Published: Friday, March 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Ranch Hand:[But I can't marry the person I've been with for over
14 years even once.Don't you just love it?]A
greater irony is that I know of many gay and straight people who get married to
a person of the opposite sex purely to help them get
employment/residency/citizenship in this country, some of them even get paid to
do it, and then promptly divorce once the process is done.So here in
America, marriage to bypass immigration, and profit from it, is legal, but
marriage based on love and commitment is not.
My religion forbids me from:smoking,drinking, gambling,pornography, buying on Sunday, Piercing my ears,
wearing Tank-tops, Watching Monday Night Football, working on
Sunday, or participating in an abortion (except in the cases of rape,
incest, life/health of the woman, viability of the fetus, ect.).All
perfectly legal, under the law.I don't need the rest of
American Society to obey and follow my religous beliefs, I chose to obey
those additional restrictions, without feeling any need to pass legal
legislation and force everyone else to do likewise.Why should gay
marriage be any different?
Speaking about canards....PopsNORTH SALT LAKE, UTEvery
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. ================== Agreed - sort of, at least that part about
"never been about sexual attraction".Marriage is about
Love.A profoundly deep, enduring committment of friendship that knows no
bounds.It's about sharing and caring. It's about -
hopes, dreams, laughs, tears, struggles, successes, highs, lows, sharing lives
together, not ever having to be alone.To those of you who keep
defining marriage strictly by sex - YOU are the one's dragging it's
true meaning through the gutter.To you, I say - Thanks for
NOTHING!I hope the courts see to it that all mankind - regardless of
race, sex, age, color, religion, orientation, ect. - can all be allowed the same
opportunity of being as happily married, as I have been.Tear down
the wall...[Pink Floyd]
@Pops --"Every woman has the right to marry a man. That is
absolute and unequivocal equality.**Every person has the right to
marry another person of the same race. That is absolute and unequivocal
"Why should gay marriage be any different?"My religion
forbids:MurderTheftAssaultRapeKidnappingSlanderLibelAll perfectly illegal, under the law, for the
same reason that gay unions should not be recognized as equivalent to marriage -
it's about the preservation of society. The problem with creating a thing
called "gay marriage" is that the victims are future children, whom few
are willing to protect and defend. They are the future of civilization.
@Pops"Every man has the right to marry a woman. Every woman has the
right to marry a man. That is absolute and unequivocal equality."And in 1960 every white man had the right to marry a white woman and every
black man had the right to marry a black woman. That's equal too but we
still declared it nonsense nonetheless.
The behavior of homosexuality never has been and never will be equal to that of
heterosexuality. If the understanding of that statement is not obvious to you
then I'm not sure much else will help you in this discussion.Someone said marriage is about love. Actually, the state doesn't care who
you choose to love but they do care about how children are brought into this
world and the best place for them to be raised. That is with their mother and
father. It is the standard. Just because some in society choose not to adhere to
that standard does't mean the standard should be lowered.If it
is all about love, then 2 guys and a girl, or 3 girls and a guy, or 1st cousins
or fill in the blank, should all be allowed to be married. No exceptions if it
is just about love. But that's not the case. The argument is for those who
engage in homosexuality to have their behavior accepted as normal by society
when biology and anatomy 101 tell them it isn't.Homosexuality
as marriage is not a civil right.
@Pops;"My religion forbids...:"--- Whatever your
religion forbids is totally irrelevant in the context of civil law. The First
Amendment guarantees that whatever you believe, you're free to believe, but
you are NOT free to force others to live by the dogmas of your version of
religion."The problem with creating a thing called "gay
marriage" is that the victims are future children, whom few are willing to
protect and defend. They are the future of civilization."--- You
clearly don't care about the future of the children currently being raised
by same-sex couples. I guess they just don't matter.@Charles;Having children is not a requirement for marriage.Marriage is a civil right. Gay, straight, it doesn't matter.
the feds have no business with this...just let each state decide and be done
with it. Enough already!!!
@RanchHand,"But I can't marry the person I've been
with for over 14 years even once."Who is preventing you from
performing your own private marriage?
@Pagan:"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."I think she is pulling
our collective legs. Who was it that kept her from the bedside of a dying
friend? She doesn't say. With the legal documents she had prepared there
must surely have been one that said she had a right to be there. In any event,
all she had to do was to ask the person or persons in charge to let her be there
to say good-bye. "They were together for 18 years."Eighteen years is certainly long enough to prepare the necessary papers that
would have allowed her to attend.
@The Skeptical Chymist:"Civil rights are civil rights."Everyone has the right to marry... provided they choose someone of the
opposite sex. That applies to EVERYONE. How could that be discriminatory under
the law?"It doesn't matter how small the population is, all
groups deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of the law."Would that include small groups such as polygamists and pedophilians?"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."The Bill of Rights says nothing about marriage.@RanchHand:"My partner and I have been together over 14 years... But I can't
marry the person I've been with for over 14 years even once."Sounds like getting married is a sure-fire way to guarantee divorce. Is that
what you seek?@Open Minded Mormon:"It's about sharing
and caring. It's about - hopes, dreams, laughs, tears, struggles,
successes, highs, lows, sharing lives together, not ever having to be
alone."Ain't it the truth. That's what polygamists
keep insisting. And those who would engage in pedophilia as well.
@Summer;What good does that do? Even if I go up to Washington to
marry, I'll be legally single the moment I cross the state line on the way
@Ranch:"Marriage is a civil right. Gay, straight, it doesn't
matter."Are you saying polygamists can marry? Even to underage
females? There's a person serving an extended jail sentence who would like
you to press that point on his behalf.Any marriage other than the
traditional man/women would open the Pandora's box to all combinations of
marriages including polygamy, sister/sister, brother/brother/ brother/sister,
father/daughter, aunt/cousin, you name it. If you're insistent on same-sex
marriages you should be equally insistent on dozens of other marriage
combinations.@RanchHand:"But I can't marry the person
I've been with for over 14 years even once."Just think...
if you don't marry you'll have no worries re divorce.Besides, you don't have to be married to live together and shack up.
@Alfred;Polygamists are already allowed to legally marry at least
the first person of their choice.
@Mr. Bean and Alfred --"Are you saying polygamists can
marry?"Of course not. One more time:Some people are
already allowed to marry men. Other people are NOT allowed to marry men. The
distinction is based solely on gender. That is called "gender
discrimination". Gender discrimination is unconstitutional. Therefore,
marriage discrimination is unconstitutional.
contrast: NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners. NOBODY is allowed to
commit incest. NOBODY is allowed to commit bestiality. Therefore, there is no
discrimination. These laws ARE constitutional.
in re bestiality and children: neither children nor animals are capable of
giving informed consent. Consent is a fundamental component of all contract law.
It can not be removed from our legal system. Therefore, children and animals
will never be eligible for signing marriage contracts.
Further, in re polygamy: unlike gay marriage, polygamy has very practical
dangers. Women have always had less power in society than men; therefore, it is
easy to take advantage of/subjugate/abuse women in polygamous relationships --
as we have seen repeatedly with the polygamous sects in court. Gay marriages
have no such proven, concrete dangers.
@Mr. Bean --I missed this one in my earlier post:"Everyone has the right to marry... provided they choose someone of the
opposite sex. That applies to EVERYONE. How could that be discriminatory under
the law?"**Everyone has the right to marry... provided they
choose someone of their own race. That applies to EVERYONE. How could that be
discriminatory under the law?**Sound familiar?"Protected groups" are minority and/or oppressed groups that either
can not change themselves -- e.g. because of race, gender, age, disability, or
orientation -- or groups that share unbendable beliefs that are fundamental to
their religion. 'Polygamists are not born -- nobody is born
married, and you're not actually a "polygamist" until you're
married -- and they are not biologically different from anyone else. So the only
excuse they could have for being a "protected group" is religion. And
courts in both the US and Canada have already proven that they can easily tell
the difference between gay marriages and polygamy. For instance, just recently
British Columbia's Supreme Court reaffirmed that Canada's ban on
polygamy is constitutional -- because of the known dangers to women and children
that often go along with that practice.
The gender discrimination nonsense again? Both genders are restricted to
marrying the opposite gender (the one through which they could procreate with)
so both genders are treated equally. All the arguments here have been posted
hundreds of times and, as usual, those for changing the definition out-number
those for keeping it 2 to 1, despite this newspaper being in an area where
traditional marriage is supported 2 to 1. We get it, many of you are frustrated
and vent in the comments section every time the DN has an article that even
mentions those with same gender attraction.The Supreme Court is
looking at this the right way. Marriage to another of the same gender is
different than the marriage that has gone on since recorded history. We have
thirteen years of history of a countries experimenting with it - way to short to
know what it will do to families, the building block of society. Civil unions
provide the neccesary rights. No changes should be made to the definition of
traditional marriage until we have decades more information.
What if someone wants to marry 3 women they love, and perhaps bring another man
and a teenage boy into the marriage?If this is about being able to
marry whoever we love, who and how many can we marry???
I would like to know the position of those favoring Gay Marriage on Polygamy and
Polyandry. Is there ANYONE who should not be allowed to marry?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments