Although I am not LDS, I admire the attitude of one of the church's
founders, at a time when his view of marriage was certainly not traditional:“I have never altered my feelings towards individuals, as men or
as women, whether they believe as I do or not. Can you live as neighbors with
me? I can with you; and it is no particular concern of mine whether you believe
with me or not.” – Brigham Young
Every day more and more LGBT people are getting married in Utah. Every day that
passes is another day of proof that no harm is coming to anyone. The more time
Judge Sotomayor takes in making a decision about this issue, the more than those
against SSM lose ground. Why?The sky has nor fallenThe sun still
shines over everybody Heterosexual marriages have been unaffectedNo
heterosexual couple have had to complain that they were denied a marriage
certificate because of the new law.The LDS church still have the right not
to marry same sex couplesChildren being raised by LGBT parents are more
securedSS spouses may receive Health benefitsSSM will receive the
Tax Marriage Penalty as everybody else (price of equality)and Utah
continues being the beautiful State that has always been.Where is
Has Monte Stewart ever won a same sex marriage case? I believe his record is
0-5. If he were honest, he'd tell Utah that they have no chance on
overturning this ruling & stop taking our tax dollars. This is a legal
issue, not an emotional issue that the court is hearing.
Interesting argument being made here, that taking away same-sex marriage would
do irreperable harm. A different argument was utilized by Judge Shelby's
ruling, that it wouldn't harm anyone else to allow gay marriage to begin,
or continue, while the appeals were heard. Irony?
I am not LDS, but I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson on this issue. He believes
only a man and woman should be able to marry. Nice to know I agree with Mormon
Prophet Monson, who according to Mormons, speaks for God.
I just don't buy the "stop discrimination" claims when liberals
aren't supporting polygamists right to marry or the rights of two brothers
who wish to marry.
Great rhetoric, great scare tactics , but what is the stats based on? What was
his sample population? What was the size of his population? Are the studies
longitudal or cross sectional? Too often people make outlandish claims, based
on emotion, which have the desired effect.....scare the people. The sky is
falling chicken little., the sky is falling!
This argument seems at least as plausible as the 'Idaho gambit".
Baccus0902 states: "The LDS church still have the right not to marry same
sex couples"What Baccus0902 says is true..........for now.Believe me, the gay and lesbian activist community will never let that
stay the status quo. Mark my words, they will go after all religions and force
them to marry gay and lesbian couples or face very stiff legal and tax penalties
which will cost these religious organizations millions and millions of dollars
that could be used in helping the poor and other worthwhile objectives.The gay and lesbian activists have never been about equality, they could care
less about all the love and light and equality... they have always been about
the acquisition of power and the indoctrination of the citizenry. Of course it
is not going to happen overnight, they don't want it to happen overnight,
then the lie is exposed. This is something they want to happen gradually and if
we don't pull our heads out of the sand, that is exactly what is going to
Chris B"I just don't buy the "stop discrimination" claims
when liberals aren't supporting polygamists right to marry or the rights of
two brothers who wish to marry".Are you seriously asking to
Baccus0902, "Are you seriously asking to legalize
incest?"Are you seriously suggesting that marriage and sex are
the same thing? They are not. There are millions of relationships in our
country that engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. And, there are
millions of marriages that do not include sexual relations for one reason or
another. If sexual relations outside of marriage were illegal and by law
couples had to get a marriage license to engage in sexual relations you would
have a point. But you do not as this is not the case. Sex happens outside of
marriage and marriage does not equal sex. Trying to suggest they do is simply
not true.Besides, what harm does two brothers marrying do? Two
brothers marrying in no way harms society more than two non-related men marrying
These "families" were in existence before the legal title of marriage. I
am not sure how not being "married" affects the children living in
these families. I have no objection to a legal union being made. The term
marriage has been with us for thousands of years, but seems not to mean a union
between a man and a woman any more. I suggest we coin a new coin for
heterosexual unions. A same gender union will never be the same as a
heterosexual one. Perhaps plural marriage, polyandry, etc. will become legal
I have said here before that a court (especially just one judge) should not be
able to creatively (at best) interpret an amendment of the constitution based on
the judge's own biases in such a way that it erases the voice of the people
of a state. I will now go on the record that emotionally charged arguments
should not be used in court. My view on homosexual marriage has nothing to do
with how I feel about the judicial tyranny that is happening here, but has also
happened in many other cases. Finally, the governor has the duty to defend the
voice of his people against judicial tyranny. Herbert is doing the right thing.
Baccus, allow me to teach you something gay marriage supporters have been saying
for years: Marriage is not about sex. They are not the same thing. One happens
without the other and they can exists without each other. Or are you telling us
that currently no couple in the entire country is having sexual relations unless
they are married? Please stop trying to equate marriage with sex. And even if
that were the case, how would two brothers being in love harm you? Please stop
Patriot:There was a time when I would have agreed with you. Unfortunately
for your argument, research has shown quite the opposite. Children raised by
same sex couples have shown no ill effects in their development, social acumen,
or academic achievement. Not one single study has shown the harmful effects you
speak of. In fact most research has actually shown positive outcomes for
children raised by two loving and nurturing parents who happen to be homosexual.
I've watched this first hand with my sister-in-law and her
spouse in a lesbian relationship. They are very good with children and very
supportive of one another, and their children seem very happy and well adjusted,
both emotionally and socially (their son is currently dating "the hottest
girl in school" according to him lol). I think when there was less research
and evidence your concerns would be justified, but as the positive effects and
evidence mount, I think you will find them unfounded and based in fear mongering
by anti-gay and anti-SSM advocates. Until proof is provided that children suffer
in this environment I will choose to love and admire what I see with my own
@Baccus0902"The sun still shines over everybod"Heh
well if you were in Salt Lake you might disagree with that thanks to our nasty
inversions.@Chris B"I just don't buy the "stop
discrimination" claims when liberals aren't supporting polygamists
right to marry or the rights of two brothers who wish to marry."And I don't buy your outrage when you don't apply this standard to
interracial marriage advocates too.@patriot"Innocent
children should not be subject to a homosexual home - it isn't right and it
isn't healthy." Why does Utah allow single people
(including single homosexuals) to adopt but shouldn't allow same-sex
couples to adopt? I sure don't see any outrage about that."Take these kids OUT of the homosexual homes and place them in the home of
a normal"Hmm, who's the one out to destroy families now?
If same sex marriage allows gay people to adopt children who otherwise could
have had a mother and a father, same sex marriage would hurt those children.The optimal resolution is to have civil unions with all the rights of
marriage without the right to adopt.
>>>In U.S. v. Windsor, the high court overturned part of the Defense
of Marriage Act, but the state contends that a majority of the justices
maintained that states have the power to define marriage.That's
true but only insofar as the state doesn't violate the civil rights of a
person, as it clearly has done with the bans on same-sex marriage. The state
simply has no legitimate interest in the race or gender of your spouse, two
categories Utah has historically used to discriminate against the people it
wants to treat as 2nd-class citizens.
When opponents of a discussion topic start tangential arguments, their position
is weak. The discussion here is about same sex marriage/divorce. Not about
what it might lead to (plural marriages, marrying your cousin, marrying a
sheep).. The issue is should same sex marriages/divorces be legal in Utah? The
answer in my opinion, is of course. The other battles are separate and need to
be waged on their own merit.
JNA, you are so right. For 30 years I have been telling people that it is only a
matter of time until the government forces LDS temples to close because the
Church will never permit gay marriages. So many gay activists argue this point
even though the small militant agitators have shown their hand in the aggressive
campaign to force their ideology on religions who disagree with them. Militant
gay activists truly believe we have no right to disagree and our rights are
being trampled and will be much more in the future. The Constitution
is already being trampled as we speak because states rights and the voice of the
people are being ignored. Anyone who understands how the Constitution works and
how the courts functioned within the parameters of the Constitution before FDR
but not after, knows the slippery slope we are on. I wrote a paper years ago on
this judiciary power grab and not even my liberal professors could argue and
grudgingly conceded the point.
tinplater, While I agree to an extent the basis for your reasoning, just
don't come to the discussion believing you(and other gay marriage
supporters) are on some moral higher ground and not guilty of the same
discrimination you pretend to be against unless you're willing to truly
stop discrimination of all kinds, including polygamy. Its'
much easier than not address than issue isn't it? Its a little more
difficult to claim they shouldn't be able to marry 2 wives while still
maintaining any credibility of fighting discrimination isn't it?Why are you afraid to address it? What if this article was simply about two
men being allowed to marry but not women? Would you be afraid to include the
women in the scenario or would you suggest that that argument be debated at a
latter date? I think we know.
@cjb"If same sex marriage allows gay people to adopt children who
otherwise could have had a mother and a father, same sex marriage would hurt
those children."Absolutely not, studies don't even show
that and if they did we don't apply averages like that (imagine the scandal
if we limited adoption to certain races, religions, or states because they did
better on average in something like child's SAT scores). The argument
definitely won't hold up in court when Utah lets single people adopt so you
all clearly didn't actually care about having married heterosexual couples
adopting. Just looking for excuses to go after same-sex couples. "The optimal resolution is to have civil unions with all the rights of
marriage without the right to adopt."Discriminatory policy is
never optimal. @tinplater"Not about what it might lead to
(plural marriages, marrying your cousin, marrying a sheep).."Besides, we all believe marrying a sheep is a baahhd idea.
Ken:Nice try at spinning things but when the state allows two people to
marry it is legally endorsing all acts and contracts that exist within marriage,
and yes sexual intimacy is one of those things. Just because two married people
might not enjoy sexual intimacy does not mean they can't or that it
isn't justified in the bonds of marriage. By allowing siblings to marry the
state would be endorsing incest and allowing it to be legally acceptable because
sexual intimacy is a recognized and accepted behavior in marriage (whether it
actually exists in the relationship or not isn't the point). The state
couldn't say "yes we will allow you to marry but you can't have
sex" to siblings wanting to get married anymore than it could impose that
requirement on same sex or heterosexual marriages...you realize how ridiculous
that sounds?If the state were to allow siblings to marry they would
be endorsing and legalizing incest by extension just as Baccus suggested.
I don't think we really know what harm we are inflicting upon children in
homosexual homes. I realize there are plenty of problems in heterosexual home
environments, but as an educator, I have personally had to deal with problems in
two situations where children came from openly gay parents and both kids were a
real mess. (Both boys raised by lesbian mothers). It is hard to say whether
these children would have turned out any different in a heterosexual
environment, but I seriously feel the home in which they were raised had a major
impact on their behavior. To say that children will be fine when raised in a
homosexual environment just isn't true.
How do two men or two women create children? We just ignore the obvious
don't we? Either there is a God or there is not. Most of us believe there
is, but we ignore everything in this day and age that is so obvious about him.
However to some of us with just plain old common sense we can figure all this
obvious stuff out.
Cougndawgs,Wrong. It exists outside of marriage and there are
marriages where it does not happen. Or do you seriously believe that that no
relationships outside of marriage involve sex and that 100% of all marriages
include sex? If you really think that...wow. You are very
mistakenYou claim that sexual intimacy is a "recognized and accepted
behavior and marriage"I have information for you pal, sexual
intimacy is a recognized and accepted behavior outside of marriage. The state can't tell unmarried couples "you can't have sexual
intimacy" You do realize how ridiculous that sounds right?
cougsndawgs, So you believe that sex is not a widely accepted act outside of
marriage? If you think that, someone needs a lesson on reality.
If you're claiming that allowing sibling marriage would be the
same as the government endorsing sexual relations between siblings then you are
likewise claiming that without that marriage certificate the government has
prohibited sexual relations. And you couldn't be more wrong.
"The discussion here is about same sex marriage/divorce. Not about what it
might lead to (plural marriages, marrying your cousin, marrying a
sheep).."The incessant refrain we hear from supporters of SSM is
that SSM won't affect YOUR marriage. Well maybe not. Neither would
incestuous marriage or polygamy. The question is what is best for society. With SSM it will be necessary to teach school kids about homosexuality
at an early age. I don't see how that can be avoided. Supporters of SSM
must think that's great. I don't, and apparently neither do the
people of Utah.I'm all for civil unions and for treating gay
people with civility and respect. But I don't see homosexuality as the
equivalent of heterosexuality and don't see where society is required to
put its stamp of approval on it.
Actually, keeping same-sex marriages will harm couples and children. Like
studies showing the lasting negative affects of divorce on children-the studies
will begin pouring in on the horrific affect these same-sex marriages will
have/are having on children; with dramatic negative effects on society. The sky
will not fall today, but it will fall on these children. The prophets will be
vindicated...as they always are.
@ Chris B, Ken, JNA,Friends,Polygamy, Incest and any other
form of marriage are not the point of this discussion.As Stinplater
wrote: " The other battles are separate and need to be waged on their own
merit"You are afraid of change. That I can understand, the
question for you as mature individuals is to objectively examine the evidence in
other countries and states in the Union and then decide if your concerns have
any base in reality.@ Bill in AFI can imagine that being
raised by LGBT parents in Utah must be a big challenge for parents and their
children. The social pressure must seem unbearable at times.My
daughter went through some hard time in school as well, mainly during the Middle
school years (7th & 8Th) now she is a young lady, well adjusted, in college,
she has a number of friends who respect her and her parents and we (two gay
men)couldn't be more proud of her.My experience with children
of gay parents has been different to what you describe. Of course we would have
to have more information to reach a conclusion to the reasons behind. Don't
Ken & Chris B:Maybe I wasn't clear. Of course I recognize that
sexual intimacy outside of marriage is widely accepted. However, incest is
illegal and NOT widely accepted. What the two of you are suggesting is that the
State of Utah should allow siblings to marry one another, but at the same time
say they can't have sex because it's against the law. If the state
authorized them to marry, could it also uphold the law by requiring they not
have sex? What if the siblings "love each other romantically" and want
to have sex? Can the state say no after it's issued them a marriage
license? I think both of you can see how this would play out in making the state
at least appear to be endorsing or legitimizing incest. Maybe the state could
enforce a no sex policy on married siblings but that's a very large can of
worms. I get what you guys are saying, and in terms of polygamy I happen to
agree with you that they will have their day in court, which may have
success.Btw, nice to have a debate with you guys outside of sports!
re atl134Salt Lake City, UTYou are willing to give a child to
a gay couple because some 'study' says this is okay? I don't know
about you, but I have lived long enough to know that you can find a study that
supports almost anything depending on the study. Studies are like the Bible, you
can prove anything from the Bible, likewise you can find a study that supports
almost any position.
@Ken"And to correct what you may believe, I do believe polygamists
should be able to marry"My apologies for incorrectly lumping you
in amongst the phony-outrage crowd fake-arguing polygamy. I would just say that
I consider there to be a state interest in limiting polygamy but if a church
wants to perform them, whatever, and if people want to engage in it, whatever (I
support decriminalization, as I noted before). Specifically that state interest
is how would we, in the law/tax code/etc, turn a 2 person system into 2+ and
then what if a man has 3 wives but one of those wives is engaging in polyandry
and has 3 husbands (yes, this is a very technical-based opposition, while I do
disagree with it morally that wouldn't be a very sound argument in and of
itself)?I realize that that issue doesn't apply to the family
based marriage example and will concede that I don't have an argument
against those based on anything other than moral disgust (at least I can admit
@cjb"You are willing to give a child to a gay couple because some
'study' says this is okay? "Sure, why not? This state
allows single people and even single gay people to adopt despite all the studies
that show children in those situations do worse on averages, so why does
same-sex couples become the only one discriminated against in this regard? Let's for the moment assume you're right and that there's
some metric that conclusively shows children raised by same-sex couples do worse
on average. The problem with using averages is that it's stereotyping and
prejudiced. Do you want to do a race-based study and ban whichever one scores
lowest on average from adopting? How about a religion-based one? Mississippi has
the worst obesity, poverty, infant mortality, divorce, and STD rates in the
nation, so should we ban Mississippians from adopting?
Ken:And absolutely the State can say to unmarried sibling couples (because
that's who we're talking about) "you can't have sexual
intimacy"...it's called incest and is indeed illegal. Not so ridiculous
now is it? You and Chris want to talk about couples outside of marriage having
sexual intimacy, and that's all well and good, but you two brought up
SIBLING couples and marriage...the two aren't comparable because sexual
intimacy in non sibling couples is legal and acceptable. Not so for sibling
"couples". The State can and does say "no sex" to siblings, but
you would say the state should allow them to marry? Again, I agree with your
polygamy argument, and if they can navigate the harm principle they might
receive equal marriage rights as well, but the sibling marriage argument just
isn't realistic because the state couldn't enforce incest laws against
a "sibling couple" they gave a marriage license to.
Patriot--If your standard is that children should not grow up in a
home with anything but two heterosexual parents in a healthy relationship, I
respect that--but now we need to enforce it across the board. My mother and
father couldn't stand each other and finally got divorced when I was 14. I
did not grow up in a home with a healthy example of heterosexual affection. Yet
somehow I managed to grow up reasonably sane, marry a woman, and start a family
with her. Truth be told I probably would've welcomed someone
trying to take me away from my parents, but I'm just making the point that
there are plenty of families that don't meet the standard "healthy"
definition you suggest. Unless you're opposed to children growing up in
ALL those types of situations, then you're unfairly singling out families
with gay/lesbian parents.
Cougndawgs,Let me use a simple analogy to help. Imagine there is a
street corner somewhere in the United States where drugs are often
dealt/consumed. Can the US Government make it illegal(as they do) for people to
deal/use drugs? YesCan the US Government make it
illegal for people to walk by any street corner in the country?No.There are countless street corners where drugs are not dealt.
Also, going to any particular street corner(even one often used by drug dealers)
does not make every person who goes by it a drug abuser. Additionally, drugs
exist in places outside street corners. Just because you may be
able to prove that some street corners are often used to deal drugs does mean we
have the right to deny anyone the right to walk by a street corner. In other words, walking by a street corner does not equal dealing drugs. Sex happens in society outside of marriage and marriages happen without
sex. The lack of marriage does not prevent sex and marriage does not cause sex.
The tactic of the LGBT community here is very transparent. Establish prior
precedent so that harm can be claimed if a different conclusion is reached. That
is why within minutes of Shelbys ruling there were folks waiting to get their
licenses and get married. Prior precedence is why the lower courts in CA over
turned the CA law. The Supreme court did not issue a ruling and let the lower
court ruling stand because the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing
before the court. CA reneged on its duty to defend its own law.Let
not the state of Utah do the same. If the state loses it will be a fair loss.
Not a manipulation of the legal system.
I wish I were not still shocked by the blatant ignorance, prejudice, and
paranoia of some commenters here. The DN seems to be a place where the
"Yosemite Sam" type gets to work out all their thoughts. Every minority deserves equal treatment under the law.Some folks
here have conjured up the idea that one small minority (Gay folks) are on a
rampaging crusade to destroy the lds church, by somehow (perhaps sorcery)
getting laws passed which would remove the church's right to make its own
rules.What nonsense! No legislature would pass laws forcing churches
to admit people.-- Interesting that the persecution myth, left over from
the 1800s, is still going on.There actually IS a threat to the lds
church, concerning Gays: the threat is that more and more members are seeing
that their own Gay children, relatives, friends, and neighbors do not deserve to
be 2nd class citizens, nor 2nd class church members.I suggest that
more lds people pray for the prophet to receive more clarity from God on the
issue of integrating your Gay people fully.Or are you going to stay
dug in on the "they need to resist it" malarkey?
The family is the basic unit of society. To redefine marriage is to redefine the
family. To redefine something is to attack it's fundamental definition.
Same sex marriage is attacking the society, therefore becoming a factor in the
now possible future destruction of our country and western civilization as we
While I'm in favor of Marriage Equality, I think everyone would be
benefited from having a well-argued contest Gay Marriage Law. I've read
both briefs before the Supreme Court and unfortunately, it appears that Utah is
at a big disadvantage.Utah's lawyers frame the legal question
primarily as an issue of a State's right to define marriage. Clearly the
Court in U. S. v. Windsor and Kitchen v. Herbert concedes a State's right
to define marriage. The issue is the constitutionality of their chosen
definition. The real debate is the Individual's right to due process and
equal protection under the law, something Utah fails to address adequately. If the goal, as this article suggests, is to do an "end run"
around the tenth circuit court and land this case in the Supreme Court, I
can't think of a worse way to go about it.
Hail Mary is not even close. A 100 yard field goal is more like it. Not much of
a chance to stop civil rights. Appeal a total waste of time and money.
This is just Biology 101, folks. The purpose for sex is reproduction: 1) to
unite the sperm and egg; and 2) to help the zygote to develop into a mature
individual. In the human species permanent heterosexual pair bonds have evolved
because because it such takes such a long time, training and nurturing human
individuals to mature into responsible, productive adults. Heterosexual pair
bonding is is complex in human societies because the pair bond is often expanded
to include parents and other close relatives. Humans who grow up in a home where
there is a strong heterosexual pair bond are more likely to grow up into
well-adjusted and productive adults than if the heterosexual pair bond is
damaged, corrupted or missing. In the past this heterosexual pair-bonding has
been called marriage. Is it wise to try to force this non-biological
relationship on our society? What will the long term social effects be? If
marriage now includes aberrations such as homosexual relationships (which is not
biological sex or biological human pair bonding), then what term should be used
in place of marriage to indicate a biologically healthy, heterosexual pair bond?
What a laughable argument. Something that has never been legal or preferred in
our state, if halted to go through a thoughtful appeal process would suddenly
damage people who have been "married" in the last week.
Stopping homosexual marriage would strengthen the family and community.
Chris B:Yes the analogy helped me better understand where you're
coming from but doesn't do much to help your case for "sibling
marriage". It does, however, provide a perfect platform for understanding
how the harm principle is used when considering an individual's
constitutional rights.Let me use an analogy that has been used
before in these discussions. Some people will drink and drive and arrive home
safe and sound having harmed no one (just as some will walk by drug infested
street corners never having partaken). Does this mean we should allow drinking
and driving? No because it presents a high risk. Because MOST marriages involve
sexual relations the likelihood of those relations existing in any marriage is
high. In "sibling marriage" this would make the risk of incest with
it's associated biological and psychological harm very high. Thus because
of the likelihood of harm, sibling marriage will never be allowed. This will be
the difficulty with polygamists' rights as well because there is an
abundance of evidence that the risk of physical and psychological harm is high
amongst polygamists (which is why it's illegal). Look up the harm principle
for further clarification.
Here seems to be a little known fact - the nation of Canada legalized same-sex
marriage way back in 2007. And Canada is still strong and marriage intact six
years later. All the appeals to fear by the opponents of marriage equality are
wearing pretty thin. Instead of attempting "hail mary appeals," Utah
legal appellants should end their appeals and hail the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I assume the
legal minds appealing studied constitutional law in their respective law
schools, but maybe I am assuming too much.
I support SSM, and I support the stay. Here's why. The Utah case is about
a year behind the Nevada case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, which the proponents of SSM
lost and have appealed to the Ninth Circuit. (The District Court judge in that
case was Robert C. Jones (appointed by George W. Bush) a Mormon who earned his
undergraduate degree at BYU.)The likeliest Circuit Court of Appeals
to strike down SSM prohibitions in state constitutions is the Ninth. After all,
they have experience already, in the Prop 8 case. Its precedent will not be
binding on the Tenth Circuit, but it will be persuasive. If two Circuits agree
on the result, there is less reason for the Supreme Court to take the case. The
Supreme Court's role is to resolve conflicts between circuits, not to
rubber stamp their decisions when they agree.Granting the stay is
not the same as agreeing with those who ask for it. There are many dead
prisoners who received a stay of execution before the death penalty was upheld.
This case is not going to be decided in weeks or months.
AvenueVernal, UTThe family is the basic unit of society. To redefine
marriage is to redefine the family. To redefine something is to attack it's
fundamental definition. Same sex marriage is attacking the society, therefore
becoming a factor in the now possible future destruction of our country and
western civilization as we know it.--- I think that lds members
ought to ask if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young "redefined the family".
At that time, I assure you that most Americans felt far stronger than you do
that a group was "attacking the society, therefore becoming a factor in the
now possible future destruction of our country and western civilization as we
know it."Sometimes, I get a whiff of "We did not get ours,
so you can't have yours", which does not sound like Jesus talking, to
I would be very surprised if Justice Sotomayor votes in favor of a stay. She
did vote to strike down DOMA and against Prop 8. It sounds like the 40 page
argument against Utah is full of emotion. Martin's argument is logical.
And we know what that means: a liberal judge will choose the emotional argument
above logic, most every time.
Cougsndawgs,Do most marriages include sex? Yes. And guess what else
does? Most relationships of couples that are unmarried. This is a fact you would
like to pretend isn't true as it would support your argument. The vast
majority of adults involved in a relationship are sexually active. Marriage does not equal sex.
Baccus0902~ this battle actually has less to do with gay coupling than you
think. Though the scriptures support how most religions feel about the
'act' of homosexuality, this is more about protecting from the
onslaught of gays suing professionals in certain professions. For example
Dr.'s that perform in vitro services, or suing priests, pastors and other
religious representatives that do not wish to perform gay marriages, from being
'forced' to do so. Though many do NOT believe the gay life style is a
correct way to live, most believe they have the free agency to do so. But
religion itself is under attack and individual freedom to practice and live by
those beliefs are being denied when one is forced to perform services that are
against their belief system. It’s all quite hypocritical. The Constitution
should in fact protect against it, but there are liberals redefining those
protections. Just as gays have a right to couple, the religious should be
protected against being compelled to go against their beliefs.
Jason,7 years of gay marriage in Canada is not nearly enough time to gauge
the long term, multi-generational effects of this significant social change.
It's like someone saying that they've been smoking for a week and they
can't feel any difference.
Chris B"Do most marriages include sex? Yes. And guess what else does?
Most relationships of couples that are unmarried...The vast majority of adults
involved in a relationship are sexually active. "Not the point.
The state has no say in unmarried couples, but complete say in what couples they
will allow to be lawfully wed (they issue the license). The state would not hold
that incest is illegal (which will never change because of the harm it causes)
and at the same time allow siblings to marry wherein the state would no longer
be able to enforce their laws against incest on a couple they authorized to get
married. It's a contradiction to maintain something to be harmful but allow
circumstances where it can be legally practiced...that is why states will NEVER
allow sibling marriage. That doesn't mean incest would always occur, but
the harm principle will always raise the fact that in most cases (at least more
than half) it would occur and thus raise the risk for harm. It will NEVER happen
and I've given the reasons why, so that's the last I'll say about
@bobk LDS members do not pray that the prophet will agree with them but that
he will be able to declare the mind and will of the Lord who only does what
is in the best interest of his children. As for families the Devil does not
care about families just our misery and won't support his followers at the
@Cougsndawgs :"Not one single study has shown the harmful effects you
speak of."That is incorrect. There was a study done by
Regenerus that showed negative outcomes for children raised by gay parents. Teh
study showed that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a
significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family
of their married, biological mother and father.Now, supporters of
same sex marriage will say that the reason for the poor outcomes for children
raised by gay parents in the Regenerus study is not because the two adults
raising them were of the same gender but because the children had come from
broken homes. Even if that criticism is correct, the study still showed
negative outcomes so your point is incorrect.(With regards to
criticism of the Regerus study, children being raised by two people of the same
gender, by definition, will not be raised by their biological parents, they will
always suffer the separation from one parent.)
Cougsndawgs,The state has no say in unmarried couples? Not so.
Incest is illegal and that relates to unmarried couples. Did you forget you
yourself have stated this?
Tekakaromatagi:I apologize. I am familiar with Regnerus' study and
the amount of heat it has taken. Having been involved in both education and
social science research myself (currently I'm a research director in the
college of education at a local university) it was a difficult study to take
seriously with the selection of subjects being so profoundly biased. I thought
his research was interesting because it brought to light other ideas and
approaches to gay and lesbian relationships and the effects on children. I wish
his research could have been better controlled but it's a difficult study
to control from the start just because of the lack of subjects who are truly
representative of this population (children raised by same sex couples). There
remains a lot of research to be done, and there are sure to be surprises and
interesting findings along the way, but there just isn't any real evidence
at this point that same sex parents are harmful for child dependents. That said,
I think Regnerus took far more criticism and chastisement than was warranted. I
applaud him for trying to take on a difficult subject and approach it from an
re:SchneeNot sure what your point is?? A single parent raising a
child has nothing to do with a child being subject to homosexuality. A single
mother or father can raise a child - not ideal but with hard work and sacrifice
lots of single parents succeed. On the other hand homosexuality is NOT normal -
it is NOT healthy and from the creation of Adam and Eve the family unit has
always been comprised of a father and mother and for good reason. God knows what
is best for his children. Man doesn't.
"The state has no say in unmarried couples? Not so. Incest is illegal and
that relates to unmarried couples. Did you forget you yourself have stated
this?"C'mon now Chris. You're just playing around now.
The fact I said unmarried couples insinuates couples that COULD be legally
married if they chose to. As the new and old laws stand now that's
homosexual partners and heterosexual partners. It would be redundant of me to be
referring to siblings as unmarried couples because they can't be married in
the first place, and I'm pretty sure you knew that's what I
meant...you're a smart guy (I mean that seriously). And yes, incest is
illegal which is why states would never allow a marriage contract that would
enable it to take place legally. Now can we drop this hypothetical and talk
about a more realistic case that will be brought...that of polygamy. Again if
they can navigate the harm principle they may have a case for being legally wed
to more than one spouse.
JNAMark my words, they will go after all religions and force them to marry
gay and lesbian couples or face very stiff legal and tax penalties which will
cost these religious organizations millions and millions of dollars that could
be used in helping the poor and other worthwhile objectives.KJKSenator Lee has already sponsored legislation making it illegal for the IRS to
penalize churches who don't perform SSM. Church goers of all stripes would
push through a constitutional amendment at lightning speed protecting churches
if needed.SammyB...(I)t is only a matter of time until the
government forces LDS temples to close because the Church will never permit gay
marriages.KJKNo Same-sex couple in any state or country allowing SSM
has asked to marry in a temple. If one does and the courts refuse help, the
Church will simply pull the clergy licenses of all sealers, stake presidents and
bishops thereby stripping them of the LEGAL right to perform legally binding
marriages. This would force couples to marry at city hall and then have a
non-legally recognized sealing in the temple. This is done in a number of
JSB7 years of gay marriage in Canada is not nearly enough time to gauge
the long term, multi-generational effects of this significant social change.
It's like someone saying that they've been smoking for a week and they
can't feel any difference.KJKThe same thing could have
been said regarding plural marriage, mixed race marriage, and giving Blacks and
women the vote. Should new rights be given when the "multi-generational
effects of this significant social change" are impossible to know?
I wish people would recognize that fear-mongering against a class of people, in
this case homosexuals, is little more than incitement to hate. And, it's
unwarranted.There is no evidence that "they" could or would
take over your churches/temples and force you to do things you don't want
to do. Every house of worship is protected by the First Amendment, and any
judge that didn't understand that would be reversed faster than you could
say "disciplinary action.""They" and their
supporters are doing nothing more than trying to get justice for the status quo.
"Those people" are already living in households that resemble
marriages, and caring for each other in ways that benefit the State, in sickness
and in health. I mean literally caring for each other, looking after their
partner when they become infirm, supporting them when they're unemployed,
all things that would fall to the State to do if "those people"
didn't have loving spouses. The only thing they lack is legal recognition
that conveys next-of-kin status and all that goes with that.
@sammyb When you say those "militant gays" are you referring
to the lgbt people that in the past 100years have been subjected to forced shock
therapy, forced lobotomies, forced castration, incarcaration, forced
hospitalization by those that hide behind religion to justify Thierr actions or
just those that were rounded up by the thousands and killed by the Germans?
re: "Has Monte Stewart ever won a same sex marriage case? I believe his
record is 0-5. If he were honest, he'd tell Utah that they have no chance
on overturning this ruling & stop taking our tax dollars. This is a legal
issue, not an emotional issue that the court is hearing."Why on
earth would he want to do that? $2 million buys a lot of nice toys.
What we really need is a test for best interests of children as defined by the
prerogative of the state of Utah1. Based on income2. Religious
Belief3. Sexual Orientation4. Single or Married5. Prior
Criminal Record6. Disabilities 7. IQ8. Age
higvDietrich, ID"@bobk LDS members do not pray that the prophet
will agree with them but that he will be able to declare the mind and will of
the Lord who only does what is in the best interest of his children."You misquote me --- I suggested you pray that the prophet will receive
an answer from God that will make the situation better and more fair to all.
They should have thought of that before they went out and got married because in
the eyes of the Lord they are still single. If they don't believe that,
then they will have to wait and will have to repent which will be harder in the
next life than in this.
Tell you what, put me back to be a 6 year old with two fathers and no mother,
ok.For certain I would have run away or caused a very very big social
mess.Does this tell you something about harm ? Many children are
like I was. Period.The discussion on this article is just another day to
move forward for claiming irresponsible leadership to those who cannot help
it.We are all getting into a mess of confusion about children.Once you got above the average emotional demands of children, you are lost for
knowing better, you will not listen and will not help.Children need help
in any emotional stress, which they cannot express to the outside world,because they are supposed to be shy. What you have done unto one
of the least of mine, you have done unto.....?
I love the slipper slope arguments when it comes to SSM. If a marriage is a
contract, then how could someone marry an unintelligent being? Point is moot.
Next, if consenting adults want to live w/each other does the government step in
and insist they do not? Of course not. If three gals and a guy, or three
guy's and a gal want to marry and share the spouse, then why hot? Just
because you don't like it? The problem with polygamy is that it often
involves child brides and forced marriages, thus society's intolerance to
it. Children are not consenting adults. I'm fine with raising the age a
couple can get married, why not make it 18? Its a contract, you should be an
adult before you get to enter into a legally binding contact like that.
What's the age of marriage in Utah (with the parents consent)? 13? Now
that is sick. You want to lobby your lawmakers to do away with a law, that is
the one to target!
@desertSo let's see on one side we have your antidotal story
of what you think you may have done if raised by gay parents as evidance to
support your claims of harm and on the other side we have the leading
professional fields on children and human behavior as well as a mountain of
research reaching back more then 25 years that says there is no harm. I wonder
which one we should believe?
Stopping gay marriages harms the children in those circumstances no more than
how it was before.Like it or not, willing to admit it or not,
children with 2 moms or 2 dads are going to have issues.
