LDS Liberal,Just because society sanctions something... doesn't
automatically mean God sanctions it.What Government's sanction
doesn't automatically become something God sanctions, and visa-versa.
They are separate things (and that's the way it should be).Marriages used to be conducted and recorded by clergy (and so they were
assumed to be sanctioned by God). But now that Governments are in control of
marriage... that's a different thing.I think God will recognize
what marriages he recognizes regardless of votes, government regulations, or the
ebb and flow of what society will accept.So... nothing has changed
in his eyes.
LDS Liberal,Let me answer that one. What we make legal we sanction
as a society and culture and thereby encourage. It is not good for our society
to condone and encourage what which is sinful.Yes, I understand the
rights argument. But since you brought up the what God recognizes argument, I
responded to that point.
Mike - One last comment today, and I'll clam up...Since
"We" as Latter-Day Saints, believe God only recognizes
"Sealings" in the Temples, and Civil marriages are merely
recognized by Governements, and are for Time only and NOT Eternity, WHAT
is the deal?God has already said what "marriages" he
recognizes and which one's he doesn't.So, Why the
double standard, Why the contradiction, why lack of logical
IMO if the gay and lesbian community want to be accepted as "normal"...
they need to quit celebrating behaving abnormally. Look at the behavior
celebrated in the gay pride parades, etc. If you would just act
"normal" nobody would even know or CARE what your sexual orientation
is.Many parents and church leaders don't WANT their children
emulating what they see portrayed and celebrated in the gay pride parades, etc.
But I know some gay people who are not like that, and I would have no problem
with my children associating with them (not so much the behaviors I see
celebrated regularly in gay pride parades).If you want to be
"freaky"... don't expect people to also see you as
"normal". I know some gay people who are all about being as
"ab-normal" as possible. You can't want that and want to be
accepted as "normal" all at the same time.Act normal and you
will be accepted as normal. Act freaky (like you do on a gay pride float)...
and you can't really expect to be accepted as "normal" (gay or
Hey Richards."There is no logical reason to accept or promote same-sex
unions." ???There are SEVERAL...including the fact that equal
rights are guaranteed to all by the constitution.You puritans are
blinded by religious zealotry, and wouldn't know a book of law if someone
hit you with one.Happy New Year Mike!Why not invite your gay
neighbors over for New Year's festivities?Take the first step towards
reality. It's hard, but you can do it.
Too bad.Traditional marriages are a religious thing.Gay marriage is
a legal thing.And it's legal, so get over it.
@ Rikitikitavi: Sorry - that ship has sailed. Once the courts strike down
Amendment 3, there will be no room to write a new Constitutional Amendment that
says gays can't marry but they can have civil unions. Striking down
Amendment 3 as unconstitutional will mean gays have access to marriage and it
cannot be taken away from them. I suppose they could allow civil
unions also, but they will not be able to prohibit marriage.
Utah legislators can re-write the sections which are at issue. There is nothing
to prevent addition of civil union as a permitted status in the event SCOTUS
upholds Justice Shelby as self-appointed God.
@Mike Richards - There is a simple logical reason to accept and promote same sex
unions - throughout all of history, in every known society, there have been
people who are exclusively, romantically attracted to members of their own
gender. It is a natural and normal part of human sexuality. Logic says we
should accept reality. Encouraging gay persons to establish stable, committed
relationships is good for individuals and society. Once we accept
that some persons are gay by nature and that they deserve dignity, it shifts the
way we think about sexual morality; it is a shift to respecting persons as moral
agents capable of making their own decisions, seeking consent and mutuality in
relationships and acknowledging equality of the sexes. Expressions of this
moral view are found all around us - in acceptance of divorce and remarriage, in
recognition that women are not property of their husbands, and growing
acceptance of same sex marriage as the moral equivalent of heterosexual
marriage. It is a very real shift, but one which I believe is more benficial
Recently, it's been common to use the word, gender, in place of the word,
sex. But gender is a grammatical term referring to being masculine or feminine.
Sex refers to being male or female. In a homosexual couple, one is dominantly
masculine and the other is dominantly feminine, so calling them a same gender
couple is incorrect. But Gary does have some good points that I agree with.
Mike Richards 1:13 p.m.Yes, Mike, and I'm sure all those
students who meet at BYU and get married three months later are doing so for
reasons that have nothing to do with "appetites and passions" or
"sexual impulses." Nothing at all.And children are unable
to consent by law, therefore no one is ever going to be able to legally have sex
with one. That won't change even after Amendment 3 is in the dustbin of
As I said -- I begged to Civil Unions and/or Domestic Partnerships for
years.butThe un-compromising anything uber-far-right-wing went with
All-or-Nothing.You made your bed, now sleep in it.Which
reminds me, @Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahUntil
you can look at "relationships", and disconnect sex from marriage,
your arguments remain moot. People marry for LOVE and
commitment, not for sex and one-night-stands.At least, that's why
most of did.Your rants show just the opposite.
Gary raises good points about civil unions. I've observed, there's no
such thing as same-gender attraction. Gender actually refers to the masculine
and feminine qualities, not male and female. Because in a homosexual
partnership, one of the partners displays dominant masculine appearance and
manner, and the other displays a prominent feminine manner and appearance. So,
I think the attraction between feminine and masculine is quite universal. I
prefer masculine males loving feminine females, but that's just me; I mean
no offense. I think people say same-gender, because they want to avoid using
the word, sex. Gay should mean happy, but instead it's used as a euphemism
for homosexuality. I've noticed that negative comments about marriage
between a man and a woman cite the worst examples of celebrities'
disastrous family relationships to justify changing the definition of marriage.
Had Utah provided civil union accommodations there is less of a likely hood the
judge would have seen a need to provide full marriage. Of course that would have
required that Utah actually cared or that Utah was more calculating. What the
judge saw was indifference to the wants and needs of a persecuted minority and
he decided to do something about it.All this being the case, the
state should not promote any definition of marriage that results in gay couples
adopting children who could have had a mother and a father. The rights and well
being of children should be paramount and needs to be taken into account.
There is no logical reason to accept or promote same-sex unions. Same-sex
unions cater to appetites and passions. Those who promote same-sex unions also
promote the idea that men and women are slaves to their sexual impulses and that
they have no control over those impulses. They demand that because they think
that satisfying sexual impulses is a "right", that they can use the 14th
Amendment to claim "equality".If a person is not held
responsible to control his sexual appetites and live within the bounds that the
Lord has set, then what is to stop those who advocate same-sex unions today to
advocate sex with children tomorrow? No one believed that having multiple wives
would result from same-sex unions, but that ruling has been made based in part
on the demands of those who want same-sex unions. Can anyone believe that this
"snowball" will not continue to roll until anyone can do anything at
anytime with whomever he/she pleases without facing consequence? No
one can reject morality without destroying the foundation that keeps society
'Twin Lights and others are simply making the point that marriage
throughout recorded history has been between a man and woman.'
False. Up until 1890 Marriage in Utah was between a man…. and a woman and a woman and a woman, etc. '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 will grant you a man and a woman can procreate. Every child put
up for adoption can support this. And those children, do NOT factually have a
'mother and a father' do they? If a 'mother and a
father' was required to have children… why is the LDS
church not donating $2 million dollars against Octo-mom and her 8 children with
no husband..? "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 -
What Gary overlooks is that Utah was not satisfied with just banning same-sex
marriage. Amendment 3 also forbade civil unions or any other kind of contract
which provided the legal protections and benefits of marriage. If it had allowed
civil unions, we might not even be having this debate over semantics.
"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.
I would like to nominate "traditional marriage" as the most overused
word of 2013.
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.
Really???No question that folks should be treated well. The
question is whether and how we reconstruct our entire concept of family for our
"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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
You are free to believe what you want. The majority of our populace begs to
differ; and will prevail.
Mr. Nelson would have made the same arguments in favor of Jim Crow
("separate but equal") laws pertaining to equal rights for black
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
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
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.
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
'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?
No objection my foot. You wanted all or nothing; you got nothing. It's too
late for the civil union idea.