Quantcast

Comments about ‘9th Circuit Court issues stay in Idaho gay marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 15 2014 11:45 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Aggie238
Logan, UT

So, Rocket Science,

You're basing the motivations of an entire group of people on the writings of an extreme activist?

I don't know about you, but I'd take offense if someone based their assessment of Christianity on the teachings of the KKK.

Look, I believe the gay marriage is wrong. I also believe it is detrimental to God's plan for the family. I also believe in the law of agency. You can't have obedience or righteousness without the ability to choose. If we go around outlawing every little thing that is wrong, we're going to end up losing our freedom to do what's right. People should have the agency to do wrong things, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of any other person, including the liberty to make righteous choices.

Aggie238
Logan, UT

Thus, the best option is to recognize the right to freedom of association and to focus on purging all state regulation from our personal relationships. In this way, the religious have the right to freely interpret marriage as they wish and to associate themselves accordingly, without infringing on the rights of anyone else to do the same.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Rocket Science: "Anyone dare to read The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987. If a SSM advocate you may agree with all but it really is about more that SSM."

I read it. It is an advertising strategy, not much different from strategies for new product categories or unknown political candidates or wars in foreign countries. In fact, it isn't much different than campaigns against SSM and gay rights. All long-term advertising campaigns are designed to introduce ideas and get people comfortable with them - who, 20 years ago, would imagine that virtually every American would have a smart-phone connected to every part of their life? Yet smart advertising campaigns took a gimmick and moved if from geek-fringe to commonplace.

This outline is simply a codification of Harvey Milk's exhortation to "come out" because more people knowing they know gay people will move us from scary boogey-men in the shadows to regular people, take us from threat to "so what."

Melting pot. America. We all get a place in the public square.

Daedalus, Stephen
ARVADA, CO

In the article, Romboy adopts nearly word-for-word Idaho's ham-fisted mis-characterization of the decisions of all the Federal District Courts that have heard these cases: "...the district courts that ruled against man-woman marriage..."

As a rule, legal briefs attempt to persuade by citing case-law and framing the issue with language that steers the analysis in the most favorable direction as possible, given the facts/law that might support a position.

Readers expect similar spin in op-ed sections of newspapers.

What readers do not expect is to see this tactic employed in the text of articles that run as "news".

To be clear: in all the states referenced in the article, where district courts have issued rulings, men and women can and are continuing to get married. Men and women could get married before all the constitutional SSM-bans were passed in the 2003-2004 era, as well as afterwards. In other words, none of the district court decisions changed the ability of a man and woman to get married.

DN readers are being manipulated.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The personal attacks on "Rocket Scientist" are unconscionable. Does 2% of the population think that attacking anyone who disagrees with them advances their cause. The word that most people use for those attacks is "bullying".

The best way to respond to those who attack is to copy their responses to everyone you know and to encourage the other 98% to get involved. Sitting on the sidelines and pretending that no one is attacking the family will ensure the destruction of the family.

The family IS under attack. Some people think that they have the right to redefine marriage. Some people think that they have the right to tell society that we must teach our children that same-sex "marriage" is acceptable. Some people think that they have the right to mock the Supreme Law of the Land and claim "rights" based on nothing more than their "feelings".

Others of us know that God has defined marriage to be between a man and a woman. Others of us know that sex of any kind outside of marriage is prohibited. Others of us know that redefining immutable laws will destroy society.

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

GZE - it is not a "legal contract" when it is against state law.

Aggie 238 - this is not about the freedom of association. Gays can associate with whomever they like, civil union or otherwise. This is about their attempt to force society to adopt their new definition of marriage, which has historically always been between people of different genders.

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

Mcdugall:

Just like a liberal to try to blame Romney for problems in Massachusetts despite years of Democratic leadership since his tenure. The same way that Obama and his cronies are still blaming the economy on Bush after years of failed leadership from the Democrats.

By the way, the insurance situation in Massachusetts that you criticized is the model that Obama praised and touted as the prototype for his health care plan (in spite of the fact that it is much more complicated, intrusive, and expensive).

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

"Utah has the highest rate in the nation for teen births."

That is true ONLY if you count Married teenage mothers in that total.
This statistic has often been quoted by critics of Utah and of Mormons, without noting the obvious difference between married mothers and unwed mothers. When there is a mother AND a father that are married to each other, then those children have a proper family, not the same as with single moms.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Aggie238
You wrote:
"Look, I believe the gay marriage is wrong. I also believe it is detrimental to God's plan for the family. I also believe in the law of agency. You can't have obedience or righteousness without the ability to choose. If we go around outlawing every little thing that is wrong, we're going to end up losing our freedom to do what's right. People should have the agency to do wrong things, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of any other person, including the liberty to make righteous choices."

Aggie, I find your comment very refreshing. It seems that very few LDS understand that in Mormon Theology compulsory adherence to the commandements was promoted by Satan.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

@RanchHand
Wow, your thought process is astounding. So let me get this straight -- I have to "accept the consequences" if I don't see things the way you see them? I can voice my opinions as long as they don't conflict with yours, is that it? Obviously you DO care what I think about SSM or you wouldn't be trying to ram that agenda down my throat. Who's promoting intolerance here? The person who gives a little bit of money to a moral cause they believe in, or the individuals who decide to picket a business because someone thinks differently than they do?

@Utefan60
Did you read my comment? I said it's wrong to fire someone solely because of their SS attraction. How did Eich anger his employees? Did he distribute an internal memo expressing his views? Did he encourage employees to contribute to the support of Prop 8? No. From the comfort of his own home he decided to contribute some of his personal money in support of something he agreed with. He was fired because he expressed a view different from other people, and did not abuse his position as CEO to do it.

Aggie238
Logan, UT

In addition, to those who say that anyone is "making up rights that don't exist," please let clue us in on which exhaustive list of enumerated rights you are referencing which allows you to authoritatively make such a statement. And before you invoke the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments, please read the 9th Amendment carefully. No government, even with the support of a majority, has the authority to define or limit the rights of any person, only where that person's actions curtail the right of another to lead his or her life in a manner most desirable to himself or herself.

To prevent this from occurring on either side of the issue, we just need to get government out of marriage altogether.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Mike Richards: "The personal attacks on "Rocket Scientist" are unconscionable."

Personal attacks? I just re-read the thread, noted everything RS said, and all responses.

RS started out with a standard "SSM is not marriage" and "states must defend the family" stance, and the claim that SSM labels all opposition as animus.

He then posted about the "Overhauling America" article, with claims on meaning.

El Chango Supremo supported him.

Schnee challenged claims RS made about the family, referencing Utah state law.

RS made a personal statement about his family, claimed California requires SSM be taught in elementary school, and again referenced the article.

Schnee asked a logical question on enforcing an "optimal home" beyond requiring opposite sex parents and dismissed the article.

Ranchhand asked why he is afraid of his GLBT neighbors

Angie238 agreed with him on marriage but did ask why he condemns an entire community on the basis of one article.

Stormwalker (Hi.) challenged his interpretation of the importance of that article.

I think I caught all the interactions.

Is disagreement a personal attack?

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@Rocket Science: “Preserving the 'traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples” - Lawrence, Justice Scalia

Moral disapproval has never been constitutional or a legitimate state interest.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - Jefferson Memorial

The United States Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."

Romer v. Evans, "There can be no circumstance under which this discriminatory classification is constitutional, as it was intended to, and on its face does, stigmatize and disadvantage same-sex couples and their families, denying only to them protected rights to recognition of their marriages andviolating the guarantee of equal protection."

