Published: Thursday, June 12 2014 9:48 a.m. MDT
Re: "The tactic of broadcasting statements that declare a certain outcome to
be 'inevitable' is not a new one. It is a battle cry that has risen
from the lips of over-grasping governments and social engineers for many a
century."It is a battle cry that has also risen from the lips of
the religious:"For just as when, in the days of primitive
Christianity, an upheaval in the religion of pagan states meant corresponding
revolutions in the political world, so in those remote regions where the thin
edge has already entered, the inevitable triumph of Christianity will be
followed by great social upheavals presaging the collapse of the old order of
things" ("The Churchman," August 12, 1899, p. 184)."They are facts which, if fairly faced, must compel assent to the
reasonableness of the faith in God, in the Bible, in Christ Himself as the only
Saviour of men, and in the inevitable triumph of Christianity as the universal
religion" (Howard Agnew Johnston, "Scientific Faith," 1904, p.
52).Would you characterize such statements as "Borg-like
intimidation tactics," too?
"With the passage of the means of production into common property, the
individual family ceases to be the economic unit of society.”--EngelsPrior to the industrial revolution, the family was the basic economic
unit of society. People lived and worked on small family farms, or family shops,
or banks, or newspapers, etc. The industrial revolution moved the locus of power
away from the family and into large corporations. This was the case when Engels
was writing.A great many nineteenth century conservatives were
opposed to industrialization, capitalism, and free trade for the precise reason
that the economic order that was emerging supplanted traditional families and
communities, which they saw as being essential to the survival of traditional
conservative virtues. Conservatives today seem to have forgotten their history.
It was not communism or socialism that wiped out the family as the basic
economic unit, it was capitalism.
"And marriage — including lifelong vows of sexual exclusivity —
will still be the best way to maintain and foster life."Great!
Let two adults make vows of sexual exclusivity, reap the governmental benefits,
and start or continue raising children. This author is well on her way to
supporting marriage equality.
"Even if it is temporarily killed, marriage will rise like a phoenix from
the ashes of judicial arson that set it aflame"Seriously,
DesNews? I mean, seriously!? So, this is what the propaganda machine has come
down to - baseless, useless opinion pieces that incorrectly divine that marriage
equality somehow kills heterosexual marriage. I personally wonder why
anti-equality advocates give SSM folks so much power over them. For me, no
matter what a court says or who marries whom, I will always love my wife and no
one can weaken our marriage but ourselves. Indeed, someone ought
to remind Ms. Ells that in actual "traditional marriage" she would have
been considered chattel and never given the right to offer up her opinions in a
public forum. It was those dang liberals who expanded women's rights to
the chagrin of conservatives, it was those dang liberals who expanded marriage
rights to interracial couples to the chagrin of conservatives, and it is now
those dang liberals who are expanding marriage rights to any couple to the
chagrin of conservatives. At some point, history must take an accounting of
repeated conservative missteps on the subject matter and deem their position
I think the author is confused about who has been the aggressor and who has been
oppressed. It's not the marriage equality proponents who are the Borgs;
it's the majority who is telling gay and lesbian couples that they should
just accept what they have voted into law who are the Borgs. She
also uses an analogy of Moses being trapped at the Red Sea as they leave the
oppression and slavery at the hands of Pharaoh. You see, the Hebrews that Moses
were delivering weren't allowed the freedoms that the Egyptians enjoyed.
They were escaping that. So, then, who does Moses really represent in this
attempted parable? I would say he could be the "activist judges" that so
many have been complaining about. It's time those who are
fighting against marriage equality stop playing the victim; your freedoms are
not being lost.
A weird piece. Engels against Moses and Captain "Piccard" (sic).
Judicial "arson." Only Luke Skywalker is missing from this fantasy . . .
Wow, this is some drivel right here. And it was never explained HOW gay marriage
isn't inevitable. So lets pretend the SCOTUS says that states do have the
right to define marriage as they want to. Polls pretty consistently show that
young people are fine with gay marriage, even people who define themselves as
conservative and who are religious. If it's not allowed through the courts,
it will allowed through the ballot box. Sen Hatch is right, it's over.
It is here, this editorial effectively advocates for a police force to carry out
Engels? Sharks? Enemy aircraft? Seriously? This is your comparison to
SSM?For an organization "which works to protect the family in
society," they're doing anything but. Nothing they stand for will in
any way strengthen anything. Robbing Peter does not pay Paul.First,
let's look at what's at stake in this marriage "argument."
1) Banning SSM doesn't create more opposite-sex families.
Asserting otherwise is empirically unsupportable. Completely illogical.2) Banning SSM doesn't end creation of same-sex families. Single
or divorced lesbian women who tried being "straight" already bring their
natural children to new households. Adoption agencies already place children
with the best available families, some of whom are same-sex. And assisted
fertility services are available to all. Already.So, all it comes
down to is simply denying civil marriage rights to a minority out of some
"us v. them" pettiness, supported by a doctrinal belief specific to only
some denominations.So far, courts which have examined the arguments,
the rationalizations, the excuses, the assertions, the causality, and the
doctrine, have decided that banning SSM makes no legal, Constitutional sense.Try supporting the families that already exist.
Amen to this article. True marriage is the only way for society to survive and
Inevitable? It's already happening and no matter what the legal outcome
will continue to be available in the most populous states. Utah continues to
hold out hope that it will remain the land of the lost.
I know I'm a little off target here but what happened with the DN today? A
letter about Benghazi stand downs, one about how the President should somehow
promote thought control, and now this. One expects a certain slant
here, but the opinion page today is a leap into nuttiness. Sorry for
the interruption...carry on.
The objections to SSM are primarily founded in religious belief. These beliefs
were imposed on all citizens in numerous states about a decade ago. This
violation of the First Amendment is now being corrected. Those who
cherish their right to free exercise of their beliefs should be applauding this.
Yes, it means you will have to live in a society where acts you consider
immoral are legally protected. But don't we all? I and many others
believe that what you teach about LGBTs and how you treat them in your churches
and temples is immoral. But even if SSM is declared legal, you will still get
to practice these things in your churches and temples, and you will still enjoy
legal protection to do so.So what are you losing? Government
sanction of your religious ideas? You were never entitled to this in the first
place and seeking it actually undermines the right you seem to cherish most.I really think you're trying to snatch defeat out of the jaws of
victory here, but your moral objections to SSM are preventing you from seeing
"The tactic of broadcasting statements that declare a certain outcome to be
“inevitable” is not a new one. It is a battle cry that has risen
from the lips of over-grasping RELIGIONS for many a century."No
need to read further.
Simply a case of denial. In state after state, not one judge or court has upheld
their ban on SSM marriage. And to compare this struggle for equal treatment to
Star Trek, George Washington, and Moses is so unrelated or convoluted, that it
is simply bizarre. We are not in some metaphysical struggle of good vs. evil.
Some rising Phoenix is not going to free us from the judicial system's
obligation to protect the Constitutional rights of equal protection and due
process for all citizens.
pragmatistferlife"I know I'm a little off target here but
what happened with the DN today? A letter about Benghazi stand downs, one about
how the President should somehow promote thought control, and now this."Remember who owns the DN.
The writer of this piece may feel strongly about the issue, but it is her vision
that is clouded. Wishing won't make it go away. Hatch was absolutely
correct. Can't we just get this over with. Allow gay marriage and then we
will hear virtually nothing about it afterwards, like in many other countries.
Completely odd article. Anywho I've always felt sorry for those that think
gay marriage will weaken straight marriages. How sad that their marriages are
"Even if it is temporarily killed, marriage will rise like a phoenix from
the ashes of judicial arson that set it aflame"Except that
straight couples can still get married, so marriage wouldn't be rising at
all. All that would be "rising" is striking down same-sex couples from
being able to marry and well... the younger generation is strongly against that
Another flip flop from Hatch?Wow! It's only Thursday and
I've already been served plenty of pancakes!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments