Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Marriage covenant

Comments

Return To Article
  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 21, 2014 12:26 a.m.

    Maudine
    "In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers included the Ninth Amendment, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'"

    Notice the rights are retained by the people... not a government.

    "Marriage, along with many other rights, is not listed by name in the Constitution. That does not mean it is not a right retained by the people."

    Again... retained by the people.

    Schnee:
    "Right, and a state law is what is being challenged here."

    And Utah's state law re marriage provides 'equal protection' for all state citizens. It says in essence that anyone can marry provided they marry someone not already married, of marriageable age, not closely related, of the opposite sex, etc. It applies equally to all state citizens.

    " So why would they write an amendment that basically says 'we can't do anything at a federal level about this?'"

    The Founders were more concerned about the powers of states rather than the federal government. That's why Article 1.8 delimits the federal powers, and Amendment 10 says all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    This land is suppose to give freedom to all of us! Because some Mormon gets offended over same sex marriage, does not mean that they have the right to deny somebody their rights! There is no proof of a God who condemns same sex marriage! Why is it so hard to give a little respect? If you want somebody to treat you with dignity, then don't you think that you should do the same? What else can anyone say? Gay people don't deserve to be treated like garbage! We deserve a little more dignity than some people like to give and there is no excuse for it! None! I would be embarrassed to treat someone like we have been treated!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 19, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    @wrz
    " And don't say the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. That clause deals with Equal Protection under STATE LAW."

    Right, and a state law is what is being challenged here. If the 14th Amendment had no ability to be applied to state laws from a US federal court then the Amendment would have absolutely no power anyway. Consider the context the 14th Amendment was written, at a time when the gov't was trying to limit the power of states to do their own thing with regards to black people. So why would they write an amendment that basically says "we can't do anything at a federal level about this"?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 19, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    Utefan60
    Salt Lake City, UT
    BTEW Real Maverick, if we wait a few more weeks I'm sure Frank will have yet another letter for us to dissect! Can't wait

    9:14 p.m. May 17, 2014

    =====

    I hope it's about the discontinued use of incandescent "light bulbs",
    as a express form of Totalitarianism,
    he went on that one for years...

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2014 9:14 p.m.

    BTEW Real Maverick, if we wait a few more weeks I'm sure Frank will have yet another letter for us to dissect! Can't wait

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    There are a number of facts in this debate
    1. Both some heterosexuals and some gay people want to be married.
    2. Judges are ruling in a number of states that not allowing gay people to do so is unconstitutional.
    3. Judging from the past arguments against a similar argument (interracial marriage) it looks like the argument for gay marriage will win.
    4. People not liking it don't have to and religions not wanting to perform such marriages don't have to either. This separation is unlikely to change.
    5. Many married couples like me and my spouse know that their marriages are not threatened by gay couples, so we wish them the best in theirs. That's how it is folks!

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    May 17, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    @ wrz: One of the main concerns with the Bill of Rights was that it was not comprehensive enough and that as time passed it would prove to be a limiting force used to deny to people things that were not specifically named - sort of like what you are attempting to do.

    In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers included the (much overlooked) Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Marriage, along with many other rights, is not listed by name in the Constitution. That does not mean it is not a right retained by the people. Marriage, along with all the other named and unnamed rights of the Constitution, is protected. Rights can be limited, but only if there is a compelling governmental interest in doing so, and then the limitation must be as narrowly defined as possible to serve only that interest while not limiting rights in ways that do not serve that interest. Additionally, the limitation cannot target a particular group but must be generally applicable to all.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    It is time DN to start printing letters from more mainstream sources. There is always the letters from the same people that promote some type of dividedness. You need to start representing the larger voice that is rapidly emerging even within the Conservative LDS base. People are not against equality. The DN and its editorial board still print the same arguments, by the same people with the same old arguments that have already fallen by the wayside.

    Most of the letters disagree strongly with what this letter writer said and I'm sure that many were not approved by the DN.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 17, 2014 12:48 a.m.

    Schnee:
    "So the court was wrong to remove the bans on interracial marriage?"

    The court had no jurisdiction in making decisions on any kind of marriage, including interracial marriage. The court is responsible for determining the constitutionality of laws, State and Federal. And, since there is nothing in the US Constitution about marriage, there was nothing for SCOTUS to decide on.

    If something is to be done re defining marriage, the responsibility falls to the US Congress. And don't say the US Congress has no authority to define marriage. It can and does stick its collective nose into almost every aspect of human existence. Which means that DOMA was not unconstitutional.

    "As long as it (State marriage regulation) doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution."

    Since marriage is not covered in the US Constitution, how could a specific marriage arrangement defined my a State, violate the US Constitution? And don't say the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. That clause deals with Equal Protection under STATE LAW.

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 11:34 p.m.

    @ wrz: Not quite.

    The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    That part you left out is very important - especially when coupled with Article IV, Clause 2, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    and

    Amendment XIV, Section 1, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    frank wants to tell us that LBGT can have civil unions? Well in Utah that wasn't even an option. Whether any of us like it or not LBGT people have the same rights as anyone else.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 16, 2014 8:54 p.m.

    "Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the concept of marriage mentioned."

    True... And in fact, per the Constitution, the 'powers not delegated to the United States... is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.'

    This means that States have the power to decide what marriage will be so long as it applies equally to all citizens within the states. And it does... any State citizen can marry so long as they marry only one person who is not already married, of legal age, not closely related, mentally competent, and of the opposite sex.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 16, 2014 7:25 p.m.

    If the law should reflect the concept that any persons who love each other can marry, then why not first cousins or brothers and sisters or even parents and children (assuming all are adults and there is no fertility)?

    If the concept truly is that ANY adult can marry ANY other then why not? Tradition? The "ick" factor? Others have forcefully argued that these do not matter. If they don't matter (and again, if there is no issue of fertility) then what is to restrain such from marrying if they choose?

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 5:20 p.m.

    Frank has overlooked the fact that though states have powers not delegated to the federal government, at the same time they are forbidden to deny citizens of their state due process of law and equal protection under the law. He is also forgetting that the very problem with Amendment 3 is that it forbade civil unions or any contract which provided the benefits of marriage. If it had not been so draconian it might not have been stricken down and we would not even be having this debate.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 16, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    @ Karen R.

    It was Bertrand Russell. I was just testing you. No, you are right about that and other things. I'm glad you caught it. Hopefully it will save me from future embarrassment.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 16, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    re: LDS Liberal,

    You have two choices in life, and only two choices. You can serve the God who gave you life, or you can rebel against the clear and precise doctrine of the God who gave you life. You claim to sustain the prophets who were chosen by Christ to be His spokesmen, but you clearly reject "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". The title tells us that that proclamation was not limited to those who have aligned themselves with the LDS Church, but that it was sent to all the world.

    In that proclamation, gender was discussed as something that God gave us, not something that we choose for ourselves. In that proclamation, marriage between a man and a woman was declared to be only between a man and a woman. In that proclamation, we are warned against unchastity, which the prophets have defined as sexual relations outside of marriage.

    You can choose to serve whomever you wish, but for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and we will not stand idly by while you declare that God and His doctrine is inconsequential in America.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 16, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    @ Ajax

    Re: how SSM will affect American society: Opponents seem to look upon LBGTs as if they’re an alien species whose ways are so different they must be carefully studied before they can be deemed “safe.” No. They’re human beings and, like all human beings they possess 1) a sexual orientation; and 2) human nature. The State of Utah contrived the term “complementarity” in an attempt to make a distinction, but incorrectly applied it to gender. What is complementary about heterosexual and homosexual couples is their sexual orientation. What is unnatural is to encourage the coupling of one to the other.

    So we already know a great deal about how SSM will affect society. They’re marriages. They’ll impact society the way marriages generally do. Another effect will be a more just and equal society. I see no downside there. And finally – something I don’t know, but do expect – over time they’ll impact the current negative perceptions of those who oppose SSM as they see their fears were for naught.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 16, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    @ Ajax

    Thanks for the compliment. I believe your quote is actually from Bertrand Russell. Even had it been J.S. Mill, he too was an atheist, so I doubt that he would’ve reached the same conclusion you did. Also, a reading of the full quote reveals no mention of religion whatsoever.

    Your conclusion implies that religion is required to accomplish social cohesion. While it may serve this purpose for some, it also frequently serves to emphasize differences, so I don’t think it’s the best means for creating cohesiveness society-wide. I think the values embodied in our Constitution offer far more. Religion is included there, but is not required.

    I’ll address your comment about social effects of SSM in another post.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 16, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    "I didn't service this country, and my God, to fight those who are doing this in the Middle East, just to fight guys like you doing it here too."

    Profound! Thank you for your service then and continued service now.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 16, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    @John Charity Spring

    "Calling same sex unions "marriages" doesn't make it so."

    In my state 54% of the voters said it did and now it does. Claiming otherwise now is simply dishonest.

    "No society has ever created legal protections for "marriage" solely as a mechanism for the personal fulfillment of those involved."

    Do you have something to back that up?

    "Societies have only created legal protections for marriages that benefit society as a whole."

    And in my state we did that--and rightly so--by a wide margin. Utah and the rest of the country will do the right thing eventually, perhaps kicking and screaming along the way, but they will get it right.

    "It is up to society, not the courts,"

    Except when "society" continues to run roughshod over the rights of others necessitating the courts to take action.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 16, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    @Mike Richards: "Mankind has always attacked those who reminded us that God exists..."

    =======

    Mike, Where do you draw the line with defining American laws and the Scriptures?

    The Bible? The Book of Mormon? The Holy Quran?

    Look we "share" a religous belief,
    but I draw a very hard line against those who try to implement "GOD's laws" in America.

    True - good laws should share similar values, but the buck stops with a literal interpretation and implementation of those laws.

    I didn't service this country, and my God, to fight those who are doing this in the Middle East, just to fight guys like you doing it here too.

    What's next?

    Stonings?
    Cutting off hands?

    Look:
    If you want to change the world --
    Here's the perfect example to follow:

    Live a good life,
    set a good example,
    treat others with Love, kindness and respect,
    then allow them to follow you by their own free will and choice,
    like a Good Shepard.

    Remember --
    Lucifer's plan was to force everyone to do GOOD,
    and Jesus said, there is good, there is bad -- choose for yourself.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 16, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    @Mike Richards,

    It's real simple, Mike. Your god has no say with respect to my civil rights or the civil rights of any other American. None. Your claiming--ad nauseum--otherwise does not change that simple fact. He is your god and you are welcomed to him. He is not my god and he is not allowed to determine what rights I do or do not have.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 16, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    @at Mike, Sal, John, et al

    Actually marriage was defined by men and women. This is undeniably true when one actually studies the history of marriage across the world. Marriage is different, sometimes radically different, in cultures all through the past and even across the world today. The definition of marriage has even changed in Christianity through the ages. There is no one definition of marriage. Because this institution was created and has been defined by men we have the ability to change it now; and so we will because making same sex marriage legal will be a benefit to this country. America will be a stronger and better nation once same sex marriage is legal across the country.

    Oh and Mike, the Secret Service investigates the counterfeiting of money in the United States not the FBI.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 16, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    @Mike Richards: "Mankind has always attacked those who reminded us that God exists..."

    Those who claim to speak for a god or gods tend to rule with blood and horror, using their supposed pipeline to deity to dominate, manipulate, oppress and justify imprisoning, torturing, banishing, shaming and killing those who don't obey the power elite.

    There has never been a religion established that did not see those in power using their position to abuse others. The monotheistic religions are the worst, because their most basic creed says they have truth and there can be no competing system of thought or belief, no rules but their rules, no way but their way.

    In this country the rule of law has tended to offset the darkest impulses of religion, though American history is replete with examples of religion using law to enforce their dictates. In other parts of the world we see the very thin line separating us from the horror of a ruling theocracy on the one side and the hope of rational secular society on the other.

    Protecting the children from religion seems sensible.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 16, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    @Ultra Bob: "When someone insists on forcing the meaning of a common word on others, they are disavowing the concept of freedom of religion which would say that a person can believe as they please."

    In the Bible, "marriage" referred to one man and the women he traded livestock for, and the slaves of the women, and perhaps some concubines.

    In the Territory of Deseret "marriage" referred to one man and one or two or twenty-five wives.

    In modern America "marriage" is about many legal protections and benefits for the spouses and their children or, in the case of some older adults, "marriage" can mean the loss of certain benefits and protections and incomes.

    Space is limited, but the reality is that the definition and meaning of marriage has changed many times and will change yet again as society changes.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "Marriage is the sacred union established by God to ensure that children born into this world have the best opportunity to receive PROPER instruction and PROPER example."

    That's true for your church (more or less, I guess, I suppose I'll leave it to fellow members of your church to see if that's accurate). However, we're talking about civil marriage, and the definition you give is not the definition of marriage in the law.

    @Ajax
    "may well be surprised at just how fragile are the ties that bind us as a nation."

    Support is shifting too quickly and support among the young is so high that there'd never be enough popular support in any state to be that extreme.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    May 16, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    @Mike Richards,
    Are you saying Marriage is like a logo—a brand one wears on the sleeve? Or like the coins in our pocket? Your marriage is something I can steal? Or copy like a piece of paper on a Xerox machine? Fortunately, I’m confident no one can steal my marriage because my marriage is defined by the private covenants and commitment I have made to my spouse not by the public filing of a paper with the courts. No one can steal or counterfeit our love. How sad for you that your marriage experience is different.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 16, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    Mankind has always attacked those who reminded us that God exists and that He, and only He, has the right to define immutable laws, of which "marriage" is one. Those in the past have resorted to killing those who reminded mankind that God exists. They mistakenly thought that killing a messenger was killing the law. Today, the favorite tactic is to attack the messenger instead of examining the message.

    The covenant of marriage established by God can easily be researched. Again, those who demand that believers "prove" that God exists have only shown that they have rejected knowledge that is easily obtainable. They might just as well live in a cave, in darkness, instead of enjoying the light.

    Those who reject God and his directives live in a world of their own making. They think, perhaps, that they created life; that they breathed the breath of life into the bodies of their children. That is just a little bit pretentious, don't you think?

    Parents safeguard their children against danger. Wise children listen and learn, yet some people tell us that our Heavenly Father has no right to direct THEM - because they already know it all.

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    @ Ajax: No, we cannot have a more Solomonesque discussion because, when those who oppose same-sex relationships had the power on their side, they decided to go with an all or nothing approach and wrote Constitutional Amendments giving same-sex couples absolutely nothing.

    Now that the shoe is on the other foot and opponents of same-sex relationships are losing their power, they want to offer a compromise.

    Unfortunately for them, the laws they wrote and passed prohibit the very compromise they are offering - leaving those who support same-sex relationships with no choice but to go for the whole thing.

    Ten years ago there was the opportunity to accept this compromise, and the answer was no.

    Opponents to same-sex relationships created this situation and they have to live with the consequences of their actions.

    And for the record, nationwide there is growing support for same-sex marriage, even in the reddest of red states it is now evenly split for and against, and all indications are that support will continue to grow in favor of same-sex marriages.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    The concept of freedom in America seems to be that an adult American can do anything he pleases so long as he does not harm or diminish the rights and freedoms of others.

    The word marriage is a common word and neither the word or its meaning are the private property of any one. When someone insists on forcing the meaning of a common word on others, they are disavowing the concept of freedom of religion which would say that a person can believe as they please.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 16, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    @Mike Richards: "Marriage is the sacred union established by God to ensure that children born into this world have the best opportunity to receive [proper] instruction and [proper] example."
    [all caps removed for politeness.]

    Your definitions, based on your religion, are no more - or less - valid than definitions based in Celtic traditions as practiced by Pagans or Wiccan beliefs or the doctrines of Muslims or teachings of Buddhists. And your definition of "proper instruction" and "proper example" are based on your experience. Members of each of those groups believe they are giving their children proper instruction and setting a proper example.

    In times past, marriage was a business transaction between two men. In modern times women have gained autonomy and make their own choices in marriage. Shall we return to trading livestock for wives? Or perhaps raiding villages and kidnapping women to marry, as was done in the Bible?

    When my daughter was 5 she had a very strident imaginary friend who's opinion always - by coincidence - backed what my daughter wanted. I notice your imaginary friend does the same.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 16, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    Both sides in the SSM controversy, in their all-out commitment one against the other, may well be surprised at just how fragile are the ties that bind us as a nation. Winning at the expense of others is always an illusion.

    Rather than all or nothing, might we have a more Solomonesque decision?

  • Lia Sandy, UT
    May 16, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    To M Richards.
    Just exactly how do you know that's what God wants?
    And how can you involve "god" in legal matters?
    You DONT and you CANT.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    May 16, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    As one among millions who has taken the time to know God through sacrifice of time, talents, and resources, it's sad to see the celebration of the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions. The rejoicings will be short-lived as God begins to chastise the nation for re-writing his religious laws and commandments to suit its personal preferences.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    May 16, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    Thomas F. Meagher once said that "you can call a mule a race horse all you want, but it doesn't make it so." That principle is directly applicable here.

    Calling same sex unions "marriages" doesn't make it so. For a thousand generations, marriage has had a specific meaning. Pretending otherwise is nothing short of dishonest.

    No society has ever created legal protections for "marriage" solely as a mechanism for the personal fulfillment of those involved. Societies have only created legal protections for marriages that benefit society as a whole. It is up to society, not the courts, to decidewwhich relationships meet that definition.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 16, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    Karen R.

    I always enjoy your well-reasoned commentary. Your quick response to all things relating to SSM is impressive.

    However, in your lament of religious attitudes you might consider the observation of one of Europe’s most lauded intellects, who said that “Social cohesion is a necessity, and mankind has never yet succeeded in enforcing cohesion by merely rational arguments (John Stuart Mill).”

    Truth is, that you nor I nor anyone else knows exactly how fully equating SSA with traditional marriage might affect U.S. society. But as John Stuart Mill makes clear, rational arguments and edicts alone divorced of religious content are not the answer.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 16, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    My church is very happy to do both Opposite Sex and Same Sex weddings. So are about 75 other churches. In the last decade I have been to more than a few gay and lesbian wedding performed in churches, in a grove by a Wiccan high priestess, and one by a Rabbi.

    Why should your religious rights trump those of religions that are willing to marry gays and lesbian?

    This is not a religious issue. It is one of equality and civil rights. If your church does not want to do gay marriage it wont have to. If you don't want to go to a gay marriage you don't have too.

    But your religious views are no more valid than the views of any group in favor of gay marriage.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    So you are saying, Frank, that a religious rite should be controlled by the government? Are you sure that's what you really want?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 16, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    There have always been those who want "substitutes". The University of Utah and BYU actively prosecute anyone using their logos without permission. The NBA, NFL and baseball leagues actively prosecute anyone using their name or their logos without permission. The FBI actively prosecutes anyone involved in counterfeiting; yet, some people think that they can take something that doesn't belong to them, i.e., God's definition of marriage, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman; that they can redefine that meaning, i.e., define marriage as being between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman; that they can personally profit from that redefinition; and that they can demand that everyone accept their redefinition.

    Marriage is the sacred union established by God to ensure that children born into this world have the best opportunity to receive PROPER instruction and PROPER example.

    No matter how loudly the "re-definers" scream, marriage is between a man and a woman. Sex outside of marriage is prohibited. Their argument is with God. Do they think they'll win that argument?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    Well, Frank, you, Mr. Anderson, the DesNews, and several former proponents of Amendment 3 seem to keep forgetting one very important factor in the whole "live and let live but be happy with a civil union and leave marriage to us" discussion: Amendment 3 prohibits civil unions, as do most other constitutional amendments that prohibit same-sex marriage.

    In 2004, when Amendment 3 was passed, those who opposed very clearly stated that it went to far by also denying civil unions. Two-thirds of the voters in Utah, and I am fairly sure you and the majority of the DesNews editorial board were among them, voted in favor of Amendment 3 denying LGBT Utahns the very civil unions you now think they should be happy with.

    In most states where LGBT Americans are denied marriage, they are also denied civil unions. And no one on your side of the argument, anywhere, has proposed repealing the denial on civil unions - so it is hard to buy the "live and let live" idea you are trying to sell - your actions against it speak much louder than your words for it.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:56 a.m.

    Hmm, where to begin. Frank you contradict yourself. Marriage is NOT in the federal laws but freedom of religion is. How in the world does freedom of religion equate to passing legal statutes that have religious bearing? To me that is the opposite of religious freedom. We have had our rights stripped while the predominate religion flexes.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:51 a.m.

    Isn't this a rehash of a letter you published last week? We get it, you don't like seeing gay couples getting married. You don't like seeing us join your club and get the same benefits. Might I suggest you actually step out of the comfort of your own homes and actually try to listen to and understand people who are different than you? We need to stop dividing people and bring us all together.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    Dear Frank;

    What about MY religious freedom, MY 1st Amendment rights? My religious beliefs are such that marriage is permissible for LGBT couples. But my First Amendment rights don't matter to you, do they? Because they're the opposite of your religious beliefs (that, sir, is called hypocrisy).

    1) Civil Unions DO NOT provide even "most" of the legal benefits provided by marriage.
    2) Separate is not equal. The 14th Amendment says that the government treats all citizens equally, not just heterosexual citizens.
    3) Marriage may not be listed, but then there are thousands of "unenumerated" rights that aren't either.
    4) You don't have the right to vote on the rights of your fellow citizens; not even in Utah.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 16, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    Frank --

    Utah's Amendment 3 banned "Civil Unions", "Domestic Partnerships", or anything like unto it.

    And THAT'S why it was shot down.

    =======

    For the record conservatives...

    I fought for Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships for 16 years,
    as a way to provide civil rights and liberties to Gays and Lesbians,
    yet still maintain the term "marriage" as between man and woman.

    But, -- you all dog piled on me, and called me all sorts of names -- Anti-Mormon, Devil worshipper, ect. for YEARS.

    Now that Amendment 3 has be striken,
    it's funny [not really] to listen to the all about face, 180, flip-flopping hypocrasy.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    May 16, 2014 6:45 a.m.

    Frank's letter and the 60th birthday of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision remind me of the old separate but equal laws that existed for decades in this country whereby segregation of American citizens, based solely on the color of their skin, was the law of the land, in some states at least, and the implied law in other states. This law seemingly provided equal access to public facilities - rest rooms, restaurants, schools - but were segregated by race. According to Wikipedia, "On at least six separate occasions, spanning a time period of nearly 60 years, the United States Supreme Court held, either explicitly or by necessary implication, that the “separate but equal” rule announced in Plessy was the correct rule of law, although, toward the end of that time period, the Court began to focus on whether the separate facilities were in fact equal."

    Why should gay citizens be given the right for a civil union but not for marriage - a ceremony in which two people are married to each other (Webster's)? Like "separate but equal" the ban on gay marriage is slowly but surely being proven to be anything but separate and equal. Reality, embrace it.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 16, 2014 6:43 a.m.

    "...don’t degrade the long-held esteem of the marriage covenant."

    Heterosexuals to homosexuals: Our relationships are more special than yours and are deserving of greater recognition. How do we know this, you ask? Well, um - okay, you're right that we've never been homosexual so we haven't a clue whether it feels the same for you as for us. But we think so regardless and besides, it has always been this way and it makes us feel icky when we see you married, so...

    No rational basis.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 16, 2014 5:02 a.m.

    For the sake of discussion, lets assume that civil unions have the exact same benefits as "marriage".
    (i am not convinced that it does).

    So, help me out here.

    This whole issue is only about a label? Seriously? What difference does it make?

    And I say this to both sides. Whats the big deal?

    I still think that from a government perspective, a "insert name here" license should be issued. Then if someone wants to go to their church and get a "marriage license" so be it.

    All this carping over a word. Move on folks.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 16, 2014 2:25 a.m.

    Utah explicitly prohibits Civil Unions, so this argument is moot.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 12:35 a.m.

    "Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the concept of marriage mentioned."

    So the court was wrong to remove the bans on interracial marriage?

    " However, religious freedom is supported by the First Amendment."

    That's fine, nobody's making churches marry same-sex couples.

    "Marriage is not a right of everyone and should be regulated by the states (not the federal judiciary). "

    As long as it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution.

    "There is no discrimination of rights when homosexuals have civil unions"

    That's all well and good (except separate but equal is inherently unequal) but Amendment 3 banned civil unions too.