"That’s where those decisions need to be made. They shouldn't be
thrust upon the states by federal judges who aren't elected. They're
not accountable to anyone who is elected,"This. No matter how much
one screams "rights" or "equality" or "you're a bigot
if you don't think like I do", it doesn't change this."On Wednesday, seven-term GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch said anyone who
doesn't believe gay marriage will become the law of the land hasn't
been watching what's going."It's not law; see above. When
"law" consists of whatever a few unelected extremists decide, it becomes
arbitrary declarations from kings with no regard for actual laws of the land
that have been-in the vast majority of cases-ignored or subverted through
These arguments will never stray because those who fight against SSM will never
be able to walk in the shoes of those who are being discriminated against.
Truthfully if we could deny them the right to be married to the person they love
they may change their mind. Unfortunately that will never happen. Therefore, we
need the decisions of "activist" judges to utilize the writings of the
constitution and the precedents set forth to make these final decisions. I hope
that by the end of the year (we can even give it until 2015) we have been able
to overcome this hurdle. After all, gay marriage has been taking place in
numerous states and countries for at least the past year and none of them have
become overly heathonistic nor have they fallen into the ocean.
@Riverton Cougar...Apparently one residing in Riverton may dub themselves a
"Cougar" so why not The Queen of England"? What a highly
If Mike doesnt know by now he has a major problem,even ritewing Hatch noticed
which way the wind is blowing.
News Items of the day:1- Mike Lee says what conservative mormon
leaders want him to say2- Deseret News says what conservative mormon
leaders want it to say3- Orrin Hatch reads the handwriting on the
wall to us, even though he does not like it, in an attempt to help us face
reality.Hatch is the only one of the above, in my view, following
what Jesus would have told us, which is seek the truth, but he gets ripped apart
in the comments.
Rarely, is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case
of same-sex couple parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics
and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare
have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental
rights". These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Medical Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological
Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American
Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers,Child Welfare
League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian
You don't suppose is approval ratings tail-spinning from well over 75% to
now being well under 40% and he's 1st re-election coming up has anything to
do with his more reserved, cautious, let's wait and see approach vs. his
signature "In -Your-Face -- Take THAT!" Tea-Publican Mike Lee back-fire
of just last October...
@ AZKIDYou wrote:"First, thousands of years ... demonstrates
that both mom and dad is optimal for children.... many studies on the subject
have demonstrated that children fair best when raised by their two natural
parents."In theory I may agree with you. However, thousands of
years of human history don't show a rosy pictures for millions of
children.You wrote:" assuming that you and your partner
are attempting to do this, I can only say that you are engaged in a dubious
social experiment. What will be the consequences? Do you know? Are you prescient
enough to know what the fallout will be to that child? Gender confusion? Sexual
acting out? What will it be?"Ouch! My daughter was 6 when she
came to us, a skinny and frighten little girl. She will 20 soon, She is
beautiful, smart, sweet, she just finished her freshman year in college. She has
a boyfriend in a very serious and respectful relationship.You
wrote:" I have thousands of years of human history on my
side."Sorry, you don't! You obviously have lived in a
bubble. Life is very different and perhaps way more beautiful than what you
think. Explore it!!
@04/13/2014S. Jordan, UTMarriage is about companionship, sex, and
children. Gay "marriage" cannot legitimately fulfill even one of these
three purposes. Government officials are absolutely right and absolutely
rational to sanctify only man-woman relationships with the label as well as the
benefits of marriage.5:40 p.m. May 29, 2014========= What the?...1 out of 3 = Failed.You only got the
first one right, and as far as I know, that was the only reason SSM
supporters support it.BTW -- I got married for L-O-V-E and
Companionship.If you got married just for the sex and children, You got married for all the wrong reasons.The truth is -- One day the children and the sex will be gone, and then what are left
with?THAT'S what marriage all boils down to.If you
can't figure that out, I'm sorry for you.Sincerely, a happily married, heterosexual, LDS man, with 4 adult children.P.S. 32 years because it was for the right reason in the 1st place.
rw123, I have no doubt that you sincerely believe every word spoken by your
church leaders. You see them as prophets, I get that. And you believe that you
are helping people by warning them of the grievous harm that will befall them if
they fail to heed the proclamation.I am assuming that you would like
to also warn us not to drink alcohol or coffee.People who belong to
other churches which claim that they have The Truth (Witnesses, Catholics,
Islam, Evangelicals, Adventists) believe their church's teachings with
equal fervor. Each of them has particular restrictions. Witnesses don't
do blood transfusions. Adventists don't work Saturdays. And while you are
eager to share your church's teachings, I do not see you as at all
interested in having other religions "shared" with you. The
beauty of our Constitution is that it protects us from having restrictions (like
forbidding transfusions) which have no non-religious basis imposed on the rest
The ones most unhappy with Mike Lee are the liberals who don't like a
conservative no matter what brand of tea he doesn't drink.Keep
railing at him. It makes me happy. It makes me laugh. Can't wait until he
blows the next democrat out of the race! Your predictions of doom for him are
wishful thinking. Your smear campaigns are pathetically transparent. (Too bad
the President's Administration isn't as transparent, as he promised it
Why is Mike Lee on front of a camera, instead of getting a second job to pay
back his college loans and the house he backed out of?
@RedshirtLet's try this... just take whatever you think the legal
definition of marriage is (the secular one, not the church one) and replace
"a man and a woman" with "two adults". That's what
we're going for. "Do you really want to open that
door?"Love is an open door. (I'm sorry, I couldn't
resist).@rw123"To you I say, you ought to read it and give
it great value if you want to avoid the “calamities foretold by ancient
and modern prophets.”"As someone who doesn't believe
in those modern prophets, I would need a reason why I should give credence to
these predictions. Suffice it to say I lack such a reason.Besides,
if God hasn't destroyed us for segregation, slavery, dropping nukes, the
Trail of Tears, or any of the other atrocities in the world like the
Holocaust... I don't think he's going to destroy us over Adam and
Steve or Anna and Sophie marrying. "ideal of a biological mom
and dad in traditional marriage."Let's ban Mississippians
from marrying. On average kids are less well off there so by your logic...
My biggest concern in granting protected status to LGBT is that we are crossing
a line in discrimination law. We are protecting behavior, not a
characteristic.Same-sex attraction is likely a characteristic of
some form. However, homosexual behavior is always a choice. To be forced to
have sexual relations is rape.Religion is choice and behavior as
well, but it was also specifically written as the first right in the
Constitution. The framers of that document obviously felt that it was a right
that must be preserved. Sexual preference is not listed as protected at all.I personally have no problem with gay couples being given all the
secular benefits that straight couples have. What is truly troublesome if the
venomous hatred of all things religious shown by the gay rights advocates. Some
judges today appear to have distain for religious freedom as well. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Understanding and compromise
can benefit all...
rw123 said: "If you are a child, SSM takes us one step further away from the
already research-proven and revelation-proven ideal of a biological mom and dad
in traditional marriage."I really had no idea that the Gay
Mafia's agenda was to take kids away from their biological parents. I
thought gay couples were either using artificial insemination or adopting kids
whose biological parents couldn't/wouldn't keep them. You've
shattered my world.Regarding the Proclomation to the Family: I get
it! Even though I don't believe in something, I should go ahead and believe
in it anyway. Because you, like, say I should. I don't believe in ancient
prophets' dire predictions, but I should heed them anyway. Got it. I
don't believe in any of this "binding in the eternities" stuff, but
I should roll with it anyway.Well, I got nothin'. I've
What's Senator Lee going to DO about it? -- Shut the Government again
if the SCOUTUS doesn't rule the way he thinks it should? Hint:
You'd better be tinking of a plan "B" or alternativce plan
senator, because whining, crying, tantrums and shutting things down will
be the last nail in your political coffin.
"Sometimes government steps on religious liberty, perhaps inadvertently, but
it does so just because government's big," he said.Sorry,
but that makes no sense. Why does government have to be big to step on Religious
freedoms?The Taliban didn’t offer much in the way of governance in
Afghanistan, but Mormonism wouldn’t have any chance under a Taliban
government.All this big government talk is complete NONSENSE.Mike Lee is just another Koch brothers’ employee pretending to
work for the good of the nation, but he really doesn’t have a clue.The guy is completely out of touch with reality.Is it any
wonder he is so attractive to Utah’s Republican majority?
@RedShirt wrote: "With the ban on SSM in place, the LGBT people still are
afforded the same protection under the law. There is nothing preventing a gay
man from getting married to the woman of his choice."A supreme
court justice once opined that "A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jewish
people."In that same vein, a ban on same-sex marriage is a
discrimination against LGBT people.Oh, you say that gays and
lesbians can still marry someone of the opposite sex? Yeah, and Jewish men can
cover their heads with different hats.A ban on same-sex marriage is
a violation of equal protection under the law. And since the Windsor case,
that's been the opinion of federal courts in case after case after case.
"What I do know is that it's wrong for these decisions to be made by
federal judges" Mike LeeThis is really all that should be said
about the matter for now. Mike has stood before the US Supreme Court for years
and argued cases so he knows how federal law should and should NOT be enforced.
As Mike correctly points out the REAL issue here is FEDERAL POWER and how it is
being rammed down our throats. The STATE of Utah , the STATE of Texas, and so
on.... should be ones setting laws in their respective states about gay marriage
and NOT some gay activist federal judge. This is NOT how the US constitution is
supposed to be applied. Unlike Orin Hatch - Mike is determined to
FIGHT for UTAH and the right to set our own laws. Gay Marriage is NOT protected
by the US constitution - I repeat it is NOT protected or gauaranteed by the US
constitution and the US Supreme Court will have to rule on this issue....whether
it be a STATE issue or a federal one. Bottom line - Orin Hatch needs
to go and Jason Chaffetz needs to replace him.
@RedShirt - That's not actually a "problem with the logic of the SSM
supporters." On the other hand, the fact that you think that "gays and
lesbians are free to marry the opposite sex partner of their choice" is
actually an effective (or original, or meaningful) argument is a problem. And also, for the record, I have no problem with the idea of legalizing
polygamy in general. The only problem is that many polygamous relationships just
end up being abusive and destructive (and non-consensual,) so there'd have
to be some safeguards in place so it doesn't just become an open door for
certain fundamentalists. But yeah, in theory I have no problem with the idea of
two men marrying two women or three women marrying one man.
I know some of you say you do not accept the LDS churches’ Proclamation on
the Family. That essentially it has no value because it is not legally binding.
To you I say, you ought to read it and give it great value if you want to avoid
the “calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” I am
fully aware you do not believe it and scoff at it. You ought to reconsider.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just because it is not binding by
man’s laws does not mean it is not binding in the eternities.
Sodomy is different than skin color, creed, nationality, gender, religion, or
other characteristics used to determine minority status. It’s OK to admit
that it’s different and that it does not deserve the same legal
@WonderIf you are a child, SSM takes us one step further away from
the already research-proven and revelation-proven ideal of a biological mom and
dad in traditional marriage. I know, I know, there are many kids who do not
live in the ideal home. So should we then give up on it? Or should we take
steps to get back closer to the ideal.I have known several gay
people in the past. Many have been sincere, honest, and intelligent, but some
have been quite militant. I am convinced those activists will not be happy till
they get every concession they want, every law changed they can, and especially
every attitude/opinion won over.I know there are those with same sex
attraction who sincerely try to abstain from same sex physical relations or any
sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage. I applaud you and wish you
the best in you struggles. Having my own weaknesses and temptations, I can
sympathize with those who struggle. I am mainly speaking to those who are
militants and activists in the GLBT cause.
"Marriage is about companionship, sex, and children. Gay "marriage"
cannot legitimately fulfill even one of these three purposes."Excuse me? I know two different gay couples - in spite of the fact that
marriage was never even a possibility for them until very recently, both couples
have been together for more than 30 years. I'm not going to speculate about
their sex lives, but both couples have raised several wonderful children and
both couples clearly find a great deal of emotional and spiritual fulfillment in
the companionship of their loved one.In other words, what you have
said is blatantly, unequivocally false.
Here is the problem with the logic of the SSM supporters. With the ban on SSM
in place, the LGBT people still are afforded the same protection under the law.
There is nothing preventing a gay man from getting married to the woman of his
choice. There is nothing preventing a lesbian from getting married to a the man
of her choice. The case of Loving vs. Virginia removed the last barrier for
marriage.If you say that marriage is about letting 2 people who love
eachother form a legally recognized union, first you must tell us how you
measure love. (I said measure not define.) Since love cannot be measured, and
that when people love eachother they should be allowed to get married then you
will have to allow anything that people want to call a marriage as being
legitimate. If 3 women and 1 man want to be married, they can. If 4 lesbians
want to be married, they can. If 4 gay men want to be married, they can also.
If marriage is defined by love, then you have to allow any people who love
eachother to be married.Do you really want to open that door?
@Baccus0902:You wrote:"How can you claim that
something is the "Best", when that is the only way "You
Know".??How can you dismiss SS raising children if you are not willing
to give it a try?"First, thousands of years of human history
demonstrates that both mom and dad is optimal for children. Second, many, many
studies on the subject have demonstrated that children fair best when raised by
their two natural parents. Google it. Third, assuming that you and your
partner are attempting to do this, I can only say that you are engaged in a
dubious social experiment. What will be the consequences? Do you know? Are
you prescient enough to know what the fallout will be to that child? Gender
confusion? Sexual acting out? What will it be? I have thousands
of years of human history on my side. What do you have? From my perspective,
all you have is a current fad of pop culture and a political agenda while you
experiment with a child's life and upbringing. I'm sorry, but there
is no way I can support that.
@Happy Valley Heretic 9:58 a.m. May 30, 2014Lee served as a law
clerk to Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
The following year he clerked for Judge Samuel Alito, who was serving at that
time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court in Newark, New
Jersey. How could he be so clueless in his comments, of how our
nation works?----------------That's an easy one.
As a clerk, his whole mission was to serve the judge's wants. The judge
would decie how he wanted to decide an issue, and then tell the clear to "go
find cases that support that position." The clerk would go find the
cases.As I said before, I don't doubt that Lee knows how to use
the Constitution as a tool, and as a weapon to support his positions. That
doesn't make him conversant as to what the Constitution really says and
what it really means and how it really works.
Laura Bilington has the right idea . . all the sputtering and righteous
indignation about keeping things "traditional" is just ineffectual
nonsense. Bluster for bluster's sake.I can't believe you
"traditionalists" don't get tired of making the same tired points,
which are all diversionary tactics. This is not an issue of (1) what you think
God says is right, (2) the Constitution, (3) "activist judges," (4)
states' rights, (5) liberal indoctrination, or (6) an attack on religious
freedom. The simple reality is that in our society, adults have the
right to do what they please as long as it causes no demonstrable harm to others
-- and not in a "slippery slope," fantasy-land, speculative way.
"SSM will have innumerable awful effects in the future . . what of the
children?!" is nothing but alarmist hand-wringing.If any
"traditionlists" here can cite a single instance when you personally
have been denied your right to practice your religion or the freedom to marry
whom you wanted to marry, I will be shocked. Someone else doing something that
has nothing directly to do with you does not qualify as an assault on your
@ConstitutionalistLet's be fair though, many of those
judges(especially in the 1800's) also had no problem with one human being
owning another human being as a slave. So i'm not sure that you want to
hold them us as beacons of virtue.
@something to think aboutLet's just say a lot of very prominent
Republicans with deep pockets are committed to getting rid of Senator Lee in the
next election. Getting the count my vote initiative through sealed the deal.
People will support the mainstream Republican when the heavy hitters(and their
financial backing) come out in support of him over Mike Lee. Mike will not have
a track record to run on and he's upset to many people to get re-elceted.
He'll be one and done.
@patriot;US Constitution: Amendment 9:"The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people."Think about
it.happymomto9 says:"why shouldn't we be able to
decide as a state?"--- Because you DO NOT get to vote on the
rights of your fellow citizens. If you think you should be able to do so, be
very careful, someday your own rights may end up on the ballot.@Rock
On;"Think of the children" (runs around in tiny circles
waving hands wildly in the air).
@ Constitutionalist:You wrote:" No, had they been asked,
we would have absolute precedent that SSM is unconstitutional."But we don't! Therefore, I thank you, I consider your comment as an step
in the right direction.By your own admission you cannot claim SSM as
Unconstitutional. Baby steps, but we are moving forward.
The only thing that is inevitable is Hatch being removed from office. Come on, people, he's a dinosaur and a career politician. He plays
whatever game will get him reelected. Oust him!!
@rocketscience;@rocketYou do see the problems with your position
don't you? What you believe every child deserves is not reality. There are
many children in single parent households and many children with no mother or
father. What about them? ps I'd like to see the source for your
assertion that a child living in a home with a step-parent is 100 times more
likely to be abused. Almost 50% of marriages end in divorce.You are
less likely to be divorced if you are an atheist.(see dailyinfographic)
I notice that a lot of the defense of mike is just like his bumper sticker
solutions of no substance "I Like Mike." Lee served as a law
clerk to Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
The following year he clerked for Judge Samuel Alito, who was serving at that
time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court in Newark, New
Jersey. How could he be so clueless in his comments, of how our
@pragmatistferlife:"They didn't say SSM was a civil right
because they weren't asked."You are engaging in revisionist
history if you believe that judges from the 1800s and even the 1900s would have
thought that a ruling about marriage included SSM. The people of these eras
would have been absolutely repulsed by the idea that people of the same sex
would even consider the possibility of marriage.No, had they been
asked, we would have absolute precedent that SSM is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, they weren't asked, and our new breed of judges are
therefore lost in the weeds on this issue.
It takes imagination to envision the future. Mikey clearly has none.
I find it astounding that Lee would say such things. He is supposedly be well
educated, so I assume he is playing politics and speaking to his core
constituency. Federal judges are local people, chosen locally from the
community. Normally the President (of either party) will nominate judges who
the local leaders choose. It is in the federal courts where such decisions
should be made, as they relate to the rights of the citizens of the nation.
Rights are not subject to state boundaries. The Constitution applies to all,
including the principle of full faith and credit, and the Bill of Rights, a
principle reinforced by the outcome of the Civil War. We are not a collection of
mini countries. We are one nation. Senator, read the Gettysburg Address. And
finally, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting religious freedom. In
fact, the reverse is true. It expands the rights of the minority and frees them
from the dictates of a majority. Anyone with a Mormon background should
appreciate this. One may not like the result, but once we shed our baggage and
bias, we realize it was the right thing to do.
Just a few more years to go before Utahns bring Mike Lee home. He's done
nothing constructive yet in Washington and that seems likely to continue.
"The Supreme Court has stated in the past that marriage is a civil
right". Right, but in these cases, marriage was understood to mean the union
of a man and a woman. The SCOTUS did NOT rule that same-sex marriage is a civil
right, but that traditional marriage is a civil right."They
didn't say SSM was a civil right because they weren't asked. The 14th
amendment clearly states that a right given one class of citizen cannot be
denied another. Also the 14th amendment has over the years been expressly
interpreted to mean classes other than race. So why is the ruling
of a federal judge that says a state law that denies SS couples the right to
marry, unconstitutional? It appears it is the very essence of the 14th
To those who consider themselves "strict Constitutionalists":Your argument against SSM rests on the notion that the Constitution does not
contain language which allows SSM and gives non-enumerated strictures left to
the states. Your argument is so completely off base that I wonder if you also
believe the Earth is flat.The Constitution contains overriding
principles for our laws. One of these is equal protection under the law. This
means no one person has more or less rights/privileges than any other person.
Denying same sex couples the ability to enter into legal marriage denies them
this protection. Period. Nothing else need be said, nor argued. Your
religious and social prejudice have no place in secular government.You "strict" constructionists also engage in a huge degree of
hypocrisy. I would ask you where in the Constitution does a corporation gain
personhood? Please show me one penumbra, allusion or even mention of the word
as we currently know it. Our Courts have increasingly given a corporation the
rights of personhood through the rulings of "conservative, strict
constructionist" judges. These rights include freedom of speech (to spend
$) and freedom of religion. You may not have it both ways.
@LovelyDeseret 10:18 p.m. May 29, 2014This is why Mike Lee is the
future and Orrin Hatch is the past. Mike Lee defends the Constitution and Orrin
Hatch defends what is popular inspire of what the Constitution says.-------------------In truth, you've got that backward. Mike
Lee has no concept of what the Constitution really says, what it really means
and how it really works. The only thing he knows about it is how to use it as a
tool to get what he wants, and to heck with the damage he causes to it, and to
us all, as a result. The Constitution is hanging by a thread now. if, as you
say, Mike Lee is the future then that thread will be quickly cut. I really
don't want to see that happen.Orrin Hatch, while I don't
agree with a lot of what he says and does, at least has a clue. Mike Lee does
not (and cares only about pandering to the people who did, and will, contribute
heavily to his campaign fund). And that's sad.
@ Lovely DesertI'm having trouble understanding the meaning of
this actual court decision. Could you kindly explain it to me?The
Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s
citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally
protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the
voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound and long-term
interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.”
Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012).
@equal protection:"Allowing more people to marry does not change
the definition of marriage any more than freeing the slaves changed the
definition of freedom."You are right. Allowing more unions of
one man and one woman would not change the definition of marriage. However,
allowing for any other type of union would definitely change the definition of
marriage.It's not a question of the quantity, but of the nature
of the participants.
@Hutterite:You imply that SSM is a right of citizens. Many court
cases state that marriage, as defined at the time of the case -- thus a
traditional marriage -- is a right. SSM is not a right of citizens unless the
courts invent such a right out of thin air, as some have done. It is very wrong
for judges to invent rights out of thin air.
@Understands Math:"Civil rights are not up to the whim of the
electorate." Perhaps, but same-sex marriage is not a civil right. The
definition of Marriage is up to the electorate."The Supreme
Court has stated in the past that marriage is a civil right". Right, but in
these cases, marriage was understood to mean the union of a man and a woman. The
SCOTUS did NOT rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, but that
traditional marriage is a civil right.
I am proud of Mike Lee
Mike Lee keeps showing us how very poorly educated he is on this subject. Hatch
at least realizes that this could happen. As for losing religious freedom?
Religious freedom also includes freedom from religion. As a member of the
predominant faith I do not want other so called Christians or even radicals
within my own religion to dictate my beliefs nor laws that I'm then
required to live.
This is why Mike Lee is the future and Orrin Hatch is the past. Mike Lee defends
the Constitution and Orrin Hatch defends what is popular inspire of what the
@Understands Math:I agree that civil rights should not be up to the
whim of the electorate; however, so called "gay marriage" is not a civil
right. It is the corruption of the normal, moral, proven, and historical bond
between a man and woman that provides the best environment to raise the next
generation of human beings. Every person clamoring for a "gay marriage"
has every equal civil right to go marry a person of the opposite gender.
Anything else is not really marriage. The push for "gay marriage" is
about lustful adult selfishness and political agendas. Nothing more.
Way to go Mike!
“Preserving the 'traditional institution of marriage’ is just a
kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex
couples” - Lawrence, 539 U.S. AT 601 Justice ScaliaAllowing
more people to marry does not change the definition of marriage any more than
freeing the slaves changed the definition of freedom.As Justice
Robert Jackson so eloquently stated: "The framers of the Constitution knew,
and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical
guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the
principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed
generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively
as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will
apply legislation and thus escape the political retribution that might be
visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no better
measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in
Meckofahess, the best thing you could personally do to "strengthen
America" is to adopt a few older kids. Give them a home and give them a
future and give them a safety net. All this railing about SSM is just hot air.
I made a mistake in last election and did not vote for Mike Lee - I will not
make that mistake again! On the other hand, I was wise enough to not vote for
Orrin Hatch. We need more men like Senator Lee who understand the law and is
fighting for what will strengthen America. I whole heartedly agree that the
issue of SSM should not be decided by a bunch of federal unelected judges. If
SSM becomes legal (and that is not a done deal), I would remind those who are
gloating about the possibility of it becoming law that it is not possible to
legislate acceptance. Abortion is legal yet hundreds of millions of Americans
find it unacceptable. SSM will only divide Americans in this "enlightened
age". Some sort of legal contractual relationship would be better than
trying to re-define marriage.
"Lee said the decision should rest with states, not courts, because nothing
in the Constitution prohibits states from recognizing marriage as an institution
between a man and a woman." But doesn't the Constitution require equal
protection under the law for all?
@RockOnThen why ban same-sex marriage in a state where single people can
adopt? If you want to use statistics, two parent households do better than one
parent households on average but you're preventing some one-parent
households from becoming two-parent households."A child living
in a home with a biological parent and a step-parent is 100 times more likely to
be abused than a child living in a home with two biological parents. THOSE ARE
PROVEN FACTS"Well then, if that's a proven fact then I
assume you can note a reference to that 100x ratio you gave that personally I
think was pulled out of thin air (since a 1% bio-bio abuse rate would mean 100%
bio-step abuse rate and that makes no sense).
@ RockOnI commend your concern for children. Let's see if you
are sincere in your concern for them.You wrote: " Let's
keep this simple: focus on the children. Every child deserves a FATHER (male)
and a MOTHER (female). SSM is a new concept.Therefore it cannot be blamed
for children being raised throughout the centuries in single family homes,
orphanages, streets, slavery, prostitution and other less favorable
conditions.Most children in SS families are adopted. The LGBT people who
adopt these children did not create their problem. These LGBT people are
actually one of the solutions.You wrote:"Let's make
better biological parentS our national priority."O.K. Do you
accept that is legitimate for straight couples to use artificial methods of
contraception i.e. In vitro, surrogates, etc.? They still are the Biological
parents of the offspring, Right?It is exactly the same for SS couples.Please, do tell, percentage-wise what is the rate of success or failure
of children raised by SS couples. My partner and I have a daughter and we know
other gays couples with children. We see only happy and healthy children do you
have evidence of the opposite taking place?
Orrin Hatch is right. Love it or hate it, same-sex marriage is coming. PS-I
predict Mike Lee is going to be a one-termer.
Rocket Science: In regard to "no man can be a wife", etc....You've written this at least six times already. Nobody's arguing
with you.However--there are married couples where there are two
wives. And others with two husbands. Sometimes they have children. Frequently
these kids are adopted as older kids--you know, the ones that come with
problems. They adopt these kids because they want to change these kids'
lives.My husband and I have adopted ten kids, only two of whom were
babies. The others were between three and twelve years old when they were
placed. How many did you adopt?
