Same-sex marriage will be legal in every state before long. You can't
deny rights to people based on opinions, beliefs and so on. Freedom and
equality are what this nation is all about. That same freedom and equality
goes for marriage as well. George Vreeland Hill
We mustn't forget that supporting Prop. 8 violated 1Cor. 10:29/ D&C
134's denunciation of using religious beliefs to justify violating the
rights of others. Gays had the right/liberty to marry in CA Ignoring scriptural
prohibitions in order to prevent something bad from happening is likewise
forbidden and called "steadying the ark". Prop. 8 violates
the Romer decision. That case involved a Colorado initiative rescinding the
rights of gays, just like 8 did. The Supreme Court held that it did nothing to
advance a legitimate state interest. Neither does 8. The lower courts held that
animus toward gays was the sole motivation for 8. The Romer decision cited the
Moreno case which said that a "desire to harm a politically unpopular group
cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." 8 attempts this. Romer then said - "We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies
homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to
everyone else." 8 does this and tries to justify it by saying that marriage
and "civil unions" are separate, but equal. We all know that
"separate but equal" is never equal. LDS are to uphold
scripture and the Constitution. 8 violates both.
if the courts rule in favor of gay marriage then they should make sure the
religious institute should not be sue for not marrying them. we should not
change god laws because of wicked judges.chrst word will always stand. Christ
said be in the world not of it. Christ save lot family because they did not go
along with the wicked of soldem and gamorah. lets hope the courts save
religious institute if not we will be all in trouble bowing down to the wicked
zoar63 said: "They won it by paying the ultimate price not with rallies
consensus polls or judicial rulings."So you think that thousands
needed to die to defend the indefensible, the racists, the slave owners and
businessmen with no ethics.Killing in the name of...Can
anyone defend Prop 8 without bringing religion into the argument?Cause
I've yet to see it.When are the pious going to outlaw pork,
shellfish, adultery, or do you just choose a couple scriptures as more important
@plainbrownwrapper"Emancipation came about despite the best
efforts of the people who wanted to restrict civil liberties. The same will
happen this time."They won it by paying the ultimate price not
with rallies consensus polls or judicial rulings.
Where does this idea come from that marriage is somehow the domain of religion,
especially Christian religion? There are billions of people in the world who
don't believe in the Bible or Christianity, and their marriages are no less
valid because of it. According to Buddhanet.net, "wedding ceremonies have
always been regarded as secular affairs in Buddhist countries," and if the
parties involved want a blessing from a Buddhist monk, they obtain it AFTER the
civil formalities have been taken care of. Marriages performed by a civil
authority are just as legitimate, and just as much real marriages, as those
performed in a Christian church.
Leave private marriage to the churches and register them as civil union
contracts at the court house.
@JWB;"If the basic Judeo-Christian law meant one thing relating
to marriage for hundreds if not thousands of years ..."There you
go, FORCING "Judeo-Christian law" on non-members; We have a First
Amendment, remember?@Riverton Cougar;Which god?
You're welcome to yours, nobody else is obligated to follow him.@Getting it Right;We have to be strong enough to deal with you and
people like you. IMO, that makes it a strength, not a weakness.
2nd try:@nrajr & RBB;You are confusing the freedom
to worship with the requirement of non-discrimination in a business. Florists,
Bakers, etc. are not "religious organizations" and are therefore not
free to discriminate based on religion.@Big Bubba;Your
"Proclamation" applies to Mormons only. Sorry buddy, but your leaders
are no better/more powerful than the leaders of any other religious
denomination.@george of the jungle;How does a same-sex
marriage tell you what GLBT "do behind closed doors" any more than a
heterosexual marriage does? It's your imagination you're listening
to.@JBQ;Sorry, the Civil Rights of others are not yours
to vote upon.@banderson;Your "god" is a fiction.
Last time I checked God made Adam.He also made Steve.So
God did make Adam and Steve.Your argument is illogical.
Re: alt134I don't see how it couldn't have prevented them.
If you lacked the priesthood, you couldn't receive temple ordinances.
@John Pack Lambert"The LDS Church never had any policy that prevented
inter-racial marriage on such grounds."To anyone, since John may
have run out of comments, did the ban on holding the priesthood prevent them
from marrying in the temple until the late 70s?@Bill in Nebraska"Man has no right to change the laws of God and our Heavenly Father's
law currently stands and has always been between man and woman. "We're arguing about civil marriage. That's not God's
Being gay is just part of the weaknesses of men just like drug addiction,
gambling, pornography and etc... Yes, you are born that way. You are born with
The government can not side with one religion over another. It, like wise, can
not allow a legal contract in one state to be illegal in another state. This
controversy is a prime example of why there should be a total separation between
religion and government, except when religions try to impose their standards as
if they were the law of the land. Our constitution was written to protect
religions from government persecution and also to protect the government from
religious interference. Our society has always recognized that marriage is
recognized by government as a contract and recognized by religions as something
more. Religions are feeling threatened by what other religions are doing and
they are asking government to intervene with DOMA laws. Government should not be
doing this and the Supreme Court should make this clear by striking down these
laws as unconstitutional.
@sharrona --"Jesus is the God of the O.T.""My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)Was Jesus talking to himself? ;-)One More Time: Jesus never said a
word against homosexuality.One More Time: the Gospels never mention
homosexuality, aside from the passage in which Jesus specifically acknowledged
-- WITHOUT condemnation -- the fact that some men are "born eunuchs"."Apollo, Jezebel, Sexual Immorality,(Rev 2:18-29) "Please stop adding words to Bible verses and pretending that you're using
real quotes.Homosexuality is never actually mentioned in that passage. Those
verses are actually talking about adultery."Behold, I will cast
her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation,
except they repent of their deeds." (Rev2:22)@zoar63 --"history may repeat itself."And that worked out really
well for the slavers, didn't it? Emancipation came about
despite the best efforts of the people who wanted to restrict civil liberties.
The same will happen this time.
@zoar63;You forget, that the prohibition against homosexuality was
also part of the "law of Moses". If Jesus fulfilled the law, he
fulfilled the WHOLE law, not just part of it and Paul was stuck in the past.
@plainbrownwrapper JESUS I'm obviously talking about the New Covenant, and
the Son. Jesus is the God of the O.T.. In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John 1:1) The Word became
flesh..v.14.God said unto Moses,” I(ego) am(eimi) “(HE
WHO IS (ho on): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, HE
WHO IS (ho on) hath sent me unto you. (Septuagint Exodus 3:14).
Jesus said unto them, Verily(G. amen), verily=(G.amen), I say unto you, BEFORE
Abraham was, I(ego) am(eimi).59 Then took they up Stones to Cast at
him:... John 8:58-59, Blasphemy to the Jews . Jesus made himself equal to
Jehovah.Apollo, Jezebel, Sexual Immorality,(Rev 2:18-29) Thyatira,
the ancient city that housed Apollo, the male sun-god. whose heart and body
was given to many, both male and female, in the name of love. His followers
would behold him in worship and become like him in practice, embracing sexual
immorality,homosexuality, in the name of liberty.
The first civil war was fought over slavery. If you go back and look at what
was happening that led up to the Civil War and then look what is happening today
history may repeat itself.
@wookie Your statements probably are founded in something but its not
truth and reason.
@wookie Founded statements like your claim that the federal law and
constitution do not take supremacy over the states?that was your first false
@sharrona --"[not his Man]"Of course "not
his man". Remember, they didn't have in vitro fertilization, or
surrogacy, or even adoption back then.This is NOT a condemnation of
homosexuality, no matter how much you might like to make it so. It is simply a
statement congruent with the limited reproductive options back then.We also don't see anyone in the Bible getting on airplanes. That
doesn't make airplanes evil."The LORD(Jehovah,Jesus) said
to Moses(Lev 18:1)…You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an
abomination.(Lev 18:22)"Remember -- the OT laws of Leviticus
were supplanted by the New Covenant. Remember shrimp?"Paul
quotes the LORD Jehovah,…"Yes, we know that Paul
didn't like homosexuals. He also supported slavery and thought that women
were inferior to men. Oh, and he told people to never get divorced. How many
people follow THAT one?? Paul was NOT Jesus.It is still
true that JESUS never said a single word against homosexuality. And please stop
trying to quote the OT at us. When I say JESUS I'm obviously talking about
the New Covenant, and the Son.
Some people's Biblical ignorance on sexual sin is shocking, but not
irrepairable. Just point out the passages to them.Some
people's dishonesty on explicit Biblical passages (clearly in both
Testaments) reveal their disdain for Biblical texts and for the Biblical God who
gave them for His creation's protection and happiness.But it is
not an issue for non-Biblicals to worry over. Non-Muslims don't debate
Koranic or Sharia issues. If you are not going to do your homework and
accurately plead either side of an issue, you really should keep your opinions
safely in a plain brown wrapper.
@amazondoc, "Genesis 2:22" -- This speaks of the creation of Eve -- not
condemnation of homosexuality. Wrong, Genesis 2:22,Then the
LORD=(Jehovah=Jesus)….24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother
and is united to his Wife[not his Man], and they become One flesh. Family unt,
Adam and Eve. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and
mother and be united to his wife[not his man], and the two will become one
flesh'(Mt 19:5)Jesus acknowledged that some eunuchs are
"born that way" -- and that such men should not marry.Greek, 2135
Eunich d) one who voluntarily abstains from marriage. True like. St
Paul,Catholic Nuns and MonksThe LORD(Jehovah,Jesus) said to Moses(Lev
18:1)…You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an
abomination.(Lev 18:22)Paul quotes the LORD Jehovah,… The
sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing
homosexuals(1Cor 6:9 NET)
@George and Kalindait really is incredible. My view has stayed 100%
consistent throughout, yet George´s argument is that it varies? It is hard
to argue against founded statements and I understand your frustration. It is
much easier to argue against the religious fanatics that think christianity
should dominate the U.S. Govt. The inconsistency is there. And yes,
it is obvious that these are two different issues, consistent with all my other
posts (read them). The Prop 8 issue is about whether a state can grant a right
and then take it away. I believe that is where poor George is getting stuck and
where there is also a clear inconsistency.If the federal government
does not have the constitutional jursidiction to rule on a matter (i.e.
definition of marriage in this case, or it could be zoning laws in another...),
then the federal government would not be allowed to step in and claim
jurisdiction on whether that state can give or take away rights or laws or
definitions if previously given. Doesn´t that contradict the fact they say
they have no jurisdiction in the first place? Absolutely it does.
@Jeff --"Peter was an observant Jew...."Interesting, then, that Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative Jewish
denominations of today are all happy to perform same-sex marriages. They seem a
bit less hung-up on ancient laws than some of today's Christians. ;-)"Jesus was also an observant Jew...."Refer to my
preceding post about "eunuchs" and Matthew."They support
obedience among converts who were slaves. It's a far different
concept."That Biblical "obey your masters" concept was
frequently used to justify slavery in the days surrounding the Civil War."Check out 1 Corinthians 11:11."Check out 1
Corinthians 11:8-9. You've also reminded me that Paul said:
"a husband must not divorce his wife" (1 Cor 7:11) and "A woman is
bound to her husband as long as he lives" (1 Cor 7:39)-- How many
people here have violated these?"Do you really want a discussion
on Sodom?"We've already had loooong discussions about Sodom
here. Sodom more to do with inhospitality, pride, and arrogance than merely with
homosexuality. Also, remember -- Old Testament."In the context
of, and in comparison to Sodom, Lot was righteous."LOL! Rape and
incest are NEVER righteous.
@sharrona --"Genesis 2:22" -- This speaks of the creation of
Eve -- not condemnation of homosexuality."Mt19:8-12" --
Still not speaking against homosexuality. In fact, this is where Jesus
specifically says "For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their
mother's womb...". -- And as we know from ancient language
scholars: "in translations of ancient texts, 'eunuch' may refer to
a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, or otherwise not
inclined to marry and procreate." -- IOW, homosexuals.-- Clement
of Alexandria wrote, regarding this passage: "...their (referring to
followers of Basilides) explanation of this saying is roughly as follows: Some
men from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman..."
(Stromata, III. 1.1). IOW they already recognized that "born eunuch"
meant "homosexual", **1800 years ago.**"1 Co. 7:1",
"1 Co. 7:32-34" -- we already know that Paul didn't like
homosexuality. He wasn't Jesus.Once again: Jesus didn't
say a single word condemning homosexuality. Homosexuality is never even
mentioned in the Gospels, except for that one passage where Jesus acknowledged
that some eunuchs are "born that way" -- and that such men should not
wrz(A)ll people, including gay and lesbian people can marry... provided
they marry someone of the opposite sex... just like the federal law says. So,
where's the discrimination?LDS4Christians in Saudi Arabia
likewise can have religious freedom...as long as they choose to attend a mosque
and read the Koran. Both the gays and Christians are simply CHOOSING to not to
meet the requirements for those rights. It's their own dang fault.John Pack Lambert As we have seen in Washington state, the ability
of an individual to chose to not violate their religion in the way they conduct
their artistic activity of creating floral displays will run up against the
state endorsement of ceremonies they object to. LDS4Those
"artists" felt that selling to gays wouldn't violate their religion
when the got their business license saying that they'd abide by the
state's antidiscrimination laws. Aren;t they subject to kings, rulers
"Russell thinks the court will rule that DOMA creates two separate classes
of marriage because some states allow gay marriage, leading to unfair treatment
from one state to the next."There is no reason for the court to
overturn DOMA which creates but one class of marriage... between a man and a
women. Any state law to the contrary would have to be abandoned due to the
Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. It's not rocket science.There are those who maintain the US Constitution does not allow the federal
government to be involved in defining marriage. That's nuts. The federal
government has put itself square in the middle of many issues that are not
specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. One example, abortion... which
is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.If, perchance, DOMA is
overturned, the door would inevitably be flung wide open for all kinds of
marriage arrangements including polygamy, child/adult, groups, sibs, or any
other combination the human mind can conjure. Anything else would be
discriminatory and thus, unconstitutional.Again, it's not
@ Wookie: You are seeing a conflict where none exists. There are two issues
being debated.DOMA states that the Federal Government will not
recognize same-sex marriages even from the states where they are legal. If that
part of DOMA is struck down, then the Federal Government will recognize legal
marriages regardless of the genders of the participants.The Prop 8
trial deals not with defining marriage, but with whether or not passing Prop 8
and removing a pre-existing right violates the Federal Constitution. The fact
that the right that was removed pertains to same-sex marriage is merely
coincidental as far as a relationship with DOMA. The case could just as easily
deal with any number of other state recognized rights.Again, the
issues are 1) Does the Federal Government have to recognize all legal marriages?
and 2) Can the voters of a state remove a state recognized right or is that a
violation of the 14th Amendment?This is not about can states define
marriage and can states define marriage. It is can states define marriage and
can states remove rights. Two totally different issues.
Wookie As has been pointed out to you over and over not only is your
reasoning wrong but so fails to reflect constitutional law. Hoping that no one
will bother reading all the previous responses to your ever changing arguments
does not make them go away.
Homosexual communities honestly desire every right and privilege already
enumerated under life, liberty and the original right to own property. The
Constitution does not discuss marriage. Homosexuals desire to be equal and
endowed with all unalienable rights by their Creator. Yet,they choose to be
different. How? They choose to deny God was speaking to them when He declared
ANY sexual behavior outside of marriage was sin. Some don't like that
truth. People squirm when gay or straight friends or family have desires and
resultant problems from choosing or acting out weakness. You say what weakness?
The greatest weakness is being at odds with God. He provided for continuation of
the human family through birth and laws governing family. He desires to bless
his children. Marriage provides the contract between man, woman and God that
together future generations of family will be protected. God would cease to be
God if he gave his children what is contrary to his law and nature's law.
Both laws witness this truth. Desires or behaviors behind closed doors by
straits or gays cannot hide from Heaven's eye. No court can force God to
From the Biblical perpsective, this issue is all about rebellion. Period. Call
it what you want. Just don't call marriage Biblical, if it contains any
2nd party other than God.
@ amazondoc: You, and several posters previously, say things about the Bible
that suggest that you are not entirely secure in your understanding."First, Peter never mentioned homosexuality."True, but it
wasn't necessary. Peter was an observant Jew, and, for him, sexual
relations between people of the same gender was punishable by death. He
probably understood later that Jesus' atonement rescinded the death
penalty, but not the attachment of sin. Jesus was also an observant Jew, and
there was no need for him to mention homosexuality to his audience of observant
Jews. Jesus was very clear that marriage was between a man and a women (when he
cited Genesis)."Second, Peter and Paul both supported slavery
('obey your masters')"They support obedience among
converts who were slaves. It's a far different concept."and believed that women were inferior to men."Check out 1
Corinthians 11:11."even though Lot committed incest with his own
daughters AND offered up his daughters to be raped."Do you
really want a discussion on Sodom? In the context of, and in comparison to
Sodom, Lot was righteous. One could easily read that Sodom's gay-friendly
culture corrupted an otherwise righteous man and his family.
@Amazondoc"Jesus himself never said a word against
homosexuality"Paul was a witness of the resurrected Christ and
as an ordained apostle he was a representative of the Lord when he preached to
the Saints in Rome who would have been very familiar with what he was counseling
them against.Acts22:6-21 Paul tells the story of his conversion and
the mission he was called to perform.He must have been a prophet also
because here is the criteria:"And he said, Hear now my words: If
there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a
vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." Num 12:6 Due to his
extraordinary experience which fulfilled the qualifications to be a spokesman
for God, Paul when he was preaching was speaking in behalf of Christ not of
himself.In the first chapter of Romans it is perfectly clear what he
is talking about.
Marco Luxe,Read the article. The likely ruling of the supreme court
on Prop 8(the basis on which all of my comments have been made) is that they
will not rule on it. ...Even simpler than you thought. The expected ruling on
DOMA is that it will be overturned, which I whole-heartedly agree with.But in what way will the court say that DOMA overstepped its bounds? They will
say that it is not for the federal government to decide what marriage is - that
this is the states´ privelege (i.e. read the 10th ammendment if this is
really what happens). That is then a shot in the foot to the current
federal ruling on Prop 8. It would completely contradict the expected ruling on
DOMA. And therein lies the inconsistency. One more time: if federal
law cannot determine what does or does not constitute "marriage", then
the federal courts cannot invoke the 14th ammendement in the other case, because
it is about the states ability to define marriage, which the court would have
just said is the state´s right and doesn´t contradict federal law
(i.e. you cannot use the supremacy clause).
@amazondoc, Jesus himself never said a single word against homosexuality.
Wrong,Genesis 2:22,Then the LORD=(Jehovah=Jesus) God made a woman
from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the
man….24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to
his Wife, and they become One flesh. (Mt19:8-12)In context, It is
good not to marry; not as an objection against the prohibition of divorce, as
they intended it, but as giving them a rule, that they who have the gift of
continence, and are not under any necessity of marrying, do best if they
continue single (1 Co. 7:1 ); for they that are unmarried have opportunity to
care more for the things of the Lord, how they may please the Lord (1 Co.
7:32-34 ). The increase of grace is better than the increase of the family, and
fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ is to be preferred
before any other fellowship. i.e.. St.Paul and Catholic Nuns.
Wookie: Here it is real simple like. SCOTUS will rule that Congress
overstepped its authority in enacting DOMA. SCOTUS will also rule that a bare
minimum of CA voters overstepped their authority in Prop 8. Both will be based
only on the US Constitution. That's what all constitutions are for: to
put thoughtful limits on the exercise of government power. BLAG and Prop 8
proponents want unbridled power. We all do. But we have all agreed to be
constrained by the Constitution for our own collective good.
JBQ in St Lou: Your "voice of the people" argument ignores the facts
that our government is a CONSTITUTIONAL republic. We've decided as a
society through our founding fathers wisdom that there must be a brake sometimes
on a tyranny by the majority. That is the whole reason for a constitution!
"Majority rules" is and never has been part of our system. Otherwise,
LDS rights would be voted out of existence as we are a tiny minority.
nrajr of sandy: Re: lawsuits in CO and WAYou are conflating
anti-discrimination laws that have nothing to do with civil marriage. The WA
and CO cases are about invidious discrimination in business - the same type
outlawed by racial segregation. Remember "whites only" restaurants and
hotels? If you serve everyone except gay fiancees, then you deserve to be held
accountable. Otherwise, don't offer any of your services to the public.
Are you in favor of bringing back those "WHITES ONLY" signs? Absent
public accommodation laws, they can easily be re-lettered to read "NO
MORMONS or DOGS".
SoCalChrisRight on!!! Perhaps we should have self
baptism instituted by the government. Anyone who has ever run through a
sprinkler, or has gone swimming, is now baptized. It makes just as
much sense as the government defining and regulating marriage.
@wrz --"Your argument holds no water."The courts
say otherwise. I trust them to know more about the law than you do."Furthermore, the Judge you cite gives no source for his
conclusions."My brief excerpts aren't his full written
decision -- of course. If you want his sources, look em up.@christoph --"you either believe the morality taught by Peter
and Paul, or you do not."First, Peter never mentioned
homosexuality.Second, Peter and Paul both supported slavery
("obey your masters") and believed that women were inferior to men
("the weaker partner").Peter also called Lot "a
righteous man", even though Lot committed incest with his own daughters AND
offered up his daughters to be raped.Do YOU believe **all** of the
morality taught by Peter and Paul?Jesus himself never said a single
word against homosexuality. "Yet the Bible is more important
than the Constitution."Not in this country. This is
not a theocracy. Your God doesn't win just because you say so.@John Pack --"the ability of an individual to chose to not
violate their religion..."Businesses haven't been allowed
to discriminate since the days of racial segregation. There's nothing new
Why all the hatred and bigotry toward single people? They deserve to not be
stigmatized or discriminated against. They should be allowed to
enter into "same-person" marriages. That way, if anyone asks, they can
say -- yes I'm married. So what if it creates confusion. Feelings and
equality are more important. After all, it's just a case of changing
definitions once again to be more inclusive.
I think it would be a travesty for the Supreme Court to rule that those
defending Prop 8 do not have "standing." It will mean that, in the
future, if the people of California pass any sort of proposition (nominally
valid under the California constitution), all that has to happen to disallow the
proposition is for government officials to encourage a lawsuit, then stand aside
and refuse to defend the law, thereby eliminating it.Regardless of
how one feels about this particular proposition, the ramifications for
Californians' right to direct democracy are devastating. It will
effectively grant an executive veto over the people's will, something
currently disallowed under California law.I agree that our courts
have the duty to rule on the constitutionality of any law. In California, the
courts ruled that Prop 22 was unconstitutional, so the people changed the
California constitution--their only recourse in such a situation. To skirt the issue by ruling that the people have no right to defend their own
duly passed laws will cut a very broad swath through the California tradition of
I agree that Civil Unions for everyone is the best way to proceed.It
sounds like the Catholic Church in the UK will soon be on the same footing there
as the LDS Church. The LDS Church's temple marriages there are not
regarded by the government as also being civil marriages. So a couple there has
to make an extra stop at their local registrar to get the civil ceremony, in
addition to the temple ceremony.
@amazondoc:"Public safety has always been a valid legal reason for
limiting personal freedoms. And as I detailed in a previous post, courts are
already well aware that polygamy conveys serious risks to women and
children."Your argument holds no water. Any risk in a
polygamous marriage is not due to the marriage arrangement but due to the
mentality of the persons in the marriage. In fact, there is ample risk in many
monogamous marriages if one or the other of the partners fails to honor the
commitment to love and cherish.Case in point, a certain mid-east
religion is known to beat their wives into submission. It's grossly unfair
and misleading to include that group in any study. Barring that, there are few,
if any, groups of significance to include in any study. Furthermore, the Judge
you cite gives no source for his conclusions. And if he is thinking of the
early LDS Church, he very well could be relying on prejudices since many were
and even now are prejudice against that church for some sick reason.
God is in control; He knows all; He knew this would come even before the
creation of the world; this is a sword splitting society right down the
middle; the sword is God giving us free will; we are all being forced to
choose; you either believe the morality taught by Peter and Paul, or you do
not. God wants everyone to choose. It is a time to choose. I am not
talking of marriage. The constitution probably does grant equality on that
issue. Yet the Bible is more important than the Constitution. And religion is
more important than politics. Messrs. Obama, Clinton, Harry Reid, Dick Cheney,
Chuck Schumer and so many others (from both parties) in society put their
college education ahead of believing Peter and Paul. For 50 years now our
nation has worshipped the university more than the Bible. Christianity is
traditional family. Once a new volume of scripture comes forth allowing sin,
greed and addiction----I'll consider it, until then, I'll stick to
following Peter, Paul and Joseph Smith.
John Lambert,Why will it be a sad day?Keep in mind we
are talking, specifically, about Prop 8 - not about any other type of
legislation, and keep in mind, also, that the federal government has many times
superceded individual state statutes because they violated guaranteed rights.Is it a sad day because of that as well?
What happened to the progressive Church of the 1830s - when they were at the
forefront of major civil movements?Baby steps need to be replaced
with lengthening strides - at a fast pace.
For the Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8 on grounds of animus would
ignore the clear fact that the state proactively endorsing a ceremony that many
people object to on religious grounds without providing clear wording to grant
such objectors religious liberty in that instance would be gravely detrimental
to people's religious freedom in practice.As we have seen in
Washington state, the ability of an individual to chose to not violate their
religion in the way they conduct their artistic activity of creating floral
displays will run up against the state endorsement of ceremonies they object to.
If the court dismisses this objection as mere "animus" it will be a sad
day for individual freedom.
@ Bill in Nebraska,Re: "Man has no right to change the laws of
God and our Heavenly Father's law currently stands"One
would have to believe as you seem to in order to make that
'argument'.But, unfortunately (for you and your
'argument'), EVERYONE gets to have freedom of religious belief. Your
beliefs do not trump others'.Secular, civil "man" has
no right to insert his religious beliefs into secular civil law. Nor to force
others to abide by the beliefs of a faith to which they do not subscribe.Have a nice lifestyle.
@ wwwookie,Re: "the judges should follow the constitution and
allow states to define marriage, while requiring all states to recognize a
marriage validated in any other state."Unfortunately, the
(mis-named) "Defense" of Marriage Act forbids this. It very specifically
EXEMPTS ITSELF from the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause.
Sadly, this was not even argued at the hearings. It is observably
un-Constitutional, but may require another case to hear that argument.Oh, and "D"oMA DOES "allow states to define marriage". Its
authors just never figured that SOME states (12 and counting) would define it to
include same-gender couples. And, now that same-gender couples CAN get legally
married, the 'dilemma' is what to do with them vis a vis the Federal
Government, which regulates those pesky 1,138 "effects that flow from
marriage". This 'one-way anti-federalism' is what Bob Barr (R) now
decries. Also clearly quite un-Constitutional, but again, was not argued at the
current round of hearings at the SC(R)OTUS.
Re: "Russell thinks the court will rule that DOMA creates two separate
classes of marriage because some states allow gay marriage, leading to unfair
treatment from one state to the next."This is what Justice
Ginsberg meant when she referred to "skim milk marriage".
@wrz --"Furthermore, all people, including gay and lesbian
people can marry... provided they marry someone of the opposite sex... just like
the federal law says. So, where's the discrimination?"This
is the same argument tried in Loving v. Virginia. "All people can marry,
provided they marry someone of their own race." The Supreme Court
didn't buy that argument then, and they won't buy it now."And on a related issue, if laws against gay/lesbian marriage is
unconstitutional so are laws against polygamous marriages."No.
Public safety has always been a valid legal reason for limiting personal
freedoms. And as I detailed in a previous post, courts are already well aware
that polygamy conveys serious risks to women and children.As Chief
Justice Baumann (of the Supreme Court of British Columbia) noted, "women in
polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual
abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those
marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to
perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral
problems."In stark contrast, consensual homosexuality harms no
@JBQ The judicial system is the mechanism to protect all from discrimination.
Just because the majority belives in something, does not make that belief right.
"Russell thinks the court will rule that DOMA creates two separate classes
of marriage because some states allow gay marriage, leading to unfair treatment
from one state to the next."Not true. DOMA creates one class of
marriage... between one man and one woman. Any state law to the contrary is
illegal and needs to be struck down. Why? Because of the US
Constitution's supremacy clause which states that, where there is a
discrepancy between state and federal law the federal law is supreme and the
aberrant state law is null and void.Furthermore, all people,
including gay and lesbian people can marry... provided they marry someone of the
opposite sex... just like the federal law says. So, where's the
discrimination?And on a related issue, if laws against gay/lesbian
marriage is unconstitutional so are laws against polygamous marriages. In which
case the LDS Church will have a gianormous claim against the federal government
for discriminating against multiple marriages in the church's early
@O'Really --"many children with same gender parents have
"issues"?"All the reputable national groups of
child-development experts SUPPORT gay marriage -- because they recognize that
kids grow up just fine with same-sex parents.The American Academy of
Pediatrics 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" .@zoar --"Paul preached that it was sinful."Paul also supported slavery and believed that women were inferior to men. Do
you really want to insist that he was infallible?Jesus himself never
said a word against homosexuality.@banderson --"I
don't see the words 'abortion', 'incest',
'homomsexuality', 'bestiality', or 'physical, mental,
or emotional abuse' in the bible!"This one's easy.
Just one small example: "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is
the fulfillment of the law." Romans 13:10Most of the things you
mentioned cause harm to another. Therefore, they violate principles stated many
times in the Bible. In contrast, homosexuality causes harm to no one.
@O'really --"Polygamy causes danger to women and children?
"Courts in the US and Canada certainly believe so.Two or three years ago, a case was brought to the Supreme Court of British
Columbia relating to the polygamists in Bountiful (the Canadian Bountiful).The court easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban.
From various newspaper articles: Chief Justice Bauman
said "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to
women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and
substantial," ...He also found that Canada's ban "minimally impairs
religious freedom".He also said "Polygamy's harm to
society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are
not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can
be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."Further excerpts rom Bauman's decision: "I have concluded that this
case is essentially about harm," -- "Women in polygamous relationships
are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher
rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .The Canadian Justice Minister stated: "The true victims of polygamy are
the women and children this trial court decision protects"
I said,>Jesus said,>Treat your neighbors the way you would
want to be treated.>There are no words from Jesus that contradict
that.>The anti-gay stuff was said by people that never met Jesus,> paraphrasing Leviticus.Please note that the
anti-marriage-equality poster confirmed this.Know Jesus, know the
truth. No Jesus, no truth.
Ah yes the old "if you are going to allow Gays to get married then why
outlaw Polygamy" card. Fine I'll play along. I'm actually fine,
just fine with Polygamy if all parties are consenting adults! No 14 year olds,
no marriage under duress; if consenting adults want to enter into an Polygamy or
a Polyandrous marriage then why stop them? The biggest issue with Polygamy has
pretty much always been that fathers basically promised their daughters away to
someone, much like what still goes on in countries we consider to be barbaric.
And for good reason, because that practice is barbaric and antiquated. If a
Woman of her own free will without coercion wants to marry a dude who already
has a wife, and all parties agree, who cares? They'll do it anyway.
Another silly argument in the ninth circuits ruling. They outright acknowledge
that the early California law that made all rights and responsibilities of
marriage and civil unions did just that with the only exception being the title
of "marriage".Very creative judge who can claim that the legal
title of a relationship is as important as the actual rights and
responsibilities. It escapes reason as to how the use of a legal title falls
within the scope of the 14th ammendment. For those of you arguing
that this is a civil rights issue (which are many), why are you not then arguing
that black people should now be legally referred to as white people? That having
the same rights and responsibilities of white people is not enough, and that
blacks also need to have the same legal title? It's nonsense, and the
attempt to link this to the civil rights movement is shameful. the
judges should follow the constitution and allow states to define marriage, while
requiring all states to recognize a marriage validated in any other state.
@wookieSo then no you are not going to acknowledge your claim about
federal supremacy was wrong and pretend you never made that argument shore
striping gears? As to your new argument, the federal law violates the
same portions of the constitution as the prop 8 law, it does also violates the
states right to instill those rights on it citizens and have those rights
recognized by the federal government, rights as stated above protected by the
constitution which is the subprime law of the country, so no they are not
conflicting at all.
@amazondoc...Polygamy causes danger to women and children? Really? Proven fact?
I'd like to see some references and documentation that all polygamous
marriagies are a danger to women and children. What about studies that show
that many children with same gender parents have "issues"? ( that will
undoubtably be denied by pro gay marraige crowd) The studies are out there, even
appear in pediatric journals. That doesn't seem to have any effect on the
hearts and minds of the Supreme Court.
Stay calm Spring and George, I will try to help.1. Doma will be
struck down, not because it violates the 14th amendment, but because it would
limit states' abilities to define marriage as they see fit (hence the
reference to the tenth ammendment)2. The ninth circuit ruling stated that
Prop 8 violated the 14th ammendment as their entire basis.3. It is
inconsistent for the Supreme Court to say it is up to the states ( I.e.
declaring that a ban on gay marriage is NOT against the fourteenth ammendment),
and then allow a federal court's decision to stand if that decision was
entirely based on noncompliance with the 14th ammendment.
Wwookie: You should know that the US Constitution has sections that apply to the
states, not just the Federal government. It has been argued that denying
same-sex couples the right to marry violates the 14th Amendment which includes
"no STATE shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws." This is known as the Equal Protection Clause and
specifically requires it of the States. The argument is that if a woman is
allowed to marry a man, then the State cannot prevent a man from also marrying a
man without a legally justifiable reason. So far no legally valid reason for
banning same-sex marriage has been presented in court.Bill in
Nebraska: Arguments for polygamy are completely different than those for
same-sex marriage and needs to be considered on its own merits and problems.
For example, no State allows marriage between more than 2 persons so the 14th
Amendment violation argument used for same-sex marriage does not apply to
Polygamy. There is no slippery slope leading from SSM to Polygamy due to these
The Supreme Court should look into the reason's behind why Polygamy was
outlawed. For many it was aimed entirely at one group, members of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is so funny that those who propose
same-sex marriage toss this out the window. However, when the Supreme Court
found the laws constitutional over polygamy they also at the same time defined
marriage then as now as between one man and one woman. If they now strike that
down then they have basically reversede themselves and the courts in this
country to redefining marriage as ANYTHING anyone wants to make it. That is
what they are doing.Whether you want to agree with this means
nothing to me. Man has no right to change the laws of God and our Heavenly
Father's law currently stands and has always been between man and woman.
He states this from the beginning until now. The natural man feels he can
change this on his own WHIMS but that is a lie as told to the natural man by
Satan. He is real and you are his if you agree to diminish marriage and family.
@wokkie You need to be careful changing your argument so quickly you
will strip a gear. Please tell us exactly what case the supreme court ruled
that California's prop 8 were they took away a right that had been allowed
was constitutional? Then please acknowledge you were wrong about the supremacy
Wwookie Past cases from other states were all from states were it had
never been legal.
...and if the Supreme Court says it does not violate the federal constitution in
one case, how in the world can it allow a federal court to rule on a state law
regarding the same matter in a second case?It really is common
@wwookieIt's article V clause 2 it's called the supremacy
clause state laws cannot violate federal laws or constitution. 101 folks it
It's true: just because someone refuses to believe something, that
doesn't mean it's not so. One the other hand, just because someone
believes something, that doesn't mean it IS so, either.Just
because you believe there's a god, doesn't mean that there really is
one. Many people believe that there isn't, and their beliefs are as valid
as yours.A person may believe that a giant lizard created the earth
and gave us rules to live by, but that doesn't mean that it's true.
Still, he's free to believe it, and to live by those rules, but he has no
business demanding that the rest of us do.Can't you live your
religion unless you make its doctrine the law of the land?
@Tolstoy"Not the business of the federal courts? Actually that is one
if their esentual roles. thery are charged with determining if state laws
violate the federal consitution which is question before the courts, this is
civic 101 ."Thanks for showing the exact inconsistency. In oe
case, they will probably rule that the FEDERAL constitution does not allow nor
ban marriage (of any kind). But in the other case, they will allow a federal
courts interpretation of California's STATE constitution to stand. In the
first case they are saying that the state constitution does not contradict the
federal constitution....and please explain to us dummies where in
your civics 101 course you learned that:"The powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the FEDERAL government respectively"?.
The worry about Churches being forced in the US is a false worry, that avoids
the real issues.The real issues are will people be compelled to use
their artistic skills in support of ceremonies they disagree with. In Washington
state the answer is clear that the current government thinks it can force
someone to artistically support a wedding they disagree with, a clear violation
of the Free Speech section of the 1st amendment, as well as the free exercise of
religion section. However it is less clear the courts will find such a
Utah repealed its laws against inter-racial marriage in 1962. The LDS Church
never had any policy that prevented inter-racial marriage on such grounds.On the other hand the only way to find animus in the Prop 8 campaign is
to ignore their well reasoned worries about infringement of religious freedom
and to treat desire for protection of religious freedom as animus. It only works
if people ignore reality, which sadly the Supreme Court is good at.However finding against Prop 8 on procedural grounds will also empower elected
officials to ignore the will of the people as expressed in referendums. It would
be a sad day for democracy.
We know that the constitution allows freedom of religion. However, that does not
mean that God does not exist. God has laws for us to follow, and the U.S.
Constitution came as divine inspiration from Him. He warns that if this country
turns its back on Him and His laws, we as a nation will suffer the consequences.
That is what He said, and someone refusing to believe it does't suddenly
make it not so (if I refused to believe the sun existed, would that cause it to
cease to exist?).The bottom line is that homosexual behavior is
immoral. Marriage is ordained of God and He decreed it as being between a man
and a woman. We cannot prevent homosexual behavior; everyone has their agency
and they are free to choose, but that does NOT mean that we have to condone it.
However, we should not allow the divine institution of marriage to be defiled
with this immoral behavior.If you disagree, then we must agree to
disagree. However, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and do what He
tells us to do, even if it's unpopular.
Maudine,You are wrong. The DOMA decision is to answer whether or
not the federal government can deny benefits of marriage to a same-sex couple.
It is challenging the constitutionality of the law. It has nothing to do with
federal recognition of state definitions of marriage.
Let's get this marriage thing on the go and get past it.
Supporters of gay marriage often use the argument that anti-gays are
inconsistent in following the prohibitions in the bible forbidding homosexuality
but ignoring the other laws and regulations also contained in the Bible.The problem with that argument is that the Law of Moses with all its
do’s and don’ts as observed up to the time of Christ, was abolished
by Christ after his resurrection. It was no longer binding. The only thing that
remained of the law is the Ten Commandments. "But now we are delivered from
the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness
of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Romans7:6Christ added another provision to the one about not committing adultery which
was if a man looked on a woman with lust he was guilty of committing adultery in
his heart. And it is also apparent that the prohibitions against homosexuality
were still valid because Paul preached that it was sinful.
@WwookieNot the business of the federal courts? Actually that is one
if their esentual roles. thery are charged with determining if state laws
violate the federal consitution which is question before the courts, this is
civic 101 .
Contrarius: Self-evident truths don't need to be spelled out. I
don't see the words 'abortion', 'incest',
'homomsexuality', 'bestiality', or 'physical, mental,
or emotional abuse' in the bible! If your bible believes in those things,
then the rest of the Ten Commandments, which are listed, won't make a heck
of a difference for my Christian beliefs. Even so, it might be worthwhile to
seek for God's mouthpiece today. Evidently, He spoke in ages past to them.
Why not today? If it is all up to private interpretation, then as Dostevsky
said, 'If there is no God, everything is permissible.' or in this
case, 'If you can decide what is right or wrong, anything is
permissible.' My neighborhood doesn't believe in the 'anything
is permissible' values. I'm sticking here.
Maudine,Do you really not see the inconsistency? I am afraid
your comment about "those who wish to remove that right can provide no
reason" shows the bias that is clouding your judgment. It seems that
depending on how the rulings lean, you could change your mind very quickly. The California constitution allows for propositions to be voted on and
become law if passed by the citizen vote. That is a very silly provision that
has made california the financial and political mess it is, but that is what the
constitution allows. The play between the different clauses in a
state's constitution are not the business of the federal government. So, if the Supreme Court allows the lower federal court to interpret a
states constitution, then there really is no state government at all and
it's a sham. They say the federal government cannot create a federal
marriage law but they have the sole authority to determine if a states marriage
law is valid or not. How absurd.
"... turning its back on God's laws."Well, the
Constitution explicitly allows me to tell you that your God is not my God. And
my God says marriage equality is cool. Religious freedom goes both ways, and you
are not allowed to make your religious views the law of the land.
@ wwookie: Your comment conflates two different issues that are being
addressed.The DOMA decision does not apply to the Federal Government
defining marriage, but to whether or not the Federal Government has to accept
the states' definitions of marriage. Never before has the Federal
Government declared that a marriage that is legal in the state in which it was
performed is not really a marriage and does not qualify for marriage benefits
provided by the Federal Government. Interracial marriage, marriage by first
cousins, marriage of an uncle to his niece (when it was legal in some states
many years ago) - all these the Federal Government let the states define as
marriage and receive Federal benefits. Why should the Federal Government now be
allowed to interfere with the states' determinations?The other
issue is whether or not a state which has previously recognized a Constitutional
right to marriage has the right to later remove that right when those who wish
to remove that right can provide no reason why it should be removed.Two separate issues.
@JWBwhat makes you think that judeo christian laws trump our
constitution or has a place in the supreme court rulings? the reason we do not
do so is the same reason we do not base our laws on sharia law we are not a
theocracy. second why exactly do you think we have an independent
judiciary that is not up for election? there is a reason.
@JWB --"If the basic Judeo-Christian law meant one thing
relating to marriage for hundreds if not thousands of years"For
"hundreds if not thousands of years", Judeo-Christian law said that
slavery was fine and dandy.Do you really want to repeal the
Emancipation Proclamation just for the sake of tradition??@first2third --"If you open up gay marriage what prevents
polygamy..."Lots of things. For instance:1. polygamy
carries a known danger to women and children, and public safety has always been
a valid legal reason for limiting personal freedoms. 2. informed consent
is necessary in the US to sign valid contracts. Children and animals are
incapable of giving informed consent.And so on.@ThomasJefferson --"State and Federal governments should not
be in the business of marriage at all."Civil marriage conveys
literally thousands of governmental benefits, from tax breaks to insurance to
inheritance to visitation rights to guardianship of children -- and on, and
on.If you are willing to give up all of those benefits, then by all
means refrain from signing that civil marriage license. But don't expect to
get ANY of those benefits unless you do sign that contract.
A significant part of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is to
interpret what the law states in the Constitution and the laws, acts and
regulations passed by Congress. If the basic Judeo-Christian law meant one
thing relating to marriage for hundreds if not thousands of years in different
nations, cultures and people's lives, then the Supreme Court should not
re-interpreting what is established. That is one problem with the
non-elected Supreme Court appointed by the Executive Officer and approved by the
Legislative Body of the Senate that is elected by the people of their state for
100 years. The Court doesn't have a dissenting body except that Congress
can pass a law or act to make the requirements different, which is sometimes
having the fox guarding the henhouse get hungry and eat everything in sight.We live in hard times and one that is not getting any easier for our
nation. Freedoms that people want now are not necessarily freedoms that endure.
Real freedoms don't put you into jeopardy with real freedoms. Courts have defined civil and individual rights over 50 years in a way that
has influenced the next law segments.
A commentator said, marriage is only for procreation.So you wish to stop
the old, infirm, infertile, and ovarian cancersurvivors from marrying?
Couples that use contraception?Think of why they should be allowed to
marry. Most of those samereasons apply to same-sex couples.
Blue: That is why today there is a living prophet in the land. God still
speaks to man, including the issue of marriage. It is clear, beautiful, and
perpetuates the truth!
Why is government involved in Mariage at ALL in any way?I guess the
government historically has had an interest in keeping families together and
have children reared in that environment.However, that doesn't
account for childless mariages or couples where children have moved out. If you open up gay marriage what prevents polygamy, marriages of
convenience for legalization, marriage to family members of age, marriages for
insurance purposes only and who knows what else? Does society care
anymore? Probably not is my guess.
Jesus said,Treat your neighbors the way you would want to be treated.There are no words from Jesus that contradict that.The anti-gay stuff
was said by people that never met Jesus,paraphrasing Leviticus.
Restore Our Humanity, a local non-profit group, has sued the State of Utah over
Amendment 3, which was voted upon and added to our Utah Constitution in 2004. It
specifically prohibits gay marriages, gay civil unions, or anything that confers
the rights of marriage to gay people. It is so filled with obvious animus that
it shouldn't be allowed to stand.Even if SCOTUS does not issue
a broad ruling, I believe it is only a matter of a year or two before gay
marriage is permitted in Utah. The advance of justice can't be stymied for
@jsbStarting with sticking to the facts supported by the research
and/or biblical justifications for their position on this subject instead of
repeated lies, deciet, fear mongering and mischaracterization would be a good
idablu: "You are the one who is naive if you don't think the gay &
lesbian community will aggressively pursue the right to be married in any church
they want."Wrong. Churches have _never_ been, nor ever can be,
forced to marry couples who don't belong to their sect or don't
satisfy their internal rules. Specifically, the LDS church can make its
marriage ceremonies as exclusionary as they want. Their internal rules may be
short-sighted, unjust, and really bad PR, but it's never illegal.As has been described above, it is only when a religion mixes its business
affairs with public or private secular activities (e.g. adoption services or
public space rentals) that they find themselves required to obey secular
laws."Religious freedom is under attack in this country, and
this administration and his liberal minions have shown little regard for any of
our constitutional rights."Wrong. What you perceive as an
"attack" is merely your discovering that you can't use your
religion as an excuse for depriving non-members of their constitutionally
guaranteed civil rights.
Mr. Leavitt, abortion is a life/death issue for many people, and the secular
"outs" given to hospital employees reflect that. I doubt that anyone
will be given legislative permission not to perform marriages for gay people.
After all, marriage is a celebration of family and a commitment to fidelity, and
why should anyone be allowed to discriminate in performing a civil marriage? It
is most definitely NOT a life/death issue--not even close.Meanwhile,
temple and religious ceremonies will maintain their religious rights already
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Religions' right to discriminate is one
of the most firmly held and historically defended of all rights. Mormons and
Catholics have no reason to fear. I believe the staunch LDS opposition to gay
marriage has its roots in the hierarchy's fears that it will lead to
legalization of polygamy (something else that won't happen any time soon).
Scott ZwartzOn what do you base your claim that churches and pastors have
no fear of the government forcing them to perform same sex marriages. It is
already happening in the military where chaplains are required to perform same
sex marriages, and there are a number of cases (just a few examples by nrajr) in
which one's religious rights are being challenged by gay-lesbian
community.You are the one who is naive if you don't think the
gay & lesbian community will aggressively pursue the right to be married in
any church they want. Religious freedom is under attack in this country, and
this administration and his liberal minions have shown little regard for any of
our constitutional rights. If it can happen in Great Britain it can certainly
@ JBQ: The people cannot vote to take away the rights of other people. Prior
to the vote on Prop 8, the California Supreme Court decided that same-sex
couples in California had the right to marry. Prop 8 took that right away. The
Courts than asked the Prop 8 supporters to defend and justify that removal of a
right. In order for the removal of a right to be Constitutionally
valid, there must be a social harm created by the practice of that right or
prevented by the restriction of that right. Something being a "sin" or
"icky" is not a Constitutionally valid reason for removing a right. The
defenders of Prop 8 have never been able to define any harm to society or any
reason to prohibit same-sex marriage other than sin, ick, or animus towards
homosexuality.Citizens in California cannot vote to take away rights
- no matter how much they dislike the people exercising the rights.
Inconsistency in the projected decisions cause intelligent people to scratch
their heads!How can the Supreme Court say in one decision that the
federal government cannot define marriage, yet on the other hand allow a federal
court overturn state law on marriage?They are supreme - supremely
political, but not supremely fair.
Completely overlooked in this article and in this paper's ongoing coverage
of assaults on religious liberty is the liberty of those many denominations that
have no problem solemnizing gay unions yet are prevented from doing so by the
government. Do they not also have the right to practice the dictates of their
faith without government interference, or is freedom a one-way street?The relevant legal precedent for the DOMA review is first cousin marriage.
Half the states allow them and half do not. Does the Federal government
recognize lawful first cousin marriages in those states where it is legal when
it comes to federal benefits and joint tax returns? If so, the same should
apply to same-sex marriages.Mainly Me: "God made Adam and Eve,
not Adam and Steve."David Sedaris had the best rejoinder to this
tired trope: "Of course God didn't make Adam and Steve. No
self-respecting gay couple would be Adam and Steve. It's Adam and
STEVEN." Seriously, though, if gay marriage opponents can't come up
with compelling secular arguments and rely only on the Old Testament to make
their case, they will never win in court.
In the 1967 Loving v Virginia ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down
anti-miscegenation laws and legalized interracial marriage. The LDS Church did
not authorize such marriages in their Temples until June 8, 1978, thirty-five
years ago yesterday. I believe the same protections that existed for the LDS
Church during those eleven years will apply to any ruling on same-sex marriage.
There has been much discussion of religious liberty in the pages of
this newspaper. I think a useful way for my LDS friends to look at this issue is
to examine their own past. Mormons were the objects of intense discrimination
for years, all under the guise of the "religious liberty" of others.
The Latter-day Saints were denied the social, political, and economic benefits
available to others in the public sphere because their beliefs and practices
(including marriage customs) offended the religious sensibilities of others.
Replacing "Gay" with "Mormon" as a rationale for discriminatory
behavior in the public square may shed light on what is religious liberty and
what is not.
@nrajr --"there are current active prosecutions occurring in
states which have legalized same-sex marriage (Washington and Colorado), against
persons who would not provide services to same-sex marriage ceremonies"Businesses have not been allowed by law to discriminate since the days
of racial segregation and lunch counter sit-ins. There is nothing new about
that. If you wish to conduct a private business, you must do so without
violating the laws of the jurisdiction in which you operate. That shouldn't
surprise anyone.@JBQ --"However if the people
decide, then the courts have to support. "No. The US
Constitution is there to **protect** our civil rights **against** the
"tyranny of the majority".@banderson --"You
will either declare to God that His commandments are valid or you will mock Him
and His word."Hmmm. I must have missed the commandment that said
"thou shalt not be homosexual."
re: brickerAgreed. FISA, the court associated with it,
& The Patriot Act are genuinely destroying this country. Yet, its obviously
more important to whine about an emotional wedge issue.
@ nrajr: There is a difference between a church and a private citizen who owns
a business.A business owner chooses to enter into the public sphere
and offer a service. The business owner receives many benefits from society but
also has certain obligations to society - one of those obligations is to follow
state laws and not discriminate.The only examples of Churches being
forced to follow non-discrimination laws pertain to churches interacting with
the public outside of normal church parameters.Catholic Charities in
MA - acting as a state agency placing children in state custody into adoptive
homes, including homes headed by same-sex couples. Catholic Charities changed
their policy and violated their contract with the state. They now only do
private adoptions.Ocean Grove, NJ - the Methodist Church owns ocean
front property open to the general public. Some of the buildings are
occasionally used for religious services, but not exclusively and they are not
churches. The church was given a tax exception directly related to allowing
public use of the buildings. When they chose not to allow all the public
access, their property was taxed at the same rate as all other non-public
property in that area.
Vladhagen asked,> What implications will this have on members of
the LDS Church seeking to get married in the temple?None. Remember
in 1966 when interracial civil marriage was legalized? The church chose not to
officiate religious marriage then. The first amendment protects that right. The abridgment of religion is happening now,There are a number of
Christian and Jewish groups that want to be able to offer religious marriages to
"...Ducking the issue would keep the Court out of a social and political
maelstrom. Most experts think the justices tend to avoid bold actions that would
weaken the Court's legitimacy by drawing attention to the Court's
unelected character...".Scalia avoid bold actions?Some observers would opine that the SCOTUS has weakened its legitimacy with
the decisions on Citizens United as well as the ACA.
Perhaps there is another side to this story, not being reported, as it
doesn't fit the "religion is being persecuted theme?"Culture Secretary Maria Miller has promised a "quadruple lock" for
religious groups who oppose gay marriage, involving:No religious
organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or
to permit this to happen on their premisesMaking it unlawful for religious
organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their
organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for
doing soAmending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim
can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for
refusing to marry a same-sex coupleThe legislation explicitly stating that
it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry
same-sex couples.(BBC June 4, 2013)
From the story, "As the new British law stands, Catholic clergy performing
marriages are deemed to be performing a state function,..."And
this, people, is why it is so important to maintain a separation of Church and
State.Here in the United States we have long allowed churches to
determine who can and cannot marry in their establishments and, while state laws
determine who is eligible to perform a marriage and a state-issued marriage
license is required for the marriage to be valid, marriages performed by
churches have always been recognized as religious ceremonies.Churches in the US have never been forced to marry anyone they did not want to
marry and who did not meet their membership requirements. Heck, as recently as
this year a church refused to marry an interracial couple and, while the couple
and many members of the church were not happy with the decision, it was
recognized as the right of that church to make that decision.As long
as the separation of church and state is maintained and civil functions and
religious functions are different, churches in the US will be able to protect
themselves from having to perform marriages they oppose.
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."I'm sorry,
but I thought God created all of us. Am I wrong? This always seems like a
backhanded way of telling our homosexual brothers and sisters that they
aren't loved as much as their heterosexual counterparts. To me, that is
wrong, and it is not a part of His true gospel.
Big Bubba: "What saddens me is that the country on the whole seems to be
turning its back on God's laws regarding morality."Oh
please. This is exactly the same set of "God's laws" that forbids
the eating of shrimp, permitting women to speak in church, permitting people
with birth defects to attend church, wearing cloths made of multiple fabrics and
allowing people of different religions to even exist. All of these are
explicitly set forth as "God's laws" in the Bible.I am
deeply grateful that so few Americans actually obey all of the "God's
laws" contained in the Bible (or the Quran, or the Torah) because it is only
by ignoring those arcane and wholly irrational "laws" that we have a
sane and just society. If you lament ignoring Biblical rules
regarding homosexuality, then why aren't you just as loudly lamenting our
ignoring of all the other equally bizarre and irrational rules contained in the
Having agency to choose is not any easier today than it was in ancient times
with God's commandments to know what He wants one to do. That kind of
choice is so hard even in a family as you want to take Lucifer's side and
force your children to do right as that is what I told you to do. Loving one another is a tough job for parents but is harder in life of agency
and choices as we don't have control over other people. We can show love
and is our challenge everyday in everything that we have to choose. We don't have a choice in choosing our children and our challenge is to
show love unfeigned. We live in a time when people choose to adopt children who
need love, encouragement and support for all of life's challenges. Love is a challenge but I am grateful to know there is a plan to help us
get through this life and support from a Father and His Son to get through it
under a law and order for our life. The one that doesn't have a physical
body is blessed.
@Scott Zwartz, yes we do remember the Revolution and know that Great Britain
does not follow American Constitutional law. However, what we have here are a
number of men in DC trying to destroy the original Constitution. The
Constitution is not much good when it's in the trash heap.
There are already numerous suits againt companies that do not want to be
involved in gay marriages. The gblt community will use antidiscrimination laws
to go after anyone who does not fall in line. In their minds, their need for
acceptance outweighs your right to religious or economic freedom. Tolerance is
not the goal, compelled acceptance is.
The answer is clear, the Government needs to get out of marriage completely and
only be involved with Civil Unions for everyone, and let the churches do the
marriage thing. If your church doesn't like gay marriges, then you can go
find a church that is OK with gay marriage.
I'm looking forward to the Court's decision. :-)We've
already heard many anti-gay folks saying that civil marriage should be separated
from religious marriage. Well, here's your chance! The Catholic Church in
England seems to be headed in that direction already. I see no reason why other
churches shouldn't follow suit. Let couples go ahead and get their church
weddings, then just walk on down to the county clerk's office for their
civil contract. No sweat.NOBODY is forcing ANYBODY to perform gay
church weddings. NOBODY. But when pastors/preachers/priests sign **civil**
marriage contracts, they are signing **government documents**. And people who do
government business MUST be bound by the laws of that government. If you
don't want to uphold the laws of the government, then stop doing the
government's business. Very simple.As for the "Adam and
Steve" nonsense --When the Lord created Adam and Eve, the people
of that time didn't have in vitro fertilization or other reproductive
technologies, or even much in the way of adoption. They also didn't have
airplanes. Should we automatically assume that everything that isn't in the
Bible is automatically evil?
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."Pretty sure God made
The world is changing and you better get use to it. The claims that same sex
couples getting married somehow endangers regular marriage is pretty silly. My
marriage and yours is safe no matter what the supreme court decides on this.
@ Scott Zwartz"Acknowledging that Gay and Straight individuals
both have the inalienable and constitutional right of Liberty to marry another
consenting adult does not force any religious organization to perform that
marriage..."Agreed...as laws now stand. However, laws and legal
perspective change and evolve and it's only a matter of time that those
with an agenda of more than just equality begin the process of attempting to
require religious organizations to perform any and all marriages. The political
will to prevent this from happening will begin to erode--not right away, but
over time--unless sufficiently strong legal/constitutional structure is put into
place to protect the ongoing rights of religions.
The decision will be great either way! It gives those who have been absent from
deciding whether homosexuality is right or wrong the chance to come clean. There
is only so long you can hide behind the so-called 'tolerant' view of
God's word. You will either declare to God that His commandments are valid
or you will mock Him and His word. Eventually, all will 'fess-up' to
the truth. In the meantime, social chaos will continue. It is when the
children don't have a chance to learn His word that God will decide to
The real issue in California is the "voice of the people". The
California Courts effectively negated a legally binding vote. The reasoning on
DOMA then is concentrating on what the "wishes of the people" are. You
can't have it both ways. Anthony Kennedy is the "swing vote".
Actually, he will decide both decisions. I am against gay marriage. However if
the people decide, then the courts have to support. That is what makes the
decision in California so gigantically troubling. The courts are going to negate
the "vote" of the people. Ultimately, if the people decide that abortion
is wrong, then the courts could rule that it is the constitutional right of a
woman to do so. How far do we extend that right? Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to
take it to eight months. What if it is decided that babies can be put to death
on the birthing table? Actually, that is what "partial birth" is all
about. All that it will take on the Supreme Court is for Kagan, Ginsburg,
Sotomayor, and Bryer to add one vote. Our country has to be based on law. The
voice of the people must be heard.
What's cool, what is righteous. What's respected and what's
honored. Respect and trust is earned. Honor is having good manners [being
considerate and appreciative], Doing your duty to God and your country [you obey
the law]. In order for anything to be sacred, it has to have the purpose, of the
continuance of life. It's none of my business what anyone does behind
closed doors between consenting adults. I don't want to hear about it.
Re: Scott ZwartzI wish you were correct, but you are obviously not
aware that there are current active prosecutions occurring in states which have
legalized same-sex marriage (Washington and Colorado), against persons who would
not provide services to same-sex marriage ceremonies because same-sex marriage
conflicted with the business owner's religious beliefs. The state's
position in each case is that defendants religious convictions must give way to
the gay-lesbian communities right to equal treatment. If marriage laws were in
federal jurisdiction, which, thankfully, they are not, considering his record
thus far, can there be any doubt where the Obama administration would stand on
protecting religious rights?
@TolstoyActually, the LDS Church is making slow, but steady steps
towards better understanding towards those in the LGBT community. For example, while some Christian denominations are abandoning the Boy Scouts
of America due to their recent change in allowing gay youth to be scouts, the
LDS Church is supporting the decision. Openly gay and lesbian
students can now attend BYU. And while many in the gay community
still are not pleased with the church's new instructional videos regarding
the issue of same-sex attraction, the fact of the matter is, many LDS Church
members who 20 years ago may have seen homosexuality as the ultimate perversion,
are starting to see it from a new perspective. Same may say this is
all "window dressing" but in the event the LDS Church finds itself
compelled to welcome LGBT people more fully, it will indeed be ready to do so.
Re. Tolstoy: What do you mean by setting a better example?
This is wrong, plain and simple. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.BTW, right on Big Bubba!
What implications will this have on members of the LDS Church seeking to get
married in the temple? Will the ability of the LDS Church to only marry a man
and a woman be denied in favor of forcing anyone authorized to perform legal
marriages to also perform gay marriages on request? Hopefully the fact that the
LDS Church was not forced to perform marriages for just anyone before will be in
Acknowledging that Gay and Straight individuals both have the inalienable and
constitutional right of Liberty to marry another consenting adult does not force
any religious organization to perform that marriage any more than a minister,
priest or rabbi now must perform an inter-religious marriage. Any minister or
priest who makes such a claim is either very ignorant or very dumb. I notice
that no rabbi has been so foolish as to make such a silly claim and the Haredim
will certainly not be performing same sex marriages.The fact that
there is no danger that any American priest, rabbi or minister will be forced to
perform Gay marriages is highlighted by the fact that the only place where this
fear has arisen is in Great Britain. BTW, the Brits do not follow American
constitutional law. Remember?? We had a revolution and then wrote our
The LDS church and its members should start by trying to set a better example.
Well this sort of ruling from the supreme court will not surprise me. Even
straight and religious folks across the country are supporting gay marriage.
What saddens me is that the country on the whole seems to be turning its back on
God's laws regarding morality. The Proclamation on the Family states that
dire consequences await us if we allow traditional marriage to be eroded. The
country has been warned.