traditionally married couples is still there. Their angst from being treated as
2nd class citizens is likewise present.MS seems to be calling for
civility, but the end result is the same.
It would be nice if we could "take the pain" out of the issue. Sadly,
Matthew leaves us with the pain intact. It's very hard to look at two
people who love each other and say, "Sorry, even though you're both
Americans, we can't let you have equal rights with the rest of us."
*'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times
- 05/18/09'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency,
creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney
documents.' And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive,
Power of attorney and emergency contact information... Janice
Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.
They were together for 18 years.
*’Catholic charities ends Illinois adoption civil unions dispute’
– By Sophia Tareen – AP – Published by the DSNews –
11/15/11 ‘The group had wished to continue its state
contracts, while also referring unmarried couples who want to be adoptive or
foster parents to other agencies, citing principles of religious liberty and
freedom of conscience. The state of Illinois had said that longstanding
practice is discriminatory, a violation of the new law, which allows unmarried
couples — gay or straight — to legally enter into civil
unions.’ **i.e. the catholic ‘charity’ advocated
ONLY for civil unions...and THEN cited gay couples were not
‘married’ to deny adoption AFTER they had advocated AGAINST gay
Stop the pain? From our own Deseret news: *'Boy,
15, reprimanded for backing traditional family in school paper' - By Joshua
Bolding, Deseret News - 01/27/12'He (Wegner) also quoted
scriptures like Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he
lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to DEATH...' – article
What about religions who want to perform and recognize same-sex marriages? How
does that fit into the arguments made in this editorial?And what
does the sexualization of children have to do with this? Are we now allowing
Victoria's Secret to advertise in schools? How does Billy
having two mommies and Sarah having two daddies and Mark having one mommy and
Julie living with her mommy but visiting her daddy and other mommy on weekends
sexualize kids more than Robert living with his mommy and daddy? And how does
preventing Billy's mommies and Sarah's daddies from marrying solve
that? Wouldn't having them be married make it easier?
Props to Sanders for attempting bridge building on a difficult issue. Let me
try to open the dialogue further.The components of marriage,
religious and legal, are not necessarily separate. Some Christian churches
perform marriages for same sex couples based on their reading of the biblical
call to justice. In US law, the two are separate - a church can legally refuse
to perform a wedding which violates is doctrinal teachings.Sanders
observes that religious persons are deeply torn because they want to be
peacemakers and yet adhere to what they perceive to be unchanging standards.
Are they maintaining those standards for themselves of asking other people to
adhere to their standards?He implicitly defines being gay as a flaw.
Is that an accurate assumption? He also seems to see it as nothing more tahn
behavior. Is that accurate or is it part of a person's identity?He portrays same sex marriage as a danger to children and preventing it as
protecting children. Is that valid assumption? Straight couples marrying is
not seen as sexual. Whey is allowing gay couples to marry
"hypersexualizing"? Some children will grow up to be gay. Isn't
opposing same sex marriage harmful to them?
@George --"a small fraction of people clam to be gay, and less
than a fraction of those who are gay stay together. Why wast the time and money
on this issue."When Washington State legalized gay marriages,
more than 800 gay couples were married IN ONE DAY.When California
legalized gay marriages, 18,000 gay couples were married in the THREE MONTHS
that it was legal to do so.In 2008, A public policy center at UCLA
estimated that, if gay marriages were legalized again, more than **100,000** gay
marriages would take place in that state within the next THREE YEARS.When Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, more than 6000 gay couples married
in the FIRST YEAR.When Iowa legalized gay marriage, more than 2000
gay couples were married in the FIRST YEAR.Yup -- there are plenty
of gay couples interested in getting married.In addition -- in
states where gay marriages are legal, and in other countries with gay marriages,
the gay divorce rate is about the same as the straight divorce rate. Remember
that roughly 50% of all STRAIGHT marriages end in divorce. That's not a
high standard for the gay couples to meet!
from the article -- Legal status.Marriage is many things, at
its most basic being a symbol of love and commitment, but it's largely a
legal status with privileges of joint property, decision-making and inheritance.
It has societal stature and acceptance as an institution and is seen as a
demonstrative of stable, adult behavior.Religious status....========== The Supreme Court doesn't make judgements
based on matters of Religion.The interpret the Constitutionality of
Man-made Laws. Score - 1 gay marriage, 0 to those opposed.Meanwhile -- What about those religions who support, recognize and even
perform Gay marriags?It's a myopic, steretypic, bias that assumes ALL
religion and ALL religous folks oppose gay marriage.
@george of the jungleProbably about 3-4% of the US population is gay
or lesbian (Wikipedia).About 1.7% of the US population is Mormon
(Wikipedia).According to your way of thinking, the Mormon population
is too small to deserve the civil rights that other religions have. I would
prefer to be more careful making arguments based on the size of the affected
population.Civil rights are civil rights. It doesn't matter
how small the population is, all groups deserve to be treated equally in the
eyes of the law. One of the beauties of the Bill of Rights is that it states
that certain rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Eventually,
I think the right to marry the person you love will be recognized as one that
cannot be removed by the tyranny of the majority.
I remember when Conservative kept telling us -- We're all for
"equal" rights, We're just against "special"
rights.OK - It's time to walk the talk.
Matthew;Why should the government promote your religious views over
those of any other religion? Why shouldn't the government
grant FULL EQUALITY to GLBT Americans?The word marriage means a lot
of things, one of which is family. GLBT couples are family too. Sorry, but at
heart, the entire debate hinges on bigoted ideas. You may not feel like a bigot
but when your actions are those of a bigot, how else should your actions be
termed? Fierce opposition to equality is bigotry pure and simple - no matter
how deeply felt your personal views.
This article is thoughtfully written and I can agree with much of it. The author
is far more candid than many who frame the debate around discredited notions
that gay parents are bad parents or that same sex marriages somehow infringe on
the rights of opposite sex couples. Where I disagree is that
marriage is an inherently religious institution that cannot be separated from
its civil meaning. In fact we have done just that for centuries.Mormons require much more to have a "temple marriage" than the civil
law requires. When the civil meaning of marriage was changed to allow
interracial marriage, it did not require the Mormons or other religions to
change their requirements for solemnizing a union. The same thing is true in the
states that allow gay marriage.We can take the pain out of the gay
marriage debate by accepting and respecting that separation of Church and State.
My partner and I have been together over 14 years. We own a home
together.We run a small business together.But we're not
allowed to get married.My brother has been divorced and
remarried.My sister has been divorced and remarried.My father and
mother are divorced and both remarried.Several of my neighbors have been
divorced and remarried.But I can't marry the person I've
been with for over 14 years even once.Don't you just love it?
I'm so tired of this "let's wait and see" mentality with those
opposed to marriage-equality.Just sign for this article on the front
page of the DesertNews for this article (although not in the article itself)
says, "A right delayed is a right denied."It's little
comfort to know future generations will enjoy a right that the current
generation is denied.
""Sorry, even though you're both Americans, we can't let you
have equal rights with the rest of us.""This canard needs to
be laid to rest. Every man has the right to marry a woman. Every woman has the
right to marry a man. That is absolute and unequivocal equality.Those who use this phrase want something different. They want to change the
marriage contract to be about sexual attraction. But it's never been about
sexual attraction. The state is indifferent to sexual attraction. They
don't attempt to assess the sexual attraction of those who apply for a
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments