In today's society anyone who doesn't go along with every possible new
trend or idea is considered a bigot and a hater. There are a great many in the
world today who do not go along with the idea of same sex intimate
relationships. Granted some of those individuals are jerks at best, but there
are a lot of those on the opposing side as well.I find it
interesting that the vast majority of the posts I read regarding this issue are
pretty similar. Those opposed to same sex marriage have specific reasons why
they do - though we may not agree with their reasoning, they are reasons. The
strategy of the vast majority of pro GLBT issues is to call those against it -
bigots, neanderthals, homophobic, and so forth. Much of the research cited is
lacking in breadth of sample study groups and duration since it cannot be
effectively determined how well gay marriage will pan out in a thousand
years.We need civil discourse on both sides of the isle.
@ ksampow: "There is no denial of rights by upholding the traditional
definition of marriage - gays can call their relationship a marriage if they
want, but they have no right to force US and our STATE to call it a
marriage."So, gays can call their relationships marriage, they
just can't have any of the benefits or protections that marriage entails -
and in your opinion this is not a denial of rights.The law states
that a spouse is protected under the 5th Amendment from being coerced to testify
against his or her spouse - denying same-sex couples marriage denies them this
right.Married couples can file for bankruptcy protection together -
same-sex couples who are denied marriage are denied this.Married
prisoners get conjugal visits and considerations for the health of their spouse
and any children they and their spouse may have - this is denied to same-sex
couples who are denied marriage.Death and educational benefits are
provided to spouses of critically injured or killed police and firemen - denied
to same-sex couples.Without marriage, same-sex couples are not
treated equally under the law. Your religion may be okay with that, but we are
not a theocracy.
ksampowFarr West, Utah(CIRCA 1960) There is no denial of
rights by upholding the traditional definition of marriage - Black and white
cpls can call their relationship a marriage if they want, but they have no right
to force US and our STATE to call it a marriage. SOUND FAMILIAR???? Sorry -
guess you'll be having a severe case of the Vapors, once Marriage Equality
comes to ALL 50 STATES.....guess Russia will be getting some immigrants???
Family Research Council weighs in on Utah gay marriage case ...and
There in Lies the Whole problem in a Nutshell.....NUT being the most important
part of the word.
Debate and sophistry by men can not change God's laws. That answers many
of the other comments, but it does not answer the constitutional question.
Judges can not use their own religious beliefs to interpret the constitution.
However, a federal judge has no right to intervene in state issues and
invalidate a time-honored definition that has been added to the state
constitution by the will of the people. There is no denial of rights by
upholding the traditional definition of marriage - gays can call their
relationship a marriage if they want, but they have no right to force US and our
STATE to call it a marriage.
@ Captain Green: Have you read the Bible or studied history? The Bible is
filled with situations where marriage was not between a man and a woman but
between a man and several women.There is also strong support in the
Bible for sibling marriage, uncle/niece or aunt/nephew marriage, and cousin
marriage.And let us not forget the story of Lot and his daughters
nor 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. Many royal families throughout history
have preserved their claims to the throne and their property rights by
encouraging sibling marriage.Additionally, many cultures throughout
history have recognized same-sex relationships.It is interesting
that those who want so desperately to rely on the historical definition of
marriage to defend their position must ignore or rewrite history in order to
have the support they want. To me, this is an indication of just how shaky
their position is.
@Captain Green.. Traditional discrimination is simply not a valid reason to
continue the practice.History shows us that marriage is not defined by
those who are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon
horrific abusers to civil marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in
the institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry. Tradition is
simply not a valid reason to continue a practice of discrimination. There
are no: -Interracial marriage licenses. -Felony marriage licenses.
-Non-procreative marriage licenses. Allowing same-sex couples to
participate and/or strengthen the existing institution, means there is only ONE
marriage license for all. Nothing has been re-defined. Look no further than
"traditional voting" which was NOT "re-defined" by allowing
women the right to vote. A right to marry someone for which there is
no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply no right at all. Parental fitness and child bearing is an issue for adoption, reproductive and
family law. In other words, some feel that it is perfectly rational to hold
same-sex couples and their children morally and legally responsible for any
failure of heterosexuals to act in the manner that the state wishes them to
CaptainGreen,Where, where to even start... First of all, read more
newspapers. Marriage between same sex couples is now legal in a host of our
allied nations, from the Netherlands to New Zealand, from Canada to South
Africa, from Denmark to Mexico. from Argentina to Britain. And. Nothing. Bad.
Has. Happened.It's been legal in Massachusetts for a decade,
and by any objective measure, their state beats your state in every family
performance metric.Perhaps once upon a time, when gay people were
treated like criminals, hunted down and arrested, their furtive encounters were
of a more seamy nature, but since those unjust laws were overturned and they can
live open, normal lives, we see that there's no sexual obsession there.
Their attraction to their own kind is just a romantic attraction, of the exact
same nature as heterosexuals experience, and those are the only people they can
fall in love with and share their lives together.Your comparisons to
incest and whatnot are nothing but desperate insults and hatemongering.There's absolutely no reason not to let gays marry. The District Court
ruling against Utah's discriminatory laws and constitution will be upheld
It's absurd that there is even a discussion on the matter. Marriage is and
always will be between a man and a woman. It's been that way through all of
time everywhere in the world. Every person has the same rights already... they
can marry, have children, raise a family, be happy. No one is denied that. But
society does not allow someone to marry their sister, or their mother, or
someone of the same sex. The reason is because that is not good for society or
for individuals. Anyone can do whatever they want (with consequences, however),
but they will not be given "special privileges" by law based upon their
sexual obsessions. That's just plain nonsense.
Amendment 3 is also "under inclusive" by targeting only same-sex couples
from marriage for the best interests of children. If a statute or amendment is
about children, then civil marriage law should include limitations/restrictions
for prior convictions for drug/alcohol, spousal and child abuse, or income level
and educational attainment etc. This would be like a statute intended to
preserve home heating, by mandating that front doors be kept closed, while
leaving the back door and every window wide open. There is simply no rational
basis that the governments purported objective will be achieved.
@genetics re: Social ScienceThen we must conclude that every one of
the following main stream organizations base their analysis on being
"politically correct." Every single one, does that really seem
rational?Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social
science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of
Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in
child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian
parental rights". These organizations include the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American
Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American
Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic
Association, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of
America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and the Canadian
1aAllTheWay,You can stand on a hill and yell what you believe all
day long. It's a free country. But, what you believe is not necessarily
true. I believe differently.I am straight, and Christian, and
married. I am not gay.But, I know people who are gay, and I also
know what Christ wants us to do. Love them, as we love ourselves. Celebrate
their happiness. Recognize God's love for and in everyone. Treat all
people as equals. Leave judgement to God. (Romans 14)If human
sexuality is a subject for theology, then in the theology of my religion,
it's a gift from God of intimacy and love, a blessing for a committed
couple, and not a matter for gossip, coveting, or prurient interest.You act as if people make a personal choice as to which sex attracts them.
That's not true. After puberty and our hormones kick in, we definitely
KNOW who we're attracted to. As a boy, I thought girls were icky. After
puberty, I had very different thoughts! There was no selection, no
experimentation, I just KNEW. Gay people know, too. It's
innate. The how and why is not for us.
1A-all the way says:"Why can't gays understand that most
utahns think that gay marriage is wrong."Why can't most
Utahns understand that what they think about someone elses marriage doesn't
matter? They should stop worrying about other people's marriages and focus
more effort on their own.@Tekakaromatagi;Your creator is
not my creator. I don't believe in your fairy tales, please stop trying to
force them on the rest of us.
@Ariz: Thank you! I did not know that, and appreciate your correction. The key
takeaway is that the court can't attribute an amicus brief to either party
in the case. Regardless, the rest of my post stands... FRC = known, recognized
hate group. @1A-all the way: Where to begin... "most
utahns think that gay marriage is wrong"Um, no.... don't
think that is quite accurate. But let's say that it is - are you suggesting
that this would be justification to deny civil rights? Because of personal moral
disapproval?"most Americans think it is wrong to marry your
daughter, or sister."Please. This "slippery slope'
logical fallacy is the most spurious argument of all, and it's just a
ridiculous one. Gay humans want the *same* rights as straight humans. Incest
will still be unlawful. Bestiality will still be unlawful. Marriage should be
the committed relationship between two persons of consenting age which is lawful
in all other ways.Toward your other argument: to conflate illegal
drug use (a matter of criminal law) with marriage (a matter of civil law)
indicates a misunderstanding of concepts.
You seem to misunderstand- marriage fulfills, in most cultures, the biology of
male + female= children. Social sciences are soft sciences because bias is
a huge problem. For example, see: Geoffey D. Munro and Peter H Ditto.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull June 1997 vol. 23 no. 6 636-653 (this article has been
cited as recently as 2013) In addition, references supporting
pro-homosexual views are cited much more often than those studies less
supportive: ALTER R. SCHUMM (2010) EVIDENCE OF PRO-HOMOSEXUAL BIAS IN
SOCIAL SCIENCE: CITATION RATES AND RESEARCH ON LESBIAN PARENTING. Psychological
Reports: Volume 106, pp. 374-380.This documented bias is likely in support
of a political point- that's intellectually dishonest.Finally,
concerns about sample sizes are well known in this area- see this abstract:
Douglas A. Abbott, (2012) International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, Vol. 2 No. 13; July 2012.
@Scientist:"The idea of "inalienable" and "inherent
rights" is fundamental to the Founding documents (Declaration and
Constitution). This means simply that "rights" are not given to
individuals by any external power, such as government. Rather, individuals have
"rights" for no other reason than because they are citizens."You misunderstand. All men have rights and those are given to them by
their creator. Not just people who have been deemed to be citizens. In your
paradigm, government can decide who are citizens, i.e. who has rights and they
can decide who isn't citizens, i.e. who does not have rights.Just as creationists who literally believe in the Bible run off of a logical
cliff when they try to age the world at 6000 years, atheists run off of a
logical cliff when they try to explain that there is no higher power, but people
still have inalienable rights and there is no absolute morality.
Why can't gays understand that most utahns think that gay marriage is
wrong. Just like most Americans think it is wrong to marry your daughter, or
sister. There is no discrimination here, it is wrong. It doesn't matter if
their sister or daughter is their love of life, or if they were born that way.
It s wrong, and it should not be legal to do so.Another example...
Most Americans think it is wrong to use meth. Just because some people think it
is ok, and want to legalize it, because it denies them the right to be
happy...would that be ok. Would that affect your life, your marriage, if meth
was legalized. Of course it would because people think it is wrong. Anything that happens in the world has an affect on something else. How else
do you think I've come to love dark chocolate? Because my mom liked it, it
was in the house,, and wanted to taste it, it so happens that I liked it.......I
wasn't born to like it. Get it?
@1978Regnarus himself has admitted himself the numerous flaws in
his study including the fact he does not know the sexual orientation of the
parents or their related behaviors. His findings were also renounced by his own
professional organization the ASA as unfounded and unsupported. The researcher
out of Canada has stated that he is not able to establish any causal effect and
should not be used as a basis for establishing public policy. Since the North Carolina law passed eight states have passed laws legalizing
sam sex marriage and no states have passed any laws or amendments prohibiting
@Navadacougar well lets see for starters there is the study New York
University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California. then
there is the research by Dr. Nanette Gartrell, M.D. the national longitudinal
lesbian family study that has been collecting and disseminating their findings
since 1980. Some of the children who they first started studying as small
children are now in their 30's. there is the largest study so far by
researcher Dr. Simon Crouch out of Melbourne, there is the Abbie Goldberg, a
psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts research, there is the Indiana
University sociologist Brian Powel's research. If those are not enough
there is always the numerous studies sited in tolstoys post on page one of the
@The Scientist"This means simply that "rights" are not
given to individuals by any external power, such as government".By this definition then "legal" marriage is not a right as it was
given to individuals by government.This also creates a contradiction
within your statement that "This is the Ninth Amendment, and guarantees that
the right to choose whom you marry (even a same gender partner) is just as much
a right of individuals as is the right to choose your religion." Choosing
your religion does not involve approval/licensing by a government entity,
whereas marriage does (at least in the context of this discussion).
@TheTrueVoice "That is stunning that the state of Utah has allowed the FRC
to get anywhere near this case! " It is up to the courts to
decide which amicus briefs to accept or deny. Also filing and the court
accepting them are two different things. The plaintiffs and defendants
can't preclude or allow anyone to file a brief. It's entirely
possible for the parties in a suit to invite others to file briefs outside of
the court. But the court can't attribute the ideas or positions expressed
in the amicus briefs to either party in the case.
Tiago in Seattle, WA wrote:"(saying) gay people can do whatever
they want as long as they don’t marry each other... is like saying
“people can drink as much as they want, as long as they don’t drink
responsibly.”Best simile I have read in months!
@interventionYou are excellent proof of my point. LGBT supports
claim that all of the experts and data agree with them, yet fail to provide the
proof. Did you happen to find a study in which children with LGBT parents were
compared with children from happy heterosexual homes? I didn't thinks so.
But ask yourself why? Are LGBT supporters afraid of the results. I have to
acknowledge that two LGBT parents are probably better than one single parent
that has limited time to spend with his or her children, but it is difficult to
believe that two LGBT parents are as good or better than two biological
The idea of "inalienable" and "inherent rights" is fundamental
to the Founding documents (Declaration and Constitution). This means simply that
"rights" are not given to individuals by any external power, such as
government. Rather, individuals have "rights" for no other reason than
because they are citizens.Neither the Constitution nor the
government can bestow rights on individuals (for then these powers could also
take them away without due process). The Constitution and government can only
secure these rights that already exist.What are those
"rights"? Where are they listed?Some are enumerated in the
Bill of Rights or alluded to in the Declaration (life, liberty, happiness).But lest anyone take this to mean that people ONLY have those rights
that are explicitly enumerated, the Founders stated clearly:"The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people."This is the
Ninth Amendment, and guarantees that the right to choose whom you marry (even a
same gender partner) is just as much a right of individuals as is the right to
choose your religion. And that comes with the right not to be discriminated
against for those choices!
HeresAThought: Marriage is and has been (as far as recordable history can
determine) a union between one man and one woman, providing the biological
emotional and phsychological basis for which a family is based. Marriage among the indigenous peoples of the Great Plains, Texas, NM, Arizona,
Utah, Colorado, etc., a range of traditional social structures with thousands of
years of precedence, was polygamous and provided the labour "basis for which
a family [was] based". This form of ancient traditional marriage was
eradicated in the states and regions mentioned by genocide. Perhaps Americans
who want to do away with the threat of same-sex marriage before it gains any
more steam should follow the example of their own forebears.
Jeff29,Most people won't accept any explanation or reasoning
that conflicts with their own. Let a "straight" person answer you from
the position of my own religion, which is much more open and accepting than
Mormonism.In the Bible, we learn numerous lessons. In the first
creation story, early in Genesis, it establishes an equivalence between men and
women, by saying we're both created in the image of God. In that, we see
we're both equally imbued with God's love. Later on, we're told
in a number of places that it's bad to live alone, without love. God wants
us to have a life partner.Until 1563, when the Catholics formalized
it as a required Church rite (Anglicans, 1753), marriage was a matter of
self-declaration. A couple merely held themselves out as married. In
multidenominational America, marriage registration became a matter for civil
law. That is what is at issue here. Can a couple who establishes a loving,
life partnership register that marriage even if they're the same gender?We ask, why not? God's love is God's love, regardless. Civil
law shouldn't get to veto that. Our Constitution seemingly agrees.
@intervention Not all top universities and scientists agree with the
LGBT propoganda. In fact all legitimate research done in this area agrees with
the Family Research Council. Check the research that was done at Texas, LSU and
leading researchers in Canada for example.All of the research that I
have seen (yes I have researched this) that supports the fact that SSM and
traditional marriage is essentially the same for children has the LGBT
community's fingerprints all over it. In their sample population, which
should be random, they have hand picked the participants to cook the books.People can make up stories and statistics like the BYU aversion study
for example but I know the truth and am spending time convincing those that I
know of the same. Considering the pro SSM media, Hollywood and Liberal
University Professors it is amazing to me that when the votes are actually cast
as opposed to the polls taken before elections the majority of citizens in a
majority of states still support the traditional definition of marriage.For example, before North Carolina passed their traditional marriage
amendment by 20 pts. a poll take by the Washington Post showed that it would
Even if you think all gay relationships are sinful and you think man-woman
marriages are optimal, can we also agree that the optimal gay relationship is a
committed relationship where the partners have legal rights and responsibilities
toward each other? It is so strange to hear other people of faith say gay
people can do whatever they want as long as they don’t marry each other.
This makes no sense to me. It is like saying “people can drink as much as
they want, as long as they don’t drink responsibly.” I
encourage my gay friends to be safe and responsible in dating and to stick
together in good times and bad and to build long-term relationships, just like I
do my straight friends.Would you really rather have gay people engage in
promiscuity or cohabitation without commitment? Why would we fight against their
desire to settle down and commit to each other for better or for worse, for
richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish?
I hope someone will answer marxist’s question. If not marriage, what are
gay people supposed to do? And adding to that, how can we help them live the
happiest, most successful lives possible?Sometimes the people who
comment here make it sound like they despise gay people and just wish they would
all move far away and stay very quiet.For example, if you are LDS
like I am and want gay people to receive the gospel, what are you doing to reach
out to LGBT people and keep them or draw them into the church? If you were LGBT
and heard the things members say and do would you feel safe, welcome, and
loved?Do you trust gay people when they tell you that their feelings
are innate and immutable, or do you, contrary to LDS church teachings, tell them
they need to “change” their fundamental orientation and view the
only successful outcome for them as marrying an opposite sex spouse? Would you
support a celibate gay person?
@nevadacourgar So are you really asking use to accept the argument
that the top universities across the country and the leading professionals in
the field of human behavior are biased but the family research counsel is an
objective reliable source?
@geneticsMarriage is a blatantly obvious biological imperative?
Sorry but there is no obvious connection, if one is fertile or not has nothing
to do with marriage. Do you have any evidence that marriage itself is a
biological imperative? if you do not have evidence to support your claims maybe
you should just be honest. Additionally, what makes you think that the Gaussian
distribution is not utilized within the social sciences or that the research
sited does not use a sufficient sample size and distribution? Again do you have
any evidence or just disparaging remarks to support your claims? Your lack of
understanding of how the social sciences conduct their research doe snot make
them a "sofT science."
@marxist"OK, so's what the homosexual population supposed
to do? Sit out life?" Celibacy is what comes to mind. Sexual
relations are not all there is to life. Millions and millions of people have
led fulfilling lives without having traditional marriage and the accompanying
physical relations. The expectation for traditional marriage is abstinence
outside of marriage and complete fidelity within.It's not easy,
but I suggest it is worth it.
I'm wondering if someone who supports SSM based on the idea that it is a
fundamental right could explain to me where those rights come from and who/what
determines those rights. I'm genuinely interested in your opinion.
Sorry Charlie!I can't help you with the biology if you refuse
to see it-the necessities are blatantly obvious. As for the social and
behavioral sciences, they are "soft" sciences and rarely have viable
statistical data sets to support the claims made. They are easily modulated to
a political cause. For example, a Gaussian distribution would be necessary to
even test a hypothesis and then positive results would have to move on to
hundreds of individuals with several phases. Academic studies rarely push these
realities, getting published is the goal. Generally, pharmaceutical companies
looking for approval from the FDA for a treatment, new drug, etc. are the only
ones held to high statistical standards.
@TolstoyYou should probably take a look at the alleged
"scientific evidence." There is an inherent bias in most of the
"evidence." Also, most of the citations provided by the APA and AAP are
mere commentaries. They are not actually studies at all. Take Patterson and
Perrin, they are both commentaries, which "cherry pick" studies they
agree with. Hardly empirical data. Not only that but the studies compare LGBT
homes with single-parent homes. They have NEVER compared LGBT homes with happy
heterosexual homes. The Family Research Council HAS. For example, they found
that children of LGBT parents are 6 times more likely to become LGBT. Born that
way or indoctrinated? Ask yourself this: if everyone were LGBT could our
society survive? The numbers are growing rapidly. Marriage will only embrace
Discrimination appears to be a dirty word to many people these days. It's a
real shame that so many people can't Discriminate (judge) between good and
evil, right and wrong, Male and Female. So many have no moral justification for
calling marriage something it is not, other than; it should be whatever they
want to call it. They pervert the meaning of the constitution and say it is all
about equal rights of couples and doing whatever they want. In fact it says
nothing of marriage and has everything to do what protecting individual
liberties and allowing equal treatment under the law. Laws of the State and of
the US are enacted by state legislatures and Congress and should not be
interpreted by judicial and administrative process. They should only enforce the
laws. Congress in a bipartisan way approved DOMA and for some reason the LIBs
and Dems think they can go around congress and State legislatures. It's
going to come back and bite them. They will be put out of office and their
strong arm methods will be put to shame for years to come. The sooner the
@TestimonyI don't follow your argument. The only 2 mentions of
"natural parent" in the entire brief are both quotations of existing
Utah state law and are not presented as the core of the case, merely as
accompanying evidence that other state laws also recognize the importance of
children being raised by their parents.@HereGreat comments.
That is stunning that the state of Utah has allowed the FRC to get anywhere near
this case! This demonstrates the state has essentially thrown in the towel, and
at this point are simply pandering to their flock. There can be no
hope for a victory... the Family Research Council has officially been listed as
a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2010 due to anti-gay
speech from its leaders, which the SPLC says includes calls for gay men and
lesbians to be imprisoned.The Family Research Council status as a
hate group places them into the same company of groups like the Nation of Islam,
the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, and the now mostly defunct Aryan Nations. The
SPLC tracks 932 active hate groups in the U.S, and the deplorable Family
Research Council is one of them.Now that the state has allied itself
with the FRC hate group, it's game over. If they were serious about
prevailing in this case, the Utah AG should have never let the FRC anywhere near
I agree with many of the comments already made here about the untenable position
of those who inisist on denying equal protection to all adults who wish to enjoy
the blessings of marriage.While I infrequently agree with Deseret
News's views on the topic, I do want to credit the author of the story who,
in the first paragraph, candidly recognizes that the Family Research Council is
a "conservative Christian lobbying group." In the past, on this topic
and others, Deseret News readers have been led to believe that such groups were
non-partisan, uninterested "think tanks" without a dog in the fight.
So, thanks for the candor, and here's hoping it's a sign of things to
Why is the Family Research Council's filing of a brief the top headline in
the Deseret News? This organization has been designated a hate group by the
Southern Policy Law Center for its unrelenting and uncompromising opposition to
any civil rights for gay people. I thought the Deseret News
called for civility and tolerance in a recent editorial? Obviously the paper
has shown its true colors by aggresively placing this item as top headline!
B_Man,Reading and understanding are not the same thing. One of the
big errors in the brief is relying on Utah's citation of "natural
parents" in several sections of the law concerning the treatment of
children. This is cited as if it somehow means "two biological parents
living together." It doesn't. In fact, in Utah law, the term
"natural parent" is defined in a way that not only you will not like,
but may very well lead the 10th Circuit quickly dismissing the argument.Wherever "natural parent" is used in Utah law, it is defined to
mean, "a minor's biological OR ADOPTIVE parent, and includes a
minor's NONCUSTODIAL PARENT." [emphasis added] "Noncustodial
parent" means we're talking about divorces, separations, and perhaps
even incarcerated parents. Hardly the picture of the ideal family the brief
wishes to hold above all else. It's a brief doomed to fail,
not only because childbearing is irrelevant to the subject of marriage, but
because it's not even internally consistent in Utah law.
Thanks to Heilig for the recommendation to read the entire legal brief filed by
the State of Utah to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. I did so, and it was
very helpful to me.For those who believe there is no rational basis
for defining marriage in the way that it is defined the state constitution, I
highly recommend reading this (Google Utah court brief 1294036). There is also a
wealth of additional helpful information on the National Organization for
Marriage website.Supporting the traditional definition of marriage
does not discriminate against anyone. It supports many beneficial interests of
@Here;SSM doesn't change "traditional marriage". As
for morality, I am every bit as moral a person as you are. My marriage to my
partner is as moral as your marriage to your spouse."It’s
not gay people I have a problem with. It’s the whole
“lifestyle” which has always been - and still is - based on a
defining behavior."--- Being gay isn't a
"lifestyle". Our "lifestyle" is probably identical to yours. I
have an extreme problem with your religious "lifestyle" though;
especially when it comes to forcing me to live by it. I also do not believe in
@happyinlife: You just compared gay men and women to dogs, pedophilia, incest
and bestiality. How is that not naked hate speech? (For the record, the vast
majority of those convicted of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality have been
heterosexuals. Most of them, married.)@p_e: If you don't want
to learn how to google/bing/yahoo, you could at least read other comments before
posting. Your question was answered and documented.@Goldminer:
Only 5% of humankind is gay. The populations of the "gay marriage"
states are still growing, as fast as ever. Not even a slight chance of doom,
except overpopulation.@Meckofahess: That 1987 magazine article was
written by two men, entirely on their own, and said nothing untrue. Compare
that to the dozens of organized, conservative PR/Thinktank/hate groups cranking
out paid lies and fundraising letters in opposition. A lot of people make a
pretty good living promoting fear of equal rights.AGAIN, extending
the right of civil marriage to a previously excluded group doesn't damage
it for the already-included group. Those of us who have gay friends or
relatives just get invited to a few more weddings.
It’s not gay people I have a problem with. It’s the whole
“lifestyle” which has always been - and still is - based on a
defining behavior. All people are children of God and deserve respect and
compassion. But that doesn’t not mean their behavior does. All children
of God are worth much in God’s view. All have unlimited potential. All
are loved by a kind Heavenly Father. So much so that He gave His only begotten
Son for all of us. That the Savior of the world suffered such agony for you and
me despite the mistakes we make and sins we commit. He wants us to have
compassion for one another, but He also wants us to defend truth. He is
infinitely perfect in His compassion, His knowledge, and peace. You are His
child, no matter what your persuasions. That doesn’t mean he condones our
sins. He just wants us to overcome them by repentance through the Messiah and
return to live with Him.
@genetics"I stated the biological, scientific facts about the
term "marriage" between a male and a female of the species, copulation
was not specifically mentioned."please site the "biological
science" that makes a connection between "biology" and
"marriage" since we are not talking about copulation. The burden of
proof actually does lie with those seeking to deny access to rights and
privileges to prove a compelling interest in doing so, thats how our legal
system works and several people have sited the social and behavioral science
that supports gay marriage,
@Equal Protection“sexual orientation like race is considered an
immutable characteristic for most people.” I don't believe this
premise. Discrimination against African Americans really and truly has no
legitimate moral or scientific basis. But, comparing skin color to homosexual
behavior is apples and oranges as far as I can tell.There is also
much evidence that alcoholism has a genetic component to it. That doesn’t
make it automatically supportable on a legal or moral basis. Society has to
consider many other factors to make a genetic predisposition justifiable by the
law. Just because there MAY be a genetic component to many traits does not make
them healthy for society nor uncontrollableIt wasn’t that long
ago that supporters of SSM were using the argument that they, as a minority,
needed constitutional protection. Now they are implying that with so many
people on their side, they must be right and legally defensible. Inconsistent.
Maybe it’s time the religious folks get some constitutional protection.
In my view, just because we who are against same-sex marriage have lost some
battles doesn't mean we're mistaken. I believe it is an indication
that some liberal judges legislated their opinions into law from the bench.Also, I suggest proponents of traditional marriage presenting familiar
arguments is not a problem. These principles are tried and tested and have
stood for thousands of years. They are compelling. The problem is, many
don't recognize them as vital for society.As far as saying that
those who support traditional marriage are hateful, Of course hate is not right.