The issue is the definition of marriage. A man with a man can no more be a true
marriage than I, as a man, can be the true Queen of England.
it is a states issue. why shouldn't we be able to decide as a state? Lee is awesome! so glad i voted for him! and i am reminded why i did NOT
vote for hatch.the constitution is hanging by a thread and it will
take great men like Mike Lee to restore this country to the constitutionally
based nation it was meant to be. we don't need senators that are swayed by
current "trends". (Hatch)
Let's keep this simple: focus on the children. Every child deserves a
FATHER (male) and a MOTHER (female). Every child deserves a Dad and Mom. Don't let bad marriages (35%) that end in divorce be the canard to
give the children less than they deserve. A child living in a home with a
biological parent and a step-parent is 100 times more likely to be abused than a
child living in a home with two biological parents. THOSE ARE PROVEN FACTS --
OVER AND OVER AND OVER.Let's make better biological parentS our
national priority.Everyone else is welcome to have a contractual
relationship -- I don't care -- BUT NOT IF CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED.
@patriot"as saying I personally oppose abortion but I support the
right to perform an abortion. What exactly does that mean??"It
means 'I don't want (an abortion/a same-sex marriage/to own a gun/to
drink alcohol) but I support your right to do so nonetheless'."If the US congress and the president sign into law the right for states
to decide about gay marriage or even a constitutional amendment banning same sex
marriage then it doesn't matter what the federal courts say."It'd require a constitutional amendment since your first option listed
would just be struck down as unconstitutional. The problem for you is that a
constitutional amendment is not going to ever pass to do that since you need too
many from Congress/Senate and too many states to ratify it. The
courts have ruled several times that marriage is a right, for instance in Loving
vs Virginia. Unless you think that ruling was also incorrect (in which case
I'd think you were wrong but logically consistent).
Contrary to what many state constitutionality concerning SSM HAS NOT been
decided by SCOTUS at this point. Remember that in California Prop 8 SCOTUS did
not take the opportunity to rule that SSM is a universal Constitutional right,
but that those bringing the suit did not have standing. Utahs Governor and AG
do have standing and it is their duty to defend and support the laws of the
state. Will SCOTUS rule in favor of Utah and 33 other States? Or, will they
rule against Utah and traditional roles of States? Until then all of our
opinions of constitutionality are just personal opinions, only 5 SCOTUS opinions
will matter.If SCOTUS decides with SSM it will then be legally
recognized. If SCOTUS recognizes the states rights it will not be legal in all
50 States. Mr. Lee has simply said while current judicial rulings might cause
some to believe SSM is inevitable it is not a given that SCOTUS will rule that
way. In my opinion, if I had to give a probability I would say 80 percent
chance of SSM 20 percent States rights. A little different from the absolutes
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. No man can be a
wife, no woman can be a husband. No man can be a mother, no woman can be a
father. Not in any state regardless of how laws may be changed by vote,
legislation or judicial decision.The issue in the marriage debate is
really "what is marriage". If marriage is just about the interests of
adults whose relationships deviate from the norm then there is some logic in
allowing SSM. But marriage is more than that - it is the fundamental unit of
society. Thousands of years of history and the vast majority of research shows
that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. It is unreasonable
to think redefining marriage as an institution will not impact our society and
result in many unintended negative consequences.
Marriage is about companionship, sex, and children. Gay "marriage"
cannot legitimately fulfill even one of these three purposes. Government
officials are absolutely right and absolutely rational to sanctify only
man-woman relationships with the label as well as the benefits of marriage.
Will someone-- anyone -- please explain to me how my religious liberty is taken
away from me if same sex marriage is allowed? I just do not get that argument,
and the fact that otherwise rational people are making the argument mystifies
me. The only "right" being taken away is the right to force other
people to adhere to my religion. I am still free to NOT enter into a gay
marriage. And no church is or will be forced to perform them. (Just as the LDS
church is not currently forced to let Joe Blow and Jane Doe off the street pop
on into the temple for a temple wedding.)
"show me in the US Constitution where gay marriage is a guranteed civil
right. It is NOT. Your idea of civil rights are just your ideas and nothing
more."What the constitution does guarantee is equal protection
from the state imposing different privileges for some and not for others,
regardless of who you are.Persons "within its jurisdiction"
are entitled to equal protection from a state.So patriot, it
doesn't make any difference what you believe is a right if the state gives
a right to one it must give it to all within reason (so don't start the I
can marry my dog thing). In fact that's exactly why the state of Utah has
not argued constitutionality but rather reasonableness, and based on
reasonableness you will lose, if not now some time in the near future because
SSM does not pose a threat to traditional marriage or children.
Patriot,To answer your question, neither the US Constitution nor it
27 amendments says anything about gay marriage. In fact they say nothing about
marriage period. The words "Marriage" and "Marry" to not appear
in the constitution or it's amendments. Marriage is not a constitutional
right enumerated in the constitution. Since we live in a society of laws, please
show me where the right to marry is enumerated.
Well, he's wrong then. It's not a surprise, really. On the other hand,
it's never wrong for judges, especially federal ones, to protect the rights
@Patriot: My rejoinder in three points:1. Amendment 9 notes that not
all rights are enumerated in the US Constitution.2. The Supreme
Court has stated in the past that marriage is a civil right (for the most famous
example, see Loving v. Virginia.)3. States are forbidden from
depriving citizens of equal protection under the law through the Equal
Protection Clause of Amendment 14.@patriot wrote: "Your idea of
civil rights are just your ideas and nothing more."Ideas that
are supported by constitution and by legal precedent. That's a bit more
@ patriotActually Senator Hatch does get it. He knows full well that
getting an amendment passed is incredibly difficult and in today's
enlightened America passing an amendment banning gay marriage is frankly
impossible. It won't happen so you can give up on that goal. You will also
not see marriage left up to the states because, and I'm not sure if you
know this, but people move from state to state. So if a gay couple is married in
California and moves to Utah well, I hope you see the issue there. Society has
already moved on from the incorrect and flatly wrong attitudes about gay
marriage to a better and more enlightened place. Also I would like
you to show me where the following rights are in the Constitution: The right to
privacy, travel, vote, life, liberty, political parties, fair trial, jury by
peers, marriage of any kind, procreation, and well I could go on. We do live in
a country of laws - and thankfully same sex marriage recognition will be a law
soon. Something that will make this country a better place to live for everyone.
Actually the state was forced to define marriage as a part of the state statute
by the Federal Government before they let it into the Union. Every state also
has laws on the level of consanguinity that can legally marry, the age of
consent, and guidelines regarding parental approval. Marriages have always been
approved through the authority given to the state, hence they were able to amend
their constitution to ban it.The Supreme Court will have to overturn
around 30 state constitutions if they declare it a protected right under the
14th Amendment. Given their reluctance to make broad decisions, I don't
know if this is as inevitable as it seems.
@PatriotLets pretend that Mike Lee is right, and the courts don't
force the states to legalize gay marriage. Do you think that in 10 years voters
wouldn't be able to just give gay people the rights they deserve? Look at
the polls, it's pretty consistent, younger people don't care about gay
marriage, even here in Utah. Even if the anti gay crowd wins this one, in the
near future there will be the support to legalize it. Dude, it's over.
re:Understands Mathshow me in the US Constitution where gay marriage
is a guranteed civil right. It is NOT. Your idea of civil rights are just your
ideas and nothing more. I don't share your "civil rights" opinions
and in fact I strongly disagee with them. The question you need to ask is
"what does the US Constitition say". We live in a society of laws....a
hard concept for liberals to grasp.
Absolutely, without a doubt!Our nation will always turn to Mike Lee and
Jason Chaffetz for accurate, state of the art, up to the minute opinions on the
important issues in the United States and abroad.Yea, right.
Mike Lee said: "What I do know is that it's wrong for these decisions
to be made by federal judges"No, it was wrong for the question
to be put to a public vote in the first place. Civil rights are not up to the
whim of the electorate.
" I do accept whatever the courts say." (Orin Hatch)This is
the same sort of nonsense as saying I personally oppose abortion but I support
the right to perform an abortion. What exactly does that mean?? Are you just a
rubber stamp guy or are you a Senator who will FIGHT against those things that
are WRONG and make them RIGHT? I think this is case in point why we need to get
rid of Orin Hatch - the man is nothing more than a rubber stamp guy who just
wants to get a long....no waves. We need a guy who DOES want to make waves - BIG
ONES!!! If the US congress and the president sign into law the right for states
to decide about gay marriage or even a constitutional amendment banning same sex
marriage then it doesn't matter what the federal courts say. Orin
doesn't seem to get this idea.
I remember when Mike Lee also said that Government Shutdown was not inevitable
but he was wrong about that. I beleive that gay marriage is inevitable.