People who claim to support "traditional marriage" should spend their
time actually working to STRENGTHEN MARRIAGE. Stop persecuting
people who WANT to get married, and start working to get MORE people interested
in creating stable marriage relationships. Fight unmarried cohabitation, fight
divorce, spread the word about the benefits of marriage -- don't fight
people who ALREADY want to share the benefits of married life.
We once believed that men were 100% male and women were 100% female. Of course
we now know that is not true. Both physically and chemically there is male and
female in all of us. It should come as no surprise that sexual orientation has
some variance as in bisexuality and homosexuality. In other words
heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are natural. Can we in good
conscience deny the protections of marriage to the latter two. I think not.
Push to get gov't out of marriage and have civil unions for everyone with
equal rights. That's the only way to possibly avoid inevitably having
same-sex marriage nationwide.Let's face it, people like me will
be less willing to compromise later when victory is imminent.
Those statistics "on behavior stemming from a decline in traditional
homes" have to do with divorce, fighting, abuse, neglect, an absent parent,
etc. within such homes. What does that have to do with two loving people who
want to marry because they are committed to each other?
I don't understand these people. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
allowing homosexual secular marriages. It did nothing to diminish traditional
secular or religious marriage. This will make up, what, 2% of all marriages?
Unless this group is getting hung up on the fact that homosexuals will also get
to use the word "marriage", in which case they need to grow up. This has always been the case, traditional marriage "supporters"
try feverishly to demonstrate the harm gay marriage will do to society and
always come up short, but they still keep screaming about the decline of the
family. Once someone tries to ban or reduce heterosexual marriage and
heterosexual marriages aren't imploding at a rate of 50%, then maybe I will
take you seriously.
I believe it is misleading to call such groups "supporters of traditional
marriage". It's not traditional marriage that is targeted by
legislation or court decisions like yesterday's. They demand that one
particular type of marriage be ensconced in law in such a way that other types
of marriage and family are forbidden. If "traditionalists" were out
demanding that they be allowed to practice marriage the way they want in the
face of legal and economic barriers, I'd be a great supporter, just as I am
of proponents of the freedom for gay men and women to practice marriage the way
they think best. But this group's desires include preventing millions from
enjoying marriage that is conceptualised in terms that don't conform to
DOMA-type ideals. I want everyone to have the freedom and rights that these
groups want to limit to themselves. They are forbidders of marriages that differ
from their private definitions more than they are supporters of the right for
men and women to marry in the patterns of a century ago. They want continued
state intervention on behalf of their personal religious beliefs. Only in
Newspeak are they "supporters of traditional marriage".
" 'America has paid a great price for weakening its marriage
laws,' Barton said." - My question is, why does marriage need to be in
our law to begin with? I'm fairly sure that there is no section or clause
of the Constitution which says that our interpersonal relationships (sans the
case of abuse, obviously) need to be watched over or levied taxes upon by the
government. In order for marriage to not be defined by the ways of the world, it
needs to be taken out of the world.
Just how do you "protect" traditional marriage by denying it to others ?
Maybe take better care of your own marriage - that's the only marriage you
have any business judging
The headline of this article alone shows its bias. The headline really ought to
read, "Opponents of gay marriage regroup after SCOTUS ruling." The
current headline implies that supporters of traditional marriage are mutually
exclusive from supporters of gay marriage. All the gay marriage supporters I
know (which are most of the people in my circle of friends) are heterosexuals
who also support traditional marriage. I am a "supporter of traditional
marriage" and a supporter of gay marriage. Happy marriages where the
partners support each other emotionally, physically, and financially should all
be supported, irrespective of the genders of the people involved.
There is nothing "traditional" about traditional marriage laws, as you
and the folks you are describing define them. Mormons, for instance, in a
limited sense know this; yet they somewhat ingenuously stand by this relatively
modern definition of marriage within their own society. For thousands of years,
in hundreds of different cultures, marriage has been defined in dozens of
different ways that have very little relationship to these "traditional"
marriages these folks insist on. Sociologists know this; historians know this;
genealogists know this---so why not speak the truth on the subject in trying to
persuade opinion? (Because that's all it ever has been--opinion. Beyond
the many ways that children can be conceived, marriage is about relationships.
People coming together in peace in as many ways possible has always been a good
thing, not a bad thing.)
The thing that all these folks are forgetting (or are being dishonest about) is
that "traditional" marriage isn't going to change just because an
LGBT couple can also get married.
If these folks were serious about genuinely supporting marriage, affirming the
benefit to society from couples making mutual life commitments and wanting to
build a life together, then they should have been celebrating yesterday, too.It's the fact that they viewed yesterday's events as a cause
for a "wake" and they brought in the wildly mendacious David Barton
("I'm not really an historian but for fee I'll pretend to be one
for you"), that makes me think these folks actually don't care a whit
about marriage, they really just want to share their enthusiasm for
authoritarian, repressive theocracy.
If you would stop using "strengthening traditional marriage" as a
euphemism for "deny gay families legal rights and protections" you would
have a lot more supporters of your cause. I am all for strengthening marriage.
I am all for strengthening families and reducing deadbeat dads, single mothers
who bring abusive boyfriends into the home with their children, etc.Those are the "attacks" on marriage. Loving, committed, gay and
lesbian people who want to legally protect their family are not the attack that
is weakening marriage.
Just because five black robes don't find marriage "defensible"
doesn't mean it isn't.Just because the word
"marriage" is redefined by some in society, doesn't mean it
doesn't mean what it means! This duck still walks like a duck. Of course, words change over time. Unfortunately, "marriage" is
headed there. The pattern has been established with other words. We certainly
don't think of gay, closet, rainbow or outing the same way we did in the
past. Hang onto the rights to "sealing" and "temple
marriage" with all your might because the next attack in this long-term,
well thought out agenda won't have so much to do with words, but with
Marriage is instituted between a man and woman for the purposes of procreation
in a correct and binding marriage. Homosexual practices defeat why we have male
and female couples. I had posted a comment yesterday regarding the SCOTUS
decision regarding homosexuals, benefits, and Prop 8 in California. However,
someone chose to take offense to what I said and it was not posted.Basically what I said is that no where in the Constitution is marriage
mentioned or benefits for married couples. Congress made a law(s) for the
benefit of heterosexual couples to ease their financial burden that they must
undertake while they have children. Homosexual believe that they are entitled
such benefits and it is unconstitutional. It is perhaps unfair, but
not unconstitutional. It would be nice if people including the high court judges
would read the constitution before going off and having a knee jerk reaction.
Now, what the SCOTUS did yesterday in overruling a decision made by
voters in California in regards to Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It did not go
against any federal law, therefore the court was clearly out of line.
People opposed to same-sex marriage cannot name one way in which it will affect
their man-woman marriage. There is not one way that it has a negative affect.
Just to echo some sentiments, there is no sense in getting up in arms or wasting
energy on this issue, in the end judgement will come from a higher power. In the
meanwhile, liberals should not expect us to just "accept" without having
opinions, or with heterosexuals taking umbrage with the "gay agenda". It
is our freedom to disagree, just as it is your freedom to agree and foster the
One does not have to be a opponent of gay marriage to be a supporter of
traditional marriage. Using the term 'Supporters of traditional
marriage' when you mean 'Opponent of gay marriage' is a misnomer
and smacks of George Orwell's Newspeak. To believe that
'Supporter of Traditional Marriage' automatically means 'Opponent
of Gay Marriage' is to believe that in supporting gay marriage you are
against traditional marriage. This is patently false. No one is trying to take
away anyone's rights to a traditional marriage. No one is saying that any
church will be forced to marry gay couples, just as no one can force the
Catholic Church to grant a divorce. Look at movements in history
that have predicated their own rights (whether racial, religious, National or
gender-based) on the denial of those same rights to others. Invariably these
movements are assigned a page in infamy in the backwaters of history.
Liberal thought police are only happy when we agree totally with the agenda they
are fostering. There are folks, like myself, who take umbrage with normalizing
this preference. That is the basis of freedom and free speech my liberal
friends...in a nutshell...while you do not have to agree with those of us who
oppose homosexuality...remember...we ALSO do not have to agree or
"accept" you're agenda either.
We have our agency, but not the right to choose the consequences of our choices.
A lot of people are going to be very unhappy when they stand before our
Savior. Laugh now, you'll cry later.
The 13 year old young lady missed one of the primary reasons for the ruling by
Justice Kennedy, where he said DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of
children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even
more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of
their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in
their daily lives"Still waiting for one rational explanation of
how someone's "Traditional Marriage" has been harmed by allowing a
"Same-Sex" couple to get married. Still waiting, and waiting, and
My 'traditional' marriage is no less strong today than it was
yesterday. It comes down to what my wife and I put into it.
"We have met the enemy and it is us". Justice Kennedy broke the 4-4 tie
with a state's rights decision. If he came out against gay marriage, then
it would have become a federal issue. This is all about "Tower of Babel"
mentality. The people have become "gods unto themselves" with no respect
for authority and the acceptance of a higher authority that even is a
cornerstone belief of Alcoholics Anonymous. The idea is to destroy all
religions from a Marxist viewpoint and to level the playing field. John Lennon
in "Imagine" took a swipe at religion as being divisive. While in Ulster
for the G-8 Conference, our president basically said the same thing. The
Democratic Party has become Marxist inspired while the Republican Party is mired
in capitalism. My answer is the formation of a third party with labor sans the
entitled and redistribution of wealth in concert with common sense capitalists.
Sadly, this is all about the destruction of capitalism. The "ant" who is
working to put away for the winter is being attacked from both ends of the
So sad to see they have indoctrinated another generation into their lies and
decite only to use her as a prop I think those are some "traditional"
values we can do without pasing on.
@atl134 You're right, get government out of the marriage business and focus
on civil unions.Government = social unionsSocial groups =
Cor 4:3 "I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court;
indeed, I do not even judge myself" Translation-God is the only one who
should judge. While I am against this ruling, feel free to exercise any
behaviour you would like. God will decide on judgement day what is right and
wrong based on the true law, not the law of the US. I choose to investigate and
know what my interpretation of those laws are and I will continue to live
accordingly with His help.
conservative and proud: "A lot of people are going to be very unhappy when
they stand before our Savior."Two things: First, yours is the
voice of the GOP base today, and it's why the party is increasingly
irrelevant and increasingly rejected by the rest of the world. It simply does
not stand up to objective examination.Second, your statement above
calls to mind the words of Marcus Aurelius. "Live a good life.
If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have
been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are
gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no
gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on
in the memories of your loved ones."
Good grief! Who DOESN'T support marriage for heterosexuals?
"GodLoveTheWord" and "conservative and proud" -- your
'arguments' sound a bit like this: "MY MAGICAL SKY WIZARD WILL
PUNISH YOU FOR BEING ACCEPTING OF OTHERS!". Get the heck over yourselves,
and try to spend a few minutes of your life thinking objectively about the
situation. Just because you have the ability to discriminate does not make your
"opinion" ok; much in the same way as having an "opinion" about
oppressing any other group of humans based on skin color, religion or any other
metric is not ok. Acting out that dissent has already been correctly classified
in the cases of racism as being a "hate crime".Imagine for a
moment that someone told you that your religion was a sin, and that they would
fight you blindly to make what you practice a crime.
The opponents of marriage equality are desperately clinging to the last vestiges
of government supported discrimination, but they will ultimately fail. The DOMA
decision, Kennedy in particular, clearly demonstrated that there are 5 strong
votes for marriage equality on the Supreme Court. Have any doubts? Why do you
think that Scalia's dissent was so vitriolic? The re-election of President
Obama has virtually denied the radical right-wing any attempt (at least in this
generation) to garner the votes necessary to push forward their right-wing
agenda. While the opponents of marriage equality live to see another day, their
attempts to prevent the inevitable will be in vain. America will soon live up
to her promise of "Liberty and Justice for all".
I am curious about the number of divorces in this judgmental group who so fear
for the family unit simply because a same sex couple can , now, be legally
married. How many of you are currently divorcees or have been divorced at one
time? YOU would be a bigger danger to the family unit than any same sex couple.
How many of you are languishing in a bad marriage and how does the marriage of a
same sex couple impact your already deteriorating family? Give us a break. I am
a heterosexual woman, married for 46 years to my high school sweetheart and I
absolutely detest those who JUDGE same sex couples for loving one another.
Heavenly Father created us ALL- are you calling HIM out as having made a
mistake? I fear for YOUR eternity- not that of homosexuals- who God also
created. Shame on you. JUDGE NOT.
The "laws" of men don't trump God's laws or change His
definition of marriage and family or moral behavior. The GBLT community choose
the State as their "moral authority" over God. They prefer the sanction
of the State over the blessings of God. That's their choice. They have
chosen the straw man of "equality" over the eternal. One of these days,
maybe they will figure out that you can't legislate faith in God. Both
abortion and gay "marriage" are "legal" according to man's
law, but neither is moral or right in God's eyes so nothing has really
It's kind of funny (not in a comical way). Those who moan about
Mitt's 47% are really petulant when the Government doesn't "have
Unless I I am somehow mistaken, the Supreme Court rulings are not the defeat for
conservatives that they and various religions think they are. Traditional
marriage will not be affected.If I had to guess one reason God makes
different kinds of people is he wants to test us and strengthen our ability to
love. if everybody was just like us it wouldn't be so much of a challenge
or a growing experience.
to GodLoveTheWordIt would appear you have an "acceptance"
I am one man who is married to one woman, my first and only wife for over 29
years. I am the very definition of "traditional marriage" and I can tell
you this: Letting my LGBT fellow Americans enter into the obligations of
marriage does my marriage no harm, and in fact strengthens my marriage by them
demonstrating with their actions the value of committed monogamous lifelong
@Albemar and Ernest Bass:The reason you are still waiting, waiting
and waiting is because any explanation that doesn't agree with your premise
won't be considered rational by you or others with their own preconceived
notions or what is right or wrong. Close-mindedness precludes the ability to
understand others who feel differently. And granted, that sometimes goes both
ways.My two Cents777 just proved my point by saying he utterly
detests those who don't agree with him. He doesn't detest their
viewpoints. He said he detests them.You've already indicated
your strong feelings and hence your unwillingness to seriously consider any
opposing viewpoints. Any explanation to you, no matter how well written and
thought-out would simply be a waste of time. And in your heart, you already know
that.From my experience, most left-wing commenters are not
interested in open discussion, but only in pushing their agenda on others and
then arguing... and nothing more. Hence, the strong rebuttals I'll soon
receive for saying even this much.I now need to leave for work. No
response to attacks will be forthcoming. I won't be back online until this
@Moabmom --"The GBLT community choose the State as their
"moral authority" over God."Many religious Christians
and Jews SUPPORT gay marriage. Many Christian and Jewish denominations are
ALREADY happy to perform gay wedding ceremonies.Their religious and
moral beliefs are every bit as valid as yours.
What a laugh to sit here and read comments from the flaming gay persons and
their supporters, trying to justify gay marriage. I wired a light and two
outlets in my home once, doesn't mean I'm an electrician, as much as I
would like to be thought of as one. I've driven a big rig through a field
and even down the road a few miles, doesn't mean I'm a certified, or
qualified big rig operator, as much as I might want to be. I've read about
and reviewed few law cases, and can even offer an opinion about them. Would love
to argue them, but doesn't mean I'm a lawyer, even if I wanted to
be(believe me I don't want to be that ashamed of myself). You can solicit
the government to impose your version of marriage on the rest of us, but that
doesn't really make it a "valid" marriage. You may think or feel
that you have made yourself legitimate, but you really haven't!
It seems the legal team supporting Prop 8 were not the sharpest knives in the
drawer. To let a proposition legally passed by a majority die on a technicality
is a disgrace. The Court should have been required to decide the case on
it's merits. The Court enabled a couple of elected officials to veto any
proposition they don't like. The lawyers should have made the case about
them. They should have asked for sanctions to compel them to do their
constitutional duty. Even the day after it is the gay activists who are calling
for a formal repeal of the law, since it is legally a part of the State
@GodLovetheWord"Liberal thought police are only happy when we agree
totally with the agenda they are fostering. "As opposed to your
side that was only happy when they banned gay marriage by putting it in their
state constitutions too? Our side is the one that still argues that your church
can do what they want to.
Same sex "Marriage" is an issue for those of us who are opposed to it,
for one very core, but seldom articulated, reason: It serves to promote a
radical agenda that attempts to mainstream homosexuality and everything
associated with it. For those of us who consider the homosexual
lifestyle to be morally corrupt and indefensible, its promotion is a threat to
the happiness and stability of our families. I do not dispute that
homosexuality has biological underpinnings. Nor do I condone violence or overt
hatred towards those who consider themselves to be homosexual. I do, however,
want it to go back into the closet where it belongs. As things now stand, the
radical agenda is being so aggressively promoted, that I fear that
impressionable young people will be led to embrace the lifestyle, to the
detriment of their ultimate happiness--when they would have otherwise chosen
traditional heterosexual marriage and family. Practicing a
homosexual lifestyle is still a choice--underlying tendencies notwithstanding.
It is no different from the moral choices that heterosexuals face. They may
have tendencies, for example, to want to have illicit extramarital
relationships, but make a conscious choice to act otherwise.
The refrain that Gay Marriage somehow diminishes Straight Marriage is why
conservatives are losing this debate. Same sex marriages are legal
in thirteen States, the District of Columbia, and five Indian tribes. Nobody is
going to court saying it has somehow wrecked their opposite sex marriages. You
can't spend the better part of the last twenty years predicting the sky is
going to fall if we allow Gay Marriage and not have your argument fall flat when
it doesn't happen.The idea that children will be harmed is a
risky assertion as well. The same argument was made about interracial marriages.
At the end of the day the strongest factors influencing the well-being of
children is income not the gender of the parents. Do you favor a constitutional
amendment saying only the wealthy may raise a family?The insistence
of these groups in returning to these same discredited arguments only weakens
their cause. The real reason is your religious belief. Everyone knows that. You
might as well say so.
How about we not let gay marriage define every election for the next decade?
Let's move on already.
@AZKIDI do not belong in the closet nor will I deny who I am because of
your prejudice. I am a citizen of the United States and have the same rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you enjoy. My marriage, now
recognized by the Federal government, is no bettor or worse than yours.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how same sex marriage harms
opposite sex marriage. It's not that I'm a supporter of gay marriage
but I just wonder why all the bunkering as if all that's good is now
ruined? I don't believe a gay person has any choice in their being gay, nor
do I believe government has any business in supporting the discrimination of any
group, based on the Christian definition of what is sinful behavior.
There seems to be so many comments on here bashing these people for wanting to
keep marriage between a man and a woman. To all of you I say RESPECT their
viewpoint and try to understand where they are coming from. All of you marriage
proponents are just as bad as many who oppose gay marriage because you are
irrationally and sanctimoneously declaring that the opinion of gay marriage
opponents is invalid, ignorant, and does not matter--all while declaring the
proponents of gay marriage have an "enlightened" and more valid opinion.
Who are any of you to declare that your OPINION about gay marriage is somehow
superior to our opinion about gay marriage? They are both opinions. Proponents
are arguing their opinions and taking action, why can't opponents do the
same? Proponents have their reasons why they support "marriage
equality" and opponents have their reasons whey they support traditional
marriage. Why are our opinions less valid than yours? I guarantee that if gay
marriage were the norm for thousands of years and then heterosexuals all of the
sudden wanted to get married, the gay community would have a similar reaction.
Your opinions are no better than ours.
I appreciate the complexities that accompany these issues. Arguments can get
heated and words misconstrued especially written. While I don't pretend to
understand the legalese with navigating the US constitution, I do believe that a
group of citizens (LGBT) have been discriminated against according to the Fifth
amendment. As far as the institution of marriage, I support fully in marriage
being defined as between a man and a woman. No I am not a "same sex"
hater. In fact I believe that we are all children of God and should be treated
as such. I do see that it is my right and obligation as a mother to teach my
children right from wrong and believe deeply that homosexual relationships are
against the word of God. I will continue to teach my children this truth while
at the same time emphasizing to them that we are all brother and sisters and to
treat others respectfully and with civil behavior. But at the same time I
expect the same from the LGBT community. You can't force your beliefs onto
me just the same as I won't force my beliefs on to you.
Interesting, POTUS is currently in Senegal. The breaking news is B.O. is getting
a very public pushback from the President of Senegal and its people. Ironically,
Senegal, a nominally Muslim country, has no problem with Polygamy as many
village leaders have multiple wives. Prehaps those Americans who are aghast at
the concept of legalized same sex marriage decamp to Senegal where Homosexual
conduct is illegal and Traditional Marriage including Polygamy is part of the
Supporters of traditional Southern rights also went on the offense after the
Civil War we ended up with Jim Crow laws and lynchings. Going on the offense to
deny something to someone never leads to anywhere good.
