I wish utahns were more for liberty and freedom and more against big government
and wasteful spending at the state level.
God bless the Attorney General in upholding this truth! We'll be praying
Why isn't a civil union "good enough"? Marriage has been between
men and women for thousands of years. No one ever said it was discriminatory
until about ten years ago. If those who perpetuate a belief in alternative
lifestyles as a separate way to express ones sexuality, why not have an
alternative to marriage to go with it? I am not afraid of what my neighbor does
behind closed doors, that is their business...but forcing others to accept gay
marriage is wrong. We all know where this path will go. What happens when the
Catholic Clergy,LDS Clergy, Jewish Clergy etc. refuse to marry a gay couple on
their own fundamental beliefs? Or what will happen when a religious organization
refuse to allow a gay couple to be married on their property? They will be sued
for discrimination, as it has always been done. If you don't think this
will happen, look at the lawsuits in other states where gay marriage is the law.
It's strange that some people want to redefine marriage to suit their
lifestyle. They don't seem to care that same-sex marriage is not a
"right" defined in the Constitution; therefore, it is a "duty"
left to the States or to the people. The people of Utah defined marriage as the
union between a man and a woman. That is part of our State constitution. Sen. Jim Dabakis should know something about the Utah Constitution, if
not, why is he serving in the Utah State Senate? Why would he, of all people,
defend something that is unconstitutional in Utah? Why does he want to change
marriage? Who gave him that right when 66% of the people of Utah said
otherwise? Would he approve of bank robbery as an alternate way to finance the
necessities of life just because a very small percentage of the population
believed that they were bank-robbers and that they had a right to the
necessities of life? Some things were established by people with
much great insight and authority than a Senator. Our Creator knew what would
bring happiness to his children. Same-sex marriage was not on His list.
Don't like it? Move to a state that does. Simple.
Between a man and a woman,
@trueconservative "Why isn't a civil union "good
enough"?"Utah's Amendment 3 doesn't permit
same-sex marriages, and it also forbids anything else (i.e. civil union) that
confers any of the rights of marriage to gays and lesbians. The amendment is
obviously motivated by animus, and is obviously unconstitutional.Even if Utah permitted gay civil unions, they would qualify as "separate,
but equal." Separate, but equal laws have been unconstitutional since 1964.
We are all children of our Heavenly Father. He loves us. He wants us to be
happy. There is only one path that happiness can be found on. Call it what you
want, win the political battles all you want, tear down and destroy all the
social standards that have existed before you, and fully reject believing in
God, or a God that you don't dictate morality to at very least..Do whatever you want with your agency.But you can't choose
whether God exists.You can't choose His doctrines.You
can't choose His actions. We all must return to God to be
judged for our choices. No one can escape this.While we are prone to
flaw, His ways are just and fair, despite our understanding of His laws.The truth has been told and you either accept it or not. But those of us
who have lived sinful lives (in one form or another) and returned know both
sides. We know the gospel is true.You can't define truth. You
can only choose to accept it or not. Happiness is only obtained through
obedience to God's commandments. I know.
@truecongood question why don't those that appose same sex marriage
just start having civil unions, then they can call it what ever they want within
their religion?@mikke same sex marriage was not own your
religions list/ its funny how some many claim to know what god is thinking and
how seldom god disagrees with them no matter what the subject or their position
@Mike Richards "...some people want to redefine marriage to suit their
lifestyle. They don't seem to care that same-sex marriage is not a
"right" defined in the Constitution."Marriage has been
defined by the Supreme Court to be a fundamental right; in fact, they've
stated as much in almost 20 decisions.In their response to the
lawsuit, Utah's attorneys concede that marriage is a Constitutional right,
but then claim that marriage between same-sex partners is NOT a right.
They'll need to prove that there's a compelling state interest to bar
GLBTs from the fundamental right to marry the person they love (rather than an
opposite-sex partner). I think they won't be successful in proving such a
Denying gay couples to wed is a violation of religious freedom...considering the
fact that religious and civil marriages are different institutions. The biggest
reason why gay couples are being denied to get married is because major
religions regard homosexuality as a sin. Contrary to this, the First Amendment
of the Constitution states that...an individual’s religious views or lack
thereof must be protected. If gay couples decide to forego church weddings and
instead, have a civil union, the government needs to adhere to their request.
State marriages are a secular activity. Just because religion depicts otherwise,
does not mean the government should make such laws. Most experts and religious
leaders agree religions will not be forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies.
Many willing will though.The main foundation of the United States is
the concept that the majority should rule, however, the rights of minorities
should also be protected. This is the reason why the Bill of Rights was
established along with equal protection and anti-slavery amendments.Marriage is the union between a couple who love one another. Utah will be
forced to separate its church from its state to allow gay civil gay marriage.
Mystery solved. Now I know why Utah is so heavily one party. Do you really feel
empowered or just a bystander? We need a system where the majority decide the
kind of government we wanton all issues. Why should we be forced to have
such limited option? The overwhelming majority of Utahns support the ban and
they should be simultaneously allowed to support non Republican policies in
other matters. Abandon the Party system or just be pawns to be acted upon.
I live in a state where elected public officials chose to refuse to do their
sworn duty to uphold, protect, and defend the state's laws and
constitutions. State and federal courts all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court
supported these officials in their malfeasance and dereliction of duty, and in
essence ruled that the voters are not entitled to legal representation.Not all states have governors or attorneys general who flout the law and
ignore their duties. Some officials do take their responsibilities seriously, do
believe they have a duty to defend the laws of their state, and do not abuse
their public offices to undermine the will of the people. Thank you, Utah.As for the issues involved being so personal to some folks, consider how
personal the traditional definition of marriage is to so many people. And
consider the "seeming detachment" and even cavalier dismissal of those
personal issues by those who support the radical redefinition of one of human
civilization's basic institutions.
@california I think it must be a case of the grass is always greener
because I was just thinking I wish my state attorney would not waist my tax
dollies defending an amendment that is doomed to fall.
@ Californian: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal
laws, state constitutions, and state laws cannot violate the US Constitution -
no matter how big the majority is that supports the violation.
Can we just love one another without pointing fingers and condemning others?
Are we protecting the traditional definition of marriage where one man marries
one woman? Then they divorce and a couple years later he marries another woman.
And then they also divorce and eventually he marries wife number three. And
they also divorce. So finally he gives up on marriage altogether and just
shacks up here and there. We wouldn't want gay marriage to endanger all
those traditional hetero marriages.
re:E.S."Can we just love one another without pointing fingers and
condemning others?"YupI don't know why people
are gay or what makes people gay, but I trust that God will sort it out. In the
meantime He commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and my gay
neighbors are wonderful people! So, that is what I'm striving to do.
@JoggleSince when did homosexuality become a religion?It
is not a religion, and to say that it is a far stretch.You talk
about minorities having rights, and then you say that Utah will be "forced
to separate its church from its state to allow gay civil gay marriage." Your
logic seems fuzzy to me . . .Marriage is between one man and one
Truthseeker"I don't know why people are gay or what makes
people gay, but I trust that God will sort it out. In the meantime He commanded
us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and my gay neighbors are wonderful
people! So, that is what I'm striving to do."And that is
the reason to support their equality before the law.Greater love
hath no man than this: that he lay down his prejudices to give his friend
It seems the more the issue of Gay Marriage is discussed, the more people
support it. There is a clear majority in favor of it already and its only a
matter of time before it becomes an overwhelming majority. The State of Utah
can't just tell LGBT people move someplace else. Its time to let go of old
@Kalindra: The Constitution is the law of the land and the 10th Amendment of it
states that anything not covered in the Constitution is left to the states to
decide. This is not a violation of any amendment or any article of the
Constitution. This is perfectly legal and how it should have been dealt with in
the first place and not left to the federal government to decide. It should and
always should have been a state-by-state decision...
@QuercusQate"Even if Utah permitted gay civil unions, they would
qualify as "separate, but equal." Separate, but equal laws have been
unconstitutional since 1964."Yes, but these laws referred to
race issues not sexuality. Race is something that one can not change. There is
no great research that has been done on sexuality that isn't skewed by the
left or the right. No one can seem to answer my question...Have we really been
discriminatory for thousands of years....I don't think so! No one can tell
me that for thousands of years we have been wrong on this issue. Families with
both a man and a woman have been the norm for eons of time, I think it has
worked rather well for society. I really don't believe that it is time to
@Sorry Charlie-Why should a man and a woman be forced into a civil union.
Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for thousands of years
now. Why rock to boat on something that has worked so well for society for so
Well they how about equal rights for those who choose to practice polygamy?
"We don't mean to step on anyone's toes..."Well
they're definitely stepping on my toes, and many other Utahn's toes.
We obviously don't want it. They get mad at us for imposing our beliefs on
them, but that is exactly what they're doing to us. If gay marriage becomes
a constitutionally protected right, it will destroy freedom of religion, which
is exactly what our country was founded upon.
A ScientistThat's not what the scripture says, don't even
twist the words.Homosexuals do have equality before the law. They
have every single right that I do, I think we are perfectly equal. They have the
right to bear arms, so do I. They have the right of freedom of speech, so do I.
They have the right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, and so do I.
It is very "equal". However, if they gain what they want, which
isn't equality, but for homosexuality to be a constitutionally protected
right, then freedom of religion is destroyed. Now I would not consider that
equality at all.
@trueTwo reasons one it has been little more then a 100 years in our
country and never has been a unversal truth that marriage is defined the way you
claim and secondly and more importantly it is you that claims that a civ union
affords all the same rights so why not?
To those of you like true conservative who claim that "marriage has been
defined as between a man and a woman for thousands of years" I suggest you
crack a book once in a while and abandon your ignorance. Until the Middle Ages,
same sex marriage existed in many cultures. For example, a same-sex marriage
between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician
municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were
married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church
wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.
"They get mad at us for imposing our beliefs on them, but that is exactly
what they're doing to us. If gay marriage becomes a constitutionally
protected right, it will destroy freedom of religion, which is exactly what our
country was founded upon."Please be detailed and specific on how
this will actually happen. How does allowing gay marriage destroy your freedom
of religion? Does this all of the sudden keep you from practicing your religion
of choice? If so, how? Personally, I think that granting gays the right to marry
will strengthen freedom of religion across our nation. All religions will have
the right to choose whether or not they will perform such marriages, just like
they choose right now whether or not they will marry couples where one or both
are not of their faith. I believe it will strengthen freedom of religion,
because it will push people of faith to live closer to one of their basic
principles of free agency, free will, or whatever term other faiths use. Why is
it so much of a challenge for us to allow others to choose their path in life?
-- "The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal laws, state
constitutions, and state laws cannot violate the US Constitution" --The "right to marriage" is not constitutionally protected. If it
were, why didn't the SCOTUS simply say so in their ruling about Prop. 8?
Why did they take the chicken's way out and limit their decision to the
narrow issue of "standing"? What better time for the highest court in
the land to declare unequivocally that being able to marry any consenting adult,
or combination of consenting adults, of any gender or combination of genders, is
a constitutional issue? Because it ISN'T, and even they recognized it
"But Utah's attorneys argue that same-sex marriage is not a
constitutionally protected fundamental right or liberty."The
Supreme Court begs to differ.From Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1
Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of
man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma,
316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)."@trueconservative --"Marriage has been between men and
women for thousands of years. "Actually, gay relationships --
including gay marriages -- have been accepted in many different societies at
points throughout history. "look at the lawsuits in other states
where gay marriage is the law."Anybody doing business must
uphold the laws of the jurisdiction in which they do business. That has always
been the law. Nothing about gay marriage will change that.@I know it
--"There is only one path that happiness can be found
on."Which path would that be? The Buddhist path? The Unitarian
Universalist path? The Anglican path?Many religious denominations
are already happy to perform same-sex marriages. How do you know their path is
@trueconservative "[Separate but equal] laws referred to race issues not
sexuality."""There's two kinds of marriage,
there's full marriage and then there's sort of skim milk
marriage"-- Ruth Bader Ginsberg, SCOTUS judge during the DOMA arguments.You can't give straights access to marriage, with all its rights,
and then tell gays they have to be content with a civil union. The same
principle of illegality of separate (even if) equal applies.If you
think gays have the same rights as heteros because they can marry someone of the
opposite sex, how would you feel if you were told you could only marry a same
sex person? And how do you feel about a gay person marrying your straight
son or daughter?
The writer failed to read the opinions by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
reversed the 9th circuit opinion for lack of standing. The DOMA was overturned
because it violated the 10th amendment stating that marriage was a States Rights
issue. Good luck getting a federal judge to rule on the issue where the US
supreme court made it a strictly states sovereignty issue. If the District judge
read the opinion he/she would have to dismiss for lack of standing.
@trueconservative: Why not call everyone who wants to join together
in a legal-binding coupleship receive a "civil union" moniker- then,
reserve the "marriage" for those who then take their "civil
union" to a religion, repeat the ceremony and now call it a
"marriage"? Make certain to give all state and federal rights to
"civil unions" as well as "marriages". This should be a terrific
resolution- after all, religion really is defined by religions and not the
@QuercusQateThe problem that Same Sex marriage creates is the fact
that by doing so it creates a problem with those who are religious. Do you force
a priest to perform a marriage that he feels is morally wrong? This would take
away religious freedom which is what our U.S. Constitution guarantees. The gay
community calls their relationships alternative lifestyles, why not have an
alternative marriage that goes with it? One that guarantees the same rights,
but does not force or coerce those who do not believe in it to perform or
patronize these types of ceremonies. This makes everyone happy. Until the
religious are guaranteed their freedoms on this issue, you will not see the
religious right move on this, especially in Utah.
If you want to get married- nothing is stopping you but the parameters
you've defined yourself within. For those who feel discriminated against-
you're driving in the opposite lane and blaming the other drivers
@tim-thetoolmanTaylorNothing fuzzy about it, but I'll clarify.
In regards to the law, it supposedly guarantees absolute freedom to one's
own religious beliefs and practices. So if one believes their God accepts them
for who they are, to place restrictions on certain practices (marriage) within
their religious beliefs would be a direct violation of their religious freedom.
But...no matter...churches will always be able to refuse to marry heterosexuals,
homosexuals, or whoever they want! It is well known that the Utah
State government is greatly influenced by the Church thus preventing secular and
civil freedoms from becoming law as they rightfully should. When religious
influence clouds the minds of law makers...civil and secular freedoms suffer.The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution cites no gender-based
exclusion when extending “equal protection of the laws” to all
citizens. A marriage certificate is a civil document issued by an agency of
government on the basis of a decision about the civil rights of two people only.
Decisions about who is married and who is not married are the prerogative of the
government, not a house of worship, a spiritual leader, or a religious
Puzzling: the more advanced and democratic countries in the world were the first
to legalize same-sex marriage and similar countries follow one by one. While
countries that trample human rights (Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uganda...) are
the most vocal to condemn homosexuality and persecute gays and lesbians. Moreover, it should give pause to Mormons that those advanced and
democratic countries are the ones that allow Mormon missionaries, while the
other countries throw them out. What kind of regime do Utahns favor?
Mike Richards said, "...They don't seem to care that same-sex marriage
is not a "right" defined in the Constitution..." First,
heterosexual marriage is not "defined" as a right in the Constitution,
either. In fact, most of the the "rights" that we have are not defined
in the Constitution, and they were not meant to be enumerated there as the sole
source of our rights. Instead, the US Constitution only protect the inalienable
rights that we ALL have. It does not grant rights. Second, those who want to
prevent same sex couples from marrying define marriage as between a man and a
woman. Further, they define the purpose of marriage as for procreation, but many
heterosexual couples get married with no intention of having children or are
incapable of having children. What same sex couples want is equality before the
law. If marriage were solely a religious institution, then each religion could
define marriage any way it wanted; but since all marriages are only legal in
civil court (you get your license to wed in a court, not a church), then ALL
people should be able to marry, whether they are heterosexual or LGBT.
Well, if a civil union is inferior to a marriage consider this scenario. If we
have SSM, then on Day 1 of SSM, two men want to get married. Who is the
husband? Who is the wife? Well neither. Their marriage certificate says,
"Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2", which is the same as a civil union.
A man and a woman want to get married. The man is the husband, the wife is the
wife. Their marriage certificate says, "Spouse 1" and "Spouse
2". The effect of SSM has not been to grant homosexuals the right to marry,
it has actually banned traditional marriage and given everyone the inferior
civil unions.So, if you don't like traditional marriages,
don't get one.
I have a hard time seeing marriage as a State issue. Whether or not it should
be can be argued, but it has never been treated as one.I married my
wife several years ago. If we move from Utah, to let's Colorado, I do not
have to remarry her to be recognized as married Colorado. That marriage seems
to cross state lines (something that has always been the purview of the Federal
Government)But what we are now saying is that a same sex couple
married in California, is no longer married when they move to Utah. You may say
"Well then don't move to Utah", it is not that easy. What if one
got a job here, or heck a military transfer to Hill AFB? Is that serviceman to
be denied his rights?Marriage is such a cultural item in this
country, it touches nearly every aspect of our lives. It may not have started
out as a fundamental right, but as the Ninth Amendment states, just because it
isn't listed in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean it isn't a
I can see this is still a heated argument, but in the end, God wins. His laws
supercede ANY that man comes up with. If a church is NOT owned by the
state, then it is a priviate institution and cannot be forced to participate in
anything that goes against its tenets, doctrines, and teachings.
@trueconservative --"The problem that Same Sex marriage creates
is the fact that by doing so it creates a problem with those who are
religious." Many religious denominations are already happy to
perform same-sex marriages. In fact, *their* religious freedom is being
infringed, because Utah declares that religious ceremonies they wish to perform
are not valid in the eyes of the law.@Tekaka --"The
man is the husband, the wife is the wife. Their marriage certificate says,
"Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2". The effect of SSM has not been to
grant homosexuals the right to marry, it has actually banned traditional
marriage and given everyone the inferior civil unions."Ummmm,
nope. You are already a spouse, no matter what words are included on
the license -- same-sex marriage doesn't change that. But, unlike civil
unions, you have all the state and federal rights that marriage conveys. And when same-sex marriage becomes legal in Utah, so will everybody
@ Wabbit: From the US Constitution:Article IV, Section 1:
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts,
records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."Ninth
Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."Fourteenth Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."States have the right to define marriage
- as long as they do not define marriage in such a way that it violates the
Federal Constitution.@ Californian: SCOTUS ruled on the standing
issue because they were following procedural rules and standing was the first
thing to be considered. If there is no standing, there is no authority to look
at the case any further. If someone with standing had brought the case, then
SCOTUS could have ruled on the merits. If Utah continues to defend, this case
will have standing.
In my limited knowledge of legal/governmental matters I will not
comment...HOWEVER, I am a citizen of the United States of America! I "shake
in my boots" when I realize that my GREAT COUNTRY OF FREEDOM has taken on an
attitude of DICTATORSHIP when the higher courts of law OVERRIDE the "voice
of the people" and make it a law that is against what the majority of
"we the people" wanted in the first place. What happened in California
is VERY disheartening. If we are ever in the position of the majority of people
wanting that which is against God I fear greatly for our country...
@trueconservative:"Race is something that one can not change."Sexuality is? Well, so is religion - you were not born religious. When
you take your religious "protections" out of the Constitution, then go
tell gay people they, too, cannot be in the Constitution. You are arguing for a
"lose-lose" situation."Have we really been
discriminatory for thousands of years....I don't think so! No one can tell
me that for thousands of years we have been wrong on this issue."For "thousands of years" marriage was about all sorts of relations
between two people and more than two people. It was church sanction and not
church sanction; government (state) sanctioned and not state sanctioned, tribe
honored and tribe ignored.Discriminating against someone (else) who
wants to marry is not the same thing as having been "wrong on this
issue."You married the person you wanted to marry and the church
and/or state recognized your choice. You asked. Someone agreed with your
choice - that was the person you married.You did not, however, ask
neighbors, strangers, voters, or anyone else about "if" you could marry
another person. And, not even your parents have to be asked about your choice.
I see a lot of people saying "the majority of the people" or "66%
voted this way"Those aren't the questions, or points that
should be brought up. The question is "is the law legal?" "does
the law follow the Constitution?" If every single American decided to vote
that it should be illegal to be Muslim, I would certainly expect the court to
strike that down on the basis of it violating the 1st amendment. Majority and
voting margins are not what's important, but whether the law is legal. The
many cannot vote on the rights of the few; otherwise the Constitution would mean
nothing.The debate should be centered on "Are these marriage
laws violating the XIV amendment?" "Is freedom of religion being
violated?" I would contend that equal protection is not being
provided to all as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Religions are still free
to practice and worship as they wish (I was still able to sacrament meeting last
weekend that was free of any gay weddings).Besides...do you want
your marriage to be decided on by a vote?
@ Tekakaromatagi, Dammam, Saudi Arabia"Who is the husband? Who is the
wife?""The man is the husband, the wife is the wife."Sorry,Charlie. We allow women drive in this country. And same-sex couples
get married here, in some states, too.Thanks. Keeping sending the
oil. Women work, buy their own gasoline. Imagine that?!
I don't think government has any business in marriage. Marriage is not a
right as defined by either the gays or the heterosexuals. When you have to seek
permission from the gov't in the form of a license, that is not a
'right'. Neither side sees this. Marriage is a three way covenant
between a man, a woman, and God. Period. All the legislation in the world
can't alter that fact. With out God, any 'marriage' is just a
civil union. If equality is the goal, get gov't out of the marriage
business, drop the marriage penalty in the tax code and the license fees and
unravel the divorce laws and payouts. Those who wish to sanctify their union
before God are then free to have that done within the boundaries of their chosen
faith. Churches who hold a secular view over a Biblical view are free to marry
gays now, but churches who hold to a Biblical world view should not be forced
under the guise of equality, to marry gays as that is a violation of their
religious freedoms clearly defined in the US Constitution.
Re: "I 'shake in my boots' when I realize that my GREAT COUNTRY OF
FREEDOM has taken on an attitude of DICTATORSHIP when the higher courts of law
OVERRIDE the 'voice of the people' and make it a law that is against
what the majority of 'we the people' wanted in the first
place."What if "the voice of the people" and the
majority of "we the people" voted overwhelmingly that every person with
naturally green hair must pay taxes at double the rate of everybody else in
their bracket, and at least $10,000 a year, no matter what their income? You
could dye your hair another color, but that would not change the fact that your
natural hair color was green, so you would still be subject to the law.Would it then be an "attitude of dictatorship" if the higher courts
overrode the "voice of the people" and declared this blatantly
discriminatory law unconstitutional, even though the decision went "against
what the majority of 'we the people' wanted"?
@Lightbearer:Hon,I answered that:"If we are ever in the position of the
majority of the people wanting that which is against God I fear greatly for our
country.."Side note here honey,I LOVE ALL people for the most part,although
I do have trouble with hurtful & violent people. My heart goes out to
anyone with a situation that has been difficult or difficult to deal with as
I've been there in a couple of areas. WE ALL HAVE, that's why
we're here, to learn.That said, I will NOT tolerate my freedom's being
taken in ANY manner. That freedom ends when ANYONE is forced to comply with
something against one's beliefs.
@Lightbearer:We know from PAST EXPERIENCE that laws that are attempting to
supposedly "grant freedom" to homosexuals(lesbians)will ultimately lead
to others being forced to comply with something against one's
belief's. One cannot be granted a freedom if that freedom ultimately leads
to another's lack of freedom. I "assume" most of the people in the
world have experienced others that refuse service or are not kind.I go
ELSEWHERE.We can't control other's personal likes/dislikes.
That's not part of the plan..
Churches and ministers will still be free to discriminate against women, gays,
and non-members, just like they do now. The First Amendment guarantees that
freedom, and if someone attempts to sue a church for not performing a same-sex
marriage, the suit would either be thrown out or would lose. Period.If such were not the case, the Mormons or Catholics would long ago have been
sued by women for the priesthood.
In all the furious conversation about whether SSM should be sanctioned, we
almost always forget one important and underrepresented population--children.
Even many in the gay community agree that the best situation for a child is with
a mom and a dad. While this isn't always possible because of death or
divorce, those instances are accidental. When we put a child in a situation
where they have no father or mother by design, that is unfair. Who is standing
up to defend their equal treatment?Anticipating the comments about
how there are already thousands of children with no mom or dad because their
parents or caregivers are in a same-sex relationship; that is not a reason to
encourage the practice. Many will argue there are some children in foster care
or who would like to be adopted that would be in better circumstances even with
no mom or dad. That may be true, but the law (and society) should favor the
situation that is best for children. So, when at all possible, we should try to
give children both a mom and a dad.When we use the word
"fair", let's not forget them.
Re:ChristmasCarole"That freedom ends when ANYONE is forced to comply
with something against one's beliefs."We live in a
pluralistic society. Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex so
how is your freedom being taken away? How is your marriage impacted? When I was in high school and worked in a grocery store, i sold beer and
cigarettes to people every day even though I am a Mormon. Later, i worked in a
hospital in Utah, and put wine on pts. trays as well as worked some Sundays.
Quakers pay even though they oppose war. Joseph Smith was murdered, in part,
because he practiced polygamy-- a very unorthodox practice. It is quite ironic
@KalindraYou are right, The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of
the Land. It does have a clause in it that talks about the separation of powers.
That clause states that certain powers are relegated to the States and certain
powers are relegated to the Federal Gov't. Who gives out marriage licenses?
Not the Federal Gov't. You get them from your County who is part of your
respective state. So, marriage is a state's responsibility so Prop 3 is
Re: "I 'assume' most of the people in the world have experienced
others that refuse service or are not kind.I go ELSEWHERE.We can't control
other's personal likes/dislikes. That's not part of the plan."What "plan"?As I have said before, I don't
understand why a Christian businessperson would refuse homosexual couples
service. Jesus said, "Judge not." If a business owner refuses service
because he thinks the couple is sinful, isn't he judging them?Jesus said, "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat
you." I repeat, "in everything." How does a business owner want to
be treated when he goes to another business as a customer? Does he want to be
refused service because the proprietor doesn't like his looks or his
morals?Jesus was criticized for being "a glutton and a drunk, a
friend of tax collectors and sinners." Would a Christian business owner
refuse Jesus service because he disapproved of his "lifestyle"? No?
Well, didn't Jesus also say that "as you did it to one of the least of
these my brothers, you did it to me"?
This all reminds me of George Wallace standing the schoolhouse door.
@ morganh: States can define marriage as long as that definition does not
violate the federal Constitution.In 1967 the US Supreme Court ruled
that state laws prohibiting interracial marriages violate the federal
Constitution and are invalid. Do you disagree with that ruling? You know,
every argument used against same-sex marriage was also used against interracial
marriage - including it being against the Bible and against the best interest of
children.(Oh - and by the way - over the last five years, there have
been several stories of churches not performing interracial marriages or not
accepting interracial couples in their congregations - and there have been no
lawsuits claiming those churches have to change their doctrine.)Any
state constitution or law is valid only so long as it does not violate the
federal Constitution. You can keep repeating that states have the right to
define marriage - that won't change the fact that the state definition of
marriage cannot violate the federal Constitution."This
Constitution, ... shall be the supreme law of the land; ... anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
There are forty nine other states.Those for gay marriage are free to
go.There are places in this country I don't want to live
at,-and I don't. Why go to these places, and complain?It's a simple solution.
@CHS 85it reminds me of babe Ruth "it deja vu all over
Let's be open minded...oh, unless your opinion is different from mine. I
never worry about it that much as far as the temple goes because those are
@worfWhat about active duty servicemen who may be transferred to a
State like Utah where their same sex marriage may not be recognized. They
simply cannot just move to another State.
@Lightbearer,Honey, I only feel that a cleric has the absolute right to
refuse to wed a homosexual (lesbian) couple. I do NOT feel that ANY person
should be discriminated against for general housing,services etc. I do feel
however, that if I have an apt in MY home and someone with a same sex partner
wants to rent it I have the RIGHT to not rent it, just as I would not if someone
drank. My PERSONAL feelings are mine. A government doesn't have the right
to dictate my personal beliefs. My point was that if one refuses to wed someone
then there are other options.Hon, I admire your user name! That said do
you really want to know "what plan"? That plan,hon, was put forth in
Heaven before we were born upon this earth. Satan wanted to take our freedom of
choice away. Our Savior and the rest of us "battled" to maintain that
freedom of choice. Thus controlling another's likes/dislikes does not
"go with the plan". EVERYONE upon this earth wanted that plan. I would
battle AGAIN for YOU and anyone else to have that most precious "freedom of
@worf --"Those for gay marriage are free to go."And those against gay marriage are free to move to Russia. So what?Also, it is NOT always true that gay people who want to marry are free to
move. One obvious example is people in the military. Another example is people
who find jobs in a crowded job market -- or their partners."Why
go to these places, and complain?"Who says that everyone who
wants gay marriage in Utah moved there? You know, there ARE gay people who were
actually born in Utah. They have just as much right to equal treatment as you
One of the petitioners said, “We don't want to step on anyone's
toes, but we also really desire to have equality and to achieve the exact same
things everybody else in this state wants,”. And so what is it that
they cannot "achieve" in this state that an aberrant marriage would give
them? They live together. They get rights of a civil union.Marriage is
between a man and a woman. Just because something has four legs and a tail and
ears doesn't make it a dog
The lifestyle has a 70% depression rate. Highest STD rate, over 50% smoke and
drink, 40% use illicit drugs and over 100 sexual partners, domestic abuse in
these homes is listed at over 50%. Allowing "marriage" gives them full
equality in the courts to adopt children. Do we really want children to go into
these homes as the children that are raised in homes that have the above listed
"problems" tend to have a higher incidence of these "problems".
These are the unintended consequences that will occur.
@HemlockPlease stop with the false propaganda it does nothing to support
your cause. Not false you say? Fine site your source.
As a gay man living in a state that sanctions same sex marriage I respect the
fact that people can in good conscience disagree about this issue. But if it is
a sincere concern about faith and tradition that motivates you rather then
animus for people like me, I would like you to consider the following points:1) a civil marriage does not impact the religious tenants of Mormons, Jews or
Catholics. It doesnt even ask you to approve of my marriage. Consider me
married or don't. I couldn't care less. what I do care about is being
denied the civil rights and benefits other Americans. Being different
doesn't make me second class. 2) traditionalists may want to consider
that denying women full citizenship was a proud and millennium old practice
until just the last century. So too was segregation. I don't miss them at
all. Glad to be rid of both. 3) IMHO a religion that was once demonized
and marginalized for being different should be more accepting of people who are
not like the majority. Think about it.
Contrarius---What about the rights of those who don't want to be around it?
They aren't comfortable with it because it's viewed as evil, and
unnatural? They are the majority, and have that right.
@worf: your remark is offensive in so many ways. My civil rights are not
contingent on your approval. The constitution applies to all of us, not the
people you like. The constitution protects all minorities. We are protected from
people like you.
Bigotry is indefensible.
@trueconservative;"Race is something that one can not
change."-- Have you tried to change your sexual orientation?
I'll bet you can't."Have we really been discriminatory
for thousands of years....I don't think so!"-- We
haven't; MANY ancient cultures also allowed same-gender couples to marry.
You don't know history.@Wingnut1;You don't
want it? You don't have to do it; but you have no right to prevent others
from marrying the person they love. Also, "what scripture says"
doesn't matter - we aren't a theocracy.@trueconservative;Many GLBT people are religious; you don't
have a patent on belief in god.@PhotoSponge;Your church
can do whatever it wants in its walls; but it isn't the government and
should have NO say in whether two people who aren't member of it can marry
@Christmas Carole;I too, am an American Citizen. Does the US
Constitution not apply to me because I'm gay and "the majority"
doesn't like it?You also said: "That freedom ends when
ANYONE is forced to comply with something against one's beliefs."And yet, you want to FORCE me to comply with your beliefs, which are
against mine (that is hypocrisy). I'm not forcing you to marry anyone of
the same sex.And, since when are a person's morals up for
question when they enter a business for service? Do you get asked personal
questions by business owners when you do business with them?@worf;I live HERE. I'm not moving. I didn't realize
you were such a wilting violet and couldn't bear to be around people who
aren't like you.
Those telling gays to leave Utah, or that majority disapproval should settle
matters,or cheering your AG to keep gays legally marginalized might want to
consider your own history. Utah was founded by people fleeing the prejudice and
animus of majority populations that despised you for your religious, social and
yes, marital practices. Do you really want to be like the people who
made your ancestors suffer?
@ worf: That is called "animus" and it is not a valid reason for
limiting the rights of others. Which is exactly why part of DOMA was
unconstitutional.@ Christmas Carole: The law is very clear - if you
are renting your basement, or a room in your house, or some other small property
that you would be sharing with the renter, you have more discretion to be
discriminatory. If you are a large property owner, you don't get to
discriminate.@ 1hemlock: As has been pointed out before, no - in
the state of Utah, same-sex couples do not have the benefits of a civil union.
Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 29. "[Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be
recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal
effect."When the Amendment 3 debate was going on in Utah, it was
argued that the second clause goes too far. It may be the second clause and its
prohibition of any alternative that condemns Amendment 3 - where there is no
allowance for an alternative, Utah may have to allow marriage.
@1hemlock --"The lifestyle has a 70% depression rate. Highest
STD rate, over 50% smoke and drink, 40% use illicit drugs and over 100 sexual
partners, domestic abuse in these homes is listed at over 50%."It sounds like you've been listening to too much Faux News. Please cite
some sources for your supposed "statistics".As the CDC info
sheet on gay drug use states: "Alcohol and drug use among some men who have
sex with men (MSM) can be a reaction to homophobia, discrimination, or violence
they experienced due to their sexual orientation and can contribute to other
mental health problems."Don't blame gay people for the
widespread homophobia and violence that society inflicts on them every day.And no, domestic abuse in gay households is NOT over 50%. Homosexual
relationships actually have about the same rates of intra-relationship violence
as straight ones do. (I can quote studies on request -- not enough words left in
this comment to do so right now.)"Do we really want children to
go into these homes"Every reputable group of child-development
experts in this country SUPPORT gay marriage -- because they realize that
children grow up just fine in gay-led homes.
The purpose for promoting and strengthening traditional marriage, as opposed to
redefining it, is to fight poverty. It is society's way to say that the
best environment for raising children is by their biological parents.
We've been fighting a war on poverty in the last 40 years which has been an
expensive failure because, at the same time, society's attitudes about
extramarital sex have been moving in the opposite direction from where we should
go in the war on poverty.In one sense this overlaps with the
religious views that many have for this subject. Their concern is if
traditional marriage is a moral good then there are reasons why it is a social
good. Much like, caring for the poor is a moral good, but it is also a social
good.It would be ironic, if in its efforts to fight poverty, that
the supposedly conservative state of Utah, is compelled to accept gay marriage
by so-called liberal forces which will weakens its ability to fight poverty.The war on poverty has failed. Let Utah come up with its own solutions.
@RanchHand,So where do we draw the line?Many people are
upset with Anthony Weiner, and I'm sure he could make the same case as
gays.Those who received Anthony's pictures were offended.
Those who are not guy are equally offended with it. Where do you
draw the line?
@worf --"They aren't comfortable with it because it's
viewed as evil, and unnatural? They are the majority, and have that
right."Actually, they don't have that right -- and they
aren't the majority.Segregationists felt the very same way that
you do, back in the 60s. They survived the progression of civil rights, and so
will you.And if you *really* don't want to be "around
it", you are free to move -- as you yourself noted earlier.And
no, folks like you aren't the majority. Multiple nationwide polls have
shown that the majority of US citizens now SUPPORT gay marriage.@Tekaka --"the best environment for raising children is by
their biological parents."Every reputable group of
child-development experts in this country SUPPORTS gay marriage -- because they
recognize that kids grow up just fine in gay-led homes.By all means,
work to encourage traditional marriage. Gay marriage will do NOTHING to harm
it.If you want to encourage commitment and stable families, you
should be supporting people who are fighting to **create** those stable
families. You are shooting yourself in the foot by fighting against them.
@Tekakaromatagi;So it isn't worth strenghthening gay families
and keeping them out of poverty? We exist too, you know (the word you're
looking for is bigotry).@worf;Oh come on! There are
currently LGBT couples around you and you already see them regularly. WHAT
difference will it make to you if they're married instead of just being
together? You're still going to see them. And to your point, should we
remove all church buildings as they offend many of us as well. The word you
seek is "tolerance".
@Contrarius:"Every reputable group of child-development experts
in this country SUPPORTS gay marriage -- because they recognize that kids grow
up just fine in gay-led homes."It is possible that they support
it because they don't want to end up like OSC?But we are
digressing. Government support of traditional marriage gives it a special
status which promotes the view that men should be responsible for their
procreative actions. It sends a message to the culture. If we define
everything as a marriage and every arrangement as a family, then the kind of
marriage and familes that we are trying to promote loses its special status.Consider this issue. We give special benefits to veterans that
non-veterans did not receive. Non-veterans did not want to become veterans so
they do not get the benefits that veterans receive. By this new definition of
discrimination, non-veterans are second class citizens who are being
What a shame that Utah, a state I've lived in and loved for 48 years,
continues in so many ways to interfere in the lives and lifestyles of those not
in the majority. Economic development, huge in the state's efforts to
anticipate doubling and, probably, quintupling of in-state population, will
surely be hurt in the long run. How could it be otherwise where acceptance,
equal human rights and benefits, the Golden Rule, and what in the middle ages
was called "lovingkindness" are all clearly marginalized?
The psychologist Gordon W. Allport, in his 1954 classic The Nature of
Prejudice, said "Nothing is easier than to twist one's conception of
the teachings of religion to fit one's prejudice." Ouch.
@Tekakaromatagi --"It is possible that they support it because
they don't want to end up like OSC?"Ummm. No.They support it because they work with and/or study children every day, they
have vast expertise in child development, and they know that kids grow up just
fine in gay-led homes.Most of them probably don't even know who
OSC is."If we define everything as a marriage and every
arrangement as a family, then the kind of marriage and familes that we are
trying to promote loses its special status."No.Broadening the definition for committed relationships only allows more people
to experience the benefits (and responsibilities) of those relationships. Increasing the number of stable, committed relationships is never going
to be a bad thing.Gay people WANT to commit. If you are serious
about encouraging commitment, then you should SUPPORT them."We
give special benefits to veterans that non-veterans did not receive."False analogy.Gay people in committed relationships are
doing just as much to deserve marriage benefits as any other infertile couple
is.It's coming. Get used to the idea.
@Really?It would destroy my religion because of being homosexual became a
constitutionally protected right, then priests would be forced to marry
homosexuals because it is a constitutionally protected right. LDS would have to
let gays into their temples. If this were to happen, every temple in the USA
would be shut down. It's just like how a priest cannot deny someone from
being married just because they are black, because being black is a
constitutionally protected right. If being homosexual was a constitutionally
protected right, then priests would have to marry homosexuals, and there are
many more religious issues than just temples and priests marrying people. If the
temples were shut down because being homosexual was a constitutionally protected
right, then that destroys freedom of religion.
Not all, but much of the problem, are people coming from other states, and
wanting to whine and change things.We have the same problem in
Texas. Many come from economic ruined states of California, Michigan, and New
@ Wingnut1: Do a google search on "interracial couple not allowed to
marry." Google "black couple not allowed to marry."There are numerous stories about churches refusing to marry black or
interracial couples. There are zero stories about those churches being sued and
forced to change that.Your comment is not accurate. Churches in Massachusetts are not forced to marry gay couples.There is no reason to think this will ever change and history supports the
idea that it won't.
Re: "LDS would have to let gays into their temples."How many
black people did the government force the LDS to let into their temples before
1978?How many black people has the government forced the LDS to let
into their temples since 1978?How many white people has the
government forced the LDS to let into their temples?How many non-LDS
has the government forced the LDS to let into their temples?How many
LDS without recommends has the government forced the LDS to let into their
temples?How many members of the LDS church has the government forced
the LDS to give recommends to?How many heterosexual marriages has
the government forced the LDS to perform in their temples?How many
homosexual marriages has the government forced the LDS to perform in their
temples in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and
Washington state? (Gay marriage is legal in those states.)To all the
above I'm guessing the answer is "none."Why would that
suddenly change if gays were allowed to marry nationwide?
I think some people need to read up on logical fallacies. There are numerous
websites to help us all understand the problems with our unfounded arguments. I
especially like the following fallacies: appeal to tradition, appeal to adverse
consequences, slippery slope, and bandwagon fallacy.On another note,
somebody mentioned they were going to follow the higher law--isn't that
higher law called love?
Can the Mormons in Utah really say that marriage has ALWAYS been between one man
and one woman? They should restudy the history. Polygamy (one man multiple
woman) was not abandoned until September 25, 1890 by the church. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young practiced polygamy. I look forward to
watching the church hang itself on this issue - Proposition 8 was a PR nightmare
for the church.
@trueconservative"Why isn't a civil union "good enough"?
"Because it's a derogatory label used to insinuate that
what they have is somehow lesser than what other couples have. "What happens when the Catholic Clergy,LDS Clergy, Jewish Clergy etc.
refuse to marry a gay couple on their own fundamental beliefs?"Presumably what has happened in Massachusetts... nothing, because churches
have that right. Now a state official issuing marriage licenses, that's a
different issue, but private churches can marry who they want. @Mike
Richards"Why would he, of all people, defend something that is
unconstitutional in Utah?"It's unconstitutional to invade
privacy rights but that doesn't stop pro-lifers from pushing through all
manner of things that have been struck down in the courts. @FDRfan"We need a system where the majority decide the kind of
government we wanton all issues."Majorities should not be
allowed to use that majority to trample the rights of others.@WabbitSeason"This is not a violation of any amendment or any
article of the Constitution. "It violates the equal protections
clause of the 14th Amendment.
Can we move on from this issue now, and maybe talk about feeding the hungry,
taking care of the sick and needy and just being more charitable in how we treat
One problem we need to ponder is Humanism - a 1963 sanctioned religion. One part
defines God and religion as whatever a person thinks is so. If she thinks she is
a he then it is so.The LGBTI agenda promotes this
philosophy/religion and calls upon lawmakers to codify it. In one school in
Massachusettes a boy who decided he is a girl wanted to take girl's PE with
locker room privileges and sued the school district, and won. When
"she" is old enough to marry and "she" finds "her"
prince charming - a male - "she" will be covered by Utah Law that reads
"marriage is between a man and a woman." Sorry, folks but we are going
to have to stand strong against transgender equality.