@higv;No, NOBODY has "changed their sexual orientation".
They can hide it, suppress it, smash it into itty bitty bits, but they can NOT
change it. Seriously, if you think that it is so easy to "change your
sexual orientation", why don't you give it a try for a year and let us
know how well you succeed. I can testify to you that I tried for over 30 years
to change and it isn't possible.And we do not "suffer"
from ssa; it isn't a disease, nor is it a horrible thing.
This shouldn't even need to be decided by law! If people would actually
live their religion and have love for their fellow man, this would not be an
issue! You know, after living for fifty years, I know enough about myself to
realize that there is nothing wrong with me because I am gay! If others choose
to treat me like I am anything less than what they are, then that is their
choice, but I want to say that it is bogus! There is no need to treat us like
people do and we deserve the same rights as others! Yeah, people forget the
basic concept of their faith, which is love! Maybe a few people should look at
the 11th article of faith and ask yourself if it applies to gay people! We have
a right to worship God how we feel is right and you know what, I think God would
@HIGV - re: "People have actually changed there orientation"There
is no therapy or spiritual fix that will change people who are fundamentally
exclusively attracted to men to become fundamentally attracted exclusively to
women.Gay men can be celibate or choose to marry a woman and try to make
it work, but there is no evidence that fundamental orientation can be changed.
2011 - Warren Throckmorton, Professor of Psychology, former
supporter of Sexual Orientation Change Therapy stated: "Whatever else is
true, it is hard for me to see these situations as categorical (gay to straight)
changes. The changes were certainly perceived to be beneficial but if words have
any meaning, these descriptions cannot be considered as a “complete change
in orientation.” The participants views of themselves and their behavior
have changed but they continue to disclose attraction to the same sex."2012 - Alan Chambers, President of the largest "Ex-gay"
organization, Exodus International apologized for the previous Exodus slogan
"Change Is Possible" and stated: "The majority of people that I have
met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a
change in their orientation." Exodus closed in 2013.
higvI think being homosexual is a bit different from watching porn.
I know you would not agree, but most of us do.Yeah, you can marry
someone of the opposite sex if you are homosexual. You might even act like a
heterosexual. However, you are still probably gay on the inside. And that
probably leads to a less than perfect union with an opposite sex mate. It is a
cheat. The spouse of the "reformed" gay will never have a complete
union, since he/she is never the true subject of sexual attraction. Let it go. Gays and lesbians can make great families and raise great kids.
It is your religious preference to be a Mormon or a Methodist. Ever consider
changing that if you let go your prejudice against homosexuals? It is a choice
higv, You said, "People have actually changed there
orientation" This is largely a myth. What we do know is this: Some people are not strictly heterosexual or homosexual, but bisexual.Bisexuality is not necessarily 50-50 hetero/homo, but can be 80-20 to
20-80.Female sexuality is more fluid than male, perhaps due in part
to the role of arousal in male sexual performance.The "success
stories" you cling to are probably 35-65 cases who can make do with the 35%
of their nature that's heterosexual, although one wonders who they're
fantasizing about during sex, and whether that's either fair to their
partners or a formula for long-term success.And, as far as
"controlling behavior" goes, that's called celibacy (not a natural
human condition, although valuable to the Catholic priesthood).Actual homosexual males are no more fluid or flexible in their sexuality than
actual heterosexual males. "Struggling with SSA," is a peculiar phrase,
one I've only heard used by Mormons. Psychoanalysts would say,
"struggling with self-acceptance," which is more to the point. Marriage
equality should make the latter easier.
@Marxist People have actually changed there orientation, and many people that
suffered from ssa are happily married. As many people have left faithful
spouses and went with a partner. Not everyone chooses to change but regardless
of Orientation you can control your behavior same as you can choose not to get
angry, steal or watch pornography.,
Gambling is legal - I do not feel my religion is threatened.Drinking is
legal - I do not feel my religion is threatened.Smoking is legal - I do
not feel my religion is threatened.Coffee is legal - I do not feel my
religion is threatened.Tea is legal - I do not feel my religion is
threatened.Coke-a-Cola is legal, Bikinis are leagal, ear
piercings are legal, tatoos are legal, open toed-sandals are legal,
shopping on Sunday is legal, Look, my point is there many
things MY relgion disagrees with which are legal, and none of them are
threatening my Religious convictions at all.
Re: HIGV " Some people may struggle with same gender attraction.
Don't need to act on it."You don't understand that
homosexuality is a natural state. You don't understand this any better
than people of your persuasion understand the origins of race.
Everyone needs marriage - including LGBT. By opposing same sex marriage the
Deseret News perpetuates the maladjustment of this population. They feel forced
to try conventional marriage often to the destruction of all involved. The
Deseret News perpetuates the pain these people (and their loved ones) feel
continually. Think about the suicide rate in this population which exists in
large part because they believe they can never "fit." You're going
to lose this debate. If you could retreat, allowing same sex marriage, it would
be an act of great charity. Please think these things over carefully.
@procuradorfiscal "one or two corrupt activist jurists in the federal
judiciary…"Your math skills are really failing, there are
20+ separated court rulings, an unbroken streak, not just "one or two"
in favor of SSM, and not even one of these rulings are on your side.Some of those "activist judges" are appointed by Republican
presidents; some, like Judge Shelby, Judge Jones III were praised by
conservative Senators like Mike Lee and Rick Santorum. That fact itself is
already very telling. @Light and LibertyI would like to
respond your reply, but Stormwalker already had a very good rebuttal. So you go
ahead and dispute that first.But you did not answer my question: It
is comical that you put slavery is wrong and states' rights in the same
passage. Don't you know people in the South used to claim that slavery and
segregation are states' rights?
Today's Washington Post published the article : "Children of same-sex
couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows" based on a
recently research conducted by the University ofMelbourne, Australia.Since the State of Utah's based most of their position on the
welfare of children, I wonder how a study like this will affect Utah's
argument against SSM.I also wonder if the AG Office and the Governor
of Utah will be objective enough when considering all evidence for and against
We can discuss the merits of a gay/homosexual lifestyle AFTER they are treated
equal before the law.Unless those opposed to their rights can show
harm to society, we have no right to deny them the rights everyone else
enjoys."All children are entitled to be raised by their mother
and father" That is a great and novel idea, but reality differs. Many
homes are destroyed by divorce, some children are placed in foster care because
of abuse or neglect. Single mother's do not have their children taken
away, and they can even adopt. So this idea is inconsistent at best. Studies
have shown that same sex couples can and do raise healthy, productive children;
just like hetero couples can produce unhealthy, unproductive children.Religious objections cannot be used under the first amendment. Congress (and
by extension the States under the 14 amendment) cannot favor one religion over
another. Some teach it is alright, others condemn it. All are free to preach
their points of view. If you believe we are turning into Sodom and Gomorrah,
start preaching and thumping your Bible. Doctrine and Covenants teaches us to
use "persuasion...or Amen to your Priesthood".
procuradorfiscal,You puzzle me. If, as you seem to profess, you are
a member of a monotheistic religion that believes in God, you should know that
there is only one God. To not believe this in your heart and soul is sacrilege.
No matter how anyone else worships or doesn't worship, your belief should
not waver. There are no other gods. If someone worships God by some other name
or names, in your heart you should know that that is the same God, the one and
only God. If they see multiple nature spirits, or a pantheon of lesser gods,
you should know in your heart that they are worshiping the one and only God,
although they see Him in many separate aspects.As a monotheist, the
burden and responsibility is on us to believe only in Him, and not to worry how
others see or do not see Him. Even atheists live under His loving Grace,
whether they know it or not. It is our responsibility to believe that, and to
love our brothers and sisters, as He loves them.
@procuradorfiscal:We are a constitutional republic, not a theocracy.
Laws are based on reason. Different people may have different views,
leading to debate and compromise. But reason is still the base of the laws
passed.Reason does not include:"God said...""The Bible says...""It is a sin..."Your
opinions are welcome. We don't, however, have to accept or even acknowledge
your particular brand of mythology or claims that your myths are "real"
or a basis for public policy and law.If you wonder why, take a look
at the current events in the Middle East. From here the difference
between the new Islamic State and the radical right is narrow and getting
narrower as time goes by. The recent Hobby Lobby decision and the subsequent
rulings in the days after show, in my opinion, how close we are to sliding down
the very slippery slope into theocracy.And, by the way, remember
that GLBT citizens are 2% of the population, much like Jews and Latter-day
Re: "Your god is irrelevant and has no business in our laws."Yeah -- apparently only secular, liberal [anti]gods have any place in our
laws.And, it's clear that their followers adhere to the dogma
that the price of these deities' favor is snarky, accusatory, often
unintelligible, always counter-intuitive sophistry, regarding belief in any
We are a nation of laws. The problem with that statement is that all the laws
were made by men. The fallacy of the argument is that the men who made the
first laws, which we tend to consider as sacred, lived in a different world than
we do today. Many organizations and businesses have
constitutions, mission statements, and rules set down at their origination. But
few of those would let the original rules govern their actions in a new and
different world. Even religious organizations are changeable when the need
becomes important to their survival. Those who would ram the words
of the original law down our throats are more concerned with the words
themselves rather than their intent. And their goal is not peace on earth and
good will toward men, but the racking up of power and wealth.
@Light and Liberty:"Slavery was wrong despite any sources cited
about the bible...""Excuses to the contrary, God
doesn't change His Word and conscience can't be eradicated
easily!"For generations Christians used the Bible to justify
slavery, and, after the Civil War, to justify segregation and Jim Crow for
another century. You say that, despite clear Bible passages
supporting slavery, today "everybody knows" that they were wrong.You then state, without any sense of irony, that citing Bible passages
against gay people and same gender marriage is absolutely correct "because
God doesn't change..."That was said before the Civil War.
That was said after the war. That was said through the Civil Right era and a
decade beyond. One thing you are right about. Bigots continued to
claim "God said" on race for a century after the end of slavery in this
country. And like-minded people will continue to say "God said" on gay
marriage for decades after we have marriage equality. And, in a few
decades, virtually everyone will be saying that "everybody knows"
anti-Gay bigotry is wrong, no matter what the bible-thumpers say.
Our country is not "divided" because abortion is legal, or that same sex
marriage may soon be legal in all 50 states.Our country is
"divided" because a rather noisy minority can not accept that their
vision of God and religion trump that of most of us. Most of us know that
abortion is a sad choice for women, and that choice should be between them,
their family, their medical profession and their vision of the divinity. No one
forces anyone to have an abortion. And most of us know that same sex marriage
is about civil equality, and that not all religions see it as a perversity. No
one is forced to get gay married. Both are choices.Unless those who
fail to see that there is a distinct difference between the liberty of the
individual to pursue their choices outside of another's religious
perspectives, we will have a "divided" country.
@LL;Your god is irrelevant and has no business in our laws. Period.
The First Amendment, remember?@RBB;LGBT citizens are
also "we the people", in case you've forgotten. It doesn't
matter how many of you "voted" on our rights, YOU DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT
TO DO SO.As for rights that are "actually there" in the
Constitution, the 14th Amendment clearly states that ALL citizens are to be
treated equally by the government; not just heterosexual citizens.
@lib1: You said a number of things that need correction."counter-majoritarian" -- Wrong. Nationwide, proponents of civil
equality are the majority. This, by the way, is in part thanks to patently
unreasonable, winner-take-all tactics, like Amendment 3."hip,
urbane" -- Dude. I'm in my 60's. I'm a Quaker. I've
been married for most of my life to the one and only woman for me. The 17th
Century religious testimonies I follow are Simplicity, Peace, Integrity,
Community and Equality. So, now I'm "hip?" "religious freedom" -- What about mine?"proponents of
traditional marriage" -- Sorry. You must have meant, "virulent
opponents of LGBT civil rights." Your market-tested PR phraseology
isn't cutting it anymore. We see you."bullying" -- Ha.
Sure. You're also "bullied" by common civility into not using the
N-word in public."ugly, coercive" -- We live in a civil
society. If you insult or threaten others, others are free to point this out.
If you commit actions that violate laws, you must accept the consequences. If
you violate your employer's policies, ditto. "live and let
live" -- You know? If you'd only do this yourself, your imagined
difficulties would disappear.
That is the great thing about technology. 146 years after the 14th Amendment was
passed the judges were suddenly able to find the right to gay marriage in there
despite the overwhelming vote of the citizens of Utah to contrary. Government
of the people, by the people and for the people has become government of the
judges, by the judges and for the judges. Mind you, it is the same judiciary
that routinely ignores the 10th Amendment, and allows NSA spying despite the 4th
Amendment:"The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."The true
art is finding rights which are unstated in the Constitution while ignoring the
ones that are actually there.
How can the United States remain unified with two systems of marriage?
USULogan and the Wraith: better reread my post carefully to understand your
response. Slavery was wrong despite any sources cited about the bible or
anything else that advocated for it! It is obvious that whoever lived in the
south, be it Christian bible thumper, or atheist, it was wrong! Period! People
make poor decisions. People are blinded by their own greed or evil nature!
There is nothing new about that! No research needed! Lincoln was Lincoln
because he finally came to the conclusion that slavery must be eradicated! Gay
marriage is on the same track as abortion. 50 million lives have been flushed
down the drain, but the issue is still before the electorate! Excuses to the
contrary, God doesn't change His Word and conscience can't be
eradicated easily! Gay marriage can become legal in all 50 states; it will
divide our nation further until it is either accepted as something moral and
justified, or it is not! The middle ground is gone!
I support traditional marriage! I strongly believe that marriage between one man
and one woman is ordained of God to further His Plan of Happiness.And I also support marriage equality. Same sex couples have every legal and
moral right to legal and lawful marriage on equal social, political, and
economic grounds as opposite sex couples.Why is that a problem?
@higv writes, "Since the Devil wants us to be miserable"..Your source for that information, please? "people that engage
in (SSM) will still be miserable"Your source, please? SSM has
been legal in MA for a decade. Please tell me what percent of married SS
couples told you (or anybody else) that they are miserable?"Legalizing behavior won't make (STD's) go away"SS relations have been legal nationally since Lawrence vs Texas eleven years
ago. What's the rate of STD's among gays who have applied for marriage
licenses? Do you know? If not, why are you making these claims?
The columnist says: "..two circuit courts differ on the very question of
whether same-sex marriage is a “new right” [8th Cir.] or the same
“right to marry” that has existed for centuries [10th Cir.]Apples and oranges do not a circuit-split make.The phrase "new
right" does not appear in 8th Cir. opinion in Citizens for Equal Protection
v. Bruning. Instead, the opinion makes clear that "Appellees do not assert a
right to marriage or same-sex unions." The question faced by the 8th Cir.
was a bank-shot by a same-sex couple, applying the limited SCOTUS precedent they
had at the time, Evans v Romer (1993) to claim Nebraska's SSM ban deprived
them of equal access to the political process. Faced with that narrow question,
8th Cir. did not find the 'animus' SCOTUS found in Colorado and upheld
the ban under rational basis review.The 10th Cir. applied Windsor
(2013) decision to find marriage (of any sort) is a fundamental right under the
substantive due process protection of the 14th Amend, and thus any law that
infringes upon that right is subject to strict scrutiny, under which Utah's
SSM ban fails.
@higv;Very few straight people are monogamous and statistically, 50%
of them leave their spouses and get divorced. Straights have high rates of
STDs. We should then ban straight marriages because, clearly, straights are
unstable.@lib1;I stand for "traditional
marriage". I also support marriage equality. Why do you celebrate bigotry
and the bigots?
Stormwalker,Several prominent abolitionists were religious.
Including Anthony Benezet, Henry Ward Beecher, Sojourner Truth, Harriett Tubman,
and Harriet Beecher Stowe. I am sure there are others.
It is an established fact that Christians believe that sex within marriage is
more moral than sex outside of marriage. In fact, we call cohabiting
"living in sin."It is also an established fact that sex
within a same-sex relationship is perfectly legal in all 50 states. So, whether
you believe that is moral or not, you must accept that the Supreme Court has
determined (in Lawrence v. Texas) that it's not a matter of public
interest, and, being a private matter, it's not anyone else's
business.SO, we're left with this. If you believe that
marriage makes for a more moral relationship than merely living together, and if
you prevent same-sex couples from marrying by throwing legal prohibitions in
their way, that additional immorality that you heap on them is entirely your
doing, not theirs, and hence belongs entirely to you. Their "sinning"
is victimless. Yours is absolutely not.
@kevinJKirkham interpretation of the scriptures to justify what you choose to
believe. Religions have a right as a body to speak out on moral issues. 1st
amendment applies equally to them. One religion does not have a right to have
priveleges another does not. @Ludwig no one in the lbgt community is not
allowed to vote, drive, live or work where they want. They are not executed for
there behavior, Though there behavior does cause a lot of diseases in the
community. And who says they are born that way. Choose to think that, but
many left opposite gender partners so can't say born that way. Some people
may struggle with same gender attraction. Don't need to act on it. God
made me have a violent temper, dabble in pornography, shoplift, do a number of
other things. That is what you are saying. God does not give us any disposition
to sin. And so called same gender marriage will never be allowed in the eyes of
maker, and those that say otherwise or try to change it will have to face him
on the issue.
@higvDo you think there could possibly be a correlation between
monogamy and a right to marry? You see, for generations same-sex couples were
not allowed by law to marry. Anyway, your argument that very few gay people are
monogamous as a reason to deny marriage is ridiculous. After all, we don't
apply that same logic to all of the heterosexual couples who have not been
monogamous and want to marry.
I fear that soon, it won't be enough for religious liberty proponents to
"live and let live" when it comes to gay marriage. We see with the
brouhaha over Duck Dynasty, the Mozilla CEO, Chick-fil-e, the New Mexico Bakery
and the Coyote Restaurant in LA.. These show the ugly, coercive side to the Gay
rights movement, which increasingly resorts to bullying to silence advocates of
traditional marriage. I admire the courage of those willing to
stand for Traditional Marriage because of their personal religious convictions.
Today, it is much harder to be on that side of biblical marriage than it is to
stand with the hip, urbane counter-majoritarian elite advocating gay marriage.
It is cruel and unusual treatment of the LGBT community at large to tell them
that they can get married and then put a stay on the ruling. They have waited
for over 200 years for this day just as Black people have waited for come 100
Plus for their full civil rights after having them denited by Southern White
Bigots. Time was the LGBT community could be executed (murdered is a more proper
word here) for simply being born the way thatthe good Lord made them. Being an
LGBT person is NOT a lifestyle (that is a chose way of life for instance a Golf
lifestyle)but the way someone is born that is determined at the moment of
For those that say the tide is turning, man cannot make moral what God declared
immoral. Since the Devil wants us to be miserable and knows we will if we
misuse our creative powers will try to pressure people to think it is ok and
marriage will make it legal. However people that engage in that behavior will
still be miserable and since the Devil does not support those that listen to him
in the end the recent expirement of so called same gendered marriage will
collapse under the weight of it's own iniquity. Besides why do
they demand marriage when many have left opposite sex partners and very few gay
people are monogamous. High rate of STD's among them. Legalizing behavior
won't make it go away any more than a law against gravity would make it go
The editorial is correct. It only take four justices for the Supreme Court to
take the case. Go for broke.
The author cites the Constitution as the source of these apparently ambiguous
"principles" and then closes by saying that it's really court
precedent that matters. I would love to know which principles and where they are
found.@Light and Liberty,Some of us could read your arguments
clearly and some of us could even see how right they are. We could also see how
what some people have done "in the name of God" is different than what
God adjudges as right and wrong. Further that inasmuch as our view of God and
His desires is correct and we comply, we prosper, and inasmuch as we contort,
misconstrue or set His will at defiance, we harm ourselves and each other.Morality has a source people.
Re: "This momentum is reflected in conservatives now clinging to the hope of
a patchwork system . . . ."It's not conservatives that have
produced this patchwork system. Rather, it's disingenuous LGBT activists
that, although they know that the Supreme Court has clearly held that the law
does not protect same-sex marriage, actively seek out the one or two corrupt
activist jurists in the federal judiciary that are willing to abrogate their
oath of office and support their rhetorical sophistry.They hope to
sway the Supreme Court's corrupt leftists, and one or two of its clearer
@Light and LibertyIf, as you say, the South as defying god by
wanting to keep slavery then why were so many of their pro slavery arguments
founded on the bible and the belief that slavery was a divinely appointed
institution? You really should do some actual research and read the arguments
the South put forward to defend slavery. They drip with references to god and
the bible. In their view getting rid of slavery was an insult to god.Had you been born in the South in the early 1800's you would have likely
thought the same.Allowing same sex marriage to become legal will not
defy gods law or any other universal law. Guess what will happen when same sex
marriage is legalized. Nothing. The world and America will move on and we will
be a better, stronger nation. There will be no fire from the sky, no destruction
from above. What will the religious right say when all of their dire projections
@Light and Liberty,It is almost comical that you put slavery is
wrong and states' rights in the same passage. Don't you know people in
the South used to claim that slavery and segregation are states' rights?@SalPeople may buy your "activist judge' argument,
if some of the 20+ separated court rulings on this issue rule in your side of
favor, but unfortunately, not even one of these rulings are on your side,
including Republican appointees. That fact itself is already very telling. In Kentucky, lawyers for the state argued heterosexual marriage leads to
a stable birthrate and economic stability. Judge John Heyburn (a George H.W.
Bush appointee) said, "These arguments are not those of serious people."
In Pennsylvania, Judge John Jones III (a George W. Bush appointee)
wrote, "In future generations, the label 'same-sex marriage' will
be abandoned, to be replaced simply by 'marriage.' We are a better
people than what these laws represent..." In Michigan, Judge
Bernard Friedman (a Reagan appointee) wrote, "Many Michigan residents have
religious convictions whose principles. . .inform their own view points about
marriage. Nevertheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the
guarantees of equal protection."
And just where in the Constitution are these principles articulated? I find a few principles in the Declaration of Independence, but by and in
large the principles upon which our nation was built are to be found (as the
1892 Supreme Court stated in "The Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the U.S.,)
in Christianity. That is the basis of the systemic problems we are now
encountering, the failure to secure any founding principles (the Constitution is
really just procedural).That, to me is very self-evident to the
@Light and Liberty:Perhaps you have read some science-fiction
alternate history story. The defense of slavery was almost totally based in the
claims that the Bible advocated and endorsed slavery, that Africans had the
"Mark of Cain" and were inferior. A century of
institutionalized and legal racism and segregation were based on the same claims
of "what the Bible says." Even the most cursory reading of
speeches and sermons and statements from about 1810 to the 1970s will show how
strongly mainstream Christianity supported and justified racism and segregation
as God's will on race mixing and an orderly society. The Southern Baptist
Convention came into existence because southerners felt missionaries should be
able to own slaves; Falwell's "Moral Majority" originated 125 years
later to resist integration of schools. Those who fought against
slavery and segregation were radicals and liberals who were willing to reject
the traditional teachings and claims about the Biblical basis and justification
for slavery. On the really important issues of equality for all,
"the Bible says" and "God's will" have been on the wrong
side every single time in the last 200 years.
Sorry, but the Nebraska case was pre-Windsor. I do think it's possible that
SCOTUS will grant cert, though. They like to put their mark on the biggies.
Drew;Is your own marriage recognized when you travel across the
nation, from state to state? Are you single in one state, married in the next,
single again when you cross another state line? No? Then why
should the legal marriages of LGBT Americans be treated differently?Bigotry, Drew, is a moral issue. Discrmination, Drew, is a moral issue. LGBT
Marriage isn't.LL says: "...the universal rule
of law which states that marriage is only between a man and a women ...""Universal rule of law" states that? Ha, ha, ha. Not. Your
god is irrelevant as we are not a theocracy. If you want to live under a
theocracy, move to Iran.@Sal;The 14th Amendment is a
part of the US Constitution. @higv;False. That is
their job; determine the Constitutionality of laws.
The issue boils down to this – When we "liken the scriptures (or the
14th Amendment) unto ourselves", should we adopt the overarching principle
or should we only apply them if our circumstances mirror those addressed by the
scriptures/law? SSM opponents assert the latter (at least concerning SSM).1Cor10:29/D&C 134:4 forbid using morals as justification to infringe
upon the rights of others. SSM opponents say that 1Cor10:29 applies only to
religious liberties. This "narrow" view can stated marijuana
isn’t against the WOW since it isn’t mentioned. Porn is OK since we
aren’t looking upon a woman to lust after her. We’re looking upon
paper or pixels. Narrow interpretations lead to detailed
do's/don’'ts in the Law of Moses and in our current secular
laws. Some have stated that the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause
originated due to political speech, that the 1st only applies to that and not
free expression in general. 2nd Amendment opponents often assert that it only
applies to muskets and not AK47s.D&C 101:78-80 wants maximum
freedom to maximize agency. Let this be our view.
I appreciate that you brought up the Nebraska case in the 8th Curcuit, but some
details of that decision need to be looked at a little bit more. The courts
decision was made based on the idea that sexual orientation is not a suspect
classification, meaning that ones sexual orientation does not set that
individual up be victims of discrimination. I believe that the current political
climate can prove that judgment to be false.Another problem with
this case is that nine of the eleven judges in the 8th circuit at the time of
the ruling were nominated by Republican presidents. While I like to think that
all judges keep their own personal opinions from making decisions based on rule
of law. it's hard to think that doesn't happen when there is a big
imbalance like this one in the court.A lot has changed since 2006,
and every state in the 8th Circuit, except Iowa and Minnesota, have same-sex
marriage lawsuits pending. It would be interesting to see what changes in that
part of our country before we claim that there is a split.
Nice try Drew, but there really is no split. This ship has already sailed. The
ruling in the 8th circuit from 2006 predated the Supreme Court's Windsor
2013 decision that overturned portions of the misnamed Defense of Marriage Act.
All of the recent district court's and the 10 Circuit Court's rulings
that overturned anti-gay state laws cited Windsor as the binding precedent in
their decisions. The far-right's great anti-gay hope, the Supreme
Court's refusal to hear Baker v. Nelson in 1972, was shot down when the
high court ruled in Windsor. In the decision you referred to, but
didn't name, Equal Protection v. Bruning, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th
Circuit (2006), cited Baker as its precedent. Every court decision since Windsor
make it clear that the Supreme Court found a federal question in anti-gay
marriage statutes, something that didn't exist in 1972, rendering Baker
moot. The Supreme Court is unlikely to revisit the question unless
one of the circuit courts decides differently post-Windsor. It might happen,
but I wouldn't count on it.
Courts overturning voter approved inititives is violation of States rights a
Constitutional Amendment would not violate states rights as they have to approve
constitution. And if passed that means people could not use the 14th amendment
as reason for so called same gender marriage at expense of 10th amendment. No
The Supreme Court doesn't rule on social issues in a vacuum. They're
aware of how issues are seen by the voting public, and often their rulings
reflect society around them.Dred Scott, Plessey vs Ferguson, Brown
vs Board of Education, Loving vs Virginia... all took note of existing social
norms, and often broader movements across the nation.Would Brown vs
Board of Education be possible in 1880? No. Loving vs Virginia? Hardly. Our
nation was ready for these changes, even though the immediate culture in those
locales was less ready.The issue of gay marriage is very rapidly
evolving, before our eyes. Whether it happens in 2015 or the Supremes wait a
few years, it appears opinion among our people is headed one way - toward
equality. (Even among young LDS, this issue is seen very differently than among
their parents.)This momentum is reflected in conservatives now
clinging to the hope of a patchwork system of state law, when 10 years ago they
preferred federal prohibition of gay marriage, outright.
The Supreme Court should take the case simply because the circuit courts are
arriving at the same decision: upholding same-sex marriages, but based on
different reasons. This shows clearly that these judges are
activists determined to impose their own subjective prejudices rather than
ruling on established precedent as required by the Constitution.
You fail to mention that the newest Appeals Court decision relied on a more
current judgments by the US Supreme Court. This substantially alters the
calculus you expound upon. And you fail to point out that judgements have been
rendered under the jurisdiction of the 8th District Court of Appeals that are in
conflict with that original Nebraska judgment. These judges used the logic of
newer Supreme Court decisions. There may or may not be further
decisions from Appeals Courts soon that will better clarify how the Courts will
be in accord with the many, many Federal District Court judgments that allow
same sex marriage. Those opinions will serve as the basis for a US Supreme
Court ruling or lack thereof. This seems like a DN opinion that
clutches at straws. All of the Courts so far, and the majority of the entire
US populace has moved on from the restricted view of marriage. It is time the
DN did as well.
No matter what happens, despite the rule of law, the ruling will either defy the
universal rule of law which states that marriage is only between a man and a
women or it will reject it! By rejecting what is right, Americans will become
more split, just as slavery split our nation. No matter what argument the south
put forward, it was wrong, States' Rights to the contrary! The argument
before this nation is not whether states should define this or the Federal
government or courts, it is whether we want to defy God in the same way the
southern states defied Him by wanting slavery to continue! Gay marriage is
wrong because it strikes at the very heart of God's plan for the happiness
of His children and the continuing unfolding of His plan. It doesn't
matter whether you are an atheist or not. Slavery was wrong; so is Gay
Do you hear wedding bells? In 2004 George Bush ran on a platform to pass a
federal marriage amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman, and now
that the tables have turned, anti-gay activists are saying that marriage is a
state's rights issue and that the federal government has no business
defining constitutionally protected rights of its gay citizens. Stunning
hypocrisy. The writing is on the wall however, this is not going to be a
state's rights decision, too much water has passed under that bridge, even
for this right leaning Supreme Court. Count on the 14th Amendment and Loving v.
Virginia for precedent (overturning interracial marriage prohibitions, 1996).
The recent decision in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, with one
dissenting justice, did not appreciably exacerbate disagreement on the matter
(especially considering the unprecedented string of state court gay marriage
victories), it essentially consolidated findings and precedent, a necessary step
on the path to a Supreme Court finding. I also wouldn't hang my hat on the
8th Circuit decision, remember the reversal of Hardwick by Lawrence. So, do you
hear wedding bells? I do.