@ Cindy: You state, "I believe our founding fathers were inspired by their
Creator when they wrote the Constitution. This document wasn't written just
for their day it was written for all time. When we take something that is plain
and simple and change it to meet our wants, that is when we open a whole can of
worms."You then state, "Also, the Bible states that it is
marriage between a man and a woman."Have you actually read the
Constitution? If you have, you will understand why the second half of your
comment is ironic when compared to the first half of your statement.It is unconstitutional for Congress to make laws respecting (favoring) the
teachings of a religion. It is very plain language. A law cannot be made to
prohibit something just because some religions consider that something to be a
sin. There must be a non-religious reason for the prohibition.If
your religion preaches against drinking, smoking, getting a tattoo, or having a
same-sex relationship, that is their right - and you get to choose to follow
those teachings. But you cannot demand the law favor those teachings by
prohibiting those activities.
Cindy Ayres says:"People have a right to live how they wish to
live, but when they try to make changes to law to enforce it on all people there
is something wrong."--Is somebody trying to force
you to marry someone of the same sex? No? Then nobody is trying to
"enforce it on all people". On the other hand, by changing the law and
legislating that marriage can only be one-man/one-woman, YOU are
"enforcing" your beliefs on others. That, Cindy, is what Jesus referred
to as "hypocrisy" (and he had a lot to say about hypocrites).BTW; The USA is not a theocracy. Whatever the bible says is irrelevant.
@Cindy --"Also, the Bible states that it is marriage between a
man and a woman."1. This country is not a theocracy. Your Bible
doesn't get to decree how the whole country will live.2.
It's natural that the Bible only talked about marriages between men and
women. In Biblical times they didn't have any sort of reproductive
technology, nor even much in the way of adoption. The Bible talks about things
that were relevant to people living in that time period.But since
you're so focused on the Bible, here's a passage for you to think
about. When Jesus was talking to his disciples about marriage, the
disciples asked him if every man should marry a woman. Jesus specifically listed
three classes of men who should NOT marry women.He said:
""For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs
who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to
live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept
this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:12) And guess who those
"eunuchs who were born that way" are?;-)
I believe our founding fathers were inspired by their Creator when they wrote
the Constitution. This document wasn't written just for their day it was
written for all time. When we take something that is plain and simple and
change it to meet our wants, that is when we open a whole can of worms. Also,
the Bible states that it is marriage between a man and a woman. Is that
difficult to understand? Apparently. People have a right to live how they wish
to live, but when they try to make changes to law to enforce it on all people
there is something wrong.
I remember when I was trying to decide if I was gay or straight (as it's
clearly a choice). It was a 50/50 possibility of which one I would choose. I
decided I wanted to be married so I chose to be straight.At least
that's what I'm supposed to believe. That it's somehow a
choice.The sooner society treat homosexuals with the respect they deserve,
the better we'll be. Gay marriage harms absolutely no person. There is no
good reason to violate civil rights and stop gay marriage.
@ cjb: Children don't have that now - and allowing same-sex marriage will
not create any situations that do not currently exist - they will just allow
those in those situations who also happen to have homosexual parents to have the
same legal protections as children with heterosexual parents.
That said, .. a child should have a mother and a father. not a father and a
father not a mother and a mother.If homosexual marriage is allowed
it should not interfere with this.
@ Mike R: I would like to introduce you to the Ninth Amendment: "The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people."As you are so
fond of stating, the Constitution limits what the Federal Government can do and
rights are inalienable and are not given to us by government but exist in spite
of government.The Ninth Amendment clearly states that just because a
right is not mentioned by name in the Constitution does not mean the right does
not exist.The Tenth Amendment clearly states that powers not
prohibited to the states or the people belong to the states or the people.
Since the Constitution does not prohibit states or the people from defining
marriage, they have the power to do that. The Constitution does
require states to treat similarly situated people the same. This would be the
Article IV, Sections 1 and 2, the Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth
Amendment.You may disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings that say you
are wrong, but that won't make you right.
@George F & Mike R;I'm sorry that you're unable to
understand that "all" citizens means ALL, not just those you agree with.
Mike R;No matter how much you twist the Constitution to
fit your ideas, it will never say that it is okay to deny some citizens the
rights that YOU ENJOY.
First off, there's no child requirement to get married. Secondly, Utah
allows single gay people to adopt so you're all hypocrites on the children
needing two parents thing anyway.
@Mike Richards --""No person can use the Constitution to
"prove" that they have the right to marry someone of the same-sex or
someone of the opposite sex."Multiple SCOTUS courts have
declared marriage to be a civil right. For instance, in Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) -- "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)."Notice that the rulings cited ranged from 1967 all the
way back to 1888. I seriously doubt that all of those justices really needed to
be thrown out of office. ;-)"The Article 4, Section 2 is also
being "twisted"."States already recognize marriages from
other states, even when those types of marriages aren't permitted within
state borders -- for instance, first cousin marriages in states that don't
permit them. Do you really want to tell all those married cousins
that they are no longer married, simply because they crossed state lines?
Kei:"While not every couple has children, every child has a Mom
and a Dad. Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces” children from
one of their natural parents." I am really sorry but you should
be more worried about all the "divorces" which occur from your so called
"traditional" families. Straight people have done an abysmal job at
marriage and rearing children. Stop picking on SSM marriages and their
children. Your claims of protecting children are "hollow" at best and
laughable at least.
Those who twist the Constitution to "prove" that it supports same-sex
"marriage" would twist any document to "prove" their point. The 14th Amendment speaks about a person in the singular context, i.e.
"no person". It says nothing about "marriage". It says nothing
about what constitutes "marriage". It says nothing about the sexual
orientation of those who want to "marry" each other. The
Article 4, Section 2 is also being "twisted". If it is read properly,
it will show that citizens who break the law are subject to being delivered to
face punishment in the State where that crime was committed.Marriage
is NOT defined in the Constitution. No person can use the Constitution to
"prove" that they have the right to marry someone of the same-sex or
someone of the opposite sex. Any judge who twists the Constitution in an effort
to justify political correctness to any special interest group should be removed
from office. The Court cannot legislate. The Court cannot "make up"
"If I am able to convey a message that softens even one heart towards the
benefits and blessings of family life, then I have helped make one home
happier." We proponents of gay marriage could not have said it better!
@Kei --,"Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces”
children from one of their natural parents. "That's
ludicrous.1. biological children from previous straight
relationships -- already lost one parent when a previous relationship broke up.
Denying gay marriage won't give them that parent back.2.
adopted children -- already lost both parents when they were given up, or their
parents died, or the state removed them from previous homes. Denying gay
marriage won't give them their parents back.3. In vitro
fertilization -- wouldn't even *exist* if the gay couple hadn't made a
conscious decision to "create" them. The father often isn't even
KNOWN (sperm bank), much less available for parenting duties.4.
surrogacy -- again, wouldn't even *exist* if the gay couple hadn't
made a conscious decision to "create" them. The birth mother has no
intention of raising that child as a full time parent.Marriage does
not "divorce" the child from its biological parent in ANY of these
cases. Gay couples are not stealing children from happy stable
straight homes. That is merely paranoia, hysteria, and homophobic propaganda."Decades of research" show that children do best in stable homes
with two parents, REGARDLESS of gender.
@ George F & RanchHand: Actually, the SCOTUS DOMA decision is based on the
due process and equal protection principles of the Fifth Amendment. The decision
goes on to state, "... the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth
Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the
better understood and preserved."@ Tekakaromatagi: Many adopted
children seek their biological parents. Using your reasoning we should prohibit
adoption. We would also need to prohibit divorce and single parenthood. Without
these additional bans, your argument against same-sex marriage is not logical.
No two marriages are exactly the same. To say that same-sex
marriages are different than heterosexual marriages and therefore should not be
called marriage is equivalent to claiming that trees with needles are different
than trees with leaves and therefore one of them is not a tree. Just because
they have differences does not mean they are not the same genus.
Would somebody please explain to me how allowing homosexuals to marry would in
anyway be a threat to my hetro sexual marriage.
I keep running into news articles or encountering people who grew up without
either their mother or father and they were angry that they had didn't have
that parent. Most recently, I read about someone who went up the Orinooco river
to an indian tribe living in the jungle to find his mother who was from that
tribe. If, we as a society, stop saying children have the right to a mother and
a father, we have to be prepared for the fallout.We can legally
redefine marriage and then pretend that two men or two women who marry are the
same as a husband and a wife. That is a delusion.If it doesn't
walk like a duck and if it doesn't quack like a duck, then it isn't a
To Ranch Hand : Sorry, your narrow interpretation of the US Constitution
doesn't work for me. Please show me where the US Supreme Court has upheld
same-sex marriages under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.
@the truth;There are over 1100 legal benefits associated with legal
marriage. Those "protections" are the ones referenced. If the law
provides benefits to opposite-sex couples it MUST provide the same benefits to
same-sex couples. That is "equal protection" (and you know that very
well).Does getting a marriage license allow the government into your
bedroom? If not, why would it allow them into ours? Your reasoning is faulty
in that regard.I'd prefer the government regulate marriage
rather than religion. There are just too many differences amongst relgious
groups to manage the issue properly.@samhill;"The
perfect is the enemy of the good".@Kei;Same-sex
marriages have been around for millenia. Please review some real history
(Native American, Chinese, Italian, Greek, among others). Provide references
for your "decades of research"; most honest research indicates that you
Children need emotionally, physically, and economically stable homes. They need
a nurturing environment and consistency. Same sex marriage has been
legal in MA for nearly 10 yrs now. How are things going?
@ Kei: Not every child has a mother and a father - some children have donors.
Nadya Suleman's kids for example.What you present is a false
dichotomy - no child being raised by same-sex parents is in a situation where it
is same-sex parents or heterosexual parents. The question is
married parents or unmarried parents. Even without same-sex marriage, children
are being raised by same-sex parents. Why deny those children the stability of
While not every couple has children, every child has a Mom and a Dad. Same-sex
marriage automatically “divorces” children from one of their natural
parents. In addition, same-sex marriage has only been legal in the
entire world since 2001, and in the U.S. since 2004. In social science terms,
that’s pretty new. So new that there hasn’t been enough time to
show how it affects children in the long run. On the other hand, decades of
research show that children do best with a married Father and Mother in the
I'm a BIG fan of diversity and recognize the benefits of having the diverse
parentage of both a father (male) and mother (female) perspective in a
child's life.That is the optimal environment for nourishing
people both spiritually and socially, but, sadly, not the one in which many
children are raised.Despite the fact that we'll probably never
achieve the ideal of having every child raised by loving mothers and fathers,
like many other ideals, it's something we should always strive for.
@RanchHandAll the amendment talks about is equal protection, meaning
a law created must apply to all or it is protection to all.Which law
is not being applied to you? Please state the specific law.More
importantly, why do you want the government involved in your marriage, and by
extension your bedroom?Would not be better to get the government out
of the marriage business altogether? What business is it of theirs is it the
first place? Get them out and you and/or your church can do what
ever they please, now that is true freedom unlike more government involvement
and entanglement.If a law is created the gives benefit to married
people over single people and vice versa, then that law should be ruled
@George F;Article 4 - Section 2 -"The Citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in
the several States."Amendment 14 - "... 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."Could
you please indicate where it says: "unless the citizen is a homosexual"?
I'm having difficulty finding that clause.
When he makes one family happier! Do any of you know the kind of pain you
inflict on a gay person beginning with their childhood? I remember my Dad
holding my hand. I was a child and I can't remember exactly what sparked
the thought, but i knew I was different! For years I have longed for spiritual
talks with members of the Church, but because of their belief in who I am, they
turn away or they tune me out! When we try and tell people that we are not what
they say we are, we are accused of attacking the Church or person we disagree
with. We are not animals. We are aware of ourselves and God! Family! Would one
of you please tell me when I haven't been a part of a family! I will tell
you when! It is when you don't want us there! We have always been a part of
the family. So many years of pain that never had to be but because others have
to know more, they inflict the pain. Thank God I wasn't born into some of
these families! My parents love their gay children!
Two observations:1 - If the anti-equality folks now base their hope
on "courageous judges" (read "activist") who "act on the
large body of evidence" for denying SSM then, I'm sorry to report, but
SSM is inevitable. If that truly is the best argument from opponents of
equality, it is only a matter of time, even in Orem. 2 - Until
opponents of equality can unequivocally point to specific evidence indicating
that SSM has a net negative affect on families then they cannot call themselves
defenders of the family. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Indeed, as noted
by Justice Kennedy in the Prop 8 case, there are roughly 40,000 children in CA
whose parents were denied full citizenship and legal protections under the
then-effective ban on SSM. So, if we're actually keeping score, that would
be 40,000 specific instances of the UFI et al being anti-family just in one
state Multiply that across the nation and there is only basis to label these
people anti-family; their overt goal is to deny certain families the right to
exist, there is no other way to describe them.
"to retain a policy that recognizes that children are entitled to be raised
by a married mother and father." -- Duncan."If I am able to
convey a message that softens even one heart towards the benefits and blessings
of family life, then I have helped make one home happier" -- SoelbergAy-yai-yai.When will these people learn? Gay
marriages do NOT steal children from happy stable heterosexual homes. The
children being raised by gay couples do not have any happy stable heterosexual
homes to go to.Gay couples are already raising children, with or
without marriage. Gay marriage will not change that.Gay marriage
builds families. Anyone who cares about happy stable families should SUPPORT gay
marriage.I am continually flummoxed by the willful blindness of
people like these.
@spring streetAnd even if it did, one could just use similar averages in
studies to justify taking children away from poor or minority households which I
would hope nobody is advocating...
From the article, "'The other possibility is that courageous judges,
acting on the large body of evidence favoring the concept of marriage as the
union of a husband and wife....'"Except for the fact that
no such body of evidence - large or otherwise - exists. If you have
to distort the truth to prove your point, perhaps there is a fundamental flaw in
the point you are trying to prove.All any study has proven is that
stability is good for children and that involved parents are better for
children. There is no study that shows that the gender of the
parents matters. (Before you cite the Regnerus Study, keep in mind
that the problems he found were in unstable households (divorced parents who had
never remarried) and very few of the participants in his study actually lived in
a home where there were two same-sex parents - occasionally, the parent that had
a same-sex relationship was the non-custodial parent so the child never lived
with them at all. Regnerus himself has stated that his study should not be used
to determine the validity of same-sex marriage or parenting.)
To RanchHand: To the best of my knowledge, the US Supreme Court has never
upheld same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection Clause.
It's not inevitable, but it is a good idea, so let's get on with it.
May I introduce the Sutherland Institute and UFI to the US Constitution;
specifically the Equal Protection clause?It seems they've never
read the document.
"We know our movement is doomed, but we really can't bring ourselves to
If the interest is in promoting family life then stop trying to tear down