Mark my words: The appeal court will uphold Judge Shelby's ruling and
marriage equality will prevail!
The Tenth Circuit Court is about as negative toward Utah political positions as
the Colorado Ski industry is negative toward Utah ski industry.Plus,
Utahs case is pretty weak. The studys about parenthood involving gay
parents being less than what heterosexual parents provide were recently shown to
be biased in the extreme becuase of the Evengelical sponors/writers. I think
the key issue in that regard is the stability and commitmenet of the parents.
One thing you would generally recognize about gay parents, is that they want to
be parents. That is true becuase they often have to go through more to get
children. I think the legal marriage case is over. Next will be to
move on to provide ways for people to legally not be forced to participate in
gay marriages etc.
From MSN news today:"Have you heard about these stats? Although
lesbian/gay marriage and even civil unions haven't been around very long,
early studies suggest that lesbian couples are 50-167 percent more likely to
divorce than heterosexual couples, and nearly twice as likely to divorce
compared to gay men".Another important reason to support
traditional marriage between a man and a woman. One of the great myths that the
gay community tries to foist upon society is that their "relationships"
are stable and long standing. In reality they have many partners and short term
relationships on average.
@Outside-View: Next will be to move on to provide ways for people to legally not
be forced to participate in gay marriages etc.The bloodiest war in
American history was fought because one group of Americans thought their
religious beliefs gave them a right to mistreat and enslave another group of
people. At that same time in history Johnson's Army was sent to Utah
because the majority of Americans disagreed with the form of marriage practiced
in Utah - and both sides claimed their actions were sanctioned by their firm
religious beliefs. Segregation, often based on claims of religious propriety,
lasted for decades and included lynchings and mistreatment and only ended with
government force. How about if we don't take a step backward.
Because starting with "My religion says I can discriminate against Gay
Weddings" will only lead to bad places, all backed by claims of God allowing
this or that group to be treated with disdain. How about this:
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
Meckofahess "Have you heard about these stats?...early studies
suggest"I was unaware that rights are dependent on the outcome of
studies.I don't recall that before giving women the right to
vote, we did studies to determine if they'd actually vote. Nor do I recall
Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a bus, because she wanted someone to
"do some studies". Don't be a glass-half-empty person.
If 33% of gay marriages don't end in divorce, that means 33% of gay
marriages are successful. Why would you deny happiness to those 33%?
Overturning the Utah constitutional amendment on marriage is rather interesting
when one takes the longer view of the history of legal marriage contracts. In the seminal 12 volume work titled Jewish Bioethics, the authors offer
historical research that the only other time in the history of the world when
marriage between two men or between two women was codified into law was during
the days of Noah, well over three thousand years ago (see Dr. Fred Rosner and
Rabbi David Bleich, Ktav Publishing House, Israel, December 1999, page 219). Though the practice of sexual relations between same sex partners has
occurred during others periods in recorded history, our day and Noah's day
are the only two times when those practices were codified by the ruling
authorities as the law of the land.It will be interesting to see how
the ruling authorities decide this case? Will they side with the lawyers and
judges of Noah's day or will they take another course?
@ MeckofahessI strongly question the validity of the numbers you
gave. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage 10 years ago, and that state
has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.
We'll soon see if 'I'm affronted' is a genuine legal
There's no big mystery about the outcome of this case. The deck is already
stacked against Utah and normalcy. The 10th Circuit will simply rubber stamp
the homosexual agenda.
It's been fascinating to see how the gay community has transformed
themselves, and I would argue, ignored the social consequences that will come
from these policies. Since it's taboo to do any studies on gays and
certainly publicize any negative results of such studies, it will be difficult
to get any accurate results to help shape future policy. I doubt there are too
many willing to place themselves into their own academic coffin because of how
quick they'll get buried by the gay community and liberal academia that
upholds them. The ultimate goal, it seems for the gay community, is complete
acceptance and approval of the gay lifestyle and they will not give up until
they get it. It's not about equal rights, it's about complete social
acceptance of homosexuality. It will be interesting to see if the gay community
will at some point start a conversation about responsibilities instead of
"rights." I wonder about the rights of children to be raised by a Dad
and Mom who love each other and are committed to raising and teaching their
children correct principles.
"early studies suggest that lesbian couples are 50-167 percent more likely
to divorce than heterosexual couples,"And 53.723 % of posters
pull statistics out of their ears.Here is a math word problem.If 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and the divorce rate of
homosexual couples is 167% higher, how many gay couples must get divorced
without even getting married?please show your work.
Equality under the law is not an issue that can be voted on. It IS the law.
Equality for all Americans is on its way, Mormons get ready for it.
Capitulation!Gene Schaerr filed Utah's supplemental letter with
the 10th Circuit yesterday, which you can find on Scribd, disavowing part of the State's argument, "in response to recent press reports
and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus."Money
quote: "Thus, the Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively
establishing that raising a child in a same-sex household produces
outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting
arrangements."Quite a little backtrack on the eve of
today's scheduled oral arguments.In closing, I note this line
from today's Washington Post, describing the DOMA decision: "It said
the arguments were mostly window dressing for unlawful prejudice
based on sexual orientation."The judges hearing the Amendment 3
appeal are more conservative than liberal, appointed by two Republicans and one
right-centrist Democrat. If/when they deny this appeal, I'm
sure conservatives, though, will be screaming, "Liberals!"
@ MeckofahessDo you know what the original source of your quote is?
You should Google it. I find it kind of amusing.But back to the
debate. How does your assertion provide justification for denying equal rights?
The argument does not go, "Homosexuals are better at sustaining
relationships than heterosexuals, therefore they should be given equal
rights!" No marriage laws require proof that the couple seeking
to marry is more likely than not to succeed in sustaining their relationship.
If they did, heteros would be denied the right to marry too. So even if the
stats you cite (from a lesbian website) are accurate or bear out over the long
term, you still have failed to provide any credible justification for denying
the right to marry.
why can't states decide for themselves?this i believe is a
state's rights issue. i might also mention that maintaining the
definition of "marriage" as between one man and one woman shouldn't
offend gay people if they are already given the same privileges through
"civil unions". they want the title more than the rights.why
is this "tolerance" issue so one sided?
Kaysvillecougar wonders "about the rights of children to be raised by a Dad
and Mom who love each other and are committed to raising and teaching their
children correct principles".Kaysville, I have a proposition.
Let us together file suit against the state welfare department to force them to
remove all Utah children from homes which a) do not have two
opposite sexed parents, orb) have parents who are not married to each
other, orc) do not love each other (and you need to specify how to measure
that, somehow), ord) are not teaching their children "correct
principles" (let's not even think of how that one would be determined).
I will always love you, Utah, but I hope your case falls on its face. And when
gay marriage is legal in Utah, and the Mormon church still teaches that being
gay is a sin...well, I learned something going to church, and that is you can
love someone and hate their actions. ;-)
I sure wish the Supreme Court would just take up this case of SSM and make a
final ruling on it. They ran away from an important case the other day. We
need a Roe/Wade type ruling so we can settle this thing. Either it is a states
rights issue, or marriage is a federal issue. Come on Supremes, make it
happen!!! Then let's move on.
I have decided that there is too much emotion in this discussion for most of us
on both sides of the issue to be totally objective and respectful of the other
side. Time will tell how all this plays out. One thing is certain - they gay
community will never achieve full acceptance in the eyes of many citizens
because of the hateful rhetoric and forceful tactics they have employed to
achieve their definition of equality. It is not possible to force anyone to
accept something that runs contrary to their innate conscience and intellect. I
believe the majority of Americans still believe in morality and common decency -
despite modern social trends.I for one need to strive to be more
kind and respectful toward all of God's children - including our gay
brothers and sisters. I regret some of the emotional rhetoric I personally have
engaged in on the DN forum. I was wrong to do that. It does no good to only be
kind to those who agree with you - anyone can do that!
People are easily side tracked this is not a debate about whether same sex
marriages will end in divorce. This hearing is about the voice of the majority
being over ruled by the voice of the minority through the power of one. The
real question here is not about gay rights, but it is about how a minority group
can petition or apply to have laws or in this case amendment 3 which was
supported by the majority overturned. People should be more alarmed. The
voters rights here have been trampled.
happymomto9,First off, wow nine kids? I thought four was tough.
Secondly, states cannot decide for themselves. That was settled in a federal
case called Loving v Virginia that went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Imagine if each state could decide for themselves and you were taking a cross
country trip in the minivan. You get in a wreck and your husband and two
children were severely injured. But the hospital would not let you visit, or
make medical decisions, because they do not recognize your marriage in that
state. If only you had made it a few more miles into a state where your marriage
You do know that a decision isn't coming today, right? It will take some
time.@ happymomto9, states are not countries. We live in a country,
and people move back and forth between states. If every state acted only in its
own interest, there would be chaos (more than we already have). The
Constitution addressed this issue. So, in reality, it is not just a state
issue, for many reasons. Besides, the whole rights thing applies to all of us
in the country. Folks are not included or excluded based on what state they
live in. So the court system will decide, and that's that. Does this
help? May I suggest you carefuilly read the Gettysburg Address. That should
make it clear that we are one nation, not 50 nations.
WE the people of Utah, have the sovereign God Given right, we chose Amendment3
for our safety and happiness. We elected our legislators ive and we passed
amendment3. Separation of power means judges interpret the laws in the tradition
of the founding fathers and current legislature. An activist judge is any who
deviates from original intent of the founders or current legislative branch and
essentially makes his own law. Legislatures get their power from the people. The
US constitution does not give the Federal Government the delegated power to
decide on this matter for the states, Nor does it give gays rights to marry. “ …We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, 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 Happiness…”
@ TestimonyThanks for the heads up, Testimony. The letter is
incredible! No wonder they filed it on the eve of the hearings. Here are the
new marching orders from the anti-SSM side:"As the State’s
briefing makes clear, the State’s principal concern is the potential
long-term impact of a redefinition of marriage on the children of heterosexual
parents."So NOW the argument is not, "It will harm the
children being raised by same-sex couples." It is, "SSM will harm the
children of hetero couples."Wow. Who knew same-sex couples were
@happymomto9"this i believe is a state's rights
issue."Civil rights are never a "state's rights
issue." I believe we settled that issue back in 1863, and the outcome for
the dissenting states wasn't a very nice one. How would you feel about
having your marriage recognized in some states, but not in others? And the Utah
law you're eager to defend prohibits civil unions as well as marriage for
gays."why is this "tolerance" issue so one sided?"
What is one-sided here? What is it that you're doing that you think
isn't being "tolerated"? @DrG:"the only
other time in the history of the world when marriage between two men or between
two women was codified into law was during the days of Noah"If
your beliefs about Noah and the flood are correct, there are no records of
anything from those days other that what is written in the Bible itself. And
there is nothing in the Bible that discusses what was or wasn't codified.
Rosner's book is a single volume; not twelve volumes.
However the judges in the 10th Circuit court rule, it may ultimately have to be
determined by the Supreme Court. Whatever the decision turns out to be, at the
end of the day we will all still be American citizens with rights and
responsibilities. After the decision we will have neighbors and friends who are
either straight or gay. Whether straight or gay we will want to be treated with
kindness and respect. We will need to find ways to accept one another's
differences and do so with civility. I hope that people on each side of this
debate will learn to respect the point of view of the other side (even where
there are disagreements) and work to find some common ground. We all have a
stake in this.
I think it's sad that government at any level is involved in regulating
marriage. Government officials should be concerned with civil rights via civil
unions for all, and marriage should be strictly a social arrangement between two
people. The regulation of marriage belongs to social groups and not government!
Let's end the "legality" of marriage and get government out of the
marriage business.@happy2bhere Marriage, in my opinion, is neither a
states rights issue or a federal issue, and courts at any level should have no
involvement in marriage. It is a social issue. People should be free to choose
the social group that provides the type of marriage, or lack of it, that they
Testimony writes: "Quite a little backtrack on the eve of today's
scheduled oral arguments."It sure is! The state of
Utah, via it's outside counsel, made a huge mistake in citing and relying
on the Regnerus study. Anyone paying the least bit of attention should have
known to avoid association with Regnerus. I've said this before, but the
value of a bench trial, (the one that just took place in Michigan) is to get
experts up on the stand, under oath, so their claims, motives, etc. can be
scrutinized, tested and picked apart. -- By the way, this applies to the experts
on BOTH sides. Its just unfortunate for the argument Utah is making, that
Regnerus, et. al., performed so poorly.
@ WillemWe are ready for it. We've had "The Family: A
Proclamation to the World for almost 20 years now. It was written to prepare us
to strengthen homes and families in these "Latter Days". We are
prepared to see the laws of God struck down and trampled all around us, and we
are ready to stand firm and defend them, or die trying. We feel it is our
responsibility to our maker to speak out about His truths, no matter how
unpopular they are. The Mormon church does not make or change policies based on
societal views. We uphold policies based on God's revealed plan for His
children. "This is just one step closer to criminalizing Christianity"
someone wrote yesterday. It is scary that the views of a minority will seek to
take away the religious freedoms of a majority. Christians aren't the only
ones who oppose SSM. We're just the current target. The gay right's
agenda won't stop with this. Next they will demand our Bishop's marry
them, use our church buildings, etc.
How can you have "marriage Equality" when you don't recognize
everyone is different? My biggest beef with the gay marriage crowd is that they
think their partner is just like them. Rather than recognizing differences, gay
marriage advocates fail to recognize the full spectrum of what it means to be
human, to be female, to be male! Recognition of same sex marriage in the end is
a failure to recognize human differences, as well an absolute assault on liberty
by forcing everyone to fully accept their desire to make everyone the same.
Besides the fact that any ruling in their favor will ultimately be thrown out by
God, their mindset is antithetical to equality and liberty. In the meantime,
true equality will be sacrificed at the altar of prejudice, bias, and liberty.
Liberty requires the ability to see everyone as different, something that
isn't even a part of the dialogue with this behavior and thought. It is a
dialogue that they seem to be incapable of having; annoying to say the least.
Well said, hockeymom, well said. The days of "fence sitting" are over.
It is time to choose sides and as you said "stand firm.""All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
"The Mormon church does not make or change policies based on societal views.
"That could very well be true. It very well could just be a
coincidence with the timing of some major church changes.It is
certainly quite possible that the boycotts, pickets and overall bad publicity
over the banning of blacks from the priesthood had no impact on the decision to
reverse.And quite possibly, the desire of Utah to become a state had
no bearing on the decision to end polygamy.One will never know, but
there was certainly societal pressures in both instances.
@hockeymom wrote: "The gay right's agenda won't stop with this.
Next they will demand our Bishop's marry them, use our church buildings,
etc."That's a lot of slippery-slope baloney. If is so
inevitable that that is going to happen, why hasn't it happened yet?
Same-sex marriage has existed for nearly 10 years in the US, and no sign of this
Can we see the writing on the wall? Marriage as an institution is about to be
split. Not along SSM/heterosexual lines, but along civil/religious lines. The
LDS Church, some Catholics, and some Evangelicals will never recognize SSM as
valid. Activists will pursue actions against these churches and their related
institutions. Eventually, churches will have to abandon the state-sanctioned
privilege of performing marriages if they deny those ceremonies to same-sex
couples. What that means is that there will be two ceremonies for believing
couples. The first will be recognized by the state, with the ceremony performed
by a civil servant, the second will be solemnized privately in front of a
minister or bishop. In essence, over time conservative religions
will have to retreat from the public square. The rich religious pluralism which
made up the American fabric, the religious voices which compose such a
significant part of the American experience, will be silenced. But that is a
very acceptable loss for activists. Indeed, it may be the ultimate goal.
@ understands mathJust a few years ago (2000 in Massachusets) the gay
population said all they wanted was for civil unions to be recognized by the
states. (Read "After the Ball" which illustrates the gay right's
agenda.) Now, 14 years later, "all we want is for you to validate what we
do by calling it marriage". It is indeed a slippery slope as you said. It
may take a few years, but it will get there. "Now that my
"marriage" is legal, I demand you not exclude me from "marriage"
in your houses of worship, and I demand my loving uncle/brother/father Bishop
marry me in the mormon church building I grew up in." Sounds like a big
possibility to me. Our Bishops have already been instructed not to perform such
marriages. Some Bishops may even have a hard time with it, because we love our
SSA brothers, sisters, sons & daughters. Let's remember April 9th,
2014 when this "slippery slopes baloney" comes to fruition and YOU are
"standing on the wrong side of history" on this one. ;)
@hockeymom"The Mormon church does not make or change policies based on
societal views."Whoa...just whoa. Even on the one topic of
"marriage" that is an erroneous statement to make. The word of wisdom
and blacks not having the priesthood also come to mind. I think you are getting
carried away with your enthusiasm here. Hard to have a dialogue when we
can't be truthful.
Hockeymom said: "The Mormon church does not make or change policies based
on societal views."Excuse me?Was 1896 so long ago?
@hockeymom:"Just a few years ago (2000 in Massachusets) the gay
population said all they wanted was for civil unions to be recognized by the
states."Again, baloney. At times, those of us who seek marriage
equality have accepted and even celebrated civil unions or domestic partnerships
because that was an improvement over the status quo, much as "Don't Ask
Don't Tell" was originally an improvement over the policies that were
currently in place. But at no point was it, "oh, this second-class legal
status is good enough for us, we won't ever seek full equality." No,
marriage equality has and remains the goal.And I repeat myself, if
people were going to try to force religions to marry them, why has it never
happened before? And I don't even limit it to same-sex marriage. Why
hasn't a divorced Catholic sued to force the Catholic church to perform
their remarriage? Why hasn't a Mormon couple without recommends forced the
LDS church to marry them in the temple?First amendment, that's
why. The first amendment will ensure that the LDS church will never have to
marry a same-sex couple.You're welcome.
Regardless of the outcomes for children raised by gays, removing the gender
requirement from marriage is an injustice to the child. Every child has a mother
and a father (basic biology here). Until recently, marriage laws promoted the
ideal of a child being raised by them in a permanent relationship. Since
children cannot advocate for this rightful ideal themselves our laws proactively
promoted it. Then we removed the presumption of permanence with no-fault
divorce, which ended up lowering the threshold of divorce for everyone, leaving
behind a wake of carnage (you know the stats). We used to regard the separation
of a child from her mother and father by divorce or death or unfitness of
parents as a tragedy. If only things could have been different. Removing the the
gender requirement from marriage changes the law from the promoter of the
relationship of a child with her mother and father into the instrument whereby
the child is separated from one of them. The interests of the child, which are
the core rationale for the institution of marriage in the first place, are
pushed further to the periphery and the desires of adults take center stage.
Darling HockeymomNo you are not a target who told you so?Our
target is marriage equality for all Americans, Mormons and Non Mormons.
@StormwalkerI love it when a northerner tries to explain the South's
motives for slavery and the Civil War. You don't sound all that different
from the Mississippi Baptist ministers who tried to explain to me what I as a
Mormon believed when I was a youth. Stick to giving your own opinions and
motives and don't try to speak for others. Also, I find the
comparisons of traditional marriage supporters to slave owners offensive. Where
are the same sex couples being locked up in basements, beaten in the streets,
sold to other countries, and hung from trees? Slavery was evil. Traditional
marriage, not so much.Bottom line is governments on all levels should get
out of the marriage business altogether. No bureaucrat has any right to tell me
I can't marry my neighbor, my father or my cat. Nor do they have the right
to force others to recognize the union.
A HUGE development in this case that got very little news coverage -- Utah is
backing away from their "its all about the children" argument. Utah
filed a motion brief just yesterday, Wednesday, asking the 10th Circuit Court to
ignore Utah's earlier brief's references to the Regnerus study, a
discredited study often cited by anti-gay activists to characterize the
"risks" of same-sex couples parenting children. Utah finally realized
the Regnerus study was such bad "science" that citations to it hurt
their case more than helped it.
The 10th Circuit is hearing a case today on Utah's Amendment 3. Big deal.
There will be no decision today and both sides will say they won. But if you
pause for a moment and look at reality, you know that the decision is not
imminent, that this is a 3 panel judge hearing and whoever loses will appeal to
an enbanc hearing. Eventually it will be appealed to SCOTUS. This has a long
way to go before Amendment 3 is upheld or stuck down. Let's not, on either
side, get too excited over this hearing.I would invite you all to
read the Windsor decision written by Justice Kennedy last SCOTUS session.
Windsor was about a federal law (DOMA) on homosexual marriage. Instead of
simply saying the feds can't make such a law, he used about 25% of the
Windsor decision to point out that marriage laws have been a states’
right. The hard part is that he did not, as Justice Scalia wrote, clearly point
out that marriage laws continue to be a states’ right. So we are all left
Who thought this would happen 10 years ago. 6 years ago Obama claimed he was in
favor of upholding traditional marriage. The silent majority gives away their
beliefs by not speaking out more vocally.
Selfishness and rejection of God and His laws has caused acceptance of sex and
children without commitment, making relations between the sexes extremely
volatile and emotionally dangerous. This in turn makes it more and more
difficult for people to create stable, traditional relationships. I am sure
that people seeking gay marriages are fighting for what they perceive to be the
only way to achieve loving, stable relationships, so it is heartbreaking to try
to discourage them; and they perceive it as a personal attack on their future
happiness. Unfortunately, gay marriage is a dry well and a dead
end. There will inevitably be disappointment, recrimination, and emotional
scarring that will make it even harder to achieve happiness in a loving
relationship. But how can one tell them, when they are not willing to hear?
They will have to learn by sad experience.
@ RustymommyI have bad news for you. You're not in the
"silent majority", you're in a very vocal minority.
Rustymommy,I believed it would happen 10 years ago when Romney
signed into law marriage equality for the state of Massachusetts, and became the
first in the nation to do so.
@Rustymommy wrote:"The silent majority gives away their beliefs
by not speaking out more vocally."Apparently your silent
majority is so silent that they won't even talk to polling organizations,
as all recent polls show a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage,
and support continues to grow.
@ Two For Flinching - Sorry, but the majority of society still does not support
SSM. RustyMommy, it is unfortunate that more of us are not speaking
up but the "silent majority" is shouted down and called ugly names at
every turn as we try to stand up for our beliefs. Our voices are being silenced
as religious freedom is slowly being choked out of our society.
@ Ralph, you don't have to go to 1896. 1978 will also suffice.
Utah's History is replete with the US Government violating civil rights of
a religious people who had a different definition of marriage than their fellow
countryman. Utah Statehood was delayed four decades, LDS Church leaders were
jailed, Mormons were not allowed the right to vote (Idaho), Mormons were forced
to leave the country to Mexico and Canada, hide from federal marshals in Wyoming
and ultimately threatened with disenfranchisement (Loss of all property
including the SL Temple).Under this duress, LDS President Wilford
Woodruff received revelation from the Lord in the form of the 1890 Manifesto
ending the practice of polygamy.If the gay activists are successful at
changing government's definition of marriage what will stop government from
enforcing their definition on all Churches not just the Mormons?The
only solution to this is to get government out of the business of issuing
marriage licenses. Marriage licensing laws came about because of Anti misogyny
laws. These laws attempted to keep people of different race from marrying.
Courts rightly overruled them.Wake up America, lobby your state
legislature to eliminate marriage licensing laws, or gay activists will trump
your right to practice your faith.
To "Stormwalker" you are forgetting that the gays are saying "the
law says that if I want you to do something for me you must", and are
creating slaves out of the businesses that don't want to participate in
SSM.To "Two For Flinching" you should also point out that
Massachussetts has one of the lowest marriage rates in the US, but still has
about a 53% divorce rate among what marriages do occur there.
@Rustymommy et al: In the past, the "silent majority" you
talk about never had to raise its voice, because its will remained largely
unopposed. But then gay people came out, medical and research fields
caught up to reality, the AIDS epidemic created larger awareness, and folks got
to know actual gay people and changed their minds about what it means to be gay.
Now the majority, at least in the first world, recognizes that gay
people are whole-- not sick, not reducible to a sex act, not deserving of
persecution or imprisonment or violence-- but real people who, like you, have
lives, and loves and sometimes children too. Today the majority
supports treating people-- regardless of their sexual orientation-- equally
under the law, which includes legal marriage for the benefit of their lives and
loves and children.What we have now is "vocal minority,"
clinging to self-serving beliefs formed in ignorance and lacking respect and
empathy, and the State of Utah is its current cheerleader.
Judge Shelby's ruling will and should be overturned because of State
Sovereignty. This issue is about MORE than just same-sex marriage and equality
under the law. It is also about State's rights, and the LIMITED power of
the federal government. In addition to that fact, it is well known that
prominent members of the LGBT community and same-sex marriage advocacy have
PUBLICLY STATED that marriage equality is not their only, or ultimate goal,but
the abolition of civil Marriage period. If they eliminate marriage then that is
another step towards removing Families and privacy protections under the law;
ultimately moving towards the elimination of Freedom of Association as protected
by the Constitution. They've SAID this is their goal.I believe in and
defend both the U.S. Constitution and the State's rights to establish their
own Constitutions. Everyone should.
&lixircat: I love it when a northerner tries to explain the South's
motives for slavery and the Civil War.I lived in Atlanta for 32
years – well minus a couple years the Navy. Call it 30. I was married to a
woman who was a historian whose family had been in Dekalb County Georgia since
1805. She was pretty knowledgeable about local history, and southern history in
general. As an LDS convert she also did quite a bit of genealogy for herself and
others. I'm fairly aware of the reasons the Civil War was started, the
justifications for the Jim Crow laws that followed, and the way the Mormons were
treated in the south – currently, and historically. Some of her relatives
attended a small Mormon chapel that was dynamited in DeKalb County.With that background, I know what I'm talking about.And I
will stand behind my statement: codifying laws that allow one group to mistreat
another group based on their respective religious beliefs is not a good idea.
You are not persecuted because the law will not let you treat others badly
because of your religious beliefs. You're simply asked to be a good human
@ understands math, et al.I sincerely hope you are right - that our
first amendment rights will be forever upheld and we won't ever have to
worry about bending our religious beliefs. Let's not forget we currently
have a "leader" who "has a pen and a phone" and is making all
kinds of changes that may or may not be for the benefit of the majority of the
people. He is setting a precedent that government controls all. If a Colorado
judge can overrule what the majority of Utah voted for then we have to speak up
no matter what the issue is. This whole debate is about where does government
end and civil/social/religious liberties begin? Mrs. Clinton lives by the
"what difference does it make?" principal. She may be next after
Obama.Let me just point out that I have been nothing but civil in
expressing my views on this forum, and have had plenty of mud slung in my
direction today by people who disagree. This is why we stand firm in the LDS
church - we have to protect our freedoms too.
@RedShirtCalTech: To "Stormwalker" you are forgetting that the gays are
saying "the law says that if I want you to do something for me you
must", and are creating slaves out of the businesses that don't want to
participate in SSM.Actually we are saying "if you provide a
public service then you provide a public service." In this country we
don't allow businesses to decide that they can exclude this group or that
group based on race, religion or sexual orientation. – One version was
called Jim Crow. It led to segregation and "separate but equal" laws.
You don't get to discriminate against Jews, or people of African ancestry,
or Gays. In other words, if you want to be a wedding photographer,
then photograph weddings. That would include weddings for Mormons, and Jews, and
black people, and gay people, immigrants, and people whose ancestors all got
here on the Mayflower. If you want to bake and sell wedding cakes, then sell
wedding cakes to all your customers.In other words "do unto
others as you would have others do unto you."
To "Stormwalker" but we already have laws that mandate discrimination.
How many 16 year old kids do you see in bars? Isn't that age
discrimination? How many nudists do you see walking the streets? How many fat
people do you see as fashion models? How many whites have you heard of winning
scholarships from the Negro College Fund? How many men do you see at Curves?What about freedom of assembly? Isn't that a 1st Ammendment right?
By forcing a person to do assemble with others that they don't want to
assemble with, aren't you violating their rights?Isn't
forcing somebody to do something that they don't want to also called
slavery or servitude?The 13th ammendment states "Neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction." Since when is it illegal to have a
difference of opinion?
@kaysvillecougar"I wonder about the rights of children to be
raised by a Dad and Mom who love each other and are committed to raising and
teaching their children correct principles."What about their
rights? What will change for them? What in their household will be any
different? Please explain.
happymomto9:Wow, 9 kids. We have two - one special needs we've
adopted, another with special needs we are in the process of adopting. My
parents did foster care when I was young but I can't imagine 9 kids. This is a national issue. I'm in Ohio. This state won't let us
marry, but we can foster and adopt as a lesbian couple. We want to travel with
our kids on vacations. Problem is, in some states our legal relationship to the
kids could be challenged if there was any problem. My partner's family have
threatened to go to court and get power of attorney and to challenge the will if
anything happens to her. Also my partner has turned down a promotion
that would have meant us moving to another state that would not have let us
foster or adopt our second child. We want "marriage" in
every state because anything else is second class - like "separate but
equal" used to be in southern states. We want the protection for our
relationship and our family.
To "Candied Ginger" the problem isn't anything like "separate
but equal". The issue is Same Sex Marriage is not the same as hetersosexual
marriage.It is great that you and your partner are caring for a
child, but you and your partner will never be a mother and father to that child.
Yes it is better than growing up in a house with a single mother, but it is not
as good as growing up in a house with a mother and father.If you
want protection for your relationship and family, seek that out. I only ask that
you and others like you stop seeking to legislate equality where inequality will
always exist no matter how much you claim it is equal.IMHO the LGBT
community should seek out an alternate word from marriage. If they did so, they
would probably gain more support.
@RedShirtCalTech Our home and family is pretty much like the family
I grew up in, which is pretty good. It is far better than my wife's family.
Sometimes she asks my dad for advice - my dad jokes she is as much a son as my
brother is. I am not sure what you think is missing, but in our
close extended family - my parents, brother and his wife, sisters (one single,
one married does not want kids), several gay couples who have kids, and a cousin
and her husband - both of our children see examples of how all sorts of people
get along and how families actually work. You see, we're not
"Caring for a Child." We are the Parents of two kids, one legally and
one in the process of being legal. The fact you can't even say that much
shows why we need the protection of legal marriage and not some different word
that can be sneered at because it isn't a "real marriage" and we
aren't "real parents" we just "Care for a child."Sorry. This is my family and you are wrong.
I'm wondering if anyone else here has listened to the oral arguments that
took place today> The audio recording is posted on the front page of the
10th Circuit's website.The judges were pretty tough on both
sides. Schaerr seemed like a drowning man at a few points. Tomsic got bogged
down in a discussion of rational review versus heightened scrutiny which I
didn't think was productive.It was an interesting hour of
listening, but I can't tell who "won." Both sides took a bit of a
beating. The Court's decision won't be until they've heard the
Oklahoma case, as well, and then they'll have to deliberate over the
arguments and the briefs. As the oral arguments were only half hour per side,
and much of that was taken up by Judges' questions, I'm guessing the
written briefs will carry a lot of weight.I had wanted to see Tomsic
directly address the State's rationale for the law, which I felt would be
easy to discredit, but she didn't.
Gay relationships are inherently unstable. Children need stability. The
Regnerus study is not as weak as opponents think. Read all its details before
you decide. One reason the study could not find representative sample numbers
of children who had been raised in households led by same-gender parents in a
long-term relationship is because few same-sex couples trying to raise children
stay together long enough for them to raise children through to adulthood. A
commonly understood definition of a committed relationship in the gay community
refers to a couple who remains mostly together but is forgiving of little
dalliances here and there. That is not marriage. People with religious values
and self-discipline know that self-restraint is necessary for emotional bonds to
mature, that selfish desires must defer to the needs of others, and that the
needs of children require both parents to sacrifice their own short-term
interests in favor of the long-term needs of their innocent children.
To "Candied Ginger" explain how your child will have the example of a
mother and father in the home? If your child does not have a mother and father
in the home, then you cannot say that SSM is the same as heterosexual
marriage.Yes you can approximate it, or provide strong male examples
for you child, but it is not the same. 2.75 will never be equal to 3. You can
legislate all you want, but it never will be the same. Many social scientists
have stated that the ideal situation for children is to have a home with a
mother and father that are married. From there you still have positive results,
but they never are equal.
Our poor nation!We have lost the light of God's moral laws by our gross
disobedience and at this rate things cannot turn out well.
When I read Genesis, I do not recall reading about Adam and Steve being in the
Garden. I do recall however the destruction of Sodom which overflowed with Adams
RedShirt said:To "Candied Ginger" explain how your child will have
the example of a mother and father in the home? If your child does not have a
mother and father in the home, then you cannot say that SSM is the same as
heterosexual marriage.So unless SSM can be perfect, (unlike hetro
marriage which is far from perfect and end with many having single parents or
other less than perfect families) they should not be given recognition as a
family because it needs to be held to a higher standard then your
"traditional marriage." Marriage is about love, there have
been no requirements before religious zealots decided to interject their beliefs
a couple years ago with such animus as to leave no alternative.Danclrksvll: " I do recall however the destruction of Sodom which
overflowed with Adams and Steve's."Your recall is poor than
because that's not what your book say's about Sodom....and then
Lot the only righteous man got drunk and slept with his daughters as I recall.
For their to be Marriage Equality, Males and Females would have to be Equal,
which implies that they are interchangeable, and they never will be. Supporters
of traditional marriage need to be as outspoken as the other side. I would
support a Domestic Partnership that would give same sex people many of the legal
rights of Marriage, but Marriage is between a Male and a Female, and nothing man
can do or say will ever change that.
@Danclrksvll -When I read Genesis...You can't take one part of
the story and ignore the other parts. "Look, I have two
daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, an you
can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for
they have some under the protection of my roof." Genesis 19:8Lot
was willing to let the mob gang-rape his daughters as long as they left him
alone. Later, he got drunk and had sex with those daughters. The Bible says he
was the only righteous man in town, but he treated his daughters like disposable
property. Try Ezekiel 16:49&50 to see why Sodom was destroyed -
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were
arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They
were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them
as you have seen."You have to look at the whole story, not just
To all of those that continue to use the bible and biblical quotations in order
to justify their beliefs regarding marriage equality...A simplistic Google
search reveals some startling facts about our founding fathers. You know the
ones that established our country and drafted this paper called The Declaration
of Independence. First many were Atheists! (Shutter the thought) and left their
own lands to establish one that had "a separation of church and state".
Sound familiar? Those that oppose simple equality for all realize without
religion in their argument they really don't have one.
@donquixote84721 5:42 a.m. April 12, 2014So you're saying that
women aren't the equals of men? WOW!!! I thought everyone outgrew that
notion a long time ago. Sorry -- that's absolutely wrong. There is more
difference among woman and among men than there is between women and men. Nor
is anyone interchangeable. We all have different qualities and talents, none of
which is gender-based, and we should cherish both our similarities and our
differences.I agree with you on one thing. The legally recognized
relationship should be a civil union or civil partnership for both same-sex and
opposite-sex couples. Then the couples could go to a church or individual
willing to perform the ceremony to have a marriage solemnized. End of problem.
To "Happy Valley Heretic" so then you agree that SSM is not equal to
heterosexual marriage.Marriage is about more than just love. It is
about establishing a foundation for a stable socity the provides the best
posible situation and example for children.
Here is my personal Christian perspective. "Love the Lord God with all thy
heart, and all thy mind and all thy soul, And love thy Neighbor as thyself.
That is the law and all the commandments" Hope I quoted that right. I
cannot call myself a Christian and continue to deny and oppose equal rights and
opportunities to others simply because they are homosexual. Is this correct in
God's eyes? Honestly I don't know for sure. But I believe in the
love that Jesus showed for all of us. A love so strong and deep that He died
for us. So I can no longer feel that inheritance, right to make medical
decisions, and all the other privileges that come with legal marriage should be
denied to homosexual couples. Their marriages may or may not be a marriage in
God's eyes. I don't know, I'm not God. But I believe they
deserve to be treated the same in the eyes of the State. If not in the
Lord's eye, then at least in the laws of Caesar.I pray that I am
right in this.Bill