How _exactly_ does prohibiting same-sex marriage further "gold standard"
relationships - especially when the law allows other relationships that are not
"gold standard"?It is great that you would prefer all
children be raised in households with two opposite sex parents, but current law
allows single people to adopt. Current law allows single people to access
reproductive assistance technologies. Current law allows divorce. And current law allows two unmarried same-sex people to have and raise
children. How does preventing marriage for those same-sex couples
who are already raising children further the goal of having children raised by
opposite sex parents? (Obviously it hasn't made any difference up to this
point, why is it going to make a difference going forward?)And why
do "traditional marriage/family" supporters feel it is okay to ignore
the reality of families/marriage prior to the fiction of "Leave it to
As a straight, male Latter-day Saint who is married in the Temple, let me be
painfully frank: your view of traditional marriage does not matter in this
debate. Your personal, moral convictions are literally irrelevant in the court
of law. Rather, credence is granted to the COTUS which is why opponents of
marriage equality are going to lose the legal battle.
In his important work "The Great Transformation" Karl Polanyi describes
the rise of capitalism as a process of change - going from setups where
economies were inside of societies to what obtains today - a society inside of
an economy. He describes the great stresses the current situation places on
traditional forms, especially the family, extended and nuclear. He establishes
that life is intolerable in a modern commercial society absent the family. Most
of us can agree that life today is intolerable without family life.So what does Ms. Bunker propose homosexuals do in order to survive in the
world we know? They need family life just like heterosexuals. I presume her
prescription for them would be therapy of some sort to make them heterosexuals.
Such procedures have been thoroughly discredited and have often been brutal in
the extreme. So here's the situation. Homosexuals need
families. Ms. Bunker means to deny them. Ms. Bunker, what should they do?
Judge Shelby's ruling need not change anyone's view or opinion or
belief about anything. He ruled on the law. You will be free to believe whatever
you want forever. But the whole point is that law is not based on your views or
beliefs about the ideal marriage. And marriage laws are not based on what is
ideal. If so, divorce - even contention in marriage - would be illegal.
Fine. No one's telling you to change your view of traditional marriage.
Just don't rewrite the law based on no real reason besides "because God
So the opinion was barely able to stumble three steps before falling flat on its
face. The state of Utah allows single people to foster and adopt and the only
research that begins to support your claims all examined the differences between
married couples and single parents not SSM. Further as was the case with the
states argument the writer fails to provide any evidance that banning SSM will
somehow improve the likelyhood that a child will be raised in what they consider
How could or why would this ruling change views regarding traditional marriage?
This ruling doesn't affect or have anything to do with traditional
marriage.What this ruling does is legalize gay marriage.
And then there are the many many times when a mom and dad in the home just
isn't possible. My mom passed away when I was very young. I can come up
with dozens of other plasable scenarios. I can also know families that should
not be together because of the poison the mom and dad create in the home. So sure, its best to have the ideal situation, but since I never had it, and I
ended up being a productive member of society, I'm sure there are many more
just like me. It really is a situation where those for
"traditional" marriage are riding a high horse and need to get off.
Ok Laura: A couple of questions for you:Are you in favor a law
banning the adoption of children by LGBT couples?If the natural
parent of an LGBT Couple dies should the children be taken from the other parent
and placed in a traditional family?
”…eons of time and decades of social science…” is not
even an accurate assessment. “Traditional” marriage has changed
repeatedly.“In the wake of “Judicial tyranny,”
many Utahns feel like their voice has been taken away…”And there are many who FINALLY feel like their voice has been returned.Denying LGBT couples the legal benefits you enjoy is not even close to
“treating everyone with kindness and respect.”
While Judge Shelby's opinion may have left some Utahns upset, it made many
others jubilant. I would add that people don't wait in line for hours in a
snowstorm waiting for a clerk's office to open so they can obtain a
marriage license because they want to destroy traditional marriage. They wanted
to participate in it.
And here we go again. This is just like sitting in Sacrament
meeting and listening to a talk on Baptism for the umpteenth time in your life.
No new information just personal testimony and stories. Really DN how many times are you going to do this? We get it you don't
like same sex marriage.The one piece of advice this article had that
wasn't too bad was slow down and take a deep breath (my interpretation).
It's out of your/the publics hands now and up to the courts.
Stalwart said it well. Your opinion doesn't matter now, and trust me we
know what your opinion is.
My gosh, how many times do we have to hear this irrational argument? EVERYONE
supports "traditional marriage." But denying marriage rights to some
does NOT improve another's family. Please stop repeating this lie.
IMO it's not a Judge's job to change our views. He changes the
law.I'm OK with laws not matching my beliefs. They are two
totally separate things.I don't need laws to force my views to
conform to somebody elses values/beliefs. My beliefs are things I will
understand and follow without government force (self-motivation). Laws are needed, but they don't replace personal beliefs. And personal
beliefs don't trump the law. But our laws should not be focused at
forcing people to change their religious views/beliefs.If that is
what Judge Shelby was trying to do... it was wrong-headed.If he was
only trying to protect the rights of the minority from being suppressed by the
majority (and not trying to change anybody's views or beliefs)... it was
the right decision.I think I can keep my beliefs regardless of how
this law turns out in the end. So it doesn't matter a lot to me.I personally think the campaign to "normalize" the gay lifestyle is
wrong-headed for society as a whole (long run). But my personal beliefs will be
tolerated also (I hope).
Your opinion doesn't change, and we're moving on without you. See
‘My view: Judge Shelby’s ruling does not change our view of
traditional marriage’====== And repealing
prohibition does not change your view of alcohol.There are 300
million Americans, there are 300 million views and opinions, and then
there are the laws.
The Declaration of Independence tells us that we receive all rights from our
Creator, not from government. The Constitution limits government to do only
those things specifically allotted to it by the people, things that are
enumerated. The voice of the people supersedes the "right" of
government. Government cannot overrule the voice of the people without
declaring the Constitution to be null and void. Marriage is not
listed as a responsibility of government; therefore ACCORDING to the
Constitution, all laws pertaining to marriage belong to the States or to the
People. Utah followed the Supreme Law of the Land and had the PEOPLE of Utah
express their vote on marriage and then incorporated that vote into the Utah
State Constitution, where it is binding, ACCORDING to the United States
Constitution.Even the 14th Amendment requires that people be treated
equally according to the laws, "nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The only laws on marriage
that are allowed are those laws written by the States.Judge Shelby
ignored the very foundation of law when he ruled, no matter what his supporters
You say: "This is not a time to give up, it is a time to wake up."It is indeed time for those who elect to be controlled by celestial
indoctrination to "wake up" and realize the world does not revolve
around a particular dogma. The reason that you feel so much angst,
Laura, is that you fail to grasp the concept that marriage equality is a civil
matter in which all disagreements will be resolved under the law of the land:
the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS. Civil matters are
not subject to any religious inspection. Marriage equality is a secular, civil
matter, and you will find peace when you understand this concept.When the 10th District Appeals Court rules in favor of the Shelby decision,
you will still be free to harbor ill-feelings to your fellow citizens simply
because they are not like you. But you need to understand that not being able to
unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an
infringment on your freedoms.
Laura Bunker is expressing her opinion, and it should be respected. As you
know, it was also the opinion of 66% of the people of Utah, when it was placed
on the ballot for a vote. Some of you might think that number has changed, that
more people are now accepting of same-sex marriage, but there is no way of
knowing that without a secret vote in a voting booth, and all citizens do not
vote. So, we need to respect the legal process which allows citizens the
opportunity to have a voice in the laws which govern them. Those of you who are
trying to get same-sex marriage recognized in Utah are hoping that judges will
make the decision, because a majority of the people of Utah are more likely to
support marriage between a man and a woman.
Nevermind, this one's from an outside writer... one from a group who thinks
freedom means being able to fire someone just because they're gay.
@Mike: You are presenting the same tired arguments, dating back to the Prop8 and
DOMA rulings, that actually resulted in the Shelby ruling to begin with!You are correct in that the Windsor ruling last summer, the SCOTUS
specifically stated that individual states can indeed regulate marriage within
its state borders. What you failed to include, however, is that
SCOTUS *also* said that among all the laws a state might enact regarding
marriage, it can not enact any laws which violate the U.S. Constitution.Clearly, Utah's Amendment 3 utterly failed this most basic of legal
inspections. It enacted state-sponsored discrimination against a minority of
law-abiding, tax-paying Utah citizens. And that's why
Utah's Amendment 3 was properly and correctly struck down in a court of
law. At its core, this amendment was un-American. Just like in Oklahoma. And
many other states that will soon follow. Several years from now, all this
bru-haha will be a mere afterthought, a historical curiosity.
Consider the source:"Laura Bunker lives in Lehi and is the
president of United Families International and co-chairwoman of the Utah First
Freedoms Coalition."======= United Families
International (UFI) is a United States nonprofit organization founded in 1978 by
Susan Roylance[btw – thanks for checking and chiming in this morning
at 9:09 am, Susan.]First Freedoms Coalition and is made up of
well-known conservative organizations such as the Utah Eagle Forum, the
Sutherland Institute, United Families International and Citizens of Strong
Regardless of how this court battle works out... I hope that the GLBT community
can acknowledge that just because you don't support their agenda,
doesn't mean you have "ill will" towards your fellow citizens.-Just because you don't support the agenda doesn't mean you
hate anybody.-Just because you have different beliefs about what's
"moral" and what's not, doesn't mean you hate people who
disagree with you.I hope when this is all said and done... that MY
views will be tolerated as well (by the GLBT community).===EVERYBODY needs to be more tolerant of other's views. Not just one
side.I can have my views (and it doesn't mean I hate you, or
have ill will towards you).I hope you can have your views and not
have ill will towards me.
@Susan Roylance;It doesn't matter how many people vote on the
rights of other American citizens. If they violate the Constitutional
protections of those citizens, that law will be overturned. The majority does
not get to vote on the rights of minorities.@2 bits;"I hope when this is all said and done... that MY views will be tolerated
as well (by the GLBT community)."What, exactly is the LGBT
community doing that is not showing tolerance to your views other than
requesting equal legal treatment? We don't care if you disapprove, we just
want you to stop using your disapproval against us in civil society.
Susan Roylance said: "Those of you who are trying to get same-sex marriage
recognized in Utah are hoping that judges will make the decision, because a
majority of the people of Utah are more likely to support marriage between a man
and a woman."You are incorrect in your thinking Susan. Majority
isn't always right, and you need to respect the legal system of checks and
balances which keeps prejudice laws from becoming "Traditional."
Susan Roylance, The majority of the people of Utah will still be able to
participate in a marriage between a man and a woman.
Re: "What, exactly is the LGBT community doing that is not showing tolerance
to your views"... (Ranch)-How about GLBT violence and vandalism
at marches in Utah and California at Mormon chapels and temples after Prop-8
including death threats, vandalism, arson, etc (From the GLBT community).
That's not "tolerance".-How about the anti-LDS
documentary the GLBT community just made? I watched it, and it's full of
hate and lies.-How about the comments in these pages, that assume
that if you don't support their agenda, you're a hater (I'm not).
I'm just keeping my own values and beliefs.===If
you don't know what I'm talking about... Google "Prop 8 protesters
target Mormon temple in Westwood" (LA Times)Or Wikipedia.
Search "Protests against proposition 8 supporters". Especially the
section on "Death threats and vandalism"... That's NOT
tolerance.Read about the death threats sent to business leaders and
religious leaders who were on the wrong side of Prop-8. That's not
tolerance.I'm out of words here... but if I have more comments
I'll give you more specific examples...
Ranch,Re: "What, exactly is the LGBT community doing that is not
showing tolerance to your views"...This from Wikipedia (not
anti-gay source, fairly impartial)"In the ten days following the
November 4 election, seven houses of worship in Utah and ten buildings of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in the Sacramento area were
targets of vandalism, arson, graffiti and meeting house glass doors
shattered.... A copy of the Book of Mormon, an LDS religious text,
was found burning at the front of a meetinghouse"... An affiliate group of
the radical trans/queer organization Bash Back! claims credit for pouring glue
into the locks of LDS meetinghouse and spray painting its walls.Before the vote, Alan Autry (the mayor of Fresno) received an email containing
death threats against both himself and Pastor Jim Franklin. This caused police
to assign the pastor officers for his protection and motivated the mayor to
obtain a bodyguard.In November 2008, the United States Postal
Service delivered envelopes containing white powder to two LDS temples (one in
Los Angeles and one in Salt Lake City) prompting a hazardous materials response
and a federal domestic terrorism investigation.That's not
The op-ed is a rehash of the optimality argument (or in the terms of the
state's argument in the Kitchen case, the gold standard). Fine.
Let's accept as a given that children do best in a married Mom+Dad+Kids
family structure. There is research and common sense to support it. If the
social policy goal of marriage is to facilitate child welfare and improve life
outcomes by incentivizing the optimal (gold standard) family structure, then
Utah family law goes about it very inefficiently. Marriage is not a
prerequisite to bear children. Divorce results in single parenthood. Singles
can adopt. Some married couples get all the legal incentives of marriage but
are prohibited from having children. It's a messed up system. There are
so many loopholes and exceptions that it fails to deliver the gold standard.
Suboptimal family structures (let's say silver, copper, and lead standard)
abound and are completely legal. In this environment, it is hard to accept as
convincing an argument that the gold standard is the only possibility.
Meanwhile, in a lawsuit challenging the state's decision not to recognize
the validity of the marriages performed in the two week window, one of the
plaintiff couples is literally begging the court to give them the gold standard
family that Ms. Bunker professes to prefer. They have a son and the
nonbiological father wants their marriage recognized because he currently has no
legal status with respect to the boy. They desperately want to give their son
two legally married parents for all of the reasons described in the column.
They want to do the things that guarantee chances of a better life outcome for
their child, like be married. To me, that's golden.
So this whole issue is about a LOT more than just marriage. It includes such
concerns as the following:(1) "California Governor Jerry Brown signed
legislation that requires all public schools to allow transgender K-12 students
to use whichever restroom and locker room they want. This means that if an
anatomical boy feels deeply(no definition given) that he is a girl, he must be
allowed to use girls restrooms. And must be allowed to participate on girls
athletic teams. And shower in their locker rooms. (2) FARMINGTON, Utah -
"The Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to the Davis School District in
support of its policy that requires parental consent before children can check
out a homosexual advocacy book titled "In Our Mothers House" from
elementary school libraries. The American Civil Liberties Union contacted the
district and demanded that it allow children to access the book without the
knowledge of their parents.Public schools should not surrender to ACLU
intimidation when it asks them to expose children to sexual content without
parental knowledge, said ADF Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. Parents, not the ACLU
should decide whether young children have access to this type of
I have a few questions for Laura. As children fare better in a family with two
biological parents, would she suggest we discourage or bar step-families, where
children just have one biological parent, from forming? And how about the
estimated 8 million children in the United States already being raised in
same-sex partner households? They only have one biological parent (yes, gays do
bear and sire children). Would these children not do better if they were in a
legally recognized family with all the benefits and protections of marriage? It
might not be your ideal, but your ideal is now the minority of families in the
United States. Being a child in a step-family or same-sex partner family is far
better than being a child raised by a single parent.
Right on Laura. The truly compassionate care about children. The truly
charitable steer youth away from destructive lifestyles and hold up traditional
marriage as the safest standard for them and for society. The truly loving tell
the truth about the health benefits of traditional marriage and the consequences
of alternative lifestyles.
Judicial Tyranny?Citizens United.My view of traditional
marriage has not changed.
Many people are equating legal rights for homosexuals with the black struggle
against racism. This is not a valid argument. There is a specter haunting
America. It is the movement to promote and legalize homosexual marriage. The
movement has adopted a cunning political strategy to appeal to everyone. It has
packaged its demand for the radical redefining of marriage in the rhetoric and
imagery of the U.S. civil rights movement.This strategy, though
utterly cynical and possibly racist, has enormous strategic utility. For what
reasonable and fair-minded American would object to a movement that conjures up
images of Martin Luther King Jr. along with pacifist marchers facing down
unleashed attack dogs and men with fire hoses? In the aftermath of that struggle
for racial justice, who today is prepared to risk being branded a bigot for
opposing the homosexual activist agenda?But the partisans of
homosexual marriage have a problem. There is no evidence in the
historiographical literature of the civil rights movement or in the
movement's genesis in the struggle against slavery to support their
political and moral argument of equivalence". by EUGENE F. RIVERS III AND
KENNETH D. JOHNSON
66% of the voters (voice of the people) is like two hungry wolves and a
delicious and tasty lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Minority rights do
not normally depend on the outcome of any election, it is un-constitutional. Every main stream pediatric, medical, psychological, psychiatric, and
sociological organization that is concerned with child welfare show no
difference in child outcomes for same-sex couples. Even if there were some
gold standard or ideal, convicted child molesters, spousal abusers and other
felons are not barred from marriage where the child outcomes are well known and
documented. The US constitution simply does not permit Utah's desire to
target a minority for discrimination based on animus, regardless of strongly
held beliefs. Moreover, marriage law does nothing remove children from same-sex
couples. Adoption, custody and reproductive law are the correct legal tools.
There is no evidence of any kind that banning same-sex couples from marriage
makes children more likely to be raised in opposite sex households. Civil laws
must be rational and be able to show actual cause and effect. More than
"wishful thinking" is required in order to withstand constitutional
I have two points. 1. What happened in UT is and will be bad for all
citizens-- gay and straight-- those for gay marriage and those against. A single
judge taking the power of law away from the people hurts everyone. There is a
strong history of the government being of the people, for the the people, and by
the people. If the judiciary continues to rule against the people, the republic
will be lost. 2. I agree whole heartedly with Laura Bunker. Children
do need a mother and a father. There will be a time in the future when we will
have plenty of data on this topic, until then same sex marriage is a social
experiment. However, it is natural for mankind to wonder who they are and where
they come from. Children from same sex couples will want to know the biology of
their beginnings and they will keenly feel the loss of their missing parents
just as children from single parent households have for years.
I'm sick of hearing that there is no "legal" reason that Amendment
3 can stand. How about this, there is no inequality in amendment 3. Gays and
lesbians have the same right to marry as straight people - they can marry one
individual of the opposite sex. Same right. They can choose to exercise it or
not. "But we can't marry who we love!" Where does the law say that
love is a condition in marriage? Where is it even suggested? Where does it
consider marriage to someone you love a right? "But I'm genetically
pre-disposed not to want that kind of marriage." So don't get one.
There are plenty of men who are genetically pre-disposed not to get pregnant yet
Obamacare (a government program) has said that their health plans must include
maternity coverage. "But I don't want that marriage and I'll miss
all the government benefits like tax deductions." Tough. People who choose
not to donate to charities, own a home, or don't buy health insurance also
miss out on tax deductions. There is no inequality in Amendment 3. We all have
the same RIGHTS to marriage and its benefits.
@dianeect: "A single judge taking the power of law away from the people
hurts everyone."This sentence reveals an apparent lack of
knowledge with regard to the "checks and balances" built into our form
of government. This "single judge" did not - in any way, shape or form -
"take the power of law away from the people". That is not even close to
reality.Rather, what Judge Shelby did was rule on a state
constitutional amendment that failed to comport with the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment 3 was in direct violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US
Constitution, and that produced the following ruling: "The State
of Utah has provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage will be affected in
any way by same-sex marriage. In the absence of such evidence, the State’s
unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State’s
refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian
How about we call it "Traditional Slavery", or "Traditional
Bigotry"...that still wouldn't make it right.How
about we let the States vote on it...and allow them to pass Jim Crow type
Laws -- you know, Separate but equal...That still doesn't make
it right, nor Constitutional.Why not go one step further, and
ask the States to self-determine if they will recognize "Mormon
Marriages" from Utah.Put it up for a vote.Would that be
fair? Would that be right?
HOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE HARMS MARRIAGE AND FAMILIES:Perhaps most
importantly, shifting the focus of our marriage laws away from the interests of
children and society as a whole, and onto the desires of the adults involved in
a same-sex relationship will result in the most profound long-term consequences.
Such a paradigm shift says to children that mothers and fathers don’t
matter (especially fathers) – any two “parents” will do. It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a mother and a woman can
be a father – that men and women are exactly the same in rearing children.
And it undermines the marriage culture by making marriage a meaningless
political gesture, rather than a child-affirming social construct.When marriage ceases to have its historic meaning and understanding, over time
fewer and fewer people will marry. We will have an inevitable increase in
children born out of wedlock, an increase in fatherlessness, a resulting
increase in female and child poverty, and a higher incidence of all the
documented social ills associated with children being raised in a home without
their married biological parents. From Minnasota for Marriage
66% of the people in Utah don't like say -- Yugo's or lime green
cars.So the majority passes a law and banning all tax paying, law abiding,
Yugo or lime green car owners the right to be on or use the same the roads as
everyone else.and their "logic"?becasue, they
are trying to protect their own cars or their children's cars from turning
into Yugos or changing colors to lime green.If they are obeying all
the traffic laws, what is the crime other than being "different"?Can anyone see how silly, baseless and discriminating this is?
re: "Gays and lesbians have the same right to marry as straight people -
they can marry one individual of the opposite sex. Same right. They can choose
to exercise it or not. "But we can't marry who we love!" Where does
the law say that love is a condition in marriage? Where is it even
suggested?" See Loving v. Virginia, where folks were free to
marry as long as they were of the same race. "But we can't marry who
we love" was proven to be a valid constitutional argument that in part
struck down anti-misegenation laws based on immutable characteristics. Race,
and Sexual orientation, un-like religious belief are considered to be an
immutable characteristic for most people.
a_voice_of_reasonWoods Cross, UT"But we can't marry
who we love!" Where does the law say that love is a condition in marriage?
Where is it even suggested? Where does it consider marriage to someone you love
a right?2:35 p.m. Jan. 22, 2014========= THAT is why you fail.You can't define marriage, because
you don't even know what marriage is.good day!
re: "When marriage ceases to have its historic meaning and understanding,
over time fewer and fewer people will marry. We will have an inevitable increase
in children born out of wedlock,...."Sky will fall argumentation
is simply not valid argumentation in a court of law. Courts cannot rule based
on fantasy, what someone thinks might, could or should happen. Courts rule
based on evidence and findings of fact, that clearly demonstrates what is the
reality today. Would you like to try again with a better argument that will
withstand constitutional muster?
Has anyone who defends Judge Shelby taken the time to read the Supreme
Court's ruling on DOMA? The majority opinion clearly stated: "(a) By
history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated
as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. "That is the ruling. Utah is one of those "separate States". The
people of Utah, using their right to define their own constitution voted to
define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The ruling supports the
State's right to do that. The ruling upholds the United States
Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment, that those who believe in
same-sex marriage are so fond of citing, by acknowledging that all people are
protected under the laws, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws."Even the most foolhardy would
not suggest that the judiciary can legislate. If they do suggest that the
judiciary can legislate, then they are stomping all over the Constitution, where
Article 1, Section 1 tells us, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
and House of Representatives."
The author argues marriage exists to provide a "connection" for
children, to guarantee they will be raised in a certain family configuration.
Conceptually, she treats marriage as strictly utilitarian, it serves a purpose,
which implies that once it ceases to serve that purpose it ceases to be
relevant.That is wrong. Marriage is intrinsically and inherently
good for persons. Marriage as a commitment, an ongoing, consensual, intimate
relationship benefits the married persons, provides them with emotional
stability and intimacy which is required for humans to thrive. With or without
children, marriage is good for adults. Author Stephanie
Coontz's book Marriage: A History examines the fact that our contemporary
model of marriage - in which two persons make an emotional commitment to one
another - is incredibly rewarding when it works. As a social institution,
marriage has shifted and changed from a political and economic relationship to
an avenue for personal fulfillment and emotional wellness. It benefits adults
to be married to someone they love and the benefit has nothing to do with
gender.Reducing marriage to nothing more than a way to make and
raise children, while dismissing its value as an emotional bond beteen adults,
The real argument Utah is too scared to confront is the widespread acceptance of
cohabitation. Gay marriage is just a legal recognition of what Christians used
to call "living in sin". Mormon families with straight parents married
20 years have been doing it for years. They turn a blind eye to straight young
single adult son or daughter moving in with their significant other in hopes
they will repent and go to the temple later. How often has that worked out? Your
advice for everyone to strengthen their own marriage kinda falls flat for those
forced to choose between living alone or cohabitating. If gay marriage pushes
everyone to address this social issue of more gays than straights rushing to tie
the knot then we have nothing to fear.
I think there are consequences for every thing, cause and effect, action an
reaction. disrespect for human life may be one. When women an children is took
care of, I can see that it will be every man for them self.
@Mike Richards - I read the Court's Windsor decision - I'll summarize
the arguments I found there. The court agreed states have authority
to regulate marriage - subject to Constitutional guarantees; states' right
to regulate marriage is not unlimited.The decision points out that
legalizeing same-sex couples was intrinsically related to the historical purpose
of marriage, granting persons dignity by recognizing their relationships. DOMA
deliberately contravened that purpose; in the court's words, "avowed
purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a
disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into
same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the
States."By refusing to recognize same-sex marriages, DOMA
deliberately identified a group of legal marriages and rendered them unequal.
By extension, it rendered the persons in those marriages unequal and violated
constitutional protections. The lives of gay/lesbian persons are improved and
lived with greater dignity through having access to the rights, responsiblities
and protections of legal marriage. Lack of access to marriage imposes real
economic and material harm to gay/lesbian couples and their children.
That's why Judge Shelby ruled as he did.
Well said. I agree.Children do need a mother and a father. This
critical principle is sooooo often overlooked.
@ mpo, "Children do need a mother and a father. This critical principle is
sooooo often overlooked."Please educate me, as specifically as
you are able, how denying someone else the ability to marry is going to actually
make that happen?
I agree with the author, I see many comments from people who don't and I
appreciate that the comments are mostly civil and polite even though they
disagree. People can debate without name calling.
We MUST legislate the "gold standard" -- for the children!To
that end:• Any pregnant woman MUST marry the biological
father of the child prior to the birth of the child.• No biological
parents (father and mother) will be allowed to divorce before the child turns 18
years of age.• Any marriage that does not produce biological
children within 1 year MUST be dissolved by the state.• All
marriages will be dissolved by the state when the youngest child turns 18 (no
more children, no more reason for marriage)• As biological parents
are the gold standard, adoption will not be allowed, by anyone for any
reason.Because legislating morality and human relationships is what
freedom is all about.™
Betrayed? Do those who voted to strip away civil rights ten years ago now feel
betrayed? Wow. Those must be hard feelings to deal with. Please accept my
condolences.I imagine that my friends who have spent years being
marginalized by their government also felt feelings of betrayal. But I
wouldn't want those feelings to appear to violate your right to believe
what you want. After 13 years of marriage, I am experiencing some
betrayal of my own and I must divorce and raise two children with little
reprieve or financial support. I'm sorry that my family is one more that
violates your idea of the "ideal".
Mike Richards stated "all laws pertaining to marriage belong to the states
or to the people." He also went on to declare that the Utah vote on
marriage is binding according to the United States Constitution. However, in
1967 the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia overturned laws in several
states that prevented persons of different races to marry, an African American
and a Caucasian in that particular instance. It would seem very possible that
Utah's anti-same-sex proposition could meet the same fate. It's all
about that pesky little 14th amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all
History is, sad to say, repeating itself. Utah voters are going
through the same thing that we voters in California went through with our own
vote on marriage, Proposition 8. If you want to know what the
probable outcome of all of this, take a look at what has happened here in
@Reuben Dunn:I am honestly interested. What in your opinion, has
been the repercussion in California from the Proposition 8 outcome?
This is tough. I imagine what Mormon Christians are going through is the same
thing our ancestors went through when the Federal Government took away
women's right to vote in Utah more than 100 years ago. We ask the federal
government once again to give us our civil rights back, let our votes count.
Our judiciary is a vital part of our democracy. Dismissing some ruling you
disagree with as the action of one man denigrates the mission, professionalism
and impartiality of an entire branch of government. That ruling can and will be
appealed, but if you lose the appeal, and the other appeals, up to SCOTUS, what
then?Comments here imply that you value your church over your nation
and mob rule over individual rights, as long as it's your mob. My religion
has been on the receiving end of mob rule (see: Boston Martyrs), and so has
yours.It's not our right to compel others as to which church to
worship in, which gods to believe in or dogma to accept, whose idols to bow to,
which sacred texts to read or how to interpret them, which prophets to follow,
or which mutually-consenting unrelated adult to fall in love with. And,
it's not our right to use the power of government to vanquish a peaceful
minority in our midst.That being the case, nobody's rights are
violated by allowing SSM.
@a voice of reason"How about this, there is no inequality in amendment
3. Gays and lesbians have the same right to marry as straight people - they can
marry one individual of the opposite sex"You could make the same
argument with interracial marriage bans. That didn't work then."Where does the law say that love is a condition in marriage?"I am disturbed by the number of people who don't consider love an
integral part of marriage. No wonder the divorce rate is so high.@Meckofahess"It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a
mother and a woman can be a father"The only way it could matter
is if you believe there are gender roles that one has to conform to like a
mother staying at home raising kids while men have all the leadership roles...
Refreshing to hear both sides, I like the article no question.It is
an endless exchange of opinion, since it all depends where you stand with your
foot on what door. Do you like to go by the letter of the law, which is
spiritual death, or would you like to learn something about the spirit of
freedom that would come if you see all things around and within the matter, not
blinding yourself from new ideas and unusual sights.The word
traditional marriage is bringing traditional marriage down. Why ?Because
it is stuck in the old, and the refreshing comes from accepting new views, which
are spiritual.To open that door to refresh your soul, it is needed
to go far back where we come from, and far forward to what we shall become. The
SCOTUS does not provide such knowledge, it is just touching it.People need to understand, that SSM is another form of god denial.We
need to respect them, but tell them to change if they want to become happy.But they must stumble and fall before they can see the good in it.
@ voice: You and a few other commentators frequently make the comment that
anti-SSM laws are equal because everyone has the same right to marry someone of
the opposite sex. And whenever this comment is made, the commentator making it
acts as if it is the winning argument for the legal case. (This argument was
made way back in 2011, if not earlier.)Yet for some reason, all the
oh so brilliant very expensive legal minds who defend anti-SSM laws don't
bring that up when they are arguing in court. Why do you think that is? Could
it be because the last time a similar argument won at the SCOTUS level was 1896
in Plessy v. Ferguson? Or because similar arguments lost in Loving v. Virginia
in 1967?Obviously, it is a flawed argument. And that flaw will
prevent it from being used in the Utah case - which means you need to try again
and come up with something else. Maybe something that actually addresses the
question the court asked the State?
@2 bits;Prove that any of that vandalism was done by the LGBT
community. All arson stories I've read relating to LDS chapels and such
were committed by disillusioned LDS. Prove that the white powder came from an
LGBT person.If you were "just keeping my own values and
beliefs" then you would not support Prop-8 or Amendment-3 because they DO
NOT AFFECT YOU. They only affect LGBT couples. You are not being forced to
have a same-sex marriage, but you are preventing LGBT couples from marrying.@a_voice_of_reason;So, you would force LGBT citizens into
heterosexual marriages? Some "equality" that.
@Meckofahess: Your arguments appear to be largely concerned with the notion of
pro-creation and child-raising.The state of Utah tried to use both
of these exact, same arguments in the Shelby case (referred to by the state of
Utah as "responsible procreation" and the "optimal mode of
child-rearing"). They actually attempted to argue that tired old canard that
same-sex couples were not “qualified” to marry because they can not
naturally reproduce with each other. Judge Shelby then asked the
state if this means the state believes that post-menopausal women should be
denied a marriage license, or that men who have undergone a vasectomy should be
denied a marriage license, is this what the state is proposing? The
state had no answer for the judge.Amendment 3 went beyond denying
gay and lesbian individuals the right to marry and held that no domestic union
could be given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as marriage.
It is transparent to any casual observer that the basis for Amendment 3 is, at
its core, simply animus.
This Law certainly doesn't represent the State of Utah. It is a lone wolf
judge who wants to become famous by appealing to the crowd.We are
sliding down fast!More people forget about the Alamo everyday!
The whole argument appears to stem from misunderstanding. Changing the marriage
law will never establish "equality", it only mandates an attempt to
force "equivalence". How many legs does a dog have, if you call the
tail a leg?
@Meckofahess, 1:47 p.m. Jan. 22, 2014, on the civil rights movement and Dr. King
versus gay equality.Gay marriage (and gay rights in general) was
completely off the radar in the 1950s and 1960s, so it's hard to know how
the African-American civil rights leaders would have come down on it.
Homosexuality was still stigmatized, closeted, and largely illegal then. Any
suggestion of gay marriage would have been incredible. The gay rights movement
nominally began with the Stonewall riots a year after Dr. King was assassinated.
It's difficult to discern the attitudes of that time through today's
lenses.That said, we have some hints. Bayard Rustin, a gay man, was
a key figure in King's inner circle and the architect of the 1963 March on
Washington. Coretta Scott King, who should have some credibility on the issue,
supports gay rights and says that her husband would have, too. It certainly
fits with his embrace of the oppressed and disenfranchised. Sen. John Lewis,
who marched with King and shared the Washington podium with him, supports gay
rights. I believe many others of his colleagues, like Andrew Young and Jesse
Jackson also do so.
Darling this fight is over and lost,just get over it .
Ask the children -- if they would prefer growing up with a married mother and
Susan RoylanceAsk the children -- if they would prefer growing up with a
married mother and father.9:55 a.m. Jan. 23, 2014======== Only if we ask that of ALL children -- including
those with single parents.[My hunch is about 97% of the time would
be "yes" and the remaining 3% could probably careless, so long as it was
in a stable home.Co-indidently -- that's about the same ratio as
Susan Roylance: "Ask the children -- if they would prefer growing up with a
married mother and father."Please refer to my 1/22 1:20 p.m.
comment.There are already many children who want dearly to have
married parents, but organizations like the First Freedoms Coalition, Utah
Families, Eagle Forum, and Sutherland are working hard to keep them from getting
their wish.I suspect children care less about having "a married
mother and father" than having the two people who have loved and nurtured
them from birth (and before) be married, irrespective of gender. They want
their parents, their family, to be married.This paper, in an
editorial last Sunday, stated that it is beyond argument that children fare
better in life when they have married parents. Why then, are so many dead set
against letting the children of same-sex couples have the benefits of married
parents? How can one argue that the purpose of marriage is for promoting
responsible procreation and then deny marriage to those who have already
procreated? How is that in the best interests of the children?4th/final comment
The hard thing about all this is that "mom and dad" and the category of
gender still have enormous moral and social meaning, and we have been accustomed
for millennia to laws and customs that recognize this. Now the law is quickly
turning against this reality, and we are left feeling insecure about the social
fabric we are part of. Why would you even want to trivialize mom & dad or
collapse the rich structure of gender? Does it really make the world better for
anyone, once all hullabaloo has died down? Aren't we just getting more and
more proficient at believing in less and less? And the law carries a lot of
@ SusanRoylance: "Ask the children[.]" I find that a very
interesting idea. What age children would you ask? What information would you
give them to prepare them for this question? Would you also question them about
other things - things we have proof affect their future outcomes? How much
weight should we give the opinions of children?Are you really
prepared to live with the outcomes of these questions?Children know
what they are taught. Children idealize people, places, and events. Children
do not possess the same capacity for rational thinking as adults.There are very valid reasons why we don't let children make binding
decisions about important events. Are you suggesting we do away with all that
and give children complete control of their own lives?Even if we
just limit the questions to what kind of family a child wants, how do you
propose to provide for each child their ideal family? What happens when that
ideal falls apart or is not really ideal after all?
@ tomof12: Which "moral and social" meanings of gender roles are you
advocating for? The ones where women were property? The ones where it was
legal to beat your spouse and children? The ones where women were forced to
marry their rapists? The ones where men were expected to be manly men and it
was shameful to show caring and nurturing towards their children?Perhaps you long for the days when children were sent to work at very young
ages to help provide for the family? Or where the children were farmed out to
the rich relatives because there wasn't enough money to feed them?Mayhap you long for the days when the children of wealthy individuals were
raised by nannies and tutors and sent off to school or apprenticed to learn a
trade?The current idealized mom and dad and gender roles are very
recent phenomena - phenomena your grandparents wouldn't recognize as
reality. Why should we all of a sudden choose this as the stopping
point in the ongoing evolution of social and moral ideals and the family?
The whole gay marriage thing makes me mad that one federal judge would defy the
whole state of Utah population and impose their warped view of marriage on
us.We should spend whatever treasure necessary to protect our basic
values.In addition I see attempts to impose additional penalties for
"discrimination" against LGBT people. Are they going to wear a pink
triangle so I know what their sexual preferences are? How about
penalties for discrimination against FAT people? Shouldn't we be given
legislative relief? (ours is much worse than LGBT discrimination). How about
requiring wider seats on airlines or other transportation? I can think of a
dozen new laws I would like if we are going to pander to a 5% part of the
population. I think we could carve out a number of other categories; people
with long hair, people with tatoos, muslim women dress and so forth. This law
would increase hate and discrimination not protect LGBT people.
@Susan Roylance;Ask the children if they'd rather have a loving
gay couple as parents or waste away in an orphanage or passed from foster-home
to foster-home like a piece of unwanted, unloved burden.
To the person who complained about people trying to impose their personal
morality in our laws I ask; Whose morality (or amorality) do you suppose we
should utilize in making laws? Every single law has behind it some type of
moral stance for or against something. For those who do not believe in any
absolute moral truths or laws backed by God's authority for which each
every person will be accountable to God in an afterlife there can be no
philosophical foundation or basis for any sort of morality and anything goes if
you can enforce it. If indeed there is nothing after this life (no afterlife)
when our "candle" goes out and our "hour upon the stage" of life
is over (See Macbeth Act 5 Scene 5) then life is indeed "a tale told by an
idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." If that is the case why
then, for example, was it immoral for Hitler to take the measures he did to
control the Jewish population? Was it Wrong? Yes Indeed!!! But "Says
@Kent Francis;The whole idea of amendment 3 makes mad.
Heterosexuals feeling they have the right to deny homosexuals the legal benefits
and privileges that they, themselves enjoy for a small fee at the county
offices.Judge Shelby did exactly what he is supposed to do; he ruled
on the constitutionality of Amendment 3 and found it wanting.
There was an old, lovely, Nat King Cole hit, "Pretend"In
this case, the writer would have us:Pretend that everyone fits well
into her traditional categories.Pretend that Utah does not have a high
divorce rates and stakes for unsatisfied unmarrieds.Pretend that present
policy tries to force mormons born Gay to fit in with the family and church by
lying to everyone and to God.Pretend that everyone does not know it is
unfair to vote away the rights of others.Basically, you want to
pretend that it is 1950, when all these ways worked better.This is
the worst part:"Steady as she goes, Utah. This is not a time to give
up, it is a time to wake up. Our view of marriage is not hateful or irrational,
it is ...a critical viewpoint to be able to discuss and defend in the public
square."--- Your view for YOUR life is not hateful or
irrational. You PRETEND that enforcing it on others is neither, and you pretend
that it is OK for you try to do that.Dear God: Please let the
inevitable thousands of Gay kids born into mormon families each year be born in
I must say, I agree with most everything this woman said about marriage. It
certainly has all of the benefits she ascribes to it and more. As a happily
married man with 2 kids myself, I agree that there is no better way to raise my
kids. The misstep here is in our response to non-traditional
marriage. There is nothing about it non-traditional marriage that will change or
affect the strengths and benefits of traditional marriage. I grant all of you
that the strongest traditional marriages are probably better for children than
non-traditional ones. But we all know traditional families that are broken,
filled with violence and lacking in love. This is NOT a better place for
children than a family comprised of 2 loving gay men. I challenge anyone to say
Mr. Richards said it best. Our constitutional rights have been ignored. One
unelected official took upon himself the authority to undo the law that was
created when we voted to change our State's Constitution to read
"marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman." That
is the issue. Period. Judge Shelby...My husband is also a Judge. He
honors the Constitution more than life itself. He would never use his position
of authority to usurp the rights of others. Until the Constitution is changed,
Judge Shelby should have patriotically put his agenda second to his duty to
honor the Constitution.
