Published: Saturday, Dec. 28 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
No objection my foot. You wanted all or nothing; you got nothing. It's too
late for the civil union idea.
'Traditional marriage provides a father and mother and children born to
that relationship.' Simply put… No, it does
not. Octo-mom, x8 children, no husband. John and Kate,
plus 8. Eight children, now in a divorced family. As for actual
children raised in a SSM marriage… "In most ways, the
accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly
different from those of heterosexual parents." - AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP) - '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 Now, with those false hoods
out of the way, about the legal rights denied to LGBT in America that can be
'solved' by civil unions? *'Kept From a Dying
Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living
wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'And
yet, even with Living Will, Medical Direct, Power of attorny and emergency
contact information...Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of
her dying partner, Lisa Pond. They were together for 18 years. Why fight for Civil unions, when the do nothing?
Separate but equal is inherently unequal. Besides, if you all really wanted to
go with civil unions you should've voted down Amendment 3 because it bans
Well said. The normal legislative process should be required always. There are
no excuses for side-stepping the process that doesn't amount to either
lawlessness or outright fascism.
Sorry, but "separate but egual" is not equal nor Constitutional. Funny
how many of those who support "civil unions" today are those who fought
adamantly against them until marriage equality became a real reality. All of a
sudden they are crying "Why aren't civil unions enough".
Sorry...but gay men and women are not going to settle for table scraps any more.
We've been invited to join the table and we are going to take our
All the whining sounds and looks just like George Wallace and those who fought
against equal rights for blacks in the 50's and 60's. It was bigotry
then and it is now.You should be ashamed of yourselves. My marriage
is not threatened if gays marry. As for 'traditional
marriage'... the mormons above all have no leg to stand on with plural
marriage in the heritage, both with more than one wife as well as more than one
husband."separate but equal" is still bigoted, hateful and not
Mr. Nelson would have made the same arguments in favor of Jim Crow
("separate but equal") laws pertaining to equal rights for black
You are free to believe what you want. The majority of our populace begs to
differ; and will prevail.
You seem to be forgetting the second part of Amendment 3, "No other domestic
union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or
substantially equivalent legal effect."Same-sex couples in Utah
were prohibited by Utah Constitutional Amendment from having civil unions or
domestic partnerships or anything else. When Amendment 3 was up for
a vote, many opponents pointed to the scond part and warned it would cause
trouble by creating an "all or nothing" situation. That is exactly what
happened and, due to the verbiage of the Amendment, there is no option other
than marriage for same-sex couples. Utah and Utah voters have no one
to blame but themselves.
Federal laws trump state laws.Utah cannot make state laws which
violate the Constitution.Banning gay marriage violates the
Constitution. It's that simple.Utah could have had civil
unions. They chose against it. They wanted all or nothing.Now reap
the fruit of your labor!
If Utah had a civil union or domestic partnership law, Judge Shelby could have
ruled on their constitutionality. We don't have those laws, so he was
forced to rule on what we do have.
Gary, guess what? Your own marriage is nothing more than a "civil
union". It required a governmental license (civil) in order to be legal.
Why call a union between people, that is in every way the same, something else?
You just want to feel special over other couples?
Sure -- sounds good NOW!We supported the compromised of Civil Unions
and Domestic Partnerships for years, and were beat down DAILY by the
conservatives.NOW your All-or-Nothing law gets shot down, and
you want to compromise.Sorry. Too late.Compromising with
"Separate but Equal" will not cut it now.You get what you asked
for.BTW -- I'm good with that too.Now -- to fight
that stupid "Citizens United" ruling.
I love the high pitched cries of 'lone, activist judge' from
conservatives today…*'Judge's Prop. 8 ruling
upheld' - By Lisa Leff - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/14/11'...ruling that struck down California's same-sex marriage
ban…'*'Judge Ware Denies Motion To Vacate Decision
Overturning Prop 8' - By Barry Deutsch - Family Scholars - 06/14/11*'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' -
By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10'...ruled
in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense
of Marriage Act, known as DOMA...'*’Prop 8 declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote
– Deseret News – 02/07/12"Proposition 8 served no
purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of
gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on
appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.' sound familiar?*'Appeals court DENIES stay on same-sex marriage, ruling pending hearing
Monday' - By Emilee Eagar, Deseret News – 12/22/13'SALT LAKE CITY — The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver
We act as if homosexuality was invented yesterday and a host of new folks were
found who all of a sudden needed rights bestowed upon them. Civilizations have
dealt with homosexuality for millenia. Marriage has generally not been a part
of the equation (yes, I have read the minor exceptions - they are few and
unconvincing).It seems foolish to take institutions - marriage and
the family - that have been with us for millenia and change them all rather
suddenly. We are moving the foundation blocks about without knowing how this is
all going to play out and whether the structure will continue to stand.Using racial intermarriage as an example, it might have been illegal in the US
at one time but it goes back to biblical times so it is not a good comparison
when looking at long-term consequences.
"Civilizations have dealt with homosexuality for millenia."You mean thinks like hanging them, sending them to concentration camps, and
castrating them? By all means, let's not progress as a community and
improve how we treat one another.
Really???No question that folks should be treated well. The
question is whether and how we reconstruct our entire concept of family for our
Really??? said: "You mean thinks like hanging them, sending them
to concentration camps, and castrating them? By all means, let's not
progress as a community and improve how we treat one another."See if you can follow me here...I'll go slow. Nobody is advocating
homosexuals being hung, beaten, or sent to concentration camps...okay? Twin
Lights and others are simply making the point that marriage throughout recorded
history has been between a man and woman. I realize this presents problems for
homosexual activists and their agenda, but facts are what they are. First, unlike homosexuals, man and woman can procreate and continue the
species (wow, what a concept!). Secondly, it serves children best to have a mom
and dad, and the unique influences both have on the child's development. I
understand there are always exceptions, but generally this has proven true.
Doubt me? Look at the high crime rates among young black people in this
country. Couple this with the fact that nearly 70% of black children have no
father. The missing influence of the father for black children, in this
particular instance, cannot be ignored or denied.
I would like to nominate "traditional marriage" as the most overused
word of 2013.
"Nobody is advocating homosexuals being hung, beaten, or sent to
concentration camps...okay?"First, yes they are. Listen to
rightwing talk radio. There's no shortage of people wanting to make being
gay a crime. Second, are you suggesting that as long as physical violence is
avoided, other forms of persecution and bigotry are OK?"First,
unlike homosexuals, man and woman can procreate and continue the species (wow,
what a concept!)" Lots of gays have kids of their own, and adopt children.
Conversely, many straight couples don't have kids. "Secondly, it serves children best to have a mom and dad, and the unique
influences both have on the child's development." There's no
objective, testable evidence to suggest this is true. Your statistic
about young blacks and crime has infinitely more to do with the economic,
educational and social barriers faced by young black men than whether or not
their fathers are present.Courts have held repeatedly that
"separate but equal" is _not_ constitutional, and Amendment 3 outlaws
civil unions anyway.The rights of a minority are not subject to a
vote by the majority.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments