Published: Friday, May 16 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
"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.
Utah explicitly prohibits Civil Unions, so this argument is moot.
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.
"...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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
So you are saying, Frank, that a religious rite should be controlled by the
government? Are you sure that's what you really want?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
@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.
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
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments