Quite frankly, if it were ever to come to that. I think it would mean civil
war. Liberals are pushing the envelope and its going to come back and bite them.
churches should be able to practise what they believe. Within the context of the
church, and it's members, and the law. If you really want more than that,
for religion to hold a higher place than law, then watch out. Because then,
you're inviting everyone to the table, and you have to give them equal
"....would prohibit requiring a religious organization to "solemnize,
officiate in, or recognize any particular marriage or religious rite of marriage
in violation of its beliefs," On the surface this seems
perfectly reasonable. A religious faith has a right to determine whom to allow
in its various rites, including marriage. But there are some pitfalls here.
What about businesses owned by churches? These businesses offer benefits of
various types. Would this amendment allow a religion to deny couples'
benefits to LGBT folks who work for the businesses they own? Could religion
refuse to hire LGBT people in the businesses they own? The Overstock CEO had
better think long and hard about this. I'm sure he will.
What I find interesting is the claim by militant homosexuals that no religion
will ever be forced to perform homosexual marriages, they just want "equal
rights." The same thing was claimed in England and now there is a suit in
the British courts by two homosexuals that will force churches to perform
homosexual marriages. I'm sure the World Court will side with these men,
since it's in the interest of social fairness. Guess, what?
This is coming to a place near YOU.
Fine if Johnson wants that assurance, but no church has ever been compelled to
marry anyone it deems not compliant. The LDS Church uses the temple recommend to
do so. The Catholic Church refuses to wed a man and a woman when one is divorced
only civilly or has “perpetual impotence to have intercourse”.
It’s Canon Law. No contest.Dabakis is right too: divide
“marriage into a civil ceremony for all couples, and, if they choose, a
separate religious rite performed in a house of worship.” That’s
the way it’s done in most countries around the world: only civil marriage
is legally valid. That civil marriage must precede any religious wedding, which
is seen as an optional ceremony to “solemnize” the event, not a
legal marriage. The church can refuse that ceremony if it deems the union
Forcing religious institutions to marry homosexuals WILL be a goal in the near
future for the LGBT agenda because they will claim discrimination from a
religious institution they may belong to.
Religious imperialists have been pushing the envelope of liberty and propriety
for generations, and now it is coming back to bite them. We must be tolerant
when they whine and express naive outrage as their hegemony is deconstructed.
Public opinion has shifted. The law won't force churches to perform gay
marriages, bad PR will.
Douglas Kmiec says it is unlikely that churches will be forced to provide same
sex marriage. He's probably right. But if you asked people 30-40 years ago
if we'd have gay marriage at all, they would have said unlikely, but look
at what has happened. You just never know any more these days what the future
will bring. We should have passed a US constitutional amendment against gay
marriage when we had the chance. That chance is now long since passed.
never purchased anything on overstock brfore, i will now. thanks!
I find it interesting that so many are interested in preserving "religious
liberty" and yet no one seems to be interested in preserving
"religion". Just an though - in twenty or thirty years down the road we
will find ourselves with many constitutional amendments and laws preserving
things like "religious liberty" and no one who is interested in
religion. Perhaps we might want to re-examine the focus of these seemingly
Nothing like creating a law for something that doesn't exist, what a waste
of time and energy . It seems more like a veil attempt to draw publicity to his
company and collect money for other purposes. A wedding ceremony is only a
religious experience for those that choose to do so. Marriage is still a civil
union that require you to get a marriage license from a government entity, you
then have the option to pick what kind of ceremony you want, be it church,
Justice of the Peace, or a Las Vegas wedding chapel. Nothing requires churches
to preform wedding ceremonies.
JimE, when have you ever heard a liberal say a church needs to do anything
within the limits of it's ecclesiastical functions that it doesn't
believe in, much less perform marriages they don't condone? Churches only
bump into secular authority when they step outside their ecclesiastical
functions and operate in the secular world. They may believe they have an
obligation to perform good works in the secular world, but functioning in the
secular world obligates them to adhere to secular law even when performing good
works. No one is required to have a religious marriage and never
will, however, all marriages are authorized by the state and therefore subject
to secular law. Secular society and law is changing but no need to require
church's to do anything.
"Liberals are pushing the envelope and its going to come back and bite
them." There are more Liberals than Conservatives. The coming conflict will
be between the rich and the poor, not between Liberals and Conservatives. This
effort about making churches perform same sex marriages is ridiculous. Not one
decision, either at the Supreme Court level or at any of the Federal District
court levels has declared that a church has to marry same sex couples.NOT ONE!
This is a LEGAL issue, not a religious issue. Making and mixing it is the
religious community's answer to Democracy, for them and them only. Leave it
alone. You are losing the battle. Besides you don't support Democracy
either. Johnson is trying to gain a tax advantage saying his business is a
"religious" organization because of his beliefs. It'd amazing how
the religious right is always trying to outflank taxes to their advantage but
they want the taxpayers to foot the bill for their charter schools and vouchers.
Shouldn't the amendment include provisions for religions to also not accept
divorces, since divorce is forbidden in the bible, to not accept marriages where
the bride wasn't a virgin on her wedding night, since pre-marital sex is
forbidden and therefore marriage isn't possible for the woman who
isn't a virgin? The amendment should also include a provision that lets
churches not recognize adulterous marriages, where one or both spouse(s) was
previously married, and then divorced. I think it's really
important to capture all the correct biblical marriage rules in this amendment
and demonstrate a genuine commitment to God's word.
Jonathan Johnson need not fear that the government will force religious
organizations to conduct marriages against their will. This is absolutely
prohibited by the First Amendment.After all, no church has been
forced to conduct inter-faith marriages if it is against their policy to do
so.The LDS church has not been forced to conduct temple marriages of
individuals who are deemed unworthy.The Catholic church has not been
forced to marry individuals who have been previously divorced, which is against
their policy.No church (to my knowledge) has been forced by the
government to conduct interracial marriages, if it is against their policy.No church WILL be forced to conduct same-sex marriages if it is against
their policy.All of these types of marriages are allowed by the
federal government, at least in some jurisdictions, yet no church is required to
conduct them.Johnson's worries are groundless.On
the other hand, when a religious organization engages in commerce, then their
commercial activities must obey the laws that all businesses are subject to.
Misunderstanding often creates fear. The emotion that follows fear is anger.
Utah, filled with people who don't understand the issues involved in gay
rights are fearful. This fear is creating anger - which in turn, is supporting
bad decisions. From denying African Americans the priesthood to supporting
polygamy, bad decisions eventually give way. If this "Constitutional
Amendment" gains national attention, Utahans, again, will find themselves on
the fringes - marginalized by misunderstanding and intolerance.
I don't understand why religionists don't mind forcing their beliefs
on others, such as trying to get creationism or prayer in public schools, or Ten
Commandment memorials in public buildings, yet they chafe when they perceive
that someone is forcing views on them! What's good for the goose is good
for the gander, so to speak.The fact is, no church has ever been
forced to perform a wedding for any couple it didn't want to. This
amendment is just a way to poke gay people in the eye, and insult them.
This is a waste of time and effort. Clergy of all faiths cannot be compelled to
officiate at weddings out of sync with their convictions, a right protected by
the First Amendment. Catholic priests refuse to perform weddings for divorced
persons. Orthodox rabbis will not perform weddings of non-Orthodox. Persons
seeking wedding officiants have no trouble finding willing clergy, secular
officials or humanist celebrants. We should be concerned about real religious
liberty problems, such as the Republican drive to force all taxpayers to support
religious private schools through vouchers or tax credits schemes (which Utah
voters twice rejected), or the Republican drive to limit women's rights of
conscience with regard to abortion. -- Edd Doerr, President, Americans for
Religious Liberty (arlinc.org)
I haven't shopped at Overstock since the CEO called Utah voters stupid for
not approving vouchers.
Despite what the well-meaning attorneys say, I will guarantee you that we will
see pressure from the LGT community on churches to perform same-sex marriages. I
do think the protection of the rights of the churches will be more binding from
laws on a federal not state level (look what happened in California). That being
said, the protection of religious freedom is already in the constitution
although many interpret it as freedom from religion than freedom of religion,
and there is a huge difference.
Everyday new words are made up. Why can't one of the new words be
"Pairage" it would mean uniting of any two individuals. Why do we have
to change the definition of a word that has been around forever. Gay used to
mean to be happy and cheerful , now it's a lifestyle. Let's have
"Pairage" for any two individuals who want to be united lawfully.Then
there doesn't have to be one side winning over the other. Everyone can be
happy. Let's try to show the world we can be supportive of each other even
if we don't agree.
The First Amendment gives you the right to freely practice your religion. Guess
what, it also give me that same right. When you legislate your religious
beliefs into law, you violate mine.Religious liberty in no way
grants you the authority to violate the civil rights, or religious rights of
others. Personally, I don't want a church marriage, but I DO
want to marry my partner of 15 years. Why would I even want a bigot to perform
the ceremony?And no, Johnson, marriage is not just a "state"
issue; I am a Citizen of the United States of America and am a RESIDENT of Utah.
As a Citizen of the USA, the Constitution guarantees that legal contracts in
one state are recognized in others (marriage is a legal contract). How would you feel if you were married, divorced, married, divorced, married,
divorced every few hours as you drove across the country?
"Equal protection seems to be unbounded and, speaking politically, it feels
like what’s fair always wins over what might be right," Here, Johnson is conflating "right" for legal. This is the essence of
the issue. Those who oppose gay marriage keep confusing their
'belief' for what is legal. Gay marriage may not be in line with
one's religious or moral beliefs, but those beliefs are not a basis for law
with how the Constitution has been written and organized. It's
not a matter of politics as Johnson states, it is, as he later admits, an issue
with the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law. So long as marriage
offers legal rights and privileges which other legal contracts offer (and I
would go so far as to suggest the Brown v. Board standard, in that the very act
of separation proves inequality) marriage cannot be denied to any citizen of
Why would you want to be married by an institution that doesn't condone
your lifestyle, habits or beliefs? This is yet another proof that the gay
community doesn't want rights... it want's acceptance.
A lot of things were once "common sense", but now are under tremendous
assault. I would say this kind of law is necessary to hold the line, providing
true "common sense" in a world that lacks it. And lest you
claim that gay rights are just like the civil rights of 1964, I disagree. The
civil rights of 1964 were meant to protect people based on color of their skin,
a completely innate characteristic of their genetics. That puts them in a
different category than homosexuals. Science has not proven that this
homosexual BEHAVIOR is unavoidable and an unavoidable genetic TRAIT. It's
not the same. The scientific literatute in mixed on the subject of
homosexuality. Billions of people have lived celibate lives.The
great misperception that the GLBT community has somehow got us to buy into is
that they are born homosexual with no chance of ever practicing abstinence.@HutteriteI don't see how protecting a churche's rights
that are being slowly but steadily eroded and were once "common sense"
is putting the church higher than the government. Nave you read the first
amendment. It is proper and wise as it is written.
Just another mean spirited lame message bill, except this one will do nothing
but cause ill feelings. Its like passing a law that says the sky is blue
because we say it is. The Government cannot force a religious institution to
marry anyone, not without running afoul of the constitution of the United States
and a couple hundred years of legal precedent. Has a government agency ever
successfully attempted to block a religious organization from excommunicating a
member? Any church could simply threaten to ex any member seeking to wed a same
sex partner and be done with it. Oh and @ute alumni - I've
used overstock occasionally. Now I wont. Thanks
"What I find interesting is the claim by militant homosexuals that no
religion will ever be forced to perform homosexual marriages, they just want
"equal rights." The same thing was claimed in England and now there is a
suit in the British courts by two homosexuals that will force churches to
perform homosexual marriages."You keep bringing this up and
either fail to recognize or willfully refuse to admit that the Church of England
is the STATE SPONSORED religion. Its supreme governor is the Queen of England
and exercises her power over the church via the Prime minister and
parliament.This is in no way similar to anything that could happen
here in the US. Marriage equality is the LAW in England, thus the STATE
sponsored religion is being asked to follow the law by which is is governed.
In 1967 the Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. It
wasn't until eleven years later that the LDS Church changed its policy and
allowed African Americans to have temple marriages. In the meantime nobody
attempted to force them. At some point my conservative friends need
to come to grips with the fact the majority of Americans accept Gay Marriage. I
don't think we should be wasting the time of the State Legislatures to
create yet more message bills when there is so much work to be done.
From the article: "Religious liberty advocates also point to instances of
private businesses being penalized by the state and the courts for not
accommodating same-sex couples because it would violate the owners'
religious beliefs."Jesus said, "In everything, treat others
as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the
prophets."If these owners are Christians, why doesn't it
bother them to act in a manner contrary to what Jesus taught?"In
everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you."When they violate Jesus's teachings, aren't they violating their own
religious beliefs?"In everything, treat others as you would want
them to treat you."When they go to a business as customers, how
would they want to be treated?
Good grief. Is gay marriage really that scary?
Here is the final word on religious rights (or what SHOULD be the final words).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . " (First Amendment).I cannot at the moment think of more appropriate words to sum up the current
disputs! "make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That is
EXACTLY what will happen if we do not take measures to protect and defend this
amendment and protect religiouse rights. A family member, quite
intelligent and 50% of another race lives here in the U.S. precisely because we
have a constitution that does protect rights of conscience. She questioned why
we have to fight for things that are already in the constitution. I guess there
will always be those who defend the constitution and those who don't.
Hence the need for people who believe in it and will fight for it at all times
For starters nobody ever said religions would have to perform same-sex marriage.
SSM is all about the same rights as traditional marriage.Second, I will
never buy anything from overstock again.
Should we wait until it is an issue to try to make it a law? Once it's an
issue, it becomes much more difficult to fight against. Of course we
aren't seeing major problems with it yet, but this law would be a
preventative measure to protect the religious rights of the churches. - Just
wait until people are suing because they were discriminated against because
their church wouldn't perform their marriage for them, or because their
ceremony wasn't allowed on their church's property or in their
cathedral or church that they had always dreamed of marrying in...etc. - I see
that happening very soon if we don't take precautions against it. - If you
read some of the previous comments, you will see that there are already those
who think church's have no right to deny performing that ceremony.
If the LDS Church can't be forced to marry inter-faith heterosexual couples
in one of their Temples or if any religion can't be forced to ordain women
as priests, what makes it possible to force any religion to marry homosexual
couples. Even under the guise of equal protection, religions have special
privileges that negate equal protection. Or maybe Mr. Johnson is for getting 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'
If the LGBT community is really going to "pressure churches to perform
same-sex marriages", what makes you think that a new law is going to stop
Overstock has their constitutional rights (freedom of speech) to further their
political agenda. I have the same constitutional rights not to patronize such
establishments and I will no longer support Overstock!
"...Johnson is crafting a proposed amendment that would prohibit requiring a
religious organization to "solemnize, officiate in, or recognize any
particular marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of its
beliefs,..."------------Ahmmm, as pointed out
previously in other comments, it seems this is already covered by the 1st
Amendment.I must admit I am worried about the tendency of some
Supreme Court justices to consider the Constitution as something they can
interpret to suit their own agenda as they either play loose and dishonestly
with the language and/or intent to try and amend it in ways not allowed. So,
perhaps Mr. Johnson is worried enforcement of the 1st Amendment may be
sufficiently distorted as to effectively disappear.If that is the
case then I guess I share that concern. But, I think the chances are very
remote.I also think that crafting an amendment to the Utah
constitution in an attempt to safeguard a provision in the U.S. constitution
would be woefully inadequate. After all, if a Supreme Court can nullify the 1st
Amendment, how difficult would it be to overrule one in Utah?
@Mainly Me --You said: "The same thing was claimed in England
and now there is a suit in the British courts"As has already
been pointed out, this is because the Church of England is -- guess what -- the
STATE church of England.Now aren't you glad we have separation
of church and state?@very concerned --You said: "And
lest you claim that gay rights are just like the civil rights of 1964, I
disagree. "Coretta Scott King: "I still hear people say that
I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should
stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind
them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin
Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and
sisterhood for lesbian and gay people..."The Rev. Al Sharpton:
"I believe in equal human rights, before the law, for all human beings, and
race, gender, disability, class or sexual orientation should not be a factor
under the law. "
There are two separate issues here: the first is should religions and their
houses of worship be required to recognize and accept homosexual marriages. My
opinion is absolutely not. Religions should not be forced by law to
"solemnize that which they find objectionable" within their houses of
worship nor by their clergy within their duties as clergymen. However, the
second issue is should businesses owned by religious individuals or religious
organizations be allowed to circumvent anti-discrimination laws on the basis
that they find homosexual marriage objectionable. My opinion again is
absolutely not! Religions and the religious should not be allowed to
discriminate in their government sanctioned business operations. If we allow
discrimination based on sexual orientation, then where do we draw this
"allowable discrimination" line? Do we allow businesses to discriminate
against Italians, women, the poor, etc based on the business owners religious
beliefs? Allowing businesses to discriminate based on religious beliefs is a
door we do not want to open.
This is the most insipid bollocks ever. No marriage equality measure has EVER
required ANY religion to perform ANY marriage. Stop forcing your
religion on everyone else. Ever wonder why more people are leaving Mormonism
than their army of missionaries can recruit? THIS IS WHY!!!I've
boycotted Overstock for years because of their ridiculous politics. This is just
one more reason to not do business with them.
DABAKIS has it right. I have advocated for a very long time that the government
needs to get the heck out of the marriage business. marriage has been viewed
historically as a religious institution and the government has usurped control.
In reality, let the states issue couples both hetero and gay a certificat of
civil union. which grants all LEGAL rights currently obtained by marriage. With
that civil union certificate the LGBT community gets the government sanctioned
recogniciton they want / deserve. Then let the religions practice
the concept of marriage according to the tennants of their own faith. if a gay
couple cannot get married in their church let them find one where they can and
get married there.
"No sane person that I know of wants to coerce or force any religion to
perform any ceremony that they are not comfortable with."Since
when are politics sane?Why do DN moderators clearly censor by
content rather than "civility" (and why are the top comments a
regurgitation of anti religion sentiment, when there are more rational and
@Contrariuser Quoting the Rev. Al Sharpton does not really help your
cause.Is equating skin pigment with sex organs really "sane"
or merely an example of the insanity of popular culture - and an example of why
the proposed law has value?Overstock has my business from now on. -
it takes a brave man to confront politically correct insanityIronically the moderator will censor this post because I used the exact same
language as the Democratic chair did in his quote - which is apparently not
"civil" when reflected back
Gay marriage and the Church of England:"On July 17, the
U.K.’s same-sex “marriage” bill became law, meaning that,
beginning next year, same-sex couples — who can already obtain civil
unions — can become married in England and Wales, though not in Scotland
or Northern Ireland.The legislation allows churches and other religious
groups to conduct wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples at the church’s
discretion, though the U.K.’s established church, the Church of England,
is barred from doing so."
I say, "Go for it!"
@Counter Intelligence --"Quoting the Rev. Al Sharpton does not
really help your cause."Ehh. I was merely showing that leaders
in racial equality do see the parallel with gay rights. Doesn't really
matter whether you like the guy or not."Is equating skin pigment
with sex organs really "sane" or merely an example of the insanity of
popular culture"Civil rights applies for groups that are defined
by many different criteria. Equal rights for women is certainly defined by sex
organs. Equal rights for members of minority religions is defined by belief.
Equal rights for the handicapped is defined by physical or mental injury. Why
should it matter what the defining criterion is? They are all joined by their
battles against discrimination."Overstock has my business from
now on. - it takes a brave man to confront politically correct insanity"That amendment is a stupid idea. Churches are already protected from
having to perform gay marriages if they don't want to. Proposing a
constitutional amendment is just political theater.And remember,
many churches are already happy to perform gay marriages anyway."Ironically the moderator will censor this post"Guess
How does one create an amendment that cannot be turned on its head? The article
says:"A proposed amendment that would prohibit requiring a
religious organization to 'solemnize, officiate in, or recognize any
particular marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of its
beliefs.'"Muslims and others in other countries practice
polygamy. If we cannot force them to solemnize same-sex marriages, how can we
stop them (after such an amendment) from marrying a man to four wives?
There are many who will argue that such a law would not be necessary. But this
issue is already surfacing in other parts of the world. I suspect quite
strongly that one of the agendas has always been to force all religions to
accept gay marriage regardless of their various doctrines. Society, by and
large, is accepting gay marriage. The major hold out seem to be some religions
which consider same sex marriage and homosexuality in general, to be a sin. It
therefore becomes essential that religions be forced to accept the life
style.I think this is a very important piece of legislation. I
think it will become quite telling how many people rise up to object to this as
being unfair. How dare anyone have their own opinions, standards and beliefs.
Even religious leaders have said that marriage is a secular institution and that
religion should stay out of it.Martin Luther, for example:"No one can deny that marriage is an external, worldy thing, like clothing
and food, house and property, subject to worldly authority, as the numerous
imperial laws that have been enacted on the matter prove" ("On Marriage
Matters")."Therefore, because marriage and wedlock are a
worldly business, it does not behoove us pastors or servants of the church that
we should establish or govern anything of them, but we should leave it to every
city and land to act in this according to their own custom and tradition"
("A Marriage Booklet for the Simple Curate").John Calvin
said, "[Marriage] is a good and holy ordinance of God. And agriculture,
architecture, shoemaking, and shaving, are lawful ordinances of God; but they
are not sacraments. For in a sacrament, the thing required is not only that it
be a work of God, but that it be an external ceremony appointed by God to
confirm a promise. That there is nothing of the kind in marriage, even children
can judge" ("Institutes of the Christian Religion", IV, XIX).