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@BlueAz;

You, and I both, can express our opinions. Neither of us is free of the consequences of doing so. If my opinion is largely unpopular, I will probably feel some backlash. Yours is currently unpopular and you'll feel it instead. Don't you conservatives believe in "taking personal responsibility"?

In any case, you are welcome to any opinion you desire; you're just not allowed to use that opinion to violate the rights of others. Express it all you want, but if you go a step further, and pay money to deny equality; expect consequences.

Nobody says you can't express an opinion. Spending money to violate civil rights is not "speech" - money isn't speech.

SoCalChris
Riverside, CA

"It seems that very few LDS understand that in Mormon Theology compulsory adherence to the commandements was promoted by Satan."

How in the world is maintaining the traditional definition of marriage compelling anyone to keep the commandments?

A gay individual's exercise of free agency does not require societal approval. Gays are free to be with and love the person they want, and I don't know anyone who doesn't support that right. But free agency does not mean gay unions have a right to be defined by a term which has had a heterosexual meaning throughout history.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@SoCal
History and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of a substantive due process inquiry. Lets take a closer look at the constitutional context of Loving. “The freedom to marry has long been recognized” as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. Loving (1967). See Turner (1987) “The decision to marry is a fundamental right ; Moore (1977) “The Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”; Griswold (1965) intrusions into the “sacred precincts of marital bedrooms” offend rights “older than the Bill of Rights." The law “Disrupts the traditional relation of the family – a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization”. While courts use history and tradition to identify the interests that due process protects, they DO NOT carry forward historical limitations, either traditional or arising by operation of prior law, on which Americans may exercise a right, once that right is recognized as one that due process protects.

While states have a legitimate interest in regulating and promoting marriage, the fundamental right to marry BELONGS to the individual.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@SoCal
You wrote:
" How in the world is maintaining the traditional definition of marriage compelling anyone to keep the commandments?"

So many implications and loose ends in that question.

What is the traditional definition of marriage? I don't know, there have been so many throughout history and a variety according to the diversity of cultures.
However, I can give you a modern,Western 20,21Century, definition of: Marriage is the union of two unrelated adults in a consensual and cotractual relationship recognized by law.

Regarding the "compelling part" of your question.

You and people who believe like you have prevented a whole segment of society to obtain the benefit of marriage. Basing your objections mostly on your religious beliefs. You have given money, spread fears and fallacies in order to prevent SSM. You have attempted (with great success) that your religious perception of the world be established as the law of the land, despite the fact that our system of govern is secular.

Your claims that SSM is immoral, that God will do something horrible to this nation, that our country is a Judeo-Christian nation, etc. etc, are forces to force society to be "righteous". Do you deny that?

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

To those who are not LDS this does not apply. Those who do believe and sustain The LDS President and Prophet, First Presidency and 12 Apostles, are obligated to know their words reflect the words of the Lord Himself. That is what is intended, that is what is meant by signing the The Family: A Proclamation to the World. The first part of March this year they also published a letter to leaders of the Church across the world. In part it read: Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review; the doctrine contained in; The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

LDS persons cannot support SSM and sustain and support their Prophet, First Presidency and Apostles. The Proclamation is an affirmation of the Church's doctrine of Family.

5th Amendment
Salt Lake, UT

@ It ain't Rocket Science. In 1967 N. Eldon Tanner spoke in General Conference and said: "The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the Priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God."

Eleven years later, in 1978, Bruce R. McConkie also spoke in General Conference. He said: "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world..."

Someday the faithful might be told: "Forget everything that was done or said in the past. Excommunicating civil married same-sex couples or harming their children by giving higher priority to politics and animus was based on our limited understanding without the light and knowledge we refused to see for so many years.... Make no mistake, we are not apologizing for the harm done to these couples or their families..."

Jimmytheliberal
Salt Lake City, UT

@Rocketscientist...Continue the legal strategy of using "God" and "Prophet" during any legal argument. Those of us that continue to support equality for all will be grateful that you believe that there is a correlation between the two.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments