re: Cats page 1As Nixon said, "The moral majority is
worfMcallen, TX"Using the word "Discrimination" is way
over used.It's become an excuse for promoting permissiveness."---- America was founded on a form of permissiveness -- the rights to be
free, say what we want, worship as we want, to be ourselves and pursue our
dreams.Blacks and women can vote because of
"permissiveness"Mormons can worship in all 50 States because
Using the word "Discrimination" is way over used.It's
become an excuse for promoting permissiveness.
@PLM --"...the ancient cultures you mentioned was once a world
power but is no more. "They each lasted for around 1000 years.
We should be so successful.And Rome didn't fall til roughly 300
years AFTER they outlawed same-sex marriage.And do you really
believe that China or India aren't world powers?"China's acceptance of homosexuality as a norm before 1840 is
disputed. "Not really. Check out, for example, the book Tongzhi:
Politics of Same-Sex Eroticism in Chinese Societies.Excerpted from
the first chapter: "Same-sex eroticism has never been a serious social,
political, or scientific concern in China. In Confucian and Taoist thought, sex
is not treated as the central feature of life, but rather is seen as an integral
part of life that should not be segregated as an independent sphere of study.
Strictly speaking, there were no heterosexuals, bisexuals, or homosexuals in
Chinese history. The concept of sexual orientation, i.e., dividing people by the
gender of their erotic object choice, did not exist.""would
any rational thinker say ancient Rome, Greece or the others existed without
violence and force? "No major culture has existed without
violence or force.
To Contrariusester, Every one of the ancient cultures you mentioned
was once a world power but is no more. The Hindus also practiced human
sacrifice, please don't promote them as paragons of human virtue.
China's acceptance of homosexuality as a norm before 1840 is disputed. As
to their happiness and success, without conquest and slaughter they
wouldn't have lasted as long as they did. Seriously, would any rational
thinker say ancient Rome, Greece or the others existed without violence and
force? The definition doesn't fall within the parameters of "successful
and happy. " Homosexual culture has no ability to perpetuate itself
naturally. Self-sustainability, no.
@PLM --"Can anyone find a precedent for a successful, happy
society that survived the ages?"Ancient Greece -- survived for
more than 1000 years -- homosexual relations encouragedAncient Rome --
survived for more than 1000 years -- homosexual relations encouragedAncient China -- and China is still surviving til this day -- homosexuality a
normal part of life until the West invadedAncient India -- still surviving
til this day -- even some of the Hindu GODS were born of same-sex unions --
homosexuality accepted until the West invadedPlease name a single
civilization that has ever fallen due to acceptance of homosexuality. Even one.
Cougsndawgs- so what you are saying I s that you are a good Mormon, but oppose
doctrine from the First Presidency. I can't wrap my head around that. The
First Presidency has made it clear that they support a ban on gay marriage as a
part of doctrine. After this ruling the Church has stated that the Ruling by
Judge Shelby should be overturned. Until they state differently, you are
opposing Church Doctrine. I suspect the Prophet understands agency.As for the Constitutionality of this, theSupreme court did not declare gay
marriage a Constitutional right when ruling on the California case. Why did it
not do that if it felt that way. We actually have constitutional scholars among
the Church's Apostles, Dallin H Oaks to name one. LDS leaders are not an
uneducated bunch of bumpkins.Contraries- Explain how a polygamous
marriage between consenting adults is more harmful than gay marriage. I have
never seen any reports to verify this. You state it but provided no evidence. I
can understand how polygamy amongst adult and child can be dangerous, but how is
it with consenting adults any more harmful, and defensible to deny than gay
marriage for you.
I wish the argument was about the love and sacrifice that accompanies successful
marriage. Maybe that is what defines marriage and the laws need to be in place
to uphold it. All the pushing seems to be about rights and entitlement. If the
majority understands what it takes to be married and contributing to the
well-being of society, the courts need to listen. The voice of the majority of
the people won't normally choose wrong, but when that happens, watch out.
Can anyone find a precedent for a successful, happy society that
survived the ages? Perhaps the traditions of correctly practiced Christianity do
hold the answer. Love, sacrifice, strong families started with a monogamous
marriage between a man and a woman. What a strangely sad and ironic day that we
live in that this is not considered politically correct.
@oaklandforlife So one judge overruled will of people and we have to be quiet?
There are higher courts to go too that hopefully will uphold will of the
people. And the majority of people never supported slavery or segregation in
this country anyway. Us quick to end those practices.Constitution
gives us right to speak our minds and take things to court that are wrong. Even
overrule lower court judges. How can a judge declare a constitutional amendment
unconstitutional? Like people saying Jesus is not being Christlike. oxymoron.
Hey all, Enough with all the quoted scriptures and the so called
"legal beagle" bologna. The courts have ruled. Move on, and let's
all get back to basics which are so duly needed. Stop being so divided everyone.
Don't let this ruin the holly money exchange holiday.
@1aggie --"Is not polyandry same-sex union? In polyandry,
you've got multiple men and women married/sealed to each other. "You're a little bit confused about terminology.Polygyny
-- one man, multiple womenPolyandry -- one woman, multiple menPolyamory -- general term that covers all sorts of combinationsPolygamy
-- technically the same as polyamory, but in everyday speech it's usually
used to refer to polygyny.
Is not polyandry same-sex union? In polyandry, you've got multiple men and
women married/sealed to each other. For that matter, isn't polygamy also a
form of same-sex marriage? Aren't the sisters in a polygamous marriage
members of one big family (rather than a bunch of separate families)?
@CooginINYour version of morality is just that....your version.
Many people believe that is immoral to deny consenting adults that love each
other the ability to marry and enjoy the same benefits that are enjoyed by
others.Unfortunately, for you the laws in the land do not often take
in to account personal morality.
The ruling should come as no surprise to anyone. And to our precious elected
officials, do not spend one more minute or one red cent trying to defeat this
ruling. You already know that you would lose.
@wrz --"Thus, it is STATE law that is to protect people's
rights."And the US Constitution trumps state law.Period." SSM, polygamous, incest, pedophile marriages."Nope.The courts understand the harm principle, even if you
don't."There are laws that need changing including LGBT
marriages and informed consent laws."You're absolutely
right that many current LGBT laws need changing. As for changing informed
consent laws.....have fun trying. LOL!
@Schnee:"We have judicial review in this nation where courts are
supposed to throw out laws that are unconstitutional."The US
Constitution says nothing about marriage, gay or otherwise. So, gay marriage
proponents have to cite the 14th Amendment which says... 'No STATE
shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.'Thus, it is STATE law that is to protect people's
rights. In the State of Utah, marriage laws say if you care to marry you must
marry someone of the opposite sex. This applies to all whether you are
heterosexual, homosexual, polygamist, incestuous, a minor, etc. All are equally
protected re the issue of marriage.@pragmatistferlife:"Last point is I can guarantee you the world, America, and Utah will look
different in 20 more years than it does now."Right... we'll
have SSM, polygamous, incest, pedophile marriages. We will become like the
animals, as one poster suggests, mating with whomever they will... killing and
eating each other.@Contrariusiest:"No she
can't. Look up the concept of informed consent. It requires much more than
simply mouthing words."There are laws that need changing
including LGBT marriages and informed consent laws.
@The Big Deal --"So are you saying that purpose is
irrelevant?"In terms of the legal issue, yes, it's
absolutely irrelevant. The legally relevant issues are: 1. do people want to do itand2. does it cause a
significantly increased risk of harm, compared to other forms of marriage.We know that people DO want to have gay marriages. And not a single
person, attorney or otherwise, has been able to show evidence that gay marriage
will harm anyone in any way. Therefore there is no valid legal argument for
preventing it." It seems to me like we should know more about
the reason behind something before we start calling it a basic right or change
laws to accomadate it."We already know that marriage is a basic
right, based on many decades of Supreme Court rulings. And your personal
opinions about purposes are, again, irrelevant to the law."Does
the homosexuality cause the love nature or is it the other way around? "Again -- irrelevant."Also, the bonobos are an endangered
species. They would probably be better off if they had more heterosexual
relationships..."LOL!I promise you, their
endangerment has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of reproduction.
Amazing how some seem to prefer a theocratic state based on their own beliefs to
the detriment of others. And they claim to revere the Constitution?
@Contrariusiest"We don't need to know "the" purpose
of natural things to know that they do have some purpose. Do you know the
purpose of your appendix? No? So what? Do you know the purpose of the little
divot between your nose and your lip? No? So what?"So are you
saying that purpose is irrelevant? It seems to me like we should know more about
the reason behind something before we start calling it a basic right or change
laws to accomadate it.And your monkey business seems kind of like a
chicken or egg thing. Does the homosexuality cause the love nature or is it the
other way around? Also, the bonobos are an endangered species. They would
probably be better off if they had more heterosexual relationships...Just sayin...
john d says:"...and the lord destroys it."---
If you're afraid of a little fire and brimstone raining down on SLC, maybe
you should "get out of town" and don't forget, do NOT look back,
the Great Salt Lake really doesn't need any more salt. :)@jarka-rus;Please do expound on how the equal treatment of
same-sex couples is going to infringe on your rights?
Beard trimmer admits, "I dont care about your religious convictions...",
which should have read 'I don't care about people with
religious convictions.' That message has been stated clearly to
bakers, florists, pastors, churches, church members, voters, etc. Schnee - regarding taking the nuclear option on judge appointments, you have
never met me, so I won't take it personally that you think I am dumb enough
to believe that no judges were blocked for reasons of blatant bias and
corruption. And, with the nuclear option, the judges presented will be even more
corrupt and purchasable. Heck, the president has even said he won't wait
for congress to make the laws. He and the democrats will rule any way they can,
and what could be easier than having their liberal judges write the laws for
them. It sure worked in Utah, didn't it?It's
not that hard to figure out. And while you wink and cover for this
behavior, I hope you like is as well when the conservatives are in power.
This is an extremely dangerous situation. Justice Kennedy has been the
"swing vote" on the U.S. Supreme Court for "states'
rights". This issue has to do with "abortion" which is sitting in
the wings. One judge cannot overrule the will of the people in the name of
inherent rights. Murderers are a sociological class of individuals who are
judged as violating the rules of society. Are they to be judged as being
discriminated against and the "true victims" of an unjust economic
society? A sociological standard and interpretation of justice is not the
prerogative of the judicial system. The people make the laws and the judiciary
interprets them. The judiciary does not make the laws and make the people
subservient to their vagaries. It is the role of the "fourth estate" to
enlighten the people and influence their decision making ability in light of the
ideals of the Constitution.
@wrz --"Perhaps Shelby should complete the task and authorized
polygamous marriages"Yet again -- individual rights are always
limited by harm.Please look up the harm principle.Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey significantly increased risks of harm
compared to other forms of marriage.Gay marriage does not.It really and truly is a very simple distinction. And courts all across this
country -- and other countries -- are fully aware of that distinction, whether
you refuse to see it or not."They can marry...so long as the
marry someone of the opposite sex..."Yet again -- this argument
didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work any better
now. "They can just sorta ask each other (boy/girl) for their
hand in marriage on the spot."How does encouraging fraudulent
marriages do anything at all to support "traditional" marriage?
Kora:"Why do so many people on here supporting gay marriage call
themselves "Mormon"? "Well I do because I am Mormon.
Because I believe in a God that has shown me what it means to truly love my
fellow men and women. I believe in a God that didn't allow Lucifer to
establish a plan that made people comply with Gods laws and thus took away their
agency...sound familiar? I don't believe homosexuality to be morally right,
nor do I believe same sex marriage to be morally right...just like you I believe
they violate Gods laws. So the question is do you, as a Mormon believe it's
appropriate to take away their agency to choose how they will live? If their
choice doesn't harm my rights under the constitution, then creating laws
that ban their choice and agency sounds a lot like what our true adversary
wanted. Think about which side of the line you're actually on.
@Serious --"it's the complete dismissal of biology."See my comments to The Big Deal."Biologically, it makes
no sense at all."Just because it doesn't make sense to YOU
doesn't mean that it actually makes no sense in the Real World.@El Chango Supremo --"Children who likely would have gone to a
home with a mother and a father will no be deprived of one"Baloney.Thousands of children age out of the foster system every
year -- because there simply weren't enough parents to go around. And there
are millions upon millions of orphans around the world.Nobody is
somehow stealing children from happy straight homes. That idea is pure
fear-mongering.@ti_v_benone --"can we draw a line so
that sodomy, incest and bestiality do not soon follow? "Sodomy
is already legal, and has been for years. For incest, polygamy, etc., it's
very easy to draw a line. Look up the harm principle.Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey a greatly increased risk of harm compared to
other forms of marriage. Gay marriage does not.It's a very
Everyone screaming about equality yet if you have YOUR own beliefs that
don't condone same sex marriage you're labeled a racist bigot,
soulless person etc. etc. Yeah equality goes both ways. Oh wait
@El Chango Supremo:"Because all same sex marriages are infertile,
those couples will be waiting in line at the adoption agency. Children who
likely would have gone to a home with a mother and a father will no[w] be
deprived of one of those valuable relationships."The only
shortage of adoptable children is for those who want healthy white infants.
Meanwhile, there are thousands of non-white babies, older children of all races,
and special needs children of all races languishing in foster care while
families ignore them in search of the "perfect white baby boy." Since
the most recent peer-reviewed studies show that children in SSM's do just
as well as in conventional families, wouldn't you agree that any stable
family is going to be better than being shuttled from one foster home to another
until being aged out of the system and left without a family at 18? In addition, half of the same sex marriages are between women, and it's
quite commonplace for them to use artificial insemination or in vitro
fertilization to have their own baby.
any liberal latter day saint whose support gay marriage is comfortable if they
took it a step forward like forcing bishops and clergy to married them or temple
sealing or does it end here. I believe in the bible and book of Mormon the
bible condemns homosexuality and the lord destroys it. is the bible repeating
it self all over again before the lord comes with more revenges before his
coming. boy god help us all
@The Big Deal --" Or are you saying that because it occurs in
nature it's ok for humans to do to?"Nope. Being natural
doesn't mean that something is good or bad. It's simply natural.We don't need to know "the" purpose of natural things to
know that they do have some purpose. Do you know the purpose of your appendix?
No? So what? Do you know the purpose of the little divot between your nose and
your lip? No? So what?In the case of homosexuality, there are many
theories about its purpose or purposes out in nature. Some studies have shown
that relatives of homosexuals may be more attractive to prospective partners;
some postulate that homosexual pairs may be able to defend "adopted"
offspring more aggressively than "straight" pairs; some show that
homosexual behaviors increase social bonding and cohesion. In fact, those
bonobos -- the ones that show so very much same-sex behavior -- are widely known
for the peaceful ways they deal with intragroup conflicts. They are literally
lovers, not fighters.There are many possible "purposes" for
homosexuality. But we don't need to prove any of them to justify equal
protection under the law.
"Shelby's analysis is mostly correct. Marriage is a fundamental right
which cannot be infringed without a compelling state interest..."Yes, marriage is a fundamental right... provided it's not a polygamous
marriage.Perhaps Shelby should complete the task and authorized
polygamous marriages, as well. And while he's at it, marriages between
consenting siblings, mother/son, father/daughter, etc. Compelling state
interest? Yes... filing joint tax returns, passing assets upon death, etc."What about the people in Utah who were 'disenfranchised'
by the passage of Amendment 3. You know, the LGBT couples who would like to
marry?"What? They can marry...so long as the marry someone of
the opposite sex... just like anyone else. How is that discrimination?
Besides, per the picture in the article, there appear to be dozens even
hundreds, thousands of LGBT's. They can just sorta ask each other
(boy/girl) for their hand in marriage on the spot."The statute
defining the duties of the county/city clerks in this state say they can issue
marriage licenses to one man and one woman."Good point. Clerks
issuing the licenses are violating state law. The Governor should tell them to
cease and desist.
@wrz --"Of course she can."No she can't.
Look up the concept of informed consent. It requires much more than simply
mouthing words."You don't have to be an 'adult'
to agree to something."You do have to be an adult to make
informed consent, however. Look it up."Furthermore, any law that
limits any human being from marrying is unconstitutional... "Baloney.Harm always limits individual rights.Polygamy
and incest convey a significantly increased risk of harm. Gay marriage does
not.It's a very simple distinction.Look up the harm
principle." Do you see anything in the US Constitution that
limits 9 year olds in any way?"Do you see anything in the US
Constitution that limits murder in any way?Shall we therefore
legalize murder?"The issue it to put that into the State's
constitution. "State constitutions must comply with the US
constitution. Utah's didn't."(Leviticus 18:22)"Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus
11:10). Shall we ban that too?
@ big bubba:"These concerns arise from deep Christian religious
conviction, the kind of convictions that apparently many gay marriage advocates
could care less about."Now you are getting it. I dont care about
your religious convictions nor are they a factor in our secular republics laws.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He
that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 10 When
Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her,
Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11....And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
(John 8:7-11)"As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any
sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between
a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for
unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of
sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the
individual, never to tear down. Further, while the Church is
strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported
other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or
employment."(LDS org Newsroom 2010)
KoraCedar Hills, UTWhy do so many people on here supporting gay
marriage call themselves "Mormon"? If you disagree with LDS doctrine you
are not really Mormon, so don't call yourself such in an effort to try and
legitimize this issue as something not really against the Church. 10:40 a.m. Dec. 23, 2013======== Of all the
self-righteous, pompous remarks?THIS is why the brethern [and the Lord]
are struggling to keep good Latter-Day Saints IN the church.How can
any one supporting the Republicans call themselves "Mormon"?If you
disagree with LDS doctrine you are not really Mormon...
There is a certain amount of humor in this whole matter of the defense the State
is using to deny the plaintiff's petition. The States attorney claims that
a gay union is unable to procreate children therefore should not be allowed to
be given a marriage license by the State. No mention is made of people of beyond
childbearing years or with no intention to have children easily obtaining a
license. Finally, compare this defense with the their defense in the polygamy
case. The man who brought the case has 23 children and yet there was no mention
of this procreation issue in that case. We really do need to
increase funding for education in Utah. Logic is really lacking here even from
those with advanced degrees.
@Schnee"Does it matter? Marriage isn't the same as sex and
there's plenty of heterosexual sex that has no biologically useful
purpose."Are you seriously going to say that there is no purpose
to homosexuality? That seems like a low blow....
Now that we have swallowed this perversion and normalized it, can we draw a line
so that sodomy, incest and bestiality do not soon follow? In a effort to spare
feelings we are encouraging and embracing a wickedness and unnaturalness that
will canker and destroy individuals and societies. Wickedness never
was happiness. I will do my best to love the sinners and pray for mercy for them
and myself but this trend truly horrifies me because of how far from the designs
of God we allowing ourselves to wander.Sexuality is so casual and
disrespected - we expect no more discipline to ourselves over that power than we
would animals in the streetMerry Christmas to all - may God above
grant us his Grace
People need to stop using Church doctrine to support their political beliefs.
Research Racism and the Priesthood on the lds website and see. The LDS church
teaches the ban on blacks for priesthood offices was set up by Brigham Young and
that all the teachings of why the ban are wrong. This is 90 years of prophets
and apostles teaching wrong doctrine. Research Bringham, Harold B Lee,
Benson, Kimball, McKonkie's stances on race, they were nothing short of
racism, and the church now says those teachings are wrong and not church
doctrine.That is why you should not mix your politics with your
religion.If you are either for SSM or against it fine just don't mix your
politics and religion.
Furthermore, same sex marriage will bring harm to others. Because all same sex
marriages are infertile, those couples will be waiting in line at the adoption
agency. Children who likely would have gone to a home with a mother and a father
will no be deprived of one of those valuable relationships. I love my Mom and
Dad very much, I love them both equally. But they are different relationships. A
male could not replace what I gained from my Mother. Likewise, a female could
not replace my father. My Wife and I love our children. My
relationship with them is quite different than my wife's relationship with
them. What gay marriage is, in my opinion, is a war on gender differences and
the unique characteristics each gender brings to the relationship. Gay marriage
is bizarre and backwards in that each marriage will be missing a vital
ingredient... the opposite gender!
It's not the religious argument that bothers me, it's the complete
dismissal of biology. It bothers me when people start talking about God's
law in public policy. Murder is forbidden in the ten commandments but it is also
intrinsically wrong. Coffee is against the Word of Wisdom, but is not inherently
evil, so I wouldn't support its prohibition. Same sex marriage, in my view,
is intrinsically wrong. Biologically, it makes no sense at all.
Interesting how the rainbow bends among the different understandings of various
scriptures and legal interpretations. There are a lot of innocent people out
there, who do not know what they are doing. For the Monday and
Tuesday drama now, I would suggest to keep it down and let the forces at law
play out their power.No matter what is going to happen next, we are to
accept each other on Utah terms, as that would mean, nice and easy. Am I right
on this one ?
If people and politicians were proactive they would have allowed for same sex
marriages; while protecting the religious freedom of people.Because they
were not proactive same sex marriage is here to stay and religious freedoms are
going bye bye.
Judge Shelby has overstepped his bounds as a Federal Judge. He has decided to
legislate from the bench which is not his responsibility. Amendment Ten says
that certain powers are regulated to the Federal Government and certain powers
are regulated to the States. Who gives you a marriage license? My license was
given to me by my County and the County comes under jurisdiction of the State.
With that being true, the State of Utah has the right to decide their marriage
laws so when Utah said that marriage is between one man and one women that is
the law in Utah and that is a power granted by the U.S. Constitution to the
State of Utah.
@Contrariusiest"Many, many nonhuman species practice homosexual
behaviors out in nature. For example, more than half of all sexual activity in
bonobo chimps (our closest relatives) is between females -- and one quarter of
all black swan pairs are males. And there are many more examples.Homosexuality is simply part of the natural variation in behavior out in the
natural world."I'm not sure I understand your answer. Is
this the biological purpose for homosexuality, or a positive scientific
purposes? Or are you saying that because it occurs in nature it's ok for
humans to do to? If that's the case, are humans allowed to do anything and
everything that animals do? That seems like an awful way to run a society...
@ Big BubbaMarriage is not a moral issue. It's a legal
contract between consenting adults. It has NOTHING to do with religion as far
as the U.S. government is concerned.@ wrzYou have to be
of legal age to sign a marriage contract. Otherwise that legal document becomes
null and void. Haven't you ever seen "Liar, Liar"?
@ gittalopctbiSo if we amended our state's constitution to make
it legal to own slaves, a judge would be an "activist" and out of line
if/when he struck that amendment down?
@Independent Cuss:"The Governor referred to the overturned amendment
as 'in defense of traditional marriage.'"He's
simply saying state law re marriage (man/woman) needs to be defended.
That's his job.@BYU-2000:"Oh, and I can't wait
to go to more weddings that celebrate commitment and love, a Christian
virtue."Love, for sure is a Christian virtue... but
homosexuality including gay marriage is not a Christian virtue... says so in the
Christian Bible: 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female;
it is an abomination.' (Leviticus 18:22)@Patrick Henry:"I have reviewed the Constitution and I can find no rationale basis for
the federal government to allow the 50 states to legally deny a legal union
between consenting adults."Try the 14th Amendment... which
states: 'No state shall... deny any person within its disjunction the equal
protection of the laws.' This simply means states can make laws and
persons within the states shall be equally protected. Utah has marriage laws
and it applies to all citizens equally... i.e., if you marry it has to be with
the opposite sex... not polygamy, or incestuousness, or with children, etc.
I don't know whether the court's decision will be upheld. But the
beauty of the decision is it's based in the simplest of explanations - due
process under the 14th amendment. That trumps the 10th amendment and any law
the state or feds see fit to enact outside of an amendment to the US
Constitution, including state constitutions and amendments. What's even
more interesting is that if the state could come up with even one rational
reason to uphold a 'Defense of Marriage Law" they would win this in a
flash. I don't know if they can. But if they are going to they better
hurry. Trotting out the same old arguments doesn't seem to be going well.
E.G. how many times can you argue marriage is for making babies when you've
given cousins the right to marry only if they can't make babies. What the
state needs to do is hire Andrew Lloyd Webber to come up with a tune that works
because the state's part time wise guys sound like something out of Hee
Why do so many people on here supporting gay marriage call themselves
"Mormon"? If you disagree with LDS doctrine you are not really Mormon,
so don't call yourself such in an effort to try and legitimize this issue
as something not really against the Church. Being "Mormon" is not
genetic or cultural, it is purely based on religious beliefs. If you don't
believe in the religious teachings, don't use the name of that religion to
push a political or personal agenda.
@orem_man_am-i"To all of my fellow Mormons who support judge
Shelby' s ruling the 'large and spacious building' and its
inhabitants are calling you to join them."For a people who a
large percentage spent 1.5-2 years trying to get people to agree with them on
something, some of you show a surprising lack of tact sometimes.@The
Big Deal"Is there a long term biological purpose for homosexuality, or
even any positive scientific purposes?"Does it matter? Marriage
isn't the same as sex and there's plenty of heterosexual sex that has
no biologically useful purpose.@gittalopctbi"Amendment 3
was just that--an amendment to Utah's constitution. A judge is out of line
to rule an amendment to a constitution as "unconstitutional.""The federal judge ruled that Amendment 3 was a violation of the U.S.
Constitution, which supercedes the state constitution.@spokaloo"I post his only to give insight into why LDS people are worried about the
the ramifications of this."If the LDS church and people want to
continue to try and intrude on marriages of people outside their own church,
people are going to criticize you more the longer you persist.
@ Patrick HenrySo what you want is "separate but equal?" We
tried that once, I don't think it's going to fly...
This is a simple legal case to decide. The courts have ruled that the right to
marry is a fundamental right. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equality under the law. To
deny same-sex couples the right to marry - as the Utah Constitution does, due to
voters so amending the state constitution, is an unlawful, unconstitutional
discriminatory provision. Further, understand that - in the long run when
legally challenged - voters cannot vote away fundamental rights. Judge Shelby
made the correct decision. Our government is a constitutional republic - not a
theocracy where rights are determined by religious beliefs. I do not understand
why the governor and candidates for the vacant state attorney general's
position do not seem to understand the basic principles of our form of
@ pragmatistferlife,You say that my religious beliefs stem from a
"personal belief-like god." I sometimes think it would be easier if my
God suddenly accepted gay marriage, but he does not, so I do not.The
God I follow is not one of my own choice or making. I worship the true God of
heaven and earth, the same God who has made his views on homosexual
relationships very clear in the Bible.You say that the morals of the
majority decide what sort of marriage is acceptable. Well the majority of Utah
has decided the issue with a constitutional amendment, but a tyrannical judge
has overthrown the majority's definition of a moral marriage. It appears
the the very small minority gets to decide what is a moral marriage in Utah.
@gittalopctbi "An amendment IS the constitution" You are
confusing Constitutions here. The federal judge found that the Utah amendment
was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, the document which
takes precedence over all individual State Constitutions.In order
for the folks opposed to marriage equality to prevail, they must come up with a
legally sustainable argument to deny law-abiding tax-paying gay US Citizens
equal treatment under civil law. Thus far, no one has produced a shred of such
an argument, thus 50 state gay marriage appears inevitable. Their only other
hope would be to pass and ratify an amendment to the US Constitution. And even
the most fervent anti-gay activists understand that this is an impossibility.
Once this blows over and anti-gay people realize that same sex
marriage doesn't affect them in any way, most will wonder what all the fuss
was about. In states where SSM has been legalized for some time, support for
legal SSM continues to dramatically increase. If you don't believe in same
sex marriage, fine, don't have one. No church has been nor ever will be
required to perform ANY marriage it doesn't want to for any reason.
Somebody please acknowledge my problem, taking a stand on the definition of
marriage, how is that not political, how is that not religious ? Am
I to devide myself to please others ?
I am surprised to see so many on here who support Sharia Law - after all, if we
allow laws to be made based on Christian values, we have no grounds to oppose
laws based on other religious values.There is a reason the US
Constitution requires laws to be based on principles other than religious
beliefs - namely because the best way to protect religious beliefs is to keep
them separate from civil rules and laws.You are free to have your
religious beliefs, and contrary to the many unproven claims made on these
comment threads, gays - as a general population, there may be a few exceptions
as there are in any group - have no desire or intention of forcing religious
institutions to perform same-sex marriages. Although this in no way should be
confused with expecting the same public accommodations or government services
all other citizens are entitled to.
@ Candide,So who is right? Your god who accepts gay marriage or my
God who does not accept Gay marriage? I would like to know where your god says
that marriage between same sex persons is acceptable. I can find lots of places
in the scriptures where my God says that homosexual relations are unacceptable.
@Yorkshire"Or if they can be honest enough to admit maybe its just
because the 66% think heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman---and
couples practicing same sex--is two different things."Then why
did they also ban civil unions? (Amendment 3 clause 2: No other domestic union,
however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or
substantially equivalent legal effect.)@4 word thinker"This is why the senate took the nuclear option to ramrod through judges
that will rule the liberal way,"The Senate took the nuclear
option because Republicans were blocking judges for reasons that had nothing to
do with the judges themselves, like that time Lindsey Graham put a hold on every
nomination because he wanted yet another Benghazi hearing."Smitty says there are no good arguments against SSM. So if there is no
argument against, why are the SSM proponents afraid to be have the case heard by
a panel of judges?"Not counting chickens before they hatch.
I'm confident, but I'm straight, I don't have anything to worry
If 2013 is remember for anything, it will be remembered as many more Americans
better understanding government, civics and enduring principles that continue to
guide us.Marriage and family - life, liberty and a pursuit of
happiness - realized by many more. Equality and justice - understood by so many
God's law is what it always has been. No matter how many people choose to
fly in the face of it by living sinful lifestyles, He isn't going to change
that law. Christian people everywhere need to stand firm in defending this.With that being said, calling homosexuality a sin is no more hateful or
bigoted than calling adultery a sin. That sentitment doesn't in any way
express hatred toward any person. It is simply condemning the behavior. The
fact that some individuals have chosen to identify themselves by their behavior
and lifestyle choices is sad, because it then becomes difficult to separate the
person from that choice. Christ loves everyone, but He hates sin. Those of us
who profess to follow him are merely trying to do the same thing.
There are so many examples of the "will of the people" being used as a
cudgel to deny rights to others. Slavery was the will of the people. So was
segregation. So were "black laws". Its a long and dreary list. If you
don't think same sex marriage is right, fine, don't marry someone of
your same sex. That.is.your.right! But don't force your beliefs on
someone else and take away their rights. And don't start silly yapping
about a "slippery slope" and other red herrings. Same sex marriage is
about consenting adults. Period. End of story.
I guess we used to call out for Liberty and Government' involvment
according to what we used to understand. Now are we going to redefine liberty
and government as well ?Before any apostasy there is a new meaning
to an old saying, as always !
"Can his 9yo granddaughter give consent?"Of course she can.
When she stands before the judge all she need do is to answer 'I do.'
This ain't rocket science."Is she a legal adult?"You don't have to be an 'adult' to agree to something.
Furthermore, any law that limits any human being from marrying is
unconstitutional... at least that's what we here from homosexuals. And
they're probably correct because it says so in the US Constitution's
14th amendment (Equal Protection Clause). Do you see anything in the US
Constitution that limits 9 year olds in any way? If so, please post it. And
please don't cite any state law, or even federal law because the US
Constitution tops all state and federal law per the Supremacy Clause. "Is this the most irrational question ever?"Well, I'd
say that both your questions were irrational. None the less, thanks for posting
them."They may not like the law but they must follow it."Utah's law says marriage is between a man and a woman. The issue
it to put that into the State's constitution. Clerks issuing licenses are
violating the law.
I hope the federal judges overturn NSA spying. If they don't do that, it is
total hypocrisy just picking and choosing.
It is so awesome to have the gay community come out in support of all forms of
marriage, including polygamy , bigamy, and I suppose a few others not named. it
is great to see that they are more tolerant than we have supposed.
The governor is fighting hard to deny constitutional rights to people just
because they're unpopular with his lot; we need to stand up for the
@gittalopctbi --"Amendment 3 was just that--an amendment to
Utah's constitution. "You are forgetting the difference
between the Utah STATE Constitution and the US Constitution.All
state constitutions must comply with the provisions in the US Constitution.
Judge Shelby invalidated Utah's marriage provision because it VIOLATED the
US Constitution."concerning the 2% of homosexuals in this
country"First, the LGBT population is roughly 5%, not 2%.Second, Mormons make up less than 2% of the US population. Do you really
want to start making arguments based on population size?Third, yes,
LGBT are a small minority of the population. Which makes all these protests
about gay marriage somehow endangering straight marriages sound even more
ridiculous than they already do.95% of all marriages will continue
to be straight marriages, with or without legalizing gay marriage. The species
will not come to an end because of 5% gay marriages, and the institution of
marriage will not be threatened by 5% more marriages occurring. The sky is not
going to fall.
Mosiah 29:32 "And now I desire that this inequality should be no more in
this land, especially among this my people; but I desire that this land be a
land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so
long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as
long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land."Doctrine and Covenants 134: 9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious
influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and
another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its
members, as citizens, denied.
With Shelby's decision, same sex marriage is fully legal in the State of
Utah. Just as legal as owning a home or a business; just as legal as getting a
driver's license and driving a car; just as legal as taking one's
spouse to a movie and holding hands in the back of the theater.I
cannot imagine taking the initiative to interfere with another couple's
legal attempts to purchase their own home; I shrink from the idea of interfering
so that some strangers I have never met don't get to have a driver's
license or drive a car; I cringe at the notion of going to the back of the
theater and breaking up the cuddling and handholding of two complete strangers -
just because I don't agree with THEIR beliefs?So it seems
particularly perverse for anyone to take any actions, to go out of their way, to
put forth any efforts to try to make it so hundreds of complete strangers are
DENIED their legal right to obtain a marriage license.That is the
WORST kind of Wedding Crashing imaginable!What kind of people would
I love the comments about polls and gay marriage. That does not sway those who
are against gay marriage for moral reason one bit. If the reasons for opposing
it are because one thinks that God has ordained marriage as only between a man
and woman, then of what consequence is public opinion? Issues such
as this will always be contentious because on one side you have a group that
uses human rights, equality, and other compelling arguments. On the other side
you have a group who believe deeply that "thus sayeth The Lord" on these
issues. If I believe that God wants marriage only between man and woman, then
opposing this ruling makes sense and in no way makes me a bigot by itself. If I
don't believe that God defines marriage as between man and woman, then it
makes perfect sense to support this ruling.A concern I have is the
denigration and belittling of those who have a religious conviction. You can,
and many do oppose gay marriage and love and respect others.
Let freedom ring. Let liberty prevail. And get government out of our love
life.This means allowing adults to marry and love who ever the heck
orem_man_am_i orem, UTTo all of my fellow Mormons who support judge
Shelby' s ruling the 'large and spacious building' and its
inhabitants are calling you to join them. You are making a conscious choice to
go against God's will. Your support of this activist judge's decision
further destroys the moral fiber of our nation. Please re-read 'the
proclamation on the family since you obviously don't understand it.Thank you for your excellent comment. I couldn't agree with you
more. It makes me sad to see so many of our brothers and sisters being deceived
by the devil and he is dragging them down to his level with chains around their
necks and they don't even realize it. I love the, but can never support
@Ulvegaard: "We have family in Europe where already this issue is effecting
the religious rites of people. Various religions are being forced to perform gay
marriages."That is nonsense and fear-mongering. As a European
well aware of the legal situation of churches in Europe, I can tell you your
statement is not true. In a few countries, ministers from some state churches
have civil authority to marry, but even there they are not obliged to perform
gay marriages. On the other hand, many ministers from various Christian churches
are happy to provide the service to gay couples, with true respect for their
@The Big Deal --"Is there a long term biological purpose for
homosexuality"Many, many nonhuman species practice homosexual
behaviors out in nature. For example, more than half of all sexual activity in
bonobo chimps (our closest relatives) is between females -- and one quarter of
all black swan pairs are males. And there are many more examples.Homosexuality is simply part of the natural variation in behavior out in the
natural world.@3grandslams --"marriage is not a
right, it's a religious ceremony."Sorry, but you're
simply wrong.Millions of couples have been legally married with no
religious ceremonies whatsoever.Also, many Supreme Court decisions
have affirmed that marriage is a civil right protected by our Constitution.-- Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil
rights of man'..."-- Zablocki v. Redhail -- "the right to
marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"-- Meyer v.
Nebraska -- the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment "without
doubt…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right
of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of
life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up
children..."And many others.
I don't live in Utah, but this issue for most LDS people is has nothing to
do with how we feel about LGBT individuals. I am a principal of a school and
have many LGBT students in my school who know that I care about them. For Most
LDS people it comes down to what we believe. In Mosiah 29:26-27 it says:26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything
contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the
people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and
make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. 27
And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is
the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he
will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
I post his only to give insight into why LDS people are worried
about the the ramifications of this.
The arguments being proffered here regarding the legal process taking place
regarding gay marriage are pretty much the same ones I heard over and over in
the southern states back in the 1960s when so-called "activist judges"
were finding laws upholding segregation and prohibiting interracial marriage to
be unconstitutional. Fear-mongering, appeals to the perceived "will of
God", tradition, and insistence that the "will of the people" should
control the issue were pretty much the same ones we're hearing now.
One of my favorite quotes, which I think is dead-on concerning the 2% of
homosexuals in this country, not all of which are in favor of SSM:"It's one thing to be compassionate toward people who are exceptions
to the norm. It's another thing to redefine the norm."David O. Coolidge
Excuse me here if I'm not seeing this as unlawful....I happen to agree with
the Governor. The reason? I learned that the judges only rule on the lawfulness
of an issue, not make law. It is the responsibility of our lawmakers
(legislators, senators, congressmen)to make and pass laws not judges. So tell me
why after this particular judges' ruling Salt Lake County allowed marriage
licenses to be issued and couples allowed to marry. This seems to me they broke
the current law and that their marriages are invalid. We need to get back to the
way our Constitution is written and process issues in order. If we disagree with
the Constitution and our laws, we must go though the legal process to change
these laws, not change the laws because one group or another disagrees with the
@jskains: " Lastly, what will your positions be when the government next
forces the LDS Church to perform gay weddings in the temples? "This is clearly a straw man argument, as the government isn't (and cannot
be) in the business of deciding who can and can't be married in your
temples, or in any other church. Do you see government lawyers arguing that you
have to perform temple marriages for gentiles or for Mormons who lack a temple
recommend? This is no different, and the government has never tried to rule on
who can or cannot be married in a particular church any more than it would issue
a ruling on who is eligible to receive sacraments, baptism or other church
rites. Fear-mongering is just that; an effort to use emotional
reactions to override reasons in support of a position when logical arguments
For those who say that the judge acted correctly because it is a judge's
responsibility to determine what laws are constitutional are absolutely wrong.
Amendment 3 was just that--an amendment to Utah's constitution. A judge is
out of line to rule an amendment to a constitution as
"unconstitutional." A judge can rule if a LAW is unconstitutional. An
amendment IS the constitution. It is irrelevant whose side you are on with SSM
issues--this "ruling" is an activist ruling. He just ruled that part of
the constitution is unconstitutional. Judges cannot rule on what is the makeup
of a constitution. The electorate can change the framework of government--the
constitution--just like a builder can add to or change the frame of a house. The
addition or change to the house framework is still part of the frame. This is
basic US government, people. This is activist judge rule. If he or the 11th
Circuit allow this to happen, then it will be an egregious disregard for
Hey, just wondering if anyone can help me with a question I have. Is there a
long term biological purpose for homosexuality, or even any positive scientific
purposes? Call me a "Debbie Downer" but I can only see negatives.
One reason many of us are concerned about institutionalizing same-sex marriage
is because by doing this, it cuts against the Judeo-Christian morality on which
western society is based. Given the obvious direction this is going (I have no
hope that Shelby's decision ultimately will be overturned), Western society
will soon be just another society relegated to the scrap-heap of history, just
like every other society that loses its moral underpinning. The more you
undercut values and morals, the more difficult it is to have a law-abiding
society--because now only public opinion guides lawmaking (which is a very
fickle compass). This is an issue of morality being eliminated in making and
interpreting laws, plain and simple.
EW: Judges are not "legislating behind the bench." One of the duties
of the judiciary under the Constitution is to rule on the constitutionality of
laws, statutes and regulations to be sure they do not conflict. Big
Bubba: Your religious beliefs (and mine) regarding marriage and what God wants
of us have nothing to do with the question before the court of whether Utah laws
are in conflict with the US Constitution. As a Jew, for instance, I believe
that eating pork and shellfish is a violation of God's law and an affront
to Him, but I also believe that it would be wrong to demand that our civil laws
prohibit it or that it should be forced on those who believe differently. Every
religion has beliefs that aren't supported or enforced by the law of the
land, and that's how it should be in a free country. If your church
doesn't want to marry a couple, it doesn't have to. Civil laws
regarding marriage, however, have to do with their rights and privileges under
the US Constitution and the country, and have nothing to do with our religious
To all of my fellow Mormons who support judge Shelby' s ruling the
'large and spacious building' and its inhabitants are calling you to
join them. You are making a conscious choice to go against God's will. Your
support of this activist judge's decision further destroys the moral fiber
of our nation. Please re-read 'the proclamation on the family'since
you obviously don't understand it.
Unless you have traded 4 head of cattle for a spouse… you are
already in a 'non-traditional' marriage. As for
child-rearing. "In most ways, the accumulated research shows,
children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of
heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric
disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While
girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual
partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by
heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion
nor to identify themselves as gay."'Coparent or
Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS
Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10-
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP) *'Pediatric Group
Supports Same-Sex Marriage – Time magazine – 03/21/13
'The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says it’s “in the
best interests” of the children.' There. I am not using
'God' in my claims. I am not forcing my beliefs upon anyone else. I am
not vilifying opposition. So I would ask that the Deseret news finally allow
this information. Thank you.
More sources showing what the majority want… 'Poll: New
High Of 58 Percent Support Same-Sex Marriage' – By TOM KLUDT –
By Talking Points Memo – 03/18/13 'At a time when the
Supreme Court prepares to take up same-sex marriage and the Republican Party
determines the best approach to the issue going forward, an ABC News/Washington
Post poll released Monday showed a new high-water mark in support for the right
of gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot. The poll found 58 percent
of Americans now believe marriage should be legal for same-sex couples, while
just 36 percent said it should be illegal.' As for the
consequence of gay marriage, lets look to MA. Ten years after they allowed gay
marriage. 'TEN YEARS later, 85 Percent of Massachusetts voters
say NO HARM from Marriage Equality' – 09/27/13
'Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex
families now enjoy full legal protections….' You can
disagree with information. But do not try to SUPPRESS information,
and claim you are a 'news' paper.
This is why the senate took the nuclear option to ramrod through judges that
will rule the liberal way, so they could have a single person make laws (wording
from a liberal poster) from the bench, and bypass the congress which has
conservatives in it.Smitty says there are no good arguments against
SSM. So if there is no argument against, why are the SSM proponents afraid to be
have the case heard by a panel of judges? Is it because they don't own all
the judges on the panel? Seems like they are afraid because they know there are
very coherent arguments against SSM that they will have to confront on a fair
and even playing field. That must be truly scary.Gay marriage has
existed for decades. There are many women, mostly older, named Gay, who have
been married. Too bad so much of society insults their name with a sexual
I heard Phil Robertson ain't so "happy" bout this... He isn't
as concerned about this minority as much as those others using this movement to
forward their passions still hidden in the closets of secrecy, and desiring
added company & acceptance.
Is the Deseret news purposefully trying to suppress information? I
have tried to post this story previously, written by the Deseret news, and they
do not allow it. Why? 'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans
support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011'For the first time since Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the
polling organization found a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex
marriage.' 'Poll: Support for gay marriage UP among
Catholics' – By Jillian Rayfield – Salon – 03/08/13 “Catholic voters are leading American voters toward support for
same-sex marriage,” Peter A. Brown, the assistant director of the
Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, wrote in a statement.
'A Majority of Young Republicans Support Gay Marriage' - —By Tim
Murphy – Mother Jones – 03/08/2013 'The short of
it: Even young Republicans think conservatives are fighting a losing
battle.' The 'will of the people' has spoken. If some people would only take their fingers out of their ears.
@Big Bubba,Let me hit all the straw men that religious conservatives bring
up in regards to gay marraige. Cousins and siblings marrying, ok so that one is
pretty easy, first of all, in many states(including Utah) it's allowable to
marry a cousin, after both spouses have passed child bearing age, and
that's the reason it is different that gay marriage, there is real science
that shows severe birth defects from siblings/cousins procreating. Ok, so now
pedophiles, People under 16 can't get married without permission until they
are 16, courts don't really consider people under that age able to enter
into legally binding documents, or adults. So were OK there. Now animals, same
as young kids, no consent. The second my dog can say I do, sign the marriage
license, and comprehend what it means then we might have a problem, Until then I
think we're ok there as well.
If the majority ruled in the South, the U.S. would still be segregated.The judge did not legislate. He interpreted the law in the context of the
Constitution and stare decisis. Conservatives love judicial
activism on their issues. We saw it with the 2nd Amendment and campagin finance
cases. So please, don't whine about something you love when it goes in
I'm sorry Big Bubba but I appreciate your right and even personal
responsibility to live by what you view as correct standards. But when those
standards originate from a personal belief like God, you should have no
expectation that the rest of us will accept them. You ask, "
Whose morals decides what is wrong and what is right? Yours? Mine? " The
answer is simple "we" decide as a people through our legal processes.
We've done it for 250 years and this situation is no different. Last point is I can guarantee you the world, America, and Utah will look
different in 20 more years than it does now. You can choose to interpret the
new circumstances as you wish, but we will decide as a people how we deal with
it through the lens of the constitution and our current laws, not through the
lens of a particular groups version of inevitability.
Should one agree that the STATE CORPORATION has an actual authority to govern by
statute and subsequent license the lives and activities of members of the
Republic, there is no longer a Republic. The arguments about marriage have
nothing to do with being constitutional or not.This due to the fact that the
corporate courts are outside of the Republic. The point is: licensed
marriage is a corporate construct. "We the people" have no
"legal"say in what the members of the private STATE CORPORATIONS
pretending to be public trustees.
Patrick Henry makes a very good and valid point. He'll probably be called
a homophobe and intolerant because of it.
@Commodore and Patrick: Your posts were effective in describing the legal
issues, but it unrealistically proposed that all laws in 50 states that mention
the word Marriage be amended to refer to a Civil Union instead. This would take
time and money, and a great deal of political capital. It would be
easier and cleaner to change popular vernacular to say "Holy Union" when
we speak of a binding, heterosexual union that adheres to the commandments of
God. This would only require the changing of world literature, historic
documents, and virtually every love poem and Hallmark card.
@Big BubbaMy God approves whole heartedly of same sex marriage. So who is
right, my God or your God? Since our Gods don't agree maybe a secular
constitution that protects all is best. The founding fathers were bright men and
kept church and state separate for a reason.'Religious institutions
that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on
persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.
Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy
unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion
itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,'
therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” ―
from article--“If the state is going to get involved in some type of
legislative or governing social policy, we should be doing it under the umbrella
of love and understanding and not hatred and bigotry."I am
curious if those who agree with SSM HONESTLY THINK that those who disagree with
them do so BECAUSE OF "hatred and bigotry"......... Or if they can be
honest enough to admit maybe its just because the 66% think heterosexual
marriage between a man and a woman---and couples practicing same sex--is two
different things.I, for one, am all for anyone doing their own
choosing in how to live and being responsible for those choices. Gays and lesbians have been living together and having same sex for a long
time now. Anything Utah decides is not going to change that. I
am all for them continuing to do as they see fit and being responsible for those
choices. But it is not 'hate or bigotry' that defines what
(or what not) marriage is, in Utah or any other place.
I'm surprised we haven't heard more rantings from the nuts and dolts
on the Eagle Forum or in the legislature.@Cats"The will of
people of Utah should be upheld. If "We the People" can be overridden by
judges with their own agenda, America has ceased to be America."We have judicial review in this nation where courts are supposed to throw out
laws that are unconstitutional.@Big Bubba"These concerns
arise from deep Christian religious conviction, the kind of convictions that
apparently many gay marriage advocates could care less about."The problem (for your side) is that making our laws based on religious rules
needs non-religious reasons, otherwise we're just doing the equivalent of
adding pieces of a Christian Sharia Law equivalent.
We keep reading the argument how gay marriages are not going to affect my
heterosexual marriage. To me, the importance of my heterosexual marriage is
based on its religious implications. We have family in Europe where already
this issue is effecting the religious rites of people. Various religions are
being forced to perform gay marriages. Something which we keep being told is
not the agenda and will not happen here.After all, the United States
has not European connections and is completely isolated from the rest of the
world. Please, in the arguments, stop trying to refer to those who prefer
traditional marriage as irrational, bigots, hate filled and paranoid. We have
legitimate concerns as we watch this unfold around the world.
@ NoodlekaBoodle,I appreciate your point of view but wonder about
what kind of morality is used to draw the line on what type of marriage is
acceptable. For example, at one time in this country gay marriage was viewed as
morally unacceptable. Now it is not. What about marriage between 1st cousins and
siblings. Right now these marriages are viewed as morally wrong by the majority,
but what if that changes just like gay marriage. Whose morals decides what is
wrong and what is right? Yours? Mine? This is why God is so important. God has
provided the moral standards for all of us to live by. When we toss out His
standards of what is right and wrong as mentioned in the Bible, then anything
What is the matter with the Tenth Circuit, this do the right wing core is
vitally important. They do not want to continue to lead the way into this issue.
It is like California proposition karma.
The best way to undermine American society is by using our own Constitution. The
cleverest way to disarm values is by engaging them with falsehoods disguised as
values. Utah has now had the spectacle of gay marriage forced upon it, a lie
that masquerades under "marriage equality", and constitutionality. We
are being accused of bigotry, intolerance and extremism for opposing a
redefinition of marriage. It is Utah's turn to demonstrate to the rest of
the nation that it is possible to stand up to the tide of worsening values in
@ CatsYou have it backwards. America will cease to be America when
it ceases to be a nation of laws and becomes a nation of popular opinion
Corruption in the courts is making the rule of law obsolete. It's
interesting that these judges with a social agenda not in line with the will of
the people are abusing the very power that gives them that opportunity. The
societal breakdown in the Book of Mormon was facilitated by corrupt lawyers and
judges. Sound familiar?
“No we’re not irrational. We don’t hate anyone. We just
understand marriage differently, and we think that’s a valid viewpoint in
the public square.“AMEN! & AMEN! Bill Duncan...well said
and EXACTLY as the majority of Utahn's feel(was one for many yrs and have
many family members still there & was there for the vote!!)
The attorney general needs to produce evidence to support its arguments against
gay marriage. Just claiming to have a burning in the bosom that gay marriage is
bad is not evidence.
@Commodore and Patrick Henry: probably the best thing I have seen on here
dealing with the issue. Good stuff.
@Big Bubba,While I understand that religious conservatives believe that,
the united states wasn't formed to pass laws that are only in place due to
religious conviction. There also has to be a secular need for the law to exist.
For example, murder is against god's law, and secular law. But I can make a
pretty strong argument as to why murder should be illegal, without once
mentioning religion. Gay marriage is only bad in a religious sense, that's
why it should be legal, regardless of religious conscience. The way it's
supposed to work in this country is that religion can believe and practice what
they want, separately from government, and people who don't believe in that
religion don't have to follow their rules.
So what's the point of voting on issues if an Activist Judge can strike
down or void out a decision made by the citizens?
Why would the Governor and AG try and obtain an "emergency" stay when
there is a hearing scheduled for Monday morning. This is political
Where is Utah's elected and sworn in Attorney General that was inefficient
due to his lack of integrity and dealings with people in a non-protected manner.
He left our State of Utah unprotected due to his protectionist attitude about
himself. The other 3 elected State executives could have done their duty and
job but it appears that others have things they want to protect from the past,
such as $13M and $85K. Ethics, integrity and personal dealings that impact on
our State at least have some say from the House of Representatives. Their
actions helped put pressure on the former AG. We have so much at stake in our
government in dealing with the federal laws that the Attorney General can
provide.Hopefully, the Governor can undue some of the damage by
putting a person of integrity, honor and upright to that Office that has been
blighted for maybe 13 years or more. We need honorable people in office and not
controlled by outside interests. Senator Bennett was not perfect
but got routed by a group that has no guidance system for our State of Utah.
The Oregon people with Freedom in it's name is opposite of freedom.
Where in the constitution is the right to marry someone of the same gender?
Something some judges found that is not in there.
Let's talk about what is actually "constitutional." Here is
perhaps the most modernly ignored constitutional provision and it has direct
application to the controversy. The 10th amendment was required by the states
(not just southern states) in the beginning before the states would accept the
federal constitution. The 10th amendment was designed to prevent central
government over-reach by any of the three federal branches. It reads:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people." Since the constitution is silent on the subject of marriage,
the laws of the respective states take priority. As court cases substantiate,
states' rights prevailed on the subject of marriage from the earliest days
of our nation. There is no federal constitutional right to same sex marriage
based upon the plain language of the constitution---which, like I say,is mostly
The majority that has the rights the minority wants cannot possibly argued the
are being persecuted or accuse the other side of intolerance.
"Isn't the real issue here the unconstitutional tendency for judges to
legislate behind the bench? The answer NO. In fact the it is the
specific responsibility of a federal judge to determine the constitutionality of
laws including state laws. So right or wrong it was the responsibility of
Shelby to make a decision."So what good does it do to vote?? If
a Judge turns down the will of the people??" The will of the people is not
the arbitrator of the constitution. That job belongs to the judicial system. I disagree with Lex Loci, that a different opinion by the Supreme Court
would demonstrate activism (used as a pejorative) on Shelby's part. This
is in fact the process, law, circuit court, supreme court. So he's just
doing his job as outlined by the constitution. He gave his opinion and
it's different than the law. What's wrong with that?
For those arguing against marriage equality on religious grounds, are you aware
that there are many religious denominations in this country that welcome
same-sex couples and that do want to celebrate their marriages? What about their
religious liberty (as well as that of those who don't have a religion)?
Especially for those of you who are LDS, beware of arguing that your particular
religious beliefs should be public policy and govern what others do. Remember,
you're still a minority too, and you wouldn't want the majority's
religious views imposed upon you! There's a good reason for all of us that
there's a separation of church and state. Here's to equality for all
citizens, in Utah and in every state in this country, regardless of religious
Mr. Duncan's logic that 66 percent of of voters favor the ban will not sway
the court. The court's ruling is based on law which also includes that
federal laws override state law.
The prophets have repeatedly told us not to support laws that sympathise with
same gender marriage. Don't commit crimes against them and be decent to
them but support traditional marriage. How many athesists say I think same
gender marriage is ok but I don't want to impose my lack of morality on
people. All laws are based on morality.Heber J Grant repeatedly
told the saints not to support repeal of 18th amendment but Utah was 36th state
to do so. Spoke out against ERA too. The Lord does take a stand on moral
issues so we should use our influence for good.
@Cats: If you think you are tiring of "the intolerance and constant bullying
that goes on by the supporters of same-sex marriage."(Which is clearly not
the case, but for arguments sake) How do tired do you think underrepresented
minorities including (LGBT folks) are of the intolerance and constant
bullying(and far worse) that has been going on by the supporters of
"Christianity" for the last several hundred years in this country? Chew
on that for a while and see how it tastes.
The statute defining the duties of the county/city clerks in this state say they
can issue marriage licenses to one man and one woman. That was not addressed in
the opinion or the appeal. If the state will enforce the statute it will prevent
the confrontation until it can be addressed in the legislature.
@Tekakaromatagi;What about the people in Utah who were
"disenfranchised" by the passage of Amendment 3. You know, the LGBT
couples who would like to marry? They don't count?
What's unconstitutional is judges ruling from the bench. This is a republic
and the people spoke, as constitutionally outlined, against a practice
calculated to destroy foundational rights outlined in the First Admendment,
Freedom of Religion.Admendment 14 is reserved for those caught in
criminal behavior, not for those who want to experiment with sexual behavior.
Finally, marriage is not a right, it's a religious ceremony. If churches
can't justify it doctrinally, they and citizens with the same conscience,
should not be forced to support it. That's freedom of religion, the first
civil right protected in the Constitution.
Grant equal tax rights, and in all ways remove discrimination against gay
couples. But don't destroy the meaning of the word marriage. Marriage is
more than love, friendship, even undying commitment. It is a word that defines
the essence of family, biology, and links generations. Call it Domestic
Partnership, Domestic Union, and grant whatever equal protection is required.
But don't destroy the meaning of the word marriage. It has stood the test
of time (inspite of those who commit crimes within its bonds), and is at the
core of who we are. Human beings. Too few are born within the bonds of marriage
these days. But don't destroy that opportunity for even more by destroying
the meaning of the word.Don't discriminate against individuals
who are gay. But don't destroy the meaning of marriage for the rest of us.
You know, I don't think the governor really cares about this issue
particularly. I suspect his efforts at the stay/appeal were weak and half
hearted, one reason it was so easily dismissed by the 10th circuit. Why waste
tax payer $$ on a losing proposition.
The 10th Circuit should allow the State their day in court. These liberal
judges have an agenda that they are shoving down the throat of over two million
people, without due process. This is too important of an issue to allow one
judge to determine.
@Two For Flinching: "There isn't a single valid argument against gay
marriage."Welcome to the forum. It is nice to see new
participants coming on line.If we call anything and everything
'marriage' then we have diluted the importance and value of the
institution as a means for society to send a message that the best environment
for children is being raised by their biological parents and that men should be
responsible for their procreative choices.In addition, there are a
lot of civil liberties issues. For example, a lot of people in Utah have been
disenfranchised by this ruling.It is great to have you join us.
See, your views are being broadened already.
So what good does it do to vote?? If a Judge turns down the will of the people??
Good law bad process.Shelby's analysis is mostly correct.
Marriage is a fundamental right which cannot be infringed without a compelling
state interest, which has not been shown here. He goes too far in his
discussions about demeaning gay couples because there is no interest in
"dignity."He also goes too far in getting out in front of
the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court determines that states are entitled to
regulate marriage to the point of banning gay marriage then his activism will be
In 1995, fifteen prophets/seers/revelators said "we warn that the
disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and
nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." And in
context, by "family" they did not mean gay partners. So, Two for
Flinching, and many others, there ARE valid arguments against gay marriage.
(Unless you don't consider calamities a valid argument.) It is NOT just a
"religious" thing. It may not directly affect my hetersexual marriage
but it will affect society. Now, there are many other attacks on the family; gay
marriage is just one of those. By itself it will not be our downfall. But it
contributes to it. Tolerance is a virtue, when not taken too far. But
tolerance just for tolerance's sake has fooled many people into equating it
with the highest morality. Even the very elect will be deceived. But don't
be deceived; don't call evil good and good evil. Enjoy your "high moral
ground" now, gay marriage supporters; but the prophets will be vindicated.
I hope everyone here who keeps saying to let this go is ok with the fallout
afterwords. Like little boys pretending to be girls and using the girl locker
rooms, or the graphic depictions of homosexuality thrust at their kids at
school. Or perhaps the businesses being forced to promote gay weddings, etc.
without any ability to say no. Lastly, what will your positions be when the
government next forces the LDS Church to perform gay weddings in the temples?
Are any of you actually following what has happened in the 17 states before us?
For all who argue that allowing same-sex marriage does not harm them or their
marriages, I believe that they will find that it will indeed affect them. As
the decline of moral standards increases, all of us will feel the effects.
Sorry, but no rational argument has been made against gay marriage. The State
argued that traditional marriage is about having children, but it begs the
following questions: What about marriage couples who can't have children?
What about marriage couples who have no plans of having children?Gay
marriage is on the side of reason. Religious beliefs against gay marriage are
not on the side of reason. You have free to have those religious beliefs, but
you aren't free to impose them on other people. Individual freedom has
The same rights are afforded to everyone in this country. What I gather from
many posters is that I am an uneducated, unintelligent, intolerant, idiot. This
is not an equal rights issue, as many want to make it. Right now this is about
the minority ruling the majority.
Isn't the real issue here the unconstitutional tendency for judges to
legislate behind the bench? This is bigger than the gay marriage question.
Part 4: When people speak of being UNIONED it will communicate to
others that their relationship is recognized by the State only. If they wish to
make their relationship be recognized by whatever deity they worship, they can
find an organized religion to do so. Sidenote: I have reviewed the
Constituion and I can find no rationale basis for the federal government to
allow the 50 states to legally deny a legal union between consenting adults. If
people want a legal argument to deny a legal union between man and man or woman
and woman it will require an amendment to the US Constitution. I personally
think homosexual relationships are wrong, but legally I cannot argue against
them. I believe God frowns on these types of relationships, but I cannot find a
legal argument - based on how our laws and Constitution are currently written -
for not providing equal protection of the law for homosexuals seeking a State
recognized union. Does this mean that Government may force religions to perform
marriage ceremonies for homosexuals? No! Religions are private organizations and
may selectively choose, on whatever basis they will, what they will and will not
offer their members.
Part 3: Because the State has no legitimate interest in regulating
religious contracts between consenting adults and God and likewise organized
religion has no legitimate interest in regulating contracts of State between
consenting adults, why not divorce the concept of the marriage covenant from
that of the contract of the Civil Union? What do I mean by this? I
mean allow civil unions for all consenting persons and reclassify all currently
married adults as in a legal contract known as a civil union. Religious
organizations will have the privilege, should they choose to, to provide
religious ceremonies where two people will be allowed to make a marriage
covenant between themselves and God. When people speak of being
MARRIED it will communicate to others their sincere belief in a higher being and
that their civil union is also under a covenant- meaning a relationship of
promises involving promises between two and God. On the records of the state it
will say CIVIL UNION. On the records of their church it will say MARRIED.
Part 2: They will be equal partners in material goods and offspring,
if any. And the contract implies a division of property will occur, should the
union break apart. And the State has a vested interested in the enforcement of
that clause of the contract. Therefore, the State is the impartial body which
decides how assets and children shall be fairly divided between former partners.
Now, let us consider that marriage also served the role of assuring the
community and State that the offspring were legitimate - meaning they were
legally deserving by default to inherit the property currently held by their
parents - and that they had legal guardians who would provide for their needs.
Again, interestingly enough, organized religion has no interest in regulating
this State recognized contract regarding the ownership and possession of goods
and children. And this is the case because organized religion may not have any
say on the enforcement of legal contracts; we do not live in a theocracy.
I see that the DN has not taken down or modified the opinion piece about
"Judicial Tyranny"-- which, in my view, solidifies the idea that
the DN is all about holding on to the oldest and most conservative of its
audience.To many of us, there is simple logic in the decision:A suit came before a judge to be handled, the parties claiming injury gave
proof of the injury, the parties claiming Amendment 3 should hold had NO legal
arguments whatsoever in terms of defending it, only moral and religious
arguments.To others, the moral issue is so strong that they overlook
the damage to the plaintiffs.To still others, the "right of the
people to vote" is so strong that they not only overlook that damage, but
that laws conflicting with the Constitution are subject to being struck down.If there were a valid legal argument, Prop 8 would be in effect. Note
that when the 9th Circuit reviewed Walker's decision, ONLY the mormon judge
living in Idaho dissented (In my view, he violated his oath to not disturb his
place in his community)It is OKAY not to like the decision -- but
please don't lie.
Part 1: Historically marriage has had both religious and State
implications. Religious implications exist because for much of
recorded histories these unions were officiated by some sort of religious figure
(Priest, Monk, Minister etc.). In these ceremonies the marriage contract (Aka
marriage covenant) served to legitimize their sexual behavior before God ( or
whatever Supreme Deity they worshiped). It also served to make promises between
persons and God. Interestingly enough, the State has no legitimate interest in
regulating religious contracts or covenants between persons and their Deity.
People - consenting adults- have the Constitutional right to believe what they
may and to associate with others in whatsoever manner they desire; Government
has no rationale basis to intervene unless the activities are a threat to public
safety or national security, involve minors, or are not consenting. Implications of State exist because the historic marriage contract/covenant
has also represented a legal contract between persons. And what exactly is that
contract? In short, the State's idea of the contract is that the two shall
hold and possess all things in common.
Cats:It's not "bullying." It's people disagreeing
with you. Pushback against your ideas is not "intolerance." Scrutiny of
your grounds for a law is not persecution.Also, you say "The
will of people of Utah should be upheld. If "We the People" can be
overridden by judges with their own agenda, America has ceased to be
America.""We the People" is the phrase at the beginning
of the Constitution. The Constitution says that "We the People" do not
get to decide every issue by majority vote. We have multiple branches of
government, each with different obligations and powers that serve and checks and
balances on each other. The whole point of the judicial branch of government
laid out by "We the People" in the Constitution is to have branch of
government that looks at issues simply on the basis of their rightness and their
constitutionality, *regardless* of what "We the People" might think in
terms of popular vote. If "We the People" voted for something as an
overwhelming majority, but the thing we voted for was in defiance of the
Constitution, it would be the solemn duty of the judicial branch to strike down
our popular vote.
There isn't a single valid argument against gay marriage. Not one. Your
religious beliefs cannot be applied to others. They are your beliefs, and your
beliefs only. Being able to conceive is also completely irrational because that
is not, and never has been, a prerequisite to get married. This ruling will
stand, and freedom will win once again.
As a Mormon I feel that sustaining marriage equality is showing tolerance and
acceptance. I understand that my church sets rules for its own members, but it
cannot impose those rules on others. As a heterosexual married man, I cannot see
how same-sex marriage could hurt my marriage. Let judge Shelby's rule
stand, and let the whole issue rest for the happiness of all.
There are a lot of arguments from supporters of gay marriage that read like
"How is gay marriage going to hurt heterosexual marriage" and "I
don't care what homosexuals do." Let me enlighten these people.
Religious conservatives are concerned about the effect that sanctioned gay
marriage will have on our country's moral standing. They are also concerned
about widespread, blatant disregard for God's marriage laws and the effect
this will have on society as a whole. These concerns arise from deep Christian
religious conviction, the kind of convictions that apparently many gay marriage
advocates could care less about.
Am I confused about who is tolerant and not, or am I being made to believe ?Looks to me, that arguments of intelligent deceptions are going to win.Wonder how many waking Utahns will go back to sleep because of fear
about tolerance.Be nice to a new minority, but be strong to say NO.
Discrimination is not a family value.
This is what make America great. The majority cannot rule the minority. Women,
blacks, the disabled, etc. have all received rights against the wishes of the
majority. Another step forward for fairness, equality, and the
American dream. Oh, and I can't wait to go to more weddings that celebrate
commitment and love, a Christian virtue.
Hate to break it to you, but the gay community is part of "We the
People." To me, that phrase means that the people of our great nation will
look out for everyone--not just those they think are acceptable.
@Cats. The will of the people can not supersede the US Constitution. If you read
the judges ruling and the case law he used to make his decision, such as Loving
v. Virginia you would find it eerie how the state of utah used the same
arguments that the state of Virginia made against interracial marriage. You are or any one is still free to feel gay marriage is wrong or a sin
but you can not deny a citizen the same right you have based off tradition or
I'm so tired of this intolerance and constant bullying that goes on by the
supporters of same-sex marriage. No one can disagree with them without constant
name calling and viciousness. You know it's interesting. There was a time
when the gay community argued in favor of tolerance. Now all they fight for is
intolerance.The will of people of Utah should be upheld. If "We
the People" can be overridden by judges with their own agenda, America has
ceased to be America.
The Governor referred to the overturned amendment as "in defense of
traditional marriage".Neither he, nor anyone else, has presented any
evidence that the unions of same sex persons in any way requires "defense of
traditional marriage". I am a married heterosexual, and what goes on
between my homosexual neighbors, marital and otherwise, has nothing to do with
my own marriage.Why try to defend something that needs no defense?
Ahhhhh.... small-minded fear. Well, that's no basis for law, even if a
majority of citizens share in the irrationality.
Equality will prevail.
"The governor said he will be working closely with the attorney
general’s office to work through the confusion caused in county offices
since Friday." There is no confusion for the county clerks they need simply
complywith their legal duty which at this time includes issuing marriage
licenses to gay couples that request them. They may not like the law but they
must follow it. You do not get to ignore a law just because you don't agree
gov hurbert or did we not learn anything from the swallow fiscal?