@cougararesstill1 --"Actually, no, it is up to you to prove that
it is the same. "Nope, sorry.When the Utah attorneys
go to court to defend the amendment to the Utah amendment, they must attempt to
prove that gay marriage does harm. Gay marriage is innocent until proven
guilty.They have, of course, completely failed to do so."And government has to pick what it supports by science."Yup.And every court that has ruled on gay marriage so far has made
note of the continued failures of attorneys to prove any harm done by gay
marriage."science shows that a male and a female are required to
create children. "Yup. And as multiple judges have already
noted, procreation is not a requirement for marriage."After
that, a two-parent - male and female - household"Nope. Science
has NEVER shown that a male-female household is better for children than a
same-sex household.If you want to deny a right to someone, then you
have to prove harm. And nobody has been able to prove any harm from same-sex
Actually, no, it is up to you to prove that it is the same. Years of studies
and preponderance of the evidence is on the side of a heterosexual marriage.It's a nice game - "prove it's not" - but it
doesn't fly.And government has to pick what it supports by
science. What government knows is science shows that a male and a female are
required to create children. It can rank how they are best cared for financially
and emotionally, too. Science says a man and a woman in a legal marriage. After
that, a two-parent - male and female - household, then probably same-sex couples
and single parents. Adoption should not be denied to any of these others because
it is always better than foster care, orphanages and the streets.Government supports what science shows provides the best result for the
children. Government doesn't - or shouldn't - care about
"love." Government isn't in the "love" business. It is,
however, in the business of protesting children and ensuring that it does not
have to be burden with the financial care of children - hence a primary basis of
marital law. Another is disposition of assets.
@cougarsare1 --"But now you deny the science of those
studies?"Of course not."They studied
relationships between man and woman. There is no evidence that the same strength
and effect would be there with same-sex couples."Sure there
is.Those benefits have to do with stability and commitment and
shared resources. None of those factors are exclusive to male-female
pairings.If you wish to claim that same-sex pairings would be
fundamentally different in their effects, then it is up to you to supply the
evidence."Further, what was a stabilizing factor in those
marriages? Children. Where do these children come from and in what setting are
they best provided? All of your studies point to the same thing: marriage
between a man and a woman."Many many gay couples are already
raising children, with or without marriage.And no study has ever
shown that children do worse in stable gay households than in stable straight
households.Again -- if you wish to claim otherwise, it's up to
you to provide the evidence.So far, nobody has been able to do so.
But now you deny the science of those studies? They studied relationships
between man and woman. There is no evidence that the same strength and effect
would be there with same-sex couples.Further, what was a stabilizing
factor in those marriages? Children. Where do these children come from and in
what setting are they best provided? All of your studies point to the same
thing: marriage between a man and a woman.The government should seek
to shelter that which is proven over decades of research and hundreds of studies
to be best for society. The evidence simply is not in favor of same-sex
@cougarsare1 --"And in those studies, what types of marriages
were examined? What was the relationship between those couples?"You said "marriage", I gave ya marriage. If you still wish to deny
societal benefits of marriage, present some evidence.
And in those studies, what types of marriages were examined? What was the
relationship between those couples?
I only get 200 words, but here's just a few --children do
better on several measures, including poverty and behavioral problems, in homes
with married parents compared to cohabiting parents -- Acs and Nelson 2002,
2003; Nelson, Clark, and Acs 2001; Manning and Brown 2003; Manning and Lichter
1996Married couples have better emotional health than cohabiting
couples -- Waite and Gallagher (2000)Marriages are more stable than
cohabiting unions, making long-term investments easier, and improving long-term
support from extended family -- Lerman (2002) From the 2002 round of
the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF):-- Cohabiting
fathers and mothers are both less likely to be working than married fathers, and
are more likely to be high school dropouts-- children in cohabiting
families: 19.5% poverty; in married families: 7.7%-- children in
cohabiting families: 46.3% food insecurity; in married families: 21.3%From a discussion paper called "What do Social Scientists Know About the
Benefits of Marriage?"-- Numerous studies have found that
marriage is positively associated with men’s earnings. -- Studies
have consistently found that being married and being in a satisfying marriage
are positively associated with health and negatively associatedwith
mortality. And I'm out of words!
And on what scientific rationale do we base the understanding that marriage is a
stabilizing force on society?
@cougarsare1 --"Harm? No harm is done by not allowing same-sex
marriages, either."Seriously??Denying same-sex
marriage deprives millions of US citizens of the rights and privileges of
citizenship. That's what the Equal Protection Clause is all about. "Why does government care about marriage in the first place?"Because it's a stabilizing force on society, of course. Creating
stable, committed, long-lasting relationships is great for the economy and the
society at large. Do you really wish to deny such an obvious fact?
Bob and others should stop fooling themselves into believing that there will not
be an attempt to force churches to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. It
is very clear it will happen.The only reason it hasn't, yet, is
because it is too early in them movement. If it were to happen now, the backlash
would be so large, even states that now recognize same-sex marriages by choice
would reverse and no court could stop it.Harm? No harm is done by
not allowing same-sex marriages, either. Why does government care about marriage
in the first place? On what did government base the decision to follow marriage
as a "stabilizing force" in society? How are those "stabilizing
forces" created?Be honest with the answers.
Karma gets the Mormon Church in the end, after the bazillions they spent to pass
Prop HATE in California.
@ wrzYou understand that you still have to be a consenting adult to
sign a marriage license, right? Nobody is going to start marrying children,
animals, or inanimate objects.
btw, take another look at the 14th Amendment.The clause in question
reads:"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."It says "abridge the privileges or
immunities". Nobody has a privilege or immunity to harm others.Now, look at the part that says "without due process of law". Due
process entails determining, in a legal manner, whether you have actually done
harm.Now, look at the "equal protection of the laws" part.
This means, of course, that all citizens are equally protected. It doesn't
mean that one group is allowed to do harm while another group isn't.Now, the harm principle:In one of its original formulations,
it goes like this: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to
prevent harm to others."Gay marriage does no harm.Polygamy and incest do.
@wrz --"I suggest you stop posting nonsense."I
haven't started posting any nonsense, so it unnecessary to stop.Take a look at court decisions on this issue. For instance, take a look at
Shelby's decision."The State has presented no evidence that
the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be
affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it
defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish
the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried
counterparts."He's talking about harm here. Specifically,
he's saying that gay marriage will not harm straight marriages.Now take a look at a recent court ruling on incest:"....the
state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to
officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their
potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..."Again, the judge is talking about harm. He's saying that polygamy and
incest do harm -- they have a detrimental effect.Look up the harm
principle, wrz. It affects these laws just as much as it affects our drunk
@Pavalova --"Where in any scripture is gay marriage condoned and
mentioned in positive light?"Well, for example, in Hindu
teachings some of their gods engaged in same-sex unions -- and one or two of
their gods were even born from such unions. Some Hindu temples also have graphic
depictions of same-sex couples prominently displayed on their temple walls.Oh wait. You meant Christian scriptures?Well, guess what --
this isn't a theocracy. And it certainly isn't a Christian
hegemony.But, since you asked, Jesus specifically mentioned three
classes of men who shouldn't marry women. They were born eunuchs (a group
which included homosexuals in ancient texts), made eunuchs (castrati), and
chosen eunuchs (men who chose celibacy for religious reasons).So,
you see, even Jesus acknowledged that not all men should marry women.
"There are at least two criteria for the legal recognition of any individual
right."Sorry, but that's not what the US Constitution
says... And the US Constitution trumps all other sources that define rights.If the 14th Amendment says gays can marry it also says other
combinations, such as polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc., can also marry.
Doesn't matter what excuses you can come up with, such as 'detrimental
effects,' which, by the way, is found nowhere in the US Constitution. Even
if there is case or state law, etc... the US Constitution trumps them all.I suggest you stop posting nonsense.
Where in any scripture is gay marriage condoned and mentioned in positive light.
We want to use the name of Jesus as a foundation on how to treat everyone, yet
in every example of marriage the Jesus gave, it's always between a man and
a woman. Why is that?
@wrz/etc. --"... they marry someone of the opposite sex.
"This argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it
won't work now either."...the same can be said of
polygamists, and a host of other possible marriage combinations."Here we go again.There are at least two criteria for the legal
recognition of any individual right.First, there must actually be a
substantial number of citizens who want to do it;Second, legally
allowing them to do it must not significantly increase the risk of harm to other
citizens.Look up the harm principle.Gay marriage does
not significantly increase risk to anyone, compared to other forms of
marriage.Polygamy, incest, and so on do significantly increase
risk.Therefore gay marriage is becoming legal, and those other forms
are not."...the constitutional right to marry properly must be
interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that
this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous
or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate
justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous
relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family
@T.Jefferson:"If you are going to have laws giving special privileges
like tax breaks to married couples you cannot restrict marriage based on
sex."If you want the tax break, get married... and do it with
someone of the opposite sex."Equal Protection Under the
Law."Homosexuals have equal protection under the law. Like
anyone else, they can marry provided they marry someone of the opposite sex.
This applies to all human beings. It's not rocket science.If
homosexuals feel they don't have equal protection regarding who they choose
to marry, the same can be said of polygamists, and a host of other possible
marriage combinations. And to be fair, all these other marriage combinations
should have the right to marry same as gay people. It's a matter fairness
and equal protection under the law.
PavalovaSurfers Paradise, AU"Just a matter of time before a
judge compels the church to open the temple doors for gay marriages too. whoo
hoo, party on folks!".....addressed to all who bring up this
idea:Hey, folks! It is not 1890, there are no troops threatening
your cities.The threat is that wrong thinking may cause some folks
to go overboard with unfounded fear.No church has EVER been forced
by a court to marry outsiders, it will never happen, ever!However,
your energy ought better be going toward:"How can we, as mormon
parents, work with the church so that our sons and daughters who are born Gay
can have equal lives to their siblings who are born straight?"...after
millions of people have sworn that they were born Gay, and typically felt it by
5, but almost always by 11 or so, please do not tell them you know them better
than they know themselves!Jesus told us to treat everyone the same.
The lds church has acknowledged that many people are intrinsically Gay, and
should be treated well.How can you place some of your children in
2nd class status?
32 years ago, I got married for love, not for sex.These couples are
already having sex, Glad to see they can finally get married and show
their commitment of love now.Congrats...
If you are going to have laws giving special privileges like tax breaks to
married couples you cannot restrict marriage based on sex.Equal
Protection Under the Law.
@wrz/Miss Piggie/Neanderthal/Mr. Bean --"Polygamy"Here we go again.There are at least two criteria for the legal
recognition of any individual right.1. There are actually a
substantial number of citizens who want to do it;and2.
Legally allowing them to do it won't significantly increase the risk of
harm to other citizens.Look up the harm principle.Gay
marriage does not significantly increase risk to anyone, compared to other forms
of marriage.Polygamy, incest, and so on DO significantly increase
risk.Therefore gay marriage is becoming legal -- and those other
forms are not."...the constitutional right to marry properly
must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not
mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to
polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong
and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or
incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a
sound family environment. ..."In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at
n. 52, 79-80.
These actions are irregular and highly suspect. This attempt to force the change
almost by mob rule is disturbing. The decision will be appealed and to act as if
one person can make a final decision is nonsense.
Just a matter of time before a judge compels the church to open the temple doors
for gay marriages too. whoo hoo, party on folks!
@ iron&clay: How many heterosexual couples that marry are serious about
fidelity to their spouse? Approximately 17% of divorces are caused by
infidelity - and many couples stay together after infidelity and try to work it
out.Why should there be a different standard for same-sex couples
than for heterosexual couples?
"Utah will be brought into the 21st century, kicking and screaming."As will the rest of our country, the way things are going.Let's see.. the laws against homosexual marriage can't possibly be
discriminatory. Anyone, including so-called homosexuals, can marry so long as
they marry someone of the opposite sex.If the ban on same-sex
marriage is to be lifted under anti discrimination provisions of the federal
constitution's 14th, here's some other 'bans&' that
should be lifted as well:Polygamy [just think, a certain FLDS leader
(who has to remain nameless to get this comment past the DNews monitors) can
finally go free and join his flock]A mom to her sonA dad to his
daughterA brother to his sister and vice versaAn aunt to her 10 year
old nephewAn 59 year old geezer to his neighbor's 12 year old
daughter, maybe even both daughtersGet the picture?
iron&clayRIVERTON, UT"Are these newlywed couples serious
about fidelity to their spouse? You know, NO sexual relations except
with the person to whom they are legally and lawfully married?"...Are we implying that lesbians who have been together 40+ years are loose
women?Maybe we are projecting an idea that Gay folks are sinners, or of
poor character.May I respectfully suggest that such a suggestion
seems to prove the case that opposing marriage equality is often about personal
disapproval?Will you please provide evidence that marriages
performed in Utah in the past, including temple marriages, always, 100% of the
time, have zero infidelity?But, of course, there is the idea that
what other people do in their marriage is none of my business. State law
requires no restrictions at all on behavior in marriage.
Are these newlywed couples serious about fidelity to their spouse? You know, NO sexual relations except with the person to whom they are legally
and lawfully married?
As for the challenges that the Governor and AG MUST put through to try to stop
this---- I say "must" because they have no choice but to act as if
they can stop it, or lose a majority of Utah voters.The Supreme
Court upheld the decision by Judge Walker and the Appellate Court, which made it
clear that the only objections being given to marriage equality were:A--
Trying to mix religious views into lawB-- Trying to keep a group of
taxpaying citizens from having the same rights as everyone else.Thus
it is quite dubious that an order staying the right of marriage will be granted
pending appeal, and there is no legal ground whatever for an appeal to win.So sad to see people who say they love Jesus look down on their fellow
taxpaying American citizens with rude and cruel public comments!Sorry if you do not understand that there is NO Federal right for the people
to vote on any issue, let alone the rights of others.Sorry if you do not
see the fairness.Sorry if you do not see the love
Yeah Governor " you had better get the Attorney General on it " I
feel better now...
Utah will be brought into the 21st century, kicking and screaming.
Just like a parent who brings a child to an amusement park, before the child
realize they wanted this.
@Where's Stockton ???:"What an embarrassment to the State of
Utah..."Truly stated. Your state (Utah) is among the first to
put the knife to and kill the institution of marriage. Sad day for Utah and the
rest of the country.
This is fantastic news. I wish I was there to see it.Congrats to all
@TruckerRon"Legal isn't always moral or right.""Right" is objective. That is, never changes. "Moral" is
a subjective compass that changes direction from person to person, place to
place, time to time.The problem is some people insist that we make
laws based on what is "Moral" rather than what is "Right".Merry Christmas to the newlyweds and to those intending to wed!
What an embarrassment to the State of Utah...
Legal isn't always moral or right.
What a great gift to everyone who has waited so long. I hope as many people as
possible can take advantage of it before some sort of appeal or stay is applied.
On no! There goes one of the last institutionalized and church (note the small
"c") supported prejudices. Civil rights reforms have taken away
sanctioned racial bigotry and equal rights have let women out of the home.
What's next studies that show that the "Welfare Queen" is a myth,
oh wait that one went down earlier this week.Pretty soon we're
going to run out of people and groups to feel superior to and we might have to
take a good look in the mirror.
Congratulations to all the happy couples!
Congratulations to all Newly Wed in Utah!!!!