@ Arizona Rachel: As your husband will tell you, state Constitutions cannot
violate the Federal Constitution - no many how many people vote that it should.
It is interesting that both you and Mike complain about your right
to take away someone else's rights is being violated.
May He who knows all things and whose earth this is, return soon and settle this
mess. I think I know which way he is leaning. As Jehovah of the Old Testament,
he said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and in modern times he added,
"nor anything like unto it". Both of these statements need
to be clearly understood in the context of His command for a "man to cleave
unto his wife and none else". Did you all catch that? If was not for a
man to cleave to his "husband" nor for a woman to cleave to her
"wife". So while those of you who do not believe as I do,
are welcome to believe what you will. I am content to let Him decide, and
sincerely hope He comes soon and puts this nonsense to rest.
"An invalidated law is not a law any longer."Shelby was
assigned to rule on Amendment 3. He was not assigned or authorized to rule on
Utah's marriage law already on the books. So the law stays intact."Judge Shelby ruled that the law is Unconstitutional..."Not so. He ruled on the case in front of him... Utah's Amendment
3. Nothing else. If he thinks he ruled on anything else, he's in error.
Not too smart for a supposedly smart judge."...and had no good
argument from the State to stay his decision..."True, there were
no good arguments. They missed the one point that would have sealed the case
for Utah... Marriage law is not discriminatory in that it applies to all, ALL
citizens alike, that marriage is to be one man/one women."Those
marriages, regardless of what happens next, will be declared valid as they were
entered in good faith under a federal court order."Not so, those
marriages are against Utah's marriage laws... and thus, invalid. The
clerks issuing the licenses acted illegally.
"Look at Loving v. Virginia."Look at Pace v. Alabama...
Which confirmed as valid, Alabama's miscegenation laws.Perhaps
the SCOTUS is a bit confused as to what it really means. In DOMA, SCOTUS ruled
that defining marriage was a state, not a federal power. So, how is it that
SCOTUS can now say it's a federal power?"The 14th amendment
was violated. They now are still defining marriage, but without harming a
segment of the population..."Oh? What about Cory Brown and his
four 'wives' (as recently covered in the DNews)? What about that
segment of society? And what about a mother/son relationship? Or a
brother/sister relationship?"Marriage was declared (not for the
first time, btw) a right. So now marriage is looked at under Amendment 9, and 10
- it has been reserved to the people---All people, not just the ones that some
people think are worthy."Would that include polygamy? Inquiring
minds wanna know."If you want to deny some people marriage, you
better have a good reason"What's your reason for denying an
95yo geezer marrying a 10yo boy/girl... or both? It better be good.
@ Alfred"What's your reason for denying an 95yo geezer
marrying a 10yo boy/girl... or both? It better be good."A ten
year old boy/girl can't give legal consent and can't legally enter
into a contract, such as a marriage license. Is that good enough?
@Alfred 10:15 p.m. Jan. 24, 2014Loving v Virginia is the controlling
case. Pace v. Alabama is a 883 case which has been supplanted and negated many
times over.In Windsor (the DOMA case), the court held that (quoting
with emphasis added) "SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONSTUTUTIONAL GUARANTEES, see,
e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic
relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually
exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404."
Those constitutional guarantees can be found in the 9th and 14th Amendments to
the constitution -- the ones which formed the basis for the Kitchen decision.As to the issue of plurality -- while no harm comes from SSM, the
potential for harm exists in the inequality found in a plural marriage. I would
want to see laws in place detailing how the inequality arising from one person
of one gender and multiple people of another gender would be mitigated before
addressing this topic.A 10yr old is not capable of contracting and
marriage is a contract; therefore a marriage with a 10yr old is not possible.
Actually what Mrs. Bunker has said is entirely true. Nothing she has said is
false or untrue. The fact is that with the Rose Bowl and now the Grammy's
the LGBT community has started to do exactly what they wanted to do in the first
place and that is to make a mockery of what God has intended for marriage to be.
If everyone is ok with that then let the world have it. However, in the end
they will all be greatly disappointed when they stand before the Lord to be
judged and told to depart from his presence. He has already stated through his
living prophets that this is not ok with him nor should it be okay with society.
God's law over rules everything man-made.
I support traditional marriage and traditional families. SSM with its best face
forward substitutes basic biological science and thousands of years of
established family structure with a new norm that creates more confusion and
problems than it proposes to solve. With SSM, do same gender relations get
taught in biology class as part of human reproductions sections? How could they
not be? Do youth select restroom facilities based on anatomy or feelings (CA
and CT school policies)? If the criteria for marriage is solely based on two
people who proclaim romantic feelings for each other, how do you legally protect
children from predatory relationships? Again more confusion not less. The need
to protect all people from persecution and protect personal agency are absolute.
But changing our definitions of right and wrong will not change consequences of
personal decisions to individuals or society.