@CandideI do not wish to deny you of any rights that are historically
included in the phrase you are quoting above. I just do not believe that the
phrase is as all-encompassing as your agenda would like us to believe. You are
engaged in a very perilous social experiment whose consequences are not yet
known. I genuinely fear for the stability of my family and society at large if
your agenda prevails. Call it prejudice if you will. I just call it good
sense.Nevertheless, I will gladly let you stay out of the closet if
you can keep your sexual preference out of the national media and out of the
minds of my children. Do we have a deal?
@Conservative and proud:I am happy you said what you said in your
post and I agree, there are going to be some very unhappy people when they stand
before the Lord. Shocked and unhappy. Be careful of what path your pride
leads you down. You may just end up being one of them. Doesn't our Lord say pride is what will be the un-doing of man?
"Judge Ye Not Lest Ye Be Judged Sayith The Lord". This is
not the return of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is just another small victory in the
battle with the Adversary. Today, we are one step closer to all of God's
children being treated with respect, love, understanding and all the secular
blessings we receive when two people give their hearts and lives to one another
in the bond of Marriage. I'll fight the Adversary on the side that fights
for protection for all of God's children. Will you? I think
the Lord said "Love My Children As You Would Love Me.". God
Bless us all!
The decision by SCOTUS did some things but it did not not not tell the 38 states
with traditional marriage laws , to change those laws. It applied to SOCAL. It
applied not not to the 9th Circuit court. So....for those who want Biblical
marriage, the war is on. And if any any Christian voter of the varied
denominations vote Dem, they can expect even more attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th,
10th amendments. Why people who want our traditional American values, heritage,
history and culture plus economic growth would ever vote liberal socialist
progressive Dem is beyond me.
our hearts are filled with sorrow that our fellow citizens will now enjoy the
same equal protection under the law as we do. why does that make you sad??
@PendergastNot at all my friend, just tired of one sided abuse in
the form of "bigotry" and "intolerance". I just wish both sides
could give each other the freedom to disagree without bringing a call to arms. A
gentle reminder: people like myself who believe in J.C. are without a doubt,
attacked more on these comment boards than any other group. I "accept"
Jesus Christ...therefore there is no acceptance issue on my part.Regards
@ GodLoveTheWord - I do not care who you believe in, nor would I ever vote to
pass a law taking away your right to believe in whomever you'd like. That
said, for things to be fair, you can't realistically argue that a law
should be passed telling others what to believe regarding sexual orientation or
what is "right" for the definition of marriage... The ruling that was
passed does not dictate against your views of what constitutes a marriage, and
has ZERO impact on your ability to continue in your beliefs. If the opposite
ruling were to have been made, then those individuals who have different beliefs
from yours would have not been legally able to practice what they believe to be
"right", and would therefore be discriminated against. Does this help
you comprehend the message any better?
Douglas Laycock, a leading supporter of religious freedom who also supports
same-sex marriage, acknowledges that the way the current laws on same-sex
marriage have been written is deeply troubling for religious freedom. The
failure of the laws to proactively recognize the conscience rights of
individuals to not participate in ceremonies they morally object to is
Marriage must be in the form of a man/woman institution, a form that produces
children, to have its traditional effects. If you change its legal form you
change its basic meaning. Those who act like its legal definitions can be
changed without changing its meaning do not understand how the power of the
legal form of marriage works.
The legally team supporting Prop 8 did not let it die on a technicality. They
were ruled to not be representatives of California with standing to challenge
the suit. The only way they could have changed that outcome was one of them
getting elected as Attorney General.Marriage needs to be in the form
of man/woman so it has the form of child rearing. The point of marriage is to
make as much production of children as possible within a stable relationship.
Since homosexual relationships do not produce children the state has no interest
in regulating them.
"Traditional Marriage" is a term coined to make same sex marriage sound
bad.If you look at the States where same sex marriage is allowed, NOTHING
BAD HAS HAPPENED.The REAL REASON FOR THE OPPOSITION: some churches
are afraid that their OWN kids will grow up Gay and want to marry. If the church
is based on marriage and procreation, like the lds or catholics, they have no
way to fit this in.I believe it is a sin against God to go tell
other people, especially in another State, how they should live, and to try to
push them to follow your views.
One thing I've never understood is why Utahns, who are generally
conservative and want to reduce government regulation, are so strongly for
government regulation of marriage. I hope for the day when government will get
out of the marriage business and focus on civil rights through social unions.
Let marriage be regulated by each social group for its members and not by
government.Government = social unionsSocial groups = marriage
@Scoundrel"Practicing a Mormon lifestyle is... a choice... It is
no different from the moral choices that others face."You could
also substitute the above sentence with any other groups; Jews Muslims Atheists,
Conservatives. Liberals, add-infinitum
Besides blindsiding the democratic process and the unconstitutional silencing of
the voice of the majority, the court (sorry I can't capitalize it right
now) has set in motion the persecution and prosecution of those upholding
marriage; defined as a heterosexual union sanctified by partnership with God. A
homosexual relationship can never achieve that end. An Australian attorney, not
LDS, spoke about this political trainwreck as an attempt to halt temple work.
The Church will never condone homosexual unions because God never has and this
is His work. The hateful, demonic voices calling for legalization of practices
that human history has proven to be destructive to all socieites condoning them,
will go after the church in the courts to try to halt the legitimate work of
creating eternal families. It is a temporary but painful state we are in.
Two men or two women is really not a marriage in way. Only time will tell the
full extent of havoc to be wreaked upon this once-great Christian nation with
this giant (mis-step) giving yet more legitimacy to the sin of sodomy.
@Rikitikitavi --"giving yet more legitimacy to the sin of
sodomy."The term "sodomy" actually refers to acts which
are just as easily enjoyed by straight couples as by gay couples.Are
you going to start invalidating the marriages of straight people who enjoy these
acts?@PLM --"the court...has set in motion the
persecution and prosecution of those upholding marriage; defined as a
heterosexual union sanctified by partnership with God."Oh, wait
a minute -- now you're going so far as to say that civil marriages
aren't legitimate either??Wow, the MILLIONS of people who have
been married in civil ceremonies won't be too happy to hear that.As for "persecuting and prosecuting" those in heterosexual marriages
-- don't be ridiculous. The vast majority of marriages are, and will
remain, heterosexual. Heterosexual marriage is a fine institution, and NOTHING
about gay marriages actually threatens ANYONE'S straight marriage. So have your marriage. Enjoy it. And let other people live their OWN
lives as they see fit."The Church will never condone homosexual
unions"Actually, many churches already DO support gay
marriage.YOUR church is not the only one out there, you know.
To: ContrariusYou have unfortunately made the error of quoting
another's words out of context. I will not dishonor you by doing the same;
in reference to your statement, "Oh, wait a minute -- now you're going
so far as to say that civil marriages aren't legitimate either??" I
said nothing of legitimacy, and according to the scriptures, God ordained the
constitutional law of our land. So I assume, not speaking for Him, that He
recognizes civil unions that are not in direct conflict with His commandments.
You stated, "As for "persecuting and prosecuting" those
in heterosexual marriages -- don't be ridiculous.... and NOTHING about gay
marriages actually threatens ANYONE'S straight marriage." The attorney
I referenced was speaking about LDS marriages in the temple. Gays will
eventually go after the LDS church for denying them access to sacred rites, as
they attacked the Boy Scouts for denying them access to children. "The Church will never condone homosexual unions," of course the
church referred to in my previous sentence was the LDS Church. You
might find it helpful to take a class in rhetoric.
@PLM --"You have unfortunately made the error of quoting
another's words out of context."I'm sorry that you
think so. "I said nothing of legitimacy"You said
-- and I quote -- that marriage is "defined as a heterosexual union
sanctified by partnership with God".This appears to mean that if
a marriage has not been "sanctified by partnership with God", then it is
not a legitimate marriage in your eyes. Do you have a different
interpretation for your statement?"He recognizes civil unions
that are not in direct conflict with His commandments. "Good.
Then he should have no trouble with civil gay marriages, either, since there is
no commandment that reads "thou shalt not be homosexual"."The attorney I referenced was speaking about LDS marriages in the
temple."Gays will "go after" LDS temple marriages at
about the same time that Jews do."they attacked the Boy Scouts
for denying them access to children. "Careful, your animus is
showing.Since you mentioned scouting -- statistics from the Child
Advocacy Center show that "only about 4 percent of same-sex abuse involves
And btw, lesbian women
have led girl scout troops for years with no problems.