@Baccus0902:"Where is the harm?"Opens the gate wide
for other marriage combinations (polygamy, polyandry, incest, sibs,
parent/child, older men/children, to name a few). And thus, the eventual demise
of marriage altogether. If any variance of man/woman is authorized under
'equal protection,' then all other combinations must also be allowed,
in the interest of fairness and applying the law equally.@skrekk:"he state simply has no legitimate interest in the race or gender of your
spouse, two categories Utah has historically used to discriminate against the
people it wants to treat as 2nd-class citizens."There's way
more marriage arrangements than the two you reference. Where's your support
for the myriads of other combinations (polygamy, polyandry, incest, sibs,
parent/child, older men/children, to name a few)?
@wrzAnd your slippery slope argument has any more validity then when
it was used to oppose interracial marriage or the thousands if other times it
has been made during this debate how exactly? As has been pinted out thousands
of times Unlime SSM adults marring children etc.. Have a proven harm.
@Bob K:"Some folks here have conjured up the idea that... (Gay folks)
are on a rampaging crusade to destroy the lds church, by somehow (perhaps
sorcery) getting laws passed which would remove the church's right to make
its own rules."Let me help you... If the LDS Church refuses to
allow SSM to marry in temples the IRS tax exemption status could be denied.
Millions, perhaps billions would flow out of church coffers into IRS coffers."I suggest that more lds people pray for the prophet to receive more
clarity from God on the issue of integrating your Gay people fully."They did already... it's called 'The Family, a Proclamation to
the World.'@Cougsndawgs91:"In 'sibling
marriage' this would make the risk of incest with it's associated
biological and psychological harm very high."There's
nothing in the US Constitution about biological/psychological. It's about
equal protection."Look up the harm principle for further
clarification."Look up the equal protection principle for
further clarification.@Christopher B:"The state has no say
in unmarried couples? Not so. Incest is illegal and that relates to unmarried
"Besides, we all believe marrying a sheep is a baahhd idea."No better or worse than marrying. The idea is "If the state
were to allow siblings to marry they would be endorsing and legalizing incest by
extension just as Baccus suggested."And what's so wrong
with legalizing incest? Doesn't seem any more that two marrying."I don't think we really know what harm we are inflicting upon
children in homosexual homes."The harm is not so much about
parenting. The harm is ostracizing and shunning by other kids at school and in
the neighborhood."How do two men or two women create
children?"Two Tough assignment. Two Visit certain bank."However, incest is illegal and NOT widely accepted."SSM
is (well, was) illegal as well. And, for sure is not widely accepted."...but the sibling marriage argument just isn't realistic because
the state couldn't enforce incest laws against a sibling 'couple'
they gave a marriage license to."Well then, let's get those
changed to accommodate. Seems only fair if we are going to change the SSM law.
@spring street:"And your slippery slope argument has any more validity
then when it was used to oppose interracial marriage or the thousands if (sic)
other times it has been made during this debate how exactly?"Th
slippery slope evolves over time. The point, simply stated, is... if one type
of marriage under the US Constitution's 'equal protection' clause
can be legalized, all other types of marriages that the human mind can conceive
should also be allowed. It's a matter of fairness and of following the
rules of the Constitution. "As has been pinted out thousands of
times Unlime (sic) SSM adults marring (sic) children etc.. Have a proven
@ cjbQuit pretending like you care who can and cannot adopt. Single
people, regardless of sexual orientation can adopt children. You weren't
up in arms about that before. Why is it a problem now?
Gee, I guess I have to add "able to bring the mighty Mormon church to its
knees" to the ever-growing list of my gay super-powers.Let's see ... I can... cause hurricanes, typhoons, tornados,
floods, droughts, snowstorms, tsunamis, earthquakes, wildfires, total economic
and social collapse, force all heterosexuals to divorce and marry members of the
same sex, force public schools to teach the finer points of sodomy to
first-graders, turn all children of same-sex couples gay, start wars, shred the
Constitution,overthrow the government, destroy all religions,spend my time 24/7
"advancing the militant gay agenda" (whatever the heck THAT is) ...... and still have time to work out at the gym and do power brunches
with quiches and mimosas.Oh, and grass won't grow where we
Regnerus has been universally condemned and declared false, as well as invalid
for reasons of methodology, after rigorous peer review (the standard for any
scientific study) by every RESPONSIBLE professional psychological, psychiatric,
medical and pediatric association in the US; it was also funded by rabid
anti-equality organizations like NOM, FOF, AFA, etc.Citing Regerus
in their brief to SCOTUS was absolutely the BIGGEST mistake the lawyers for the
State of Utah made. Look for the Court (whether Justice Sotomayor or the full
court en banc) to DISEMBOWEL Regerus' study.
For the ruling of prop 8, Judge Walker granted stay because opposing counsels
requested stay instantly, unlike Utah state attorneys, they didn’t wait
AFTER gay marriage resumed in CA and THEN asked the court for a stay. The state
attorneys made a big mistake back then. You can not blame their own incompetency
on other people.