This argument was the key in the LDS church's campaign on CA prop 8: that
it would cause churches to be forced to perform gay marriages which is a
shameless lie. If a State allows clergy to officiate marriages, then
the clergy is now acting on behalf of the State and therefore should not be
allowed to discriminate. This would be akin contracting out a public service,
like say, the DMV, to a private company which would then turn around and refuse
to issue driving licenses, to oh, I don't know, Asians?The
government can't discriminate. And any private citizen vested with the
authority to carry out a public service is not allowed to discriminate
either.Having said that...are churches allowed to issue marriage
licenses? Or are people required to show up at a town hall or whatever to get
those? Because if they are...then tough. You have to perform gay weddings too,
or have that authority stripped from you.
Another solution in search of a problem.
This is pointless. We already have the !st ammendment to the US Constitution
granting freedom of religion.
Sad, yet another company knocked off my 'shopping from' list.
This is really a non-story. The consequences of the Civil War have finally come
to full fruition. The 50 states are merely provinces, and cannot do anything
that the federal government does not apporve of. Any amendment to the Utah
constitution that offends anyone with enough money and power at the federal
level will result in the Supreme Court rejeting the amendment itself.In short, no governing body in the U.S. actually has an effective constitution
any more. There is only the federal one, and it has very nearly cesed to exist,
since anyone unhappy with unsonstitutional acts of the federal government needs
hundreds of millions of dollars ot sue for redress. File the state constituion
next to the bylass and deed restrictions of your local subdivision.
I would support this proposition. Go Jonathan Johnson ! Even though churches
aren't compelled to marry "everyone" , I can see a lawsuit coming
our way sooner than later. I believe Jonathan is just trying to be proactive on
the issue before it comes to that.
very concerned wsays;Here is the final word on religious rights (or what
SHOULD be the final words). "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . "
(First Amendment).-- Thank you. My religious beliefs say that
same-sex marraiges are perfectly fine. Do you support my religious rignts too?
Or just your own? BTW, have you ever tried to change your own sexual
orientation? It isn't something you choose."Religious
liberty advocates also point to instances of private businesses being penalized
by the state and the courts for not accommodating same-sex couples because it
would violate the owners' religious beliefs."--- What
would you say if these business owners refused to service Mormons because they
believe Mormons are a cult?@ulvegaard;How dare anyone
want to be treated equally to every other American. It's so unseemly.
Nothing in any proposed law would FORCE any religious group to marry gays in its
own religious ceremony. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't
exist. Why bother?
To "kolob1" you are wrong. According to Gallup polling conservatives
make up 42% of the population to liberalism's 21%, the remaining are
undecided or moderates.To "JeffreyRO555" divorce is allowed
in the bible, and there are specific reasons for divorce.You have
some hatred of religion, which shows in your attack on established religions
wanting to have their point of view taught in schools to counteract the Secular
Humanist views that your ilk are pushing.To "RanchHand" the
Constitution also says that the government can't just search your
belongings without a warrant, yet we now have a NSA center collecting all of our
digital data. The constitution also says that if it isn't specifically
mentioned in the constitution it is not allowed by the Federal Government, that
means SS, Medicare, the ACA, and so many other programs are not legal. If you
believe in the constitution, you either believe in all of it, or none of it.This isn't equal treatment. This now sets a precedent of
redefining marriage is about who you love, nothing more. You can no longer deny
polygamy, as long as it includes multiple adults who love eachother.
"Dabakis would want to propose the possibility of dividing marriage into a
civil ceremony for all couples, and, if they choose, a separate religious rite
performed in a house of worship."Double duty the government.
Make it bigger. Hire civil people to marry everyone. We have unlimited
resources...just expand the government some more! If we run out of money
we'll just charge everyone to get married. LOL
@Red --"You can no longer deny polygamy..."Here
we go again.Of course you can still deny polygamy.1.
Roughly 15 countries already have gay marriage -- and NONE of them have
legalized polygamy.2. Canada recently reaffirmed their polygamy ban
-- even though they've had gay marriage for 10 years.3.
Multiple court decisions in the US have already reaffirmed the distinction
between gay rights and both polygamy and incest.4. It's also
very useful to note that the countries which do have polygamy are generally
**opposed** to both gay rights and equal rights for women. In fact, concepts of
civil rights are pretty much antithetical to the practice of polygamy. So if you
oppose polygamy, you should actually SUPPORT civil rights for all. ;-)5. The essential difference between polygamy and gay marriage lies with the
harm principle. Governments have a legal interest in preventing polygamy because
polygamy conveys a significantly increased risk of harm to women and children.
In contrast, gay marriage does not. In order to be legalized, groups
must show BOTH that legalization would protect their equal rights AND that
legalization would not increase the risk of harm to others. Polygamy fails that
To "Contrarius" why do you want to go there again. Last we did this,
you ended up conceeding that just because people oppose it now that eventually
it could be accepted, just like interracial marriages or gay marriage.You still have yet to prove that when groups enter into polygamy voluntarily,
and are not part of a religious group that has teachings that are harmful, that
polygamy is the harming agent and not the religious teachings. So far the only
studies that are ever published have looked at polygimist groups that have
assigned marriages.If you want to go into the whole harmful thing,
then you will have to again conceed that gay marriage should be banned because
there is more violence involved gay relationships than in hetersexual
relationships.Why do you not want to be fair to people that happen
to love more than one woman and women that want sister-wives? Why are you
bigoted towards polyamorous relationships?
@Redshirt1701 --"...you ended up conceeding..."Baloney, Red. I still have most of those posts -- and as you very well know, I
said no such thing."You still have yet to prove...."Fortunately, I don't need to prove any such thing.As
Judge Baumann stated in the Canadian case:-- "The prevention of
[the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children,
especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial," -- "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."".then you will have to again
conceed that gay marriage should be banned because there is more violence
involved gay relationships than in hetersexual relationships."As
I've already shown you -- more than once -- it is NOT true that there is
more violence involved in gay relationships. In fact, even the papers YOU cited
actually state that violence is roughly the SAME in both types of
relationships.Keep trying, Red. Try for more facts, less fiction.
To "Contrarius" prove that polygamous relationships are harmful, without
using a study that involves the Warren Jeffs style religion. Just because a
judge thinks it is harmful does not mean that it is. His analysis of polygamy
was based on the religious sect, not on polygamous relationships outside of that
group. Read "Parsing polygamy with the ‘Sister Wives’ family on
one side and anti-polygamists on the other" in LV Weekly.Again,
if harm was a legitimate reason, then the government should also ban no fault
divorce because it not only harms families, but also is bad for the environment
(2 houses instead of 1, etc...)If polygamy is the bad thing, show me
the studies (not a judge's opinion) where it is bad, and is not the
religion that is harmful.As for the violence, according to UCLA, gay
relationships are more violent. See "Lesbians More Prone to Partner
Violence Than Gay Men" They find that 28% of gay relationships experience
violence, compared to 17% of hetersexual relationships.Again, where
are your studies showing that polygamy is bad? So far all you have are bigoted
opinions by uninformed people.
Redshirt continues to drag out the red herring.Polygamy is
irrelevant to same sex marriage, and has nothing to do with this article.
"They find that 28% of gay relationships experience violence, compared to
17% of hetersexual relationships."So RedShirt, it would seem, is
arguing against all forms of marriage. If his argument is that something should
not be allowed because it is harmful to others then what is the difference
between 17% and 28%? Why the random distinction? Both groups harm others. Where
was the line drawn? 18% 20% 25%? And why? It is allowable to harm 17% of people
but not 28%? Seems arbitrary. And I am sure that if the numbers were reversed
RedShirt would not be calling for an end of heterosexual marriage. On polygomy, it has rather surprised me that Mormons are so bitterly opposed
to its legalization, after all, if it was legal Mormons could practice their
religion as it was meant to be. And if polygomy is so destructive then why did
Mormon church leaders claim it was God's plan? Why would God gave been so
off on what he wanted his people to practice?
@Redshirt1701 --"As for the violence, according to UCLA, gay
relationships are more violent...."Red, I do wish you would
learn to READ the studies you cite.The "study", actually
titled "California Health Interview Survey", included "physical or
sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner, including spouses,
companions or casual friends." As I've explained to you previously,
this large group of people often includes previous STRAIGHT relationships --
both sexual and non. Gay and lesbian people often do try to "go
straight" at first, and these straight relationships may very well become
violent. As one large Canadian Social Survey stipulates: "The reader is
cautioned that it is not known whether gays, lesbians or bisexuals who were
victims of spousal abuse were in a same-sex or a heterosexual relationship at
the time of the abuse."And another essential point: All of these
studies are talking about LGBT NON-formalized relationships, NOT marriages. In order to have any relevance for gay **marriage**, you'd actually
have to prove that the violence increased AFTER MARRIAGE. Your
supposed data doesn't even prove that UNmarried LGBT relationships are more
violent -- and it says absolutely **nothing** about married ones.
@Redshirt1701 --"prove that polygamous relationships are
harmful"Hey, I only get 200 words!There is WAY too
much data on polygamy to cover, but here's just a few good resources for
you:1. UN Report of the Human Rights Committee (HRC) 2007-2008 --
polygamy is "a practice which is an affront to women’s dignity and is
incompatible with the Covenant" and "highly detrimental to women's
rights"2. UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) -- "Polygamy violates the dignity of women. It is an inadmissible
discrimination against women. Consequently, it should be definitely abolished
wherever it continues to exist."3. Polygamy in Canada: Legal and
Social Implications for Women and Children -- this one is a 280 page tome with
tons of details and references for you to peruse, available free on the net.4. Polygyny as a Violation of Human Rights Law -- part of a research report by
the Canadian Department of Justice -- this one also has a lot of references for
you.5. A Comparison of Family Functioning, Life and Marital Satisfaction,
and Mental Health of Women in Polygamous and Monogamous Marriages -- one
research study out of manyThse should get you started!
To "A Scientist" polygamy has a lot to do with gay marriage. If you can
redefine marriage for gays, why is it wrong to redefine it for polygamists?To "mark" don't ask me, I am not bitterly opposed to
polygamy. I don't think I would want to practice it, but as often happens,
it is the first wife that tells the husband it is time for another wife.To "Contrariuser" those are nice reports that are based on
opinion, eurocentric biases, or have to do with the religion and culture of the
region and not polygamy itself. For example, one of the documents has to do
with violence against women in Algeria. Another case dealt with arranged
marriages. That is a muslim country where it doesn't matter if they have 1
or 10 wives, it is the religion that perpetuates the violence. All of the
studies out there use groups that view women as little more than cattle. Again,
where is the study that shows that polygamy is bad? Everything you have
presented uses groups that historically are violent towards women. It is like
saying everybody in the US has dogs when studying people at a dog show.
@Redshirt1701 --"those are nice reports that are based on
opinion, eurocentric biases, or have to do with the religion and culture of the
region and not polygamy itself."Oh, Red, that's not even a
good *attempt* at a rebuttal.The first two sources are United
Nations human rights documents. They represent the legal conclusions of the UN
Human Rights Committee and the **International** Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights(notice those words, UNITED Nations and INTERNATIONAL Covenant). These are
not mere "opinions" or "Eurocentric biases", and they do not
just refer to one religion or one culture. In fact, as of January 2013, more
than *150* countries have signed on to that Covenant.The second two
were written in Canada. So what? As I already mentioned, they have many many
details and references between them, covering cases and data from many different
countries -- including the US.And the fifth was, as I mentioned, a
single (and well-known) research study. There are many more out there -- but, of
course, I only get 200 words per post. Try actually READING those
Canadian documents. THEN get back to me about supposed "biases" or
supposed "religious" or "cultural" limitations.
To "Contrariuser" did you even read those UN reports that you quoted.
They either looked at muslim dominated nations or looked at polygamy in muslim
families practicing polygamy in Canada. You still have the common factor of
muslim polygamists. Muslims are not known for treating their women and children
very well, so if you rely only on studies on polygamy involving muslims, you
will get a heavy bias towards harm and dissatisfaction.From "A
Comparison of Family Functioning, Life and Marital Satisfaction, and Mental
Health of Women in Polygamous and Monogamous Marriages" we see that their
their entire sample included "A sample of 352 Bedouin-Arab women
participated in this study: 235 (67%) were in a monogamous marriage and 117
(33%) were in a polygamous marriage." again, using muslim women who
typically are mistreated.All of the studies that you have found are
like going to a battered women's shelter and doing a survey on marriage
satisfaction. You are not going to find many happy people there.Try
again. See if any of the anti-polygamy studies include people like the family
on Sister Wives.Keep looking to find that study that doesn't
include cultures that mistreat women.
Redshirt1701 "polygamy has a lot to do with gay marriage. If you can
redefine marriage for gays, why is it wrong to redefine it for polygamists? Is it really redefining it, or just bringing it back, since we already
had polygamy and I'm pretty sure they called it marriage back then, and
I'm pretty sure they still do in small conservative religious communities
across the west.But your whole argument is just a distraction from
the actual story.How many black folks or mixed race couples was the
LDS church forced to perform during those year when there was that
misunderstanding about doctrine vs tradition?
@RedShirt --"did you even read those UN reports"The International Covenant isn't a "report". As I've already
explained to you, it's actually an international treaty that has been
signed by more than **150** countries worldwide."They either
looked at muslim dominated nations or looked at polygamy in muslim families
practicing polygamy in Canada."No, Red. Again, you obviously
still haven't *read* those documents. Try again."their
entire sample included "A sample of 352 Bedouin-Arab women participated in
this study: 235 (67%) were in a monogamous marriage and 117 (33%) were in a
polygamous marriage...."Yes! Notice: they compared polygamous
**and** monogamous families **in the same culture and religion**. This is what
we call a "controlled" study -- meaning that the researchers
**controlled** for the effects of religion and culture. That means that any
differences they found were solely due to **polygamy itself**.Many
other studies on polygamy have been conducted in the same way -- to
**eliminate** the effects of religion and culture in their analyses. Please, Red -- **read** those documents before you pretend to know what's
in them. And while you're at it, look up definitions for controlled studies
-- since that concept is obviously confusing you.
To "Contrariuserer" I did read them. Everythign you have referenced
from the UN was based on looking at muslim women. Again, you are going to a
women's shelter trying to find happily married women. Come back
when you have a report or study where they looked at something other than muslim
women or women in cultures of abuse.
When I got married in Utah I had a civil marriage at the court house to make our
commitment legal. We are non-believers...atheists in that we don't believe
in any gods! God was put into what should have been a civil or secular ceremony.
I guess I'm not really married after all! Utah (and all states) need to
exclude God from its civil ceremony because government is not a church. If a
person wants a religious ceremony...get your civil license and get married
however you want....but no government official performing marriage should be
able to perform a religious ceremony. There is little separation of Church and
State in Utah. That judge had no right to assume we believed in God and our
ceremony should have been a secular worded ceremony. Religion needs to stay out
of supposedly secular government.
@Red --"I did read them."If you had actually
read them, you would already realize that the Canadian documents actually
include studies, data, and/or legal cases about polygamy from more than 50
different countries (I stopped counting at 50), encompassing several different
religions (including Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, tribal religions, and
others) -- and obviously many different cultures as well.Additionally, if you had actually looked up the definition of "controlled
studies", you would also already understand how researchers control for the
effects of religion and culture when studying polygamy within a single country.
You would be wise to look this concept up before you post again -- it's a
fundamental concept throughout the world of scientific research.As
for the UN Covenant -- more than 150 countries have already signed onto this
treaty, which declares fundamental human rights principles that are to be
accepted **worldwide**.But hey -- if you want to declare that all
these studies and all those countries are wrong just because you say they are,
you go right ahead and do that. Just don't expect anyone to take you
To "Contrariusiest" the "studies" are not really controlled, nor
do they discount the effects of religion.Maybe you should read those
studies more carefully next time. The Canadian studies that look at polygamous
marriages, only look at legal issues outside of the muslim religion. The
closest they come to any actual study of group that has a love based polygamy is
they say there could be problems, but never bother to actually see if there are
any problems. Again, the focus of the research is in communities where women
are treated poorly.I am still waiting for a non-biased study where
they look at women and children from a culture where violence and abuse of women
and children is not the norm.Keep on trying. So far we have learned
that marriages in muslim families are abusive, and the same can be said for
Fundamentalist Mormon groups. However, even when you remove the plural
marriage, those groups are still in abusive marriages.
@RedShirt --"the "studies" are not really controlled,
nor do they discount the effects of religion."Refer back to my
earlier post. If you want to declare that all these studies and all those
countries are wrong just because you say they are, you go right ahead and do
that. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. The facts are very
different than your claims.Tell us, Red -- exactly HOW are those
studies "not really controlled"? Please be specific."The
Canadian studies that look at polygamous marriages, only look at legal issues
outside of the muslim religion."Wrong again. As I earlier
stated, those documents (they aren't "Canadian studies", Red, they
are reviews of the international literature and reports on it) include studies,
data, and legal cases from many different religions."love based
polygamy"Whatintheheck is "love based polygamy"?"I am still waiting for a non-biased study where they look at women
and children from a culture where violence and abuse of women and children is
not the norm."Polygamy very rarely, if ever, even *exists* in
"cultures where violence and abuse of women and children is not the
norm". That should tell you something.
To "Contrariusiest" the studies are "controlled" because they
control what groups they are studying. The groups that they study can only
result in a biased conclusion based on their pre-conceived ideas.Again, you are going to a battered women's shelter looking for happily
married women. I don't think that you will find many of them there.Here is how you know that they are biased against polygamy. In the
Canadian study they mention that there are groups of polygamists that marry out
of love. The fact that they don't bother to go into those communities.What you should be asking is why didn't the Canadians or the UN
study the groups of polygamists that get married out of love instead of for
religious reasons.Are you going to find the research that looks at
polygamy outside of cultures that are harmful to women and children, or are you
going to hold onto a biased study?
@RedShirt --"the studies are "controlled" because they
control what groups they are studying. The groups that they study can only
result in a biased conclusion based on their pre-conceived ideas."Back to school for you, Red. That is NOT what "controlled study" means
-- and that is NOT the result one obtains from conducting a controlled study.Keep trying, Red. I can't post links for you, but just
google "controlled studies" and "case-control studies" and
you'll find tons of educational links to lift you out of your ignorance.Then maybe you can actually answer the question. Exactly how are these
studies "not really controlled"? Please be specific. "Are you going to find the research that looks at polygamy outside of
cultures that are harmful to women and children, or are you going to hold onto a
biased study?"You are the only one who thinks of these as
"biased" studies, Red. If you want to declare that all these
studies and all those countries are wrong just because you say they are, you go
right ahead and do that. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
The facts are very different than your claims.
To "Contrariusiest" anybody who thinks that studying only groups that
are violent towards women and children will result in finding positive aspects
about marriage, polygamous or otherwise is seriously lacking in scientific
understanding.I dare you to find a study that looks at a polygamous
group that is not violent towards women and children. All your studies have
given us is examples of how violent cultures are violent regardless of how many
wives a man has.These studies that you hold so dearly all remind me
of the studies that Tobacco industry doctors did to find any link between
smoking and cancer. The studies they did were "controlled" just like
the ones you keep quoting, yet were they right?
@RedShirtMIT --"anybody who thinks that studying only groups
that are violent towards women and children will result in finding positive
aspects about marriage, polygamous or otherwise is seriously lacking in
scientific understanding."Red, you obviously still don't
understand what controlled studies do. Please educate yourself.
To "Contrariusiest" you still fail to recognize the simple fact that
while they claim to have a controlled study, it is simply a biased study using
groups of people that had the highest possibility of giving them the results
they desired.A controlled study only means that there was a control
group for comparison, it does not account for factors that will result in a
bias.Again, you have study done in a women's shelter filled
with battered women, and are seeking to find women that are happily married.
You could have a controlled study, but the result is still biased.Please explain why you trust a study that was so heavily biased?
@RedShirtMIT --"it is simply a biased study..."Nope. You still don't understand the concept of controls. I'll explain again.In controlled studies, you pick two sets
of people who are as alike as possible. If you're studying issues like
polygamy, then they should have the same culture, religion, and so on. They
should live in the same places and mingle together in society if possible. All
the people should be alike, EXCEPT for the single characteristic you want to
study -- in our case, polygamy vs. monogamy.Once you have your two
sets, then you compare them and look at the effects of that one defining
difference. Since they all have the same culture and religion, you can NOT blame
the effects you find on culture or religion -- they all have the same. If your
polygamous group has more abuse than the monogamous group, you know that it is
due to the difference in marriage -- because there are no other defining
differences. You have *controlled* (eliminated) other differences.Again: how are these studies "not really controlled"? Please be
specific.And another question: exactly what factors do you think are
resulting in bias in these studies? Please be specific.
To "Contrariusier" you have failed to explain how the study is not
biased.You are wrong in your assesment for controlled studies. For
a controlled study you have one group that has the attribute that you want to
look at, and a second control group that does not have that attribute.The studies that you quoted were looking for problems in polygamous marriages,
and only looked at groups where the religion ix violent towards women. They
then attributed the problems that the religion causes to marriages to
polygamy.You may not like it, but that is what those studies have
done. IF they wanted to take an honest look, they would look at polygamy in
groups that marry for love, not because it was arranged that way.