But if one is defending traditional marriage, whether through the legislature
or the courts, one has to be firm, solid, and persistent as a rock given the
militancy shown by some SSM supporters. Not all, but some. On a
religious note, I believe the fact that these battles over same sex marriage
even exist is truly a sign of the times. Not some grand battle for equality,
but a sad commentary on today's societal norms and morals. I know you may
not believe that, but I believe it is key to the debate.
OK, so's what the homosexual population supposed to do? Sit out life?
They are anywhere between 2% to 10% of the population. They were born
homosexual. I repeat, what are they supposed to do?
Lane MyerI stated the biological, scientific facts about the term
"marriage" between a male and a female of the species, copulation was
not specifically mentioned. Please indicate your 5 reasons how SS relationships
trump these biological, anatomical, population genetics, generational, DNA
driven, evolutionary endowed facts. The burden of proof is not on those who
support traditional marriage- its advantages are self evident if you accept
contemporary evolutionary theory.RanchMost of us are
content with the traditional definition of marriage, irrespective of the
imperfect people who attempt to practice it, and see no need to alter it to fit
our particular views- it is what it is.
@DanOCan you give us any reference for your statement that the Family
Research Council is "recognized as a hate group"? Or should we just
conclude that YOU recognize any group who doesn't share your views as a
@Goldminer; Marriage is what the couple makes of it, not how you
define it. You do not get to define any other person's relationship. Mind
your own relationship and stop worrying about what others are calling theirs.@genetics;Any "corruption" of the "traditional
family" is coming from those very "traditional families". Not the
genetics: Do you think that the act of copulation is all there is to a
relationship? Do you think that gay relationships are different from
heterosexual ones in any other area other than the act? You do realize that
many heterosexual married people do the exact same actions in their
relationship, don't you? And how does genetics make them different
(especially for those married couples who are infertile)? What do
you feel makes them completely different? Could you list your 5 main areas?
@MeckofahessSo Tolstoy quote the leading professionals in the field
of human behavior (with citations) and you dismiss it as junk science? Based on
what evidence?here is another, this one from the American
Sociological Association, “The results of our review are clear. There is
no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex
relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed, the greater stability
offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents may be an asset
for child well-being. When the social science evidence is exhaustively examined
-- which the ASA has done -- the facts demonstrate that children fare just as
well when raised by same-sex parents. Unsubstantiated fears regarding same-sex
child rearing do not overcome these facts.
Happyinlife said "Both men and women have equal rights. Neither may marry
their sibling (even if they are in love), neither may marry a child, neither may
marry a dog, and neither may marry someone of the same sex."1.
Marriage gives people the right to make a legal commitment to the love of their
life. Straights have that right for themselves, gay minorities want that EQUAL
right (and the US Constitution demands it).2. States CAN ban things
if the state can prove harm. Child marriage = child rape = harm, Incest = birth
defects = harm .... States have been unable to PROVE any harm of letting gay
people marry the love of their life, and that's why judges are forced to
strike these bans down.
Hetero- and homosexual relationships are completely different based on biology,
anatomy and genetics. The homosexual agenda to corrupt the traditional
definition of marriage is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to that
union that gave most of us life. Terms such as "bigotry" and
"hate" will not and cannot change the underlying biological
contradictions of proposed SSM.
"Laws that treat men and women equally, and do not subject them to different
restrictions or disabilities, cannot be said to deny either men or women the
equal protection of the laws," according to the brief. "Amendment 3
treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry someone of the
opposite sex; neither may marry someone of the same sex."Well
said!Both men and women have equal rights. Neither may marry their sibling
(even if they are in love), neither may marry a child, neither may marry a dog,
and neither may marry someone of the same sex. And Baccus0902, no it
is not all about sex. Sex is also a word to determine gender. See this
definition from wikepedia on sex: the biological makeup of an individual's
If Utah lawmakers were actually sincere in the laws they make, they would make
it illegal for anyone to divorce. If a married male/female is truly best for the
children why would the state ever allow a divorce to take place? Further, if a
spouse dies the children should be taken from the surviving spouse and placed in
a two parent (M/F) home. Its best for the children.
Marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman for millennia.
Every person has the "right" to marry as it has been defined. Now, we
have a small element in our society (and there has always been a hidden but very
small group throughout history as far as we know) who want to redefine marriage
so they can get what they think is acceptance for their relationship. This is
NOT marriage; it is a relationship. These individuals want their relationship
legalized and are willing to force society to accept their redefinition of
marriage. Unfortunately, immoral behavior cannot be redefined so it is
accepted; it will NOT be accepted as such by the majority of people who
understand that humankind cannot survive if all were homosexual. If they wish
to be united as a homosexual couple, fine; but that does not make them married
as originally defined.
Hey Utahns - below is the strategy employed by the gay community to
"desensitize" those who favor morality, decency and pro-traditional
marriage: "The first order of business is desensitization of
the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the pubic is
to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of keen emotion. The
authors go on to note their goal to make sexual preference placed on a par with
preferences in ice cream flavors or sports. You prefer chocolate, I prefer
butter pecan. You prefer hockey, I prefer baseball. No problem.
At least in the beginning they write we are seeking public desensitization and
nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect full appreciation or
understanding of homosexuality from the average America. You can forget about
trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can
only get them to think that is just another thing, with a shrug of the
shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually
won."Published in the 1987 edition of Guide, a homosexual
publication,The Overhauling of Straight America
ulvegaard says:"I do not agree with gay marriage. That does not
mean I hate gay people or wish them ill. It means that I do not agree with gay
marriage, period."Then don't have one. Problem solved.
@Quaker:"The Family Research Council ("FRC") is listed by the
Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC") as a hate group."The director of the Family Research Council has called those who support
traditional marriage homophobes, so if he uses epithets, then the SPLC is a hate
group themselves.Last summer there were discussions here about Orson
Scott Card. People said he was virulently homophobic, but they could not ever
cite anything that he aaid to back that up. So what have they said to make them
a hate group? Never mind what the SPLO says. We think for ourselves here.
The US Constitution is VERY clear on this. "No State shall make or enforce
ANY law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States". The words stand on their own. We may NOT need to hear from
the supreme court at all on this. Every district court may strike down the bans
and the US Supreme Court may refuse any appeals.
"Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry
someone of the opposite sex; neither may marry someone of the same sex."The same argument was used to defend the ban on inter-racial marriage. While
whites could not marry blacks,blacks could not marry whites. A transparent
scheme to justify bigotry. Same argument in this brief -- same justification.
If you want to be scared go to their website. It is unbelievable. Makes the
Eagle Forum look radical. They promote creationism over anything else and they
deny science. Even BYU teaches Evolution classes. They have at times in the
past made negative comments about Mormons. They are an extremist group and
Mormons should be wary of them.
"Family Research Council is recognized as a hate group."Oh
Really? Is that why they beat up an old lady after the Prop. 8 vote in
California when she attempted to speak at a public gathering?Oops..
My bad. That was the LGBT activists who did that.
@MeckofahessSo Tolstoy quotes the leading professional scholars in
the field of human behavior (with citations) and you dismiss it as junk science
but provide no evidence to support your dismissal of these leading scholars in
the field? I wonder who I should trust? Let me give you another one,
this one from the American Sociological Association, “The results of our
review are clear. There is no evidence that children with parents in stable
same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed,
the greater stability offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex
parents may be an asset for child well-being. When the social science evidence
is exhaustively examined, which the ASA has done, the facts demonstrate that
children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents. Unsubstantiated
fears regarding same-sex child rearing do not overcome these facts."
The Family Research Council ("FRC") is listed by the Southern Poverty
Law Center ("SPLC") as a hate group.FRC doesn't publish
any clinically-accepted research, only issues position papers espousing anti-gay
propaganda -- crafting language, accusations and arguments to be used in public
by their political allies to combat societal acceptance of homosexuals. Some of
their baseless assertions are extremely inflammatory and cause great harm. Once
part of the Focus On The Family organization, they were split off as a separate
corporation to protect Focus's tax exemption.The more
"friends" like this the State has, the clearer it becomes what the real
purpose of Amendment 3 is. I wouldn't go trumpeting how closely their
position is to yours, if I were you and wanted to win that appeal.SPLC has a lot of information on their website about the harm that FRC and
similar organizations do, and the falsehoods that they spread. I would
encourage you opponents of SSM to check closely who your allies are. With
friends like those... maybe you'll reconsider your position altogether.
@DanOThe Family Research Council is labeled as a hate group -- just
as anyone who does not go along with the GLBT agenda. The current atmosphere in
this country is one of division; not unity. And that is not to say that unity
cannot exist if people maintain differing opinions. It is to say that divisions
result when people prefer to label anyone - on either side of the isle - who
does not support their agenda or way of thinking.I think that there
is room for civil discourse on this issue as well as others. But we are
teaching our rising generation that if they are going to be accepted by the
majority they must conform to current trends or they are not welcome.I do not agree with gay marriage. That does not mean I hate gay people or
wish them ill. It means that I do not agree with gay marriage, period. I
don't like calamari either, but that doesn't mean I hate squids.
Meckofahess: Whether or not you want to say that HIV/AIDS is a homosexual
disease, the fact is that it is highly prevalent among the gay and lesbian
community due to their great number of sex partners. ----------This is totally a deception. I didn't think you would allow
something so misleading. The truth is that lesbians have the least
sexually transmitted diseases of any group - including heterosexuals and
especially do not have HIV/AIDS! This are not a problem at all in the lesbian
community. Where did you get this information, Meck? Do not trust
that source again!
They should patch over the word 'freedom' on the sign in the picture.
@Rocket Science who said:"We all forget that the whole issue,
regardless of what side we take, will be decided by SCOTUS. ..."This may not be decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has shown a
desire to delay this -- they could have ruled on the whole of marriage equality
during DOMA and did not. Leaving it to the states, but confining the states
within constitutionality.The SCOTUS may decline all appeals on the
matter until at least 2 district courts have disagreed. If all the district
courts agree, on one side or the other of the issue, the SCOTUS may choose never
to hear the case at all.Personally, I'm betting they will wait
until 2 circuit courts disagree before taking it on. But that's just an
informed layman's opinion.
@HeresAThought who said:"... If it's so broken, why would
you want a part of it? And are you saying that love can't exist without
marriage? Strange."I've never considered it any of my
business who others choose to marry or why. Over the years I've seen
people, young and old, marry for a variety of reasons: love, companionship,
money, security, friendship, "for the kids," etc. Never have I thought
I had some special right to judge them for their choice of partner or reason. I
have also seen people, young and old, avoid marriage. Again for a variety of
reasons. And again, I found it to be none of my business.This is
not, and never has been, about why people marry. It's about treating all
adult citizens of this country with equal respect and dignity -- giving them the
choice to marry whom they choose, for whatever reason they choose. Or not.
That's what liberty and freedom are all about.
The 14th Amendment needs to be upheld. Utah's new attorney general appears
to have guaranteed the violation of this amendment, as Shelby ruled, thereby
invalidating each state as final marriage arbiter. The State of Utah has left
the federal courts no other recourse than to nationally invalidate a
state's definition of legal marriage due to the violation of Amendment 14
and invalidation of the Supreme Court's DOMA decision. Coupled with state
definitions' violation of the rights of all U.S. citizens and the Supreme
Court's invalidation of DOMA, Utah's appeal will inevitably lead to
federal court national definition - which has already been given when DOMA was
invalidated to uphold Amendment 14.
"The principal defining characteristic of marriage, as it has been
understood in our 'history, legal traditions and practices,' is the
union of a man and a woman," according to the filing.Amen!
Bravo to the Family Research Council for defending the rights of those who
support the definition of traditional marriage.
@HeresAThought who said:"Marriage is and has been (as far as
recordable history can determine) a union between one man and one
woman..."A statement which conveniently omits the Mormon
church's own history just 100 years ago as well as the Biblical definition
of marriage, which I'll restate here:Marriage is between one
man, his wives, his concubines, his female slaves, his wives' female
slaves, and his concubines' female slaves.The meanings of words
change all the time. Our definition of marriage also changes over time. It
used to be a simple sale of a woman by her father to her husband -- which is
also supported in the Bible. We got over that. We used to forbid interracial
couples from marrying. We got over that too.I'm a heterosexual
male, married to my sweetheart for 30 years. And it's clear to me that
extending marriage to more of our brothers and sisters will in no way affect my
marriage or my life -- except, perhaps, to restore a bit of my faith in
After a decade of listening to both sides, I'm still waiting for one real
concrete example of harm done to marriage. Still waiting to hear how allowing
the neighbor down the street to get married is going to dissolve, disturb or
deny someone of their own marriage.However, the other side has been
able to provide hundreds of examples of how denying them equal access, would in
reality harm their families. And most of their arguments use love and equal
treatment as reasons. While the "not them" side, continues to use fear
and hysteria.It looks as if the future is coming to Utah, and it
bends toward fairness and equality.
@LovelyDeseret who said:"I wonder if gay marriage is not punishment
for not valuing and protecting marriage enough. If you don't cherish it,
you lose it. Like a thief on a Friday night before Christmas it snuck in and
stole marriage."And yet, nothing is being taken away from you.
Your marriage, and mine of 30 years, will not be lost. The only thing
threatened by marriage equality is a sense of privilege some insist on having.
My enjoyment of a piece of pie is in no way diminished by someone at the next
table also enjoying a slice. To believe otherwise is the height of arrogance
and self importance.
@TolstoySame-Sex Parenting and Junk Science “No
one should pay any attention to studies that are poorly done. They are just some
stories, they really are not science.” Dr. Linda Waite One the
misleading claims commonly made by homosexual activists and their allies is that
social science research proves that there are no significant differences
in the social and psychological outcomes for children raised by same-sex
“parents” when compared to those raised by heterosexual parents.
(The term “parent” will be used for convenience, but with the
recognition that no more than one member of a same-sex couple raising a child
can be the biological parent.) However, independent evaluation of
the studies commonly used to support these assertions have concluded that all of
them fall far short of the minimum standards the social science disciplines
require to be met for research findings to have any validity.
@SchneeIn reply to my comment you stated "Hmm, well maybe we can
reduce the risk of STDs by encouraging committed monogamous
relationships"To try to compare the rate of STD (HIV/AIDS)in the
heterosexual population to the rate in the gay community is counter-factual and
disingenuous and you know it. Your assertion does not stand up to statistical
analysis or scientific evidence.According the Centers for Disease
control and Prevention "In 2011, in the United States, MSM (men who have sex
with men) accounted for 79% of 38,825 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males
aged 13 years and older and 62% of 49,273 estimated diagnoses among all persons
receiving an HIV diagnosis that year".This is very troubling
because HIV research and treatment costs the American tax payer billions of
dollars that could be used for other needs such as healthcare for the needy and
education. Another major reason why laws in America should foster
committed traditional marriage and family relationships!
Most stories of sexual abuse of a child reveals that the pedophile hid behind
the "sanctity" of "marriage" to have access to his victims.Never
heard of one case of sexual perversion by a married gay couple. The sexual
perversion statistics that these so called "family" organizarions cite
are all statistics taken from their own gene pool.
Also weighing in with their own amicus brief are Center for Urban Renewal and
Education, The Coalition of African-American Pastors, and The Frederick Douglass
Foundation.From the FRC brief: "Given that same-sex marriage has
been allowed only since 2003...it cannot be said that same-sex marriage is
firmly rooted in 'the Nation's history, legal traditions, and
practices.'"It CAN be said, however, that discrimination
against LGBTs is firmly rooted in the Nation's history, legal traditions,
and practices. The fertile ground in which it was planted is a compost of fear,
ignorance, and superstition. But we know too much now, as evidenced
by Tolstoy's contributions above and countless others' throughout this
debate. When information enables one to shed fear or suspicion of another human
being, why would a person instead choose to cling to them even harder? This
reflex I do not understand. It seems to go against one's self-interest.
Don't you feel better - mentally, emotionally, physically - when you view
something positively rather than negatively?
"Everyone has their opinions on these issues, which is why the political
process should decide the outcome, not unelected judges."I think
I just realized why some people are so against the language arts' common
core; the goal is to teach students that the way to present an argument and
support it is by providing factual evidence. Because opinions vary, we cannot
base our laws on them. We need to establish rules of law based on fact.
We all forget that the whole issue, regardless of what side we take, will be
decided by SCOTUS. Constitutionality HAS NOT been decided by SCOTUS at this
point. Remember that in California Prop 8 SCOTUS did not rule that SSM is a
Constitutional right, but that those bringing the suit did not have standing.
Utahs Governor and AG have standing. Will SCOTUS rule in favor of Utah
supporting 33 other States? Or, will they rule against Utah and traditional
roles of States? Until then all of our opinions are only personal opinions,
only 5 SCOTUS opinions will matter.
Family Research Council's amicus brief and the one filed by Utah is a night
and day contrast. FRC's is the brief that I think Utah's citizens
will wish their state filed. While much more focused, analytic and
supported (and thus persuasive) in terms of the legal argument as to why
Shelby's opinion should be overruled, since FRC is not a party to the case,
there is no requirement that the 10th Cir. judges should give FRC's brief
any formal regard in their own analysis, nor will FRC's attorneys be part
of the oral argument. Unlike Utah, FRC's brief doesn't
simply throw out a passing, and somewhat off-point, citation as to why Shelby
erred -- they dig right into the cases Shelby cited and logic he followed. Now,
even if the 10th Cir. pays it any mind, they may or may not find FRC's
argument convincing enough. But this is how it looks like when a party wants to
prevail on the appeal, just a shame for Utah that FRC is not a party.
Marriage is and has been (as far as recordable history can determine) a union
between one man and one woman, providing the biological emotional and
phsychological basis for which a family is based. Man and woman can, in
principle create children within the bonds of matrimony, which is acceptable
before our Creator. It is the fundamental basis for our society. I
think it perhaps ironic that one of the biggest arguments for same-sex marriage
is that it denies the rights of same-sex couples to experience the same joy and
happiness that hetero couples enjoy, as if to imply that happiness can't
exist without the bonds of legal marriage. Yet, in the same breath, I also hear
how fractured and fallible hetero marriages are (over 50% divorce rate) from the
same people. If it's so broken, why would you want a part of it? And are
you saying that love can't exist without marriage? Strange.
Why is it that gay people continue to try to make the argument that marriage as
sanctioned by the state is about love??It is not!!!!The state's
only interest in marriage is the benefits of social structure and moral control.
Since what's best for society is no longer a consideration by
the state but getting more votes is they have changed their position on the
issue.The "LOVE" thing is only a requirement in the religion
sanctioning of marriage, which gay people totally oppose religious views but
want to use it to make their case that love supersedes nature, God and common
The Family Research Council want to help and weigh in - my advice - run the
other way as fast as you can. No one needs help like that.
@Heilig 7:28 p.m. Feb. 6, 2014I would like to recommend reading the
entire brief filed by the attorneys for Utah (just google the Utah appeal court
brief 1294036). By reading the entire document, one can gain a much better
understanding of the powerful and compelling reasons Utah has for maintaining
the traditional definition of marriage.-------------------I read and analyzed the entire brief. There is nothing powerful or compelling
in it. It's just saying the same old thing in a lot of ponderous words.
It is in no way legally persuasive. Utah really wasted its money for that one.
I defend Admendment 3. Come on people get behind this in droves. I know your
out there. We must potect the sanctity of marriage.
@DanO:“You're known by the company you keep. Family
Research Council (FRC) is recognized as a hate group. With friends of the court
like that like that, who needs enemies. Good luck on trying to show there is no
animus behind Amendment 3.”Where did you get that information?
Recognized by whom?Question what you are told. Think for yourself.
PC accepts. Liberal thinks.
I wonder if gay marriage is not punishment for not valuing and protecting
marriage enough.If you don't cherish it, you lose it. Like a
thief on a Friday night before Christmas it snuck in and stole marriage.
Marriage laws allow a person the right to make a legal commitment to the love of
their life. Utah gives incentives to both fertile and infertile straight people
to do this, but bans gay people from doing this same thing. Utah tells a gay
person "Dump the love of your life and marry some other opposite-sex person
that you don't love"... That's unequal treatment and is
unconstitutional under the 14th amendment... Further, it's downright cruel
and immoral to try to split-up a loving couple.
The brief posits the question --what is marriage, [just like the casuistic book
by Robbie George] but this is a tactic to confuse the historical view of what
marriage has been with the essential question: what is the government's
purpose in acknowledging a marriage? The first purpose in civil family law is
to reflect the way that committed couples actually organize their personal,
financial and familial lives. Based in reality, the law makes presumptions
regarding affinity, family and fisc. [Historically, it reflected rich white
men's desires.] It is not an abstract concept, as the FRC would like us to
believe, but the way real couples exist in the real world. Straight and gay
couples order their lives the same way in making real world decisions, and thus
the government should and must recognize reality.
Gay Marriage = Oxymoron.
I sure am glad they weighed in. I was beginning to wonder what their thoughts
were.I'm also angry judges never follow the constitution. Cause
I'm the expert, not them.
From the American Medical Association "Our American Medical Association: (1)
recognizes that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is
discriminatory and imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and
couples and their families; (2) recognizes that exclusion from civil marriage
contributes to health care disparities affecting same-sex households; (3) will
work to reduce health care disparities among members of same-sex households
including minor children; and (4) will support measures providing same-sex
households with the same rights and privileges to health care, health insurance,
and survivor benefits, as afforded opposite-sex households."
From the American Academy of Pediatrics "Scientific evidence affirms that
children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar
parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders.
If a child has 2 living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent
bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interests of their child(ren)
that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective
of their sexual orientation. If 2 parents are not available to the child,
adoption or foster parenting remain acceptable options to provide a loving home
for a child and should be available without regard to the sexual orientation of
From the American Psychological Association (with citations) “Research
suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role
behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children
of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson,
2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality,
self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of
lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey &
Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian
and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults
(Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999;
Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of
general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and
friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by
adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay
communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research
suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with
lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with
Consider the position:"Laws that treat men and women equally, and do
not subject them to different restrictions or disabilities, cannot be said to
deny either men or women the equal protection of the laws,"I
agree with this completely it makes sense however, the US government gives
married people tax breaks doesn't it? If it does, then married people and
un-married people are subject to different restrictions gay or straight. Having
said that, does a single person have the same protection under the law as a
married person? Perhaps tax breaks for married folks should be modified?
@candaceparker "Everyone has their opinions on these issues, which is why
the political process should decide the outcome, not unelected judges."The outcome of an election is always the best solution. Take the case of
3 starving wolves and a delicious lamb voting though the political process on
what to eat for lunch. The majority should always rule. @Snapdragon "This is completely different then Loving vs.
Virginia."Not really, sexual orientation like race is considered
an immutable characteristic for most people. The issue of traditional and
historical discrimination does not justify continuation of the practice.
African Americans, Convicted Felons, just like Same-sex couples were and are not
asking for a new right, but a fundamental right to participate in the existing
institution of marriage. There are no interracial, felon, non-procreative or
same-sex marriage licenses, there is only one "marriage" license. A
right to marry someone for which their is no attraction or desire of intimacy is
simply no right at all.
You're known by the company you keep. Family Research Council is recognized
as a hate group. With friends of the court like that like that, who needs
enemies. Good luck on trying to show there is no animus behind Amendment 3.
Candaceparker said "the political process should decide the outcome, not
unelected judges". However unelected judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, not
the political process, decided in a 1967 case, Loving vs. Virginia, that persons
of different races had the right to marry. If the Supreme Court hadn't
done that, it might still be the case that interracial marriage would be
outlawed in several states. The U.S. Constitution trumped state laws in that
instance, as it should have. Please Google 'Loving vs. Virginia'.
@candaceparker"Opponents (States) have also prevailed in court by
showing the disparaging effects that same-sex orientation generates with
procreation, parenting, choice-of-law and other judicial efficiencies.
Ultimately, courts must decide whether sexual orientation constitutes a suspect
class. Until then, rationales on either side are mere banter in terms of true
justification."---I am sorry, since last June's
SCOTUS ruling, which court did opponents of marriage equality ever prevail? Can
you tell me? The truth is, when district judges in Utah, OK, OH
struck down SSM constitutional ban, none of them invoked heighten scrutiny, they
all applied rational basis, and the states' argument could not even pass
this lowest standard. Utah spent big bucks to hire outside attorneys
to defend Amendment 3, that is fine. However, unless these high priced lawyers
can present some new argument, which they haven't, I don’t see how
they can prevail in court with the same old tricks that have failed over and
"...unprincipled fundamental rights...".A fundamental right
is unprincipled?"...The Family Research Council's brief is
the second of many expected to be filed on both sides before the Denver-based
10th Circuit holds oral arguments April 10...".DN readers will
receive a summary on each brief or just the briefs sympathetic to Utah's
Loving v Virginia's opinion was that Marriage is a fundamental right
BECAUSE it is "fundamental to our very existence and survival.You can't cite precedent where none exists. The court described marriage
between a man and a woman, nothing more, nothing less.
@Meckofahess"The fact is that homosexuals do not live as long as
heterosexuals due to the health risks associated with the lifestyle"Hmm, well maybe we can reduce the risk of STDs by encouraging committed
monogamous relationships. Now if only we had a word that could describe
something like that...By the way... it's discriminatory to
argue that same-sex couples can't marry due to HIV (even though many of
them don't have it, particularly the case for lesbians) but that a relative
of mine who does have HIV can marry because he's straight.
"Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry
someone of the opposite sex"True."neither may
marry someone of the same sex."Technically not true - anybody
may marry someone of the same sex - Amendment 3 just makes it so that the
government does not recognize it. Therefore, Amendment 3 should
@USU-Logan "The truth is, Amendment 3 treats straight people and gay people
unequally. A straight person can marry the one he or she loves; but a gay person
can not do so, simply because they are of the same gender. The opponents of
marriage equality have failed again and again in court to justify the
rationale."Opponents (States) have also prevailed in court by
showing the disparaging effects that same-sex orientation generates with
procreation, parenting, choice-of-law and other judicial efficiencies.
Ultimately, courts must decide whether sexual orientation constitutes a suspect
class. Until then, rationales on either side are mere banter in terms of true
I would like to recommend reading the entire brief filed by the attorneys for
Utah (just google the Utah appeal court brief 1294036). By reading the entire
document, one can gain a much better understanding of the powerful and
compelling reasons Utah has for maintaining the traditional definition of
This is completely different then Loving vs. Virginia. The whole
idea of comparing the two are like comparing apples and oranges.
If Adam can marry Eve then Sally should be able to marry Eve. This is the same
nonsense they tried before Loving vs. Virginia. It did not work then, and it
will not work now.
@ Paul Benjamin Linton, an attorney for the council, argues in the brief that
the question isn't who may marry but what marriage is.I like
that. May be we are getting smarter soon.Whatever is braking lose on this
page from here on, I kind of like to get out before it starts.Good
luck on the war on words.
'[H]istory, legal traditions and practices,' does not legitimize the
continued discrimination in laws like Amendment 3. The Supreme Court also noted
in the Loving case that the long tradition of anti-miscegenation laws would not
save it from constitutional scrutiny, either. Its amazing how
similar the arguments are being pushed in this anti-discrimination case as they
were in the 60s. It looks like the Virginia marriage rights case
will be the first to be heard by the Supremes, making the Oklahoma and Utah
"Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry
someone of the opposite sex; neither may marry someone of the same sex."---The truth is, Amendment 3 treats straight people and gay
people unequally. A straight person can marry the one he or she loves; but a gay
person can not do so, simply because they are of the same gender. The opponents
of marriage equality have failed again and again in court to justify the
rationale. I don't see how the same old argument will magically
prevail in the 10th circuit this time.
""Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry
someone of the opposite sex; neither may marry someone of the same sex."So, marriage is a sexual contract? Pure biology with the solely purpose
of propagation of the species?Let's forget love, companionship,
common interests, just sex!!Is this the "Traditional
-marriage" Utah is defending?
Everyone has their opinions on these issues, which is why the political process
should decide the outcome, not unelected judges.