It is worth noting that In Windsor, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the
“equal dignity” of the “intimate relationship between TWO
people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community. .
. .” The government does not have a right to interfere with their rights
to file taxes jointly. Same-sex couples have a right to receive benefits under
the state public pension system, to adopt or serve as legal guardian of a
partner’s child, to receive inheritance protections, and to make medical
decisions for a partner. In light of Windsor, restrictions and disabilities of
vile animus, bigotry and ignorance imposed on gay and lesbian couples simply
cannot stand. Windsor did not then say, therefore this ruling means
the states can do as they please and.constitutional guarantees can be ignored.
Never in our nations history has there been any kind of states right to ignore
the US Constitution due process and equal protection amendments.
@LovelyThe quote on Windsor was directly from the actual decision.
Please read the decision (above) the state has a right to regulate marriage, and
MUST also respect constitutional guarantees. You cannot explain how
adding people, felons, or interracial couples for example, "re-defines"
marriage. Rudimentary or not, there is nothing to your redefinition claim.
Otherwise, you would easily be able to support the claims you make. Judge Walker and the 9th decision were both stayed, and voila we now have
marriage equality in California. This one example clearly shows that a stay
does not mean what you think it does. 'Lincoln said “It
cannot have failed to strike you that these men ask for just the same thing,
fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they and all others
shall have.” Gays and Lesbians, and their children too, whose voices are
in harmony with constitutional guarantees, also ask for fairness, and fairness
only. This, so far as it is this courts power, they and all others shall
have." Judge Wright wrote in Bostic. (Virginia). Lastly, Ted
Olsen is now challenging the marriage ban in Virginia. - The writing on the wall
is clear is it not?
@fact baked,It is ironic that you brought up Loving v. Virginia. The
exact same Court that ruled in Loving v Virginia made their opinion known on gay
marriage. One year later they summarily dismissed a gay marriage case with a
rebuke. No honest person would think that the Court in Loving v. Virginia
remotely believed that redefining marriage to gay was Constitutional. Once again, the only right in Windsor, is that marriage is a State right. Your "redefining" marriage question is rudimentary and isn't
worth a response. Once again, the burden to grant a stay by the
Supreme Court on appeal is that there is a likelihood that the State of Utah can
win the case. To that question and burden the Supreme Court responded with a 9-0
vote in favor of Utah. 9-0. Since then, every ruling redefining marriage has
been stayed. In spite of District Judge shopping. Lastly Ted Olsen in his
gay California case before the Supreme Court said that gay marriage should not
be forced upon Utah and that the Court shouldn't do that. He got that point
@ Lovely DesertYou may be surprised to know that the last Supreme
Court case (Windsor) was actually TWO women. Fifteen times since 1888, the
United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of
all individuals. So, according to the Supreme court, no one is
"redefining" anything. They are constitutionally allowed to participate
in the existing institution known as marriage. Could you kindly
explain how marriage is "redefined" by adding or excluding people? Also, you missed the first sentence in the Windsor ruling. "State
laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the
constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1
(1967); but, SUBJECT to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic
relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually
exclusive province of the States.” In other words, the state has a right
to regulate, but not discriminate. The Supreme court ruled on
granting a stay, nothing about states rights or validity of marriages currently
performed in Utah. Where did you get your information that it was
to protect states marriage rights if I may ask? First, could you kindly explain
how marriage is "redefined" by adding or excluding people?
@no celebrateThere is no constitutional right to redefine marriage.
In fact the last Supreme Court ruling stated that marriage is a
State right. When the state of Utah appealed to the Supreme Court,
the Supreme Court held 9-0 that there was a likelihood that Utah would win the
appeal and thus they put a hold on Judge Shelby's ruling. They
voted 9-0, they don't vote 9-0 on almost anything, yet to protect
State's marriage rights in Utah the Supreme Court voted 9-0.
The Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s
citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally
protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the
voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound and long-term
interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.” Awad
v. Ziriax (2012)It is well-established and crystal clear that the
right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy,
association, and identity.Fifteen times since 1888, the United
States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all
individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of
personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties
protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth
Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or
I checked on the judges previous rulings and it strongly appears that the gays
don't stand a chance. State's rights will prevail over Federal law.
@ Lovely DeseretI'm wiling to bet that all of the numbers in
your post are not accurate....or are even close to being accurate.
@ LovelyDesert Yes, lets look at what is happened in Massachusetts and
Iowa, both states with SSM.These states have the lowest divorce rate
in the country. Therefore, isn't SSM a godsend for all nuclear families by
keeping stable family units together?Moreover, why won't answer
the question of how marriage is "redefined" by excluding or including
people? For example, we allow convicted spousal and drug abusers to civil
marry, does this "define" marriage too? Would spousal, drug and alcohol
abuse go away if we did not allow these people to civil marry? Why target only
same-sex couples with animus and discrimination? In fact, why even allow
opposite sex couples to marry (because they can be a source of HIV and
STD's too)? HIV and STD's infection rates be reduced in part by
denying them access to civil marriage? If you don't mind,
please answer the question of how marriage is redefined by including or
@LovelyDeseret, I don’t know if your statements are accurate or not. But
let’s assume they are. You infer that these changes have come because of
10 years of marriage equality. But the figures are useless without comparison
to other states. Take Missouri--like Massachusetts, a large urban core and an
agrarian heartland. Is the marriage rate down there? Have HIV diagnoses gone
up there? As a religious person who has adopted before and after 2004, I can
tell you that the process is much harder--but that has nothing to do with
religion or marriage equality; it involves tougher state and federal
regulations. And you have a problem with increasing state spending for STDs?
Are you saying that people are more promiscuous now that marriage equality is
the law? State spending on asthma diagnoses is also higher. Is this also a
result of marriage equality?
I find it myopic to say nuclear families won't be affect by the
redefinition of marriage. Look at what is happened in Massachusetts. 1)Less and less people are getting married, it isn't treasured or
embraced. 2)It has also become harder for religious people to adopt. 3)HIV/AIDS has gone up 30%, and 4) state spending has increased by $35
million for STDs. I consider none of that good.
LovelyDeseret says:"These three men hold the future of the
families of Utah in their hand."--- You're right. They
hold the future of our same-sex families in their hand. Your family's
future won't be affected by their ruling one way or the other; not affected
in the least.
@ LovelyDeseretThat's true. Hopefully the many homosexual
families in Utah will soon enjoy equal privileges that the rest of the families
enjoy. Your family will not be effected at all, no matter what happens
@ Lovely Desert "At least until the Supreme Court rules on whether or not
marriage is allowed to be redefined."How is marriage
"redefined?" by including or excluding people?Please
These three men hold the future of the families of Utah in their hand. At least
until the Supreme Court rules on whether or not marriage is allowed to be
@Northen UtahanEven you did not quote Judge Heyburn correctly..
“Many Kentuckians believe..." Even that comment was
edited and paraphrased to fit in the comment limitation. The fact that it was
paraphrased also should have also been included. By the time the explanations
and authorship were duly noted, there was no room for even the the shortened
and rewritten/derived version.
@USU Logan..At Bleed Crimson... Is "redefinition" a logical
statement?History shows us that marriage is NOT defined by those who
are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon child and spousal
abusers to civil marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in the
institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry. There are no
Interracial marriage licenses. There are no felony marriage licenses. There are no 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 (from gendered voting to genderless). A
right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is
simply no right at all. The "redefinition argument" is a logical fallacy
BleedCrimson, who asks "where to draw the line",Here's
the crux of the matter, it comes down to who's drawing that line.
Religious conservatives such as yourself envision the world from a
pulpit-preacher vantagepoint. If homosexuality is immoral and society chooses
to recognize marriage of homosexuals, you argue, then what is to stop society
from an amoral free-for-all?Whereas marriage equality proponents
argue from a position of secular ethics. If homosexuality is legal, which it
is, and ethical, which it is, then why can't homosexuals marry? Adults
have the right to pursue their own ethical and romantic relationships. Meanwhile, it is clear to us that there are huge ethical problems with
incest, and a bad history in patriarchal polygamy as practiced by those who
abuse and exploit minor girls, trapping their young wives in a life of
subservience, poverty and public assistance.You see it as an
absolutist religious morality question, we see it as a secular ethics question.
Come over to our side and that line is bright and clear.
@Bleed CrimsonThe line will be whether there is a legitimate reason,
a rational reason to ban such practice, a long unbroken losing streak of same
sex marriage opponents in the court in the past year shows that those arguments
against SSM do not hold water. For other combinations you mentioned,
you can go back and read comments given by Stormwalker, Evidence Not Junk
Science, Two For Flinching and A Quaker why they should not be legitimate.
USU-Loganwrz is right! If marriage is redefined to include
homosexuals. Then where do you draw the line? If marriage is
redefined, then they're should be no reason that polygamy be illegal.
Mother/son, Father/daughter marriage should be legal, Brother/Sister marriages
should be legal. As long as they're all consenting adults who are in love
and want the same rights that the homosexuals want. Again I ask,
where do you draw the line if marriage is redefined?
@ Stormwalker, Evidence Not Junk Science, Two For Flinching and A Quaker. Thank
you for your eloquent comments and rebuttals for wrz’s claim.
@wrz said, "I think I made a compelling argument."You
didn't. Your argument is illogical, based on asymmetrical comparisons.
Allowing unrelated, adult couples who wish to live in lifelong, committed
relationships to marry, opens the door neither to incest nor polygamy. Adding
those approximately 5% of our neighbors who are gay to the ranks of the legally
marriageable makes no difference in this regard, either in law or in logic.Incest is illegal for a number of reasons, which sociologists and family
services professionals could explain to you in detail. One should note, however,
cousins were generally able to marry in the U.S. and Europe until the latter
half of the 19th Century, when eugenic concerns began to grow about inheritance
of recessive genetic faults. Not all states changed their laws. First cousins
can still marry in 18 states without restriction.The modern marriage
contract is based in equality of the partners regarding property, custody,
support, inheritance and guardianship. That's easy with two partners,
difficult with polygamy. Which, should it ever come, won't just be your
religious notion of patriarchal polygyny.
One thing the Bible, Constitution and Jesus's mortal ministry have in
common is it is easy to use your own interpretation of them to defend any pre
determined position. Was Jesus Christian with the Canaanite women? Was he
wrong to tell the Israelites to wipe out the cruel Amelekites? Belief that he
speaks to leaders today helps us know where he stands on moral issues.
Generous for sure but for our benefit since Adam has told us what we need to do
to be happier. So called same gender marriages will hurt society in the long
run. People that don't believe in immortality would have no problem with
immorality, after all if you are saved anyway or annihiliated just as well grab
all the fun and excitement if you think there is nothing after death, or no
need to keep any commandments since you think you are saved anyway.
@ Evidence Not Junk ScienceWhen quoting someone (Heyburn, in this
case), you should indicate you are doing so. I realized you tweaked it from
being EXACTLY word for word, to put an LDS spin on it, but give credit where
credit is due:"Many believe in "traditional marriage."
Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a
sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society's
benefit. They may be confused "even angry" when a decision such as this
one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and
deserve an answer. Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to
the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define
marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected
sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that
definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or
faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification
for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make
it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without
@ wrzLook up the harm principle. That will answer your question.
Also, people who are related already enjoy legal benefits and privileges. They
are related, so there is no reason for them to be legally recognized and related
through a marriage license. The same is not true for same-sex couples.
@ WTZ "..all other combinations should be allowed, including polygamy and
incestuous relations. "There is simply no constitutional right
to harm and abuse that the government can easily demonstrate based on the
relationships you propose. Therefore a rational basis exists for legislation
against polygamy and incestuous relationships. There is no harm and abuse
alleged that results from Same-sex marriage. Harm and abuse is well documented
in closed FLDS like communities (see Bountiful Case 2011).Do you
have another valid argument?
@wrz: "Are you saying that laws against polygamy, incestuous, sib,
dad/daughter, mom/son marriages (and a host of other marriage combinations that
can be conjured) are discriminatory?"When I see a list like this
I start hearing Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis and the incomparable Bill Murray in
the mayor's Office in Ghostbusters:Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is
headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.Mayor: What do you mean,
"biblical"?Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr.
Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.Dr
Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas
boiling!Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes,
volcanoes...Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!Dr.
Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass
hysteria!I can't have equal rights because something bad might
happen. Mass hysteria, indeed.
@MeckofahessYour Gay and Lesbian neighbors will have legally
recognized marriages that have protections and benefits straight married couples
have enjoyed all along. Extending those rights does not take anything away from
you. The definition of marriage will not change. It will still be
marriage, it will still legally join two people into a couple."Self-evident." I have friends who are transgender. I regularly
advocate for transgender patients in healthcare settings. I have been part of
presentations on transgender healthcare experience to medical students at the
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and, when I lived in Atlanta,
nursing students at Emory University. I teach healthcare technicians and include
respectful and knowledgeable care of transgender patients in every class. My definition of "self-evident" includes transgender people
being treated as full members of society, which includes using facilities
appropriate to their transition gender, proper pronouns and generally respectful
treatment. To me, it is common sense to do unto others as I would
have others do unto me, self-evident to treat others with gentle respect.
@liberal Larry Jesus came here to only do the will of the Father who sent him.
Did not modify it. Money changers were in the temple where they should not of
been. I think he left businessmen alone in other places. I would not call
Jesus a pacifist. I am not here to send peace but a sword. Did not modify
message to appease people who disagreed. The Premortal Jehovah gave the law of
Moses. Did what was best for Children at the time. Women taken into adultery
that was trap for Jesus. How many unrepentant adulters will be in the Celestial
Kingdom. 0, Since the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of
allowance and is no respecter of persons. There are those that say they
don't believe in God. I know our prophets are inspired of God and choose
to follow them. It don't matter what side different churches take since
God is not an author of confusion can't have it both ways. Jesus never
said keep on sinning. The Old and New Testament have same author too. there is
harsness in NT and forgiveness in OT.
@Evidence Not Junk Science:"Assigning a religious or traditional
rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates
against a class of people without other reasons."Are you saying
that laws against polygamy, incestuous, sib, dad/daughter, mom/son marriages
(and a host of other marriage combinations that can be conjured) are
@USU-Logan:"@wrz The plaintiffs in this case ask judges to allow same
sex couple to marry, not ask for polygamy or incestuous marriage. If you have a
compelling argument why same sex couples should not join matrimony, speak to the
point or hold your peace."I think I made a compelling
argument... i.e., if SSM is allowed, all other combinations should be allowed,
including polygamy and incestuous relations. If the judges allow any departure
from current State law (one man/women) they must also allow any and all
departures from current State law. Anything else is discrimination.The SSM argument for marriage is that they be allowed to marry whomever they
love. That same argument should be available to all who wish to marry whomever
they love... including the arrangements I listed."Arguing about
polygamy or incestuous marriage to the judges simply won't help attorneys
hired by Utah... to win this case."The issue is not so much
about polygamy or incestuous marriages, etc. It's about equal
treatment/protection under the law (see Amendment 14).
Coach Biff, I don't think that all those southern gentlemen who signed the
Declaration of Independence (with that pesky phrase about all men being created
equal) really meant for it to apply to women--or to their slaves. But
nonetheless, that's how it's now interpreted. Do you have a problem
@BYU ConvertI too struggle with same-sex attraction and wish to
follow the prophet's counsel on this issue.Some say that sexual
orientation, like race and gender are considered to be fundamentally immutable
characteristics for most people. Abstinence is always a choice. Religious belief
on the other hand, is thought to be more amenable to change efforts and produces
the best long term outcome. Sexual orientation is usually considered to be
fundamental to a persons identity and person-hood, and a requirement for anyone
to change their sexual orientation in order to civil marry is considered
unreasonable and unconstitutional. In science, it is sometimes helpful to test
the logic of a reverse situation. What if another church doctrine determined
that it was Gods will that a heterosexual marry a homosexual? How would that
work out, or would changing ones religious belief (which people do frequently)
produce a more effective and better result?
@brotherJonathan:You asked, above, for a "simple compromise"
having a "Marriage Certificate for male and female" and a "Civil
Union, Marriage Certificate for same sex."Lets see how that
fits. A "simple compromise" on buses, with "Seats Up Front for male
and female," and "In the Back of the Bus, Seats Up Front for same
sex..."No... that isn't right. How about
"Lunch Counters for male and female," and "Enter and sit in the
back, Lunch Counters for same sex..." Nope. That doesn't work right,
either. Separate-but-equal is always separate and is never, ever
equal. How about this compromise? The only legal wedding is a civil
wedding, performed by an officer of the court in a court house. Religious
ceremonies have meaning to the religious who participate but it is simply a
ceremony and gives no legal protection. That way, all are equal in the law, and
each church can bless as they choose - because a long list of 40 or more
Christian churches marry Gay and Lesbian couples, as well as other faith
@higv and SS,At one point in time, the LDS Church discriminated
against black people and interracial marriages. I think it wasn't until
1978 when black men could hold the priesthood. And why was this? Because the
Book of Mormon mentions the seed of Cain bearing "a skin of blackness?"
I realize that people will oppose gay marriage for their own good conscious, and
for me (even though I struggle with SSA) do not feel that a gay marriage is an
option because I do wish to follow the prophet's counsel on this issue, but
that's in regards to MY life and MY choice. It is not my desire to treat
others as less than me because of the choices they make. Did the Savior treat
the adulteress woman as a subhuman specimen because of her sexual sins? Yet, I
see many "Christians" treating gay people as subhuman specimens. Many
LDS parents are throwing their gay kids out on the streets. I have seen it! Is
someone's struggle/decision on sexuality justifiable for withholding
Christ-like love? I say unto you, "nay."
Many believe what bishops, doctrines, and leaders tell them: that a marriage is
a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s
benefit. They may be confused —even angry—when a legal decision
seems to question that view. Although religious beliefs are part of the fabric
of society, at issue are laws that act outside religion. Once the government
defines civil marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so
constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or LDS faith-based limitation
upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a
religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional
when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons. The
beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith’s
definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating
us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who
came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom from it. Assigning
a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional
when that law discriminates without any valid reason.
@higvDietrich, IDDo you know what Jesus would do. How can people
claim to speak for God without speaking to him. Jesus was bold with
sin. Drove out moneychangers, and though gentle told Women in adultery to sin
more. Can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Many people
put there own interpertations to what they think Jesus would do without speaking
to Jesus.10:17 p.m. March 31, 2014========== 2 comments -- 1. Jesus didn't try to change ROMAN laws to fit
Judaic or Christian laws.2. Jesus was a passifist. I don't
recall him being BOLD with sinners and ordering them to be stoned -- the Law of
Moses required him to stone them. That's why the Pharisee's had him
crucified, remember?3. True - He did get BOLD with the Money
Cahngers in the Temple -- because they were Capitalists. And Jesus didn't
like Capitalists scalping people worshipping God.4. Do you know
Jesus would do? I do -- He'd go to them, put his arms around them
love them, break bread with them, listen to their worries and
concerns, and help them.And then tell us to do likewise.
@TrueChristian: Re:Pure democracy without protection of individual rights, you
are so right! 17th Century Massachusetts, a colony run by Puritans,
brutally enforced religious orthodoxy. Blasphemy, apostasy, heresy were all
punishable by terrible means. When Quakers tried to practice their religion,
they were whipped, tortured, imprisoned and executed. These abuses contributed
to the guarantees we now take for granted in our Constitution, guarantees made
necessary by the memory of what can happen when religious zealots gain
governmental power. @higv: Quakers speak directly to Jesus all the
time. There are no middle-men our religion. He loves us all, just as the Bible
says. I suggest you read Romans 14, wherein Paul explains how the New Covenant
affects Old Testament law, how what's in our hearts is more important than
what's on our plates, and how we're not to judge each other.But if you insist on putting a lot of store in the words of the OT, but not
the spirit of the NT, carefully read Leviticus 15:19-30, and 20:18 and take
stock of the sins in your own marital bed.
Coach Biff, please check out a Biology 101 textbook. The riskiness of which you
speak refers to a situation where one of the persons (male or female) is
infected with a virus (e.g. hepatitis, HIV, herpes) which is spread through
sexual contact. If one person is infected, s/he can transmit it to the other.
If neither is, the "risk" disappears. And since you are concerned for
public health, you will do everything you can to encourage monogamy--and
marriage--for all sexually active people. Right?
Note how much hatred and contempt comes through in the letters of some of the
anti-SSM writers here--phrases like "so-called marriage" or just the
quotes around the word "marriage", as though a same sex marriage
isn't really a marriage. These folk would be well to remember that the LDS
church was similarly regarded in its early days---I suspect that the good people
of Kirtland, had they been into writing letters to the editor, would have
referred to "that so-called religion" or worse. And you certainly
don't have to go back to the 1800's to find animosity. Before he got
the GOP nomination, a lot of Evangelical politicians said a whole lot of nasty
things about Mitt Romney's religion. I have yet to see a pro-marriage
equality writer refer to the LDS (or any other) church as a "so-called"
or a quote-unquote religion.
@brotherJonathan Your compromise"One is Marriage, One is Civil Union,
Marriage Certificate for same sex" simply won't work, because amendment
3 bans civil union too. Even if Utah state allows civil union, first things
first still has to be striking down amendment 3. Now you know how wrong
amendment 3 is, right?@wrzThe plaintiffs in this case ask
judges to allow same sex couple to marry, not ask for polygamy or incestuous
marriage. If you have a compelling argument why same sex couples should not join
matrimony, speak to the point or hold your peace. Arguing about polygamy
or incestuous marriage to the judges simply won't help attorneys hired by
Utah (with big taxpayers' money, no less) to win this case.
Mormonism believes that the Constitution was inspired by God, because it created
a country where people who believe differently could be free to live according
to their conscience. Including Mormons. That also means Catholics, Jews,
Muslims, Hindus, everyone. Including gays. The price that we pay for our freedom
means that we have to allow others the same, even when you don't agree or
consider it immoral. As a Mormon, I've lived in states where gay marriage
was legal, and honestly, it didn't affect me. I still went to Church, paid
my tithing, went to the Temple, and experienced the peace of the gospel in my
life. As members of the church we should spend more of our time in taking care
of the sick and helping the poor than spending so much time and energy fighting
civil laws that don't really change our lives.
So many of the comments here are so depressing because aren't seeing the
big picture. For those of you complaining about 'the will of the
people'. don't you realize that if that concept was the entire basis
of our government, Mormonism wouldn't exist?Let me say that
again. If the majority had the right to decide everything, Mormonism
wouldn't exist. Mormonism was considered deviant, evil, and an attack on
pure Christian principles. If people of this country voted today on whether or
not Mormonism was the correct and true religion, it would fail miserably. Would
that convince you that Mormonism was wrong? I didn't think so, and it
shouldn't - but stop pretending that the majority knows best when it suits
your cause, and ignoring it when it doesn't.
RE: equal protection, They all support marriage equality. Now may be time to
catch up and gain a better understanding don't you think?
[They]…,“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?”
Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them
male=(Adam) and female=(Eve, not Steve).’ And he said, “‘This
explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and
the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no
one split apart what God has joined together.” Matthew 19:4-6(NLT).Or believe St.Paul, Honor your Father and Mother,which is the first
commandment with a promise. God distinguishes father and mother”[not
significant other) from all other persons on earth, chooses them and sets them
next to Himself, occupying the highest place in our lives next to God..
A simple compromise would end the violation of equality on one hand the
violation of dictionary meaning of words on the other.Marriage
certificates come in 2 forms, both with equal power under law.One is
Marriage Certificate for male and female.One is Civil Union, Marriage
Certificate for same sex. Both parties have the same rights and the
meaning of words do not have to be changed. Changing the meaning of words
violates the rights of those who belief the meaning is of religious beliefs .
Both certifies legal marriage but shows respect and protects
constitutional rights of both groups.Simple adding of the words civil
union on what is the actual correct use of words in law.Sincerely, Elder
Jonathan L. Peterson servant of the Lord Jesus Christ and defender of our
Constitution for the United States of America,under God with liberty and justice
for all. Equality under all laws is mandatory.
Mexican Ute: You can speak out all you want. No one is stopping you. You may
be criticized for wanting your religious beliefs embedded into our laws. You
may have others point out that we live in a constitutuional republic where the
constitution is the law of the land, no matter what your morals are. You may be
called naive for not recognizing that, even with gay marriage banned, homosexual
couples will still be creating children by artificial insemination or surrogacy
and will be adopting children who are not wanted by their heterosexual parents.
These families need the same benefits and privileges that heterosexual families
enjoy.You can speak of morality and degradation, but others will
show you that you may be lacking in the basic understanding of our constitution
(and maybe the 11th article of faith, too).Can you explain to me why
the children of gays must be treated differently than those of heterosexuals?
Why shouldn't their families have the protections that we offer other
families in this country by allowing their parents to marry? Should the will of
the majority be allowed to mold the privileges of the minority without a legal,
"...we straights must go along with the gay agenda and surrender our own
rights...".Surrender our own rights?Which rights?
God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of
civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what
marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves
answerable to God.Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex
marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter
of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our
voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We
believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve
traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional
prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1999 Priesthood Session GC, "Why we do some of
the things we do"So, LDS, we have no right to change the
definition that God set out for us. And others, the Church and its members have
the right to speak out on matters of doctrine that are fundamental to survival.
To all the commentators who promote the notion of "live-and-let-live".
That sounds good on the surface but the underlying idea is that we straights
must go along with the gay agenda and surrender our own rights. So
if you want to "live-and-let-live", then please allow us straigts to
retain our right to not change the definition of marriage. Please allow us our
right to restrict restroom and locker rooms to folks of the same gender and all
the other common sense things that are self-evident.Some things we
just never intended to totally equal, please accept our right to believe and
live according to that point of view.
Regardless of the outcome, one of the posters here said that the God of Nature
would exact it's penalties for allowing the deviancy of homosexuality. I
gave blood the other night and one of the questions I was asked before I was
allowed to donate was the question of whether or not I had engaged in risky
behaviors including homosexual sex. It didn't get graphic, and it
didn't ask me if I had engaged in these behaviors with a woman. The fact
of the matter is, homosexual sex, especially man on man sex, is a risky, deviant
behavior that poses a dire threat to the community at large. Don't believe
me? Ask the CDC. Why we would grant tacit approval to this behavior is beyond
me. Also, does anyone here truly believe that the men who actually penned the
14th amendment would approve of the way it is being applied in this case?
Interesting. I don't remember the paper ever making a big deal over the
panel selected to hear a case out of Utah. Trying to project a decision by any
particular panel is futile, and because of similar cases around the country, I
suspect whatever the 10th Circuit does will ultimately go to the Suprumer Court.
In the end, what is notable is that conservatives, who preach individual rights
and don't want the government controlling their lives are now having to
fight against the same principles on an issue with which they disagree.
It's like when the ACLU gets on board with one of their issues. It must
make their heads explode, unless they are confortable with silos and never
connect the dots, that one is good for them is also good for others.
It is interesting to watch some of the Faithful get even more wrapped around the
axle as April 10th approaches. As A Quaker and many others have repeatedly said,
all your dogma teachings have absolutely no meaning whatsoever in this matter of
secular civil law. This debate actually ended last year with the Windsor
Ruling.To those still torn over this issue, the angst you feel is
the cognitive dissonance felt when you apply your dogma to secular civil law.
Once you successfully separate the two, you will find peace.
@HENELSON;WE, the people of Utah disagree with you. You don't
speak for all the people of Utah. And your little quote: "that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;" contradicts your entire
premise. If we're endowed with the right to pursue happiness, that means
you DO NOT get to vote on our right to pursue happiness through marriage.LadyMoon says: "I am unable to reconcile or accept a same gender
marriage."--- That's your problem dear. It isn't your
option to "accept or reconcile". You don't have the right to say
how others get to live or how they define their relationships. It really is
none of your business.@Gildas;Your god's laws are
nothing more than man's dictates. He doesn't exist; therefore, he
can't legislate.@higv;You seem to think you can
speak for god. What makes your position any more valid than any other?
Soon the Supremes will rule for Equality for all Americans like it or not.
@ higv(Ignoring the fact that this country is not a democracy) Did
judges going against the will of the people and forcing an end to segregation
indicate something was wrong?
@ Cougsndawgs,I never once said we should get rid of SSM or any
other sin. I simply said that you should never support it. That means in any
way: voting, agreeing with groups or individual arguments. If you believe in a
doctrine that states that homosexuality is a sin, no matter what people have the
"right" to do, you shouldn't support it or you are showing a lack
of moral credibility. You can't uphold both beliefs at the same time. Just
because you believe that everyone has their agency doesn't mean you should
make sin as accessible as possible. If that's the case than why don't
we just put a bar on every corner, lower the drinking age to 8, and support all
of our friends who want to be alcoholics?
@Three veteran 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judges will hear arguments next
week in Utah's same-sex marriage case."Dear judges...
it's not rocket science. The law in Utah (and elsewhere) defines marriage
as between a man and a woman. It's not between a man and several women,
between two sub teens, between close relatives, between mom/son, or
dad/daughter, etc., ad nauseum. And it's not between two (or any number
of) men. And it's not between two (or any number of) women. There are
alotta restrictions in marriage. You can't marry your dog or horse. If
the judges rule for SSM they must also rule in favor of any other combination
that can be conjured for whatever reason. The judges have to rule for one
man/woman to keep sanity in marriage.Some say... well, denying SSM
is unconstitutional (Amendment 14). Not so. Amendment 14 says: 'No State
shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
[state] laws.'The one man/woman law IS equal protection. It
applies to all equally regardless of personal desires, tastes, or whims... of
which there myriads.
@CougsnDawgs,It's interesting to me that after citing several
things that are "considered immoral by the prophet" your question would
be, "should we outlaw all of them?". It seems, assuming that you are
LDS, that the more appropriate question would be, why have the prophets chosen
this one issue, above all others, to oppose?Again, assuming you are
LDS and you believe they are Prophets, Seers and Revelators, could it be that
there is more to this issue than you understand?
re:higv"Jesus gave us the 10 commandments for our protection including
the law of chastity."RightI believe in chastity until
marriage and monogamy thereafter, which is why I supportsame-sex marriage.
Why should all people not have that choice?"though gentle told
Women in adultery to sin (no)more."RightJesus, perfect,
the Supreme example, our Savior, our Judge, refrained from judging, walked among
sinners, spoke of charity and love for one another. If he refrained from
pronouncing judgement on others then ever more should we refrain from judging.
Serve others, love others and leave the judging up to Jesus.
"As Christians, we cannot be silent as our state’s highest laws
discriminate against segments of our society based on the personal biases of
those in power, particularly when a majority of Michigan’s population now
supports marriage equality. To remain silent is to be complicit in the decline
of our society through demonizing unprotected minorities, segregation based on
sexual orientation, denial of benefits to selected groups, and fear-based
prejudice. Our continued silence can lead only to further discrimination,
bullying and other forms of physical, emotional and spiritual violence.We need to remove discriminatory policies that bar certain groups of people
from enjoying the same benefits and privileges afforded other members of
society.We need to create a Beloved Community in which all persons
are equal, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sex, class, religion,
disability, or sexual orientation. And we need the full opportunity to recognize
faithful and covenantal relationships between any two people seeking our
blessing, both within the church and within our civil society.We
look forward in hopeful anticipation to the day when all people receive equal
treatment from one another and under the law.May justice prevail.Episcopal Church in Michigan
@higv.. I suspect the following religions have a better understanding than
either one of us on what Jesus would do. They all support marriage
equality. Now may be time to catch up and gain a better understanding
don't you think?Affirming Pentecostal Church InternationalAlliance of Christian ChurchesAnointed Affirming Independent
MinistriesThe Association of Welcoming and Affirming BaptistsChristian Church (Disciples of Christ)Community of ChristConservative JudaismEcumenical Catholic ChurchEcumenical Catholic
CommunionThe Episcopal ChurchEvangelical Anglican Church In
AmericaEvangelical Lutheran Church in AmericaGlobal Alliance of
Affirming Apostolic PentecostalsInclusive Orthodox ChurchMetropolitan Community ChurchOld Catholic ChurchProgressive
Christian AllianceReconciling Pentecostals InternationalReconstructionist JudaismReform JudaismReformed Anglican Catholic
ChurchReligious Society of Friends (Quakers)Unitarian Universalist
ChurchUnited Church of ChristUnity Church
This case has nothing to do with religion. Citing your religious leaders as
authorities on your religion is appropriate. However, citing your religious
leaders as authorities on civil law is not.No religion is being
asked to violate their doctrine, change their liturgy, conduct any rites, or
change what is spoken from the pulpits.This is purely a matter of
civil law, a secular decision by a secular government committed to equality and
justice for all.In my religion, we believe that no minister has the
authority to marry a man and a woman together. In our practice, marriage is a
ceremony conducted by the committed couple themselves, before God, with the
assembled Meeting observing as witness. Many Meetings have discerned the same
loving Light, mutual bond, and spiritual commitment in the marriage of two women
or two men, so we now joyously witness these equally.However,
it's not churches but the State that licenses and records marriages in
civil law, so Quakers hold the Courts in the Light, that they will order the
States to do so equitably.
@equalprotection Do you know what Jesus would do. How can people claim to
speak for God without speaking to him. Jesus gave us the 10 commandments for
our protection including the law of chastity. If he did not care what you did
then he would not of had to suffer for the sins. Since there would be no sins
to suffer for. Jesus was bold with sin. Drove out moneychangers,
and though gentle told Women in adultery to sin more. Can't look upon sin
with the least degree of allowance. Many people put there own interpertations to
what they think Jesus would do without speaking to Jesus.
@higv, " When judges routinely overrule the will of the Elected
Representatives and people."Why is it that the screaming
minority gets to overrule the majority? 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
Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s
citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally
protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the
voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound and long-term
interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.” (10th
Cir. 2012). The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw
certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy,to place them
beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal
principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and
property,to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and
other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the
outcome of NO elections.
The laws of Nature, and Nature's God, will exact their penalties no
matter what the laws of man state.
@christoph wrote "Why do we need go change marriage? There is no reason to;
we did just fine 50 years ago with traditional marriage then, and we can wait 50
more years at least before changing it again."50 years ago,
"traditional marriage" meant marriage between two people of the same
race.I think it was good that that tradition changed.
@byu convert Is agency the freedom to do whatever you want? Dallin H Oaks said
in a talk can't remember where but said not only must you be for choice,
but you must be for the right choice. Talking about abortion. But agency does
not mean do whatever you want. No one is free from consequences, and laws are
here for our protection. As those that hope the judge's will rule to
overturn the will of the people and God and accept so called same gender
marriage, why couldn't they accept the will of the people at the ballot
box. Do only people who think so called same gender marriage is ok have a right
to enforce there morals. Or lack of them? When judges routinely overrule the
will of the Elected Representatives and people that means something must be
wrong with democracy. Hopefully those judges will side with the will of God and
the people and So called Same gender marriage will not be allowed in most of the
union. Since the Devil does not support his followers at the last day that will
collapse under the weight of it's iniquity.
@ LadyMoon. And the beauty is that even from within, it does NOT have to
compute. We must then ask ourselves what would Jesus or even another religion
do or say?"It’s more than tragic—in fact it’s
shameful—that faith communities, especially Christian ones, continue to be
complicit in putting our children at risk and abetting the attitudes that
oppress them, thereby encouraging the aggressors who would subject our children
to pain, humiliation, and violence.""Young LGBT men and
young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and
heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to
homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your
sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and
rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no
less." - Episcopal Message. As we see here, some
religions may be blessed with special access to moral truth for which others are
not yet privy.
Why do we need go change marriage? There is no reason to; we did just fine
50 years ago with traditional marriage then, and we can wait 50 more years at
least before changing it again. Universities are going out of business because
of too few children in the pipeline; fewer children equals shrinking future.
@LadyMoon"perhaps I could even recognize civil unions...but never a
marriage"Amendment 3 bans both civil union and SSM, even if Utah
state goes your way, allows civil union, the first thing has to be striking down
amendment 3.See, even for someone like you who will never support
same sex marriage, amendment 3 still has to go.
SS:Should we take away people's right to drink too? How about their
right to read or write or print lascivious material? How about their right to
chew tobacco or have sex with someone they aren't married to? I mean these
are all immoral according to the prophet as well, yet are allowed by law as a
person's choice. Should we outlaw all of them, constitutional rights be
darned? Just because you deem something as sinful doesn't give you or the
government a right to make it illegal. I'm not saying you should be ok with
sin either, but you can't dictate sin and righteousness to others
legally...in your own life you have the right to accept or deny sin, under the
constitution, you don't.
I, for one, regardless of the decision of a room of judges, I am unable to
reconcile or accept a same gender marriage. Period. At the same time, I
recognize their right to choose to be together as adults -- perhaps I could even
recognize civil unions...but never a marriage. With me, from within, it simply
does not compute.
I love how some are saying allow for agency but don't accept sin. That is
hilarious. That statement is tantamount to saying "allow men and women their
freedom as long as they make the choice that is satisfactory to me". Nope
doesn't work that way.If you're LDS you understand that
allowing agency means allowing people to choose between sin and righteousness.
It's not your place, just as it wasn't Lucifer's place to control
and dictate the choices people make. As long as those choices don't disrupt
your freedom or agency, it is not your place or the governments to take the
choice away.Live and let live...and leave the judging up to the only
person that earned that right...hint:it's none of us. I would ask that you
follow His admonition, "as I have loved you, love one another...Judge not,
that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and
with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you."
In America laws are created by the legislative branch. Separation of power means
judges interpret the laws in the tradition of the founding fathers, and current
legislature. An activist judge is anyone who deviates from original intent of
the founders or current legislative branch and essentially makes his own law.
Legislatures (senate and house) get their power from the people."
---We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;--- Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, --- it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happines---"WE the people of Utah, have the sovereign
God Given right, we chose Amendment3 for our safety and happiness.
"No, I think it is okay for people not to be okay with decisions and to
disagree."I am not advocating that you agree with whatever
decision comes out. Agreeing and accepting are two entirely different
things.I just get sick of hearing that "that was an activist
judge" or "That judge was legislating from the bench" just because
you don't like the decision that is handed down.And I have no
idea what the decision will be, but I will Accept whatever it is and move on."You should look to what the current prophet is saying about this
current issue."I am not LDS, but if I were a believing LDS, on
any given issue, I would ask "the current prophet" if they got guidance
from above on the issue or if they were speaking their opinion.Because I have opinions also. And who is to say whose opinion is more valid?
@ Joe Blow,If everyone just accepted everything that came down from
the "rulers" of this country, than this would cease to be the United
States. No, I think it is okay for people not to be okay with decisions and to
disagree. I wish the people in this country would quit thinking that everyone
has to have the same opinion on everything. @ BYU_Convert,Yes, everyone has their agency. However, I will never vote for or support
sin, even though others have the right to choose. You should look to what the
current prophet is saying about this current issue. I don't think God
intends for his people to just accept anything that comes along to allow for
agency. Love people, absolutely; accept sin, no.
@ Radical PragmatistI don't really like what you said. But, I agree
with you.@ MekhofahessI totally disagree with what you said.
But, my goodness I needed a good laugh. Thank You!WOW! This is
getting really interesting. Who knows, may be Utah will be the landmark case
that will make SSM a national option.
Judge Shelby is by no means an activist judge, to the community who continues to
call this man an activist simply because he interpreted the law differently than
you, are making yourselves look uniformed. Honestly, Mike Lee, Orin Hatch, and
the Republican establishment gave Judge Shelby glowing recommendations during
the vetting process. Also, there are continuing numbers of conservative judges
overturning similar state bans across the country, this is not an activist
movement. You may not like what is happening, but a simple rule remains, the
constitution is the law of the land.
"But for heaven sake, we don't need to change the traditional
definition of marriage and it's unique role in society."I
have a "traditional marriage". Can someone explain to me how my
"traditional marriage" is affected if 2 people of the same sex say that
they are also "married"?Does it change anything for me?
Does it affect my marriages "unique role in society"?An
analogy. In the good ole USA we have a game called football. In much of the
world, football means what we refer to as Soccer.It is just words
with different meanings to different people but I don't see how it
effectively changes either sport.
@koseighty"(I truly wish Utah's case would be the one to decide
this nationally. But I see SCOTUS waiting for an opposing decision by another
circuit court.)"Actually, there is already an opposing decision
in the 8th circuit re: Nebraska's marriage equality ban, but that decision
was handed down pre-Windsor. If the 10th circuit panel decides in favor of the
same-sex couples (and they bypass an en banc review), a circuit split already
would exist if SCOTUS wants to deal with it.
I will always side on the side of the Agency of Man. There must needs be
opposition in all things. . . .even in marriage and types of marriage. I still
believe as a Latter-Day Saint that it is unjustifiable to seek to steal the
agency of others to choose for themselves what life they choose to live. I
often wonder if these are the kinds of people who claim to be Christ-serving
people filled with love and compassion for others but who in turn throw their
gay children out on the streets when their kids come out. Google stories on
that one. A recent case here in Utah is frightening. Hopefully, these judges
will side with equality and by the grace of God, the hearts of the public in
Utah will be softened and not strike with fierce homophobic vengeance. I would
hope the 12th Article of Faith would be adhered.
@Radical Pragmatist who said:"No matter which way this panel of judges
rules, their decision will be stayed until the Supreme Court makes the final
ruling."The Supremes may well choose to wait until 2 circuit
courts come to opposite conclusions. In which case, they won't hear the
first case decided (Utah). If they choose to wait, no stay will be forthcoming,
and the decision of the 10th Circuit will stand until SCOTUS decides to hear a
related case. If all the circuits decide one way, the Supremes won't have
to hear any of the cases, and may just choose to let the consensus stand.In any case, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.(I truly wish Utah's case would be the one to decide this nationally.
But I see SCOTUS waiting for an opposing decision by another circuit court.)
To: JoeBlowFar East USA, SCI can accept the Judges ruling
whatever it is. However, if it is for Same Sex Marriage, I will never personally
agree with it. That would bee a violation of my conscience. If that is the
case then we will hope for an appeal to SCOTUS.This whole issue
shouldn't even be taking up the time of the courts of the land. The whole
concept of so-called Same Sex Marriage is non-anatomical, non- biological and
counter intellectual. We should be talking about some sort of
social tolerance for those who choose to live this deviant life style and treat
them with the same type of tolerance and understanding that we treat anyone else
who make poor choices in life. But for heaven sake, we don't need to
change the traditional definition of marriage and it's unique role in
society. You cannot legislate immorality - it is what it is.
It was five justices on the Supreme Court that started this ball rolling. It
looks to me like every other judge has been following the Windsor ruling.
Considering the arguments the State is presenting, I wouldn't expect this
panel to reverse Judge Shelby. Keep in mind that one of the
"conservative" judges on this panel denied Utah a stay.
This information is meaningless. No matter which way this panel of judges rules,
their decision will be stayed until the Supreme Court makes the final ruling.
@Billy BobSo an activist judge in Utah? Was it also an activist judge in
Oklahoma? Kentucky? Texas? Michigan? Ohio? Pennsylvania? Virginia? (Most of
these have stays pending appeal of course aside from Virginia which isn't
appealing, only Utah and Michigan had the temporary active period).How about this, has there been any same-sex marriage case since Windsor that
your side has won?
@Billy BobAfter last June's SCOTUS Prop 8 and Windsor rulings,
not a single judge has ever ruled in SSM opponents' favor, not in NJ, NM,
OH, UT, IK, KY, VA, TX, MI, not in a single court room. guess all
those judges are totally activists, not a single one is following the law,
right?I can see that some people hope the appeal court would reverse
Judge Shelby's decision, however, judging by the long unbroken winning
streak of marriage equality in the past year, my advice for those wishing a
reversal? don't count on it.
@ Billy Bobsingle [judge]?I think we're at 14
rulings and counting post-Windsor -- all in favor of equality for same-sex
couples. The "single, activist judge" charge gets more difficult (and
more ridiculous) to make with each successive decision.
How about this? Let these judges make their ruling and we all just accept
it.No carping about who appointed who, or that they had an agenda,
or that they are activist judges.We just accept their ruling and
accept it, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it.Im
I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis on this issue.It's nice to know I am on their side and the side of who they speak for
It is good they assigned 3 judges. That way the decision at this level
won't be made by an activist judge with an agenda. I am not saying I expect
it to go one way or another (although I know which way I want it to go and that
is to be reversed), I am just glad that a single activist judge with an agenda
can't decide it at the appeals court level.