I support civil unions and oppose same sex marriages. I think that our country
no longer supports the traditional Judeo Christian values that formed it. Part
of that tradition was having a legally and religiously sanctioned union called
marriage which produced a family. Because more and more people decided that God
didn't really have anything to do with their lives, they decided that we
needed free love and became somewhat anti marriage. Love had more to do with
who you had sex with than who you were committed to. And children had nothing
to do with it. Now things have shifted so that we want to have our sex with
whomever, call it love, and then want everyone to accept that as ok. I
understand the desire for same sex couples to have the benefits that a married
couple has in relation to health and death benefits, but find another way to do
that than overturning the definition of marriage. And no, I am not a bigot. I
just happen to believe in God and His definition of marriage. I am a mother,
not a Parent 1 or 2 just to be politically correct. Acceptance and tolerance is
a 2 way street.
@The Wraith"One of the more disgusting things to say to anyone.
I've sat around and heard many of my Mormon relatives, teachers (when I was
a member), and leaders complain..."I am not from Utah but I have
lived in the west (Idaho) and I never ever heard members complain about such
things. I have attended church in Utah many times as well.For this
specific point you make I think you have zero or close to zero evidence of
people complaining about such things.Comparing LGBT vs. Pioneers is
a very long stretch. No one is forcing them from their homes at gun point."You have exactly zero evidence to support anything you claim. You
have nothing to show that society will change."I have exactly
Zero evidence to support anything I claim? What did I claim?The
only thing that I have claimed is that LGBT haven't been treated anywhere
nearly as badly as Slaves. I could provide you plenty of evidence to support
that claim.In my comment I didn't make any claim how society
None of you have yet pointed out anywhere that specifies that laws on marriage
are reserved to the federal government. You're side-stepping the matter. If
it hasn't been reserved to the Federal government specifically, then it
falls to states. You can pontificate til you're blue in the face, it
doesn't change that fact. Additionally, some seem to categorize
marriage as a "right", rather than a privilege. If it were a right, then
it wouldn't require a license. Anything that has to be licensed is subject
to conditions stipulated by governing bodies. If those stipulations are not met,
then no "right" exists.
@justsevenup - SSM has been legal in Massachusetts for some time, and to my
knowledge no homosexual person or couple has sought legal recourse to demand
marriage in the Boston temple. Nor has this happened in any other state. And
they'd never get it if they tried: the government won't force us LDS
folks to marry gay people in our temples any more than it forced us to marry
black people in our temples after the Loving decision in the late 1960s. Worst that could happen is that the church may lose tax-exempt status on
some properties. Man, if that's the calamity promised in the Proclamation
on the Family, we've got it pretty easy.
@justsevenup: "That's when in all probability the Mighty Hand of the
Lord will and could be known to all of us...His house will not be
defiled."Such dogma-sourced warnings are indicative of the
problem: the vilification of a group that does not conform to the desires of
those controlled by dogma. Fear-based logic is also employed in the claim that a
house can be "defiled" merely by the gays existing on earth as other
people do. I sincerely hope an appropriate "revelation"
occurs within the Hierarchy that will allow these folks the ability to love
their neighbors as just people, and not one of "those" people.
@ Walden " I challenge any of you to demonstrate that the ability to make
marriage-related laws has been reserved exclusively to the Federal government,
or prohibited to the states ..."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
A BATTLE IS AHEAD BEYOND MOST FOLKS UNDERSTANDING....and here it is....If same
sex marriage is accepted in all states with Mormon Temples then their future
step will be getting married in the Mormon Temples....and that will be the last
straw that will force a mighty division between sides that will no doubt be very
extremely upsetting to all..That's when in all probability the Mighty Hand
of the Lord will and could be known to all of us...His house will not be
I also agree with some who have commented here that once you say same-sex has
the same status as a marriage between a man and a woman, where exactly are you
going to draw the line? Someone else earlier pointed out that same-sex
previously was universally rejected by societies, officially (not to say it
didn't exist - only that it was not officially condoned) and so although
other practices are currently abhorred and nobody considers them acceptable (on
a society-level basis), just look at what an extended campaign can accomplish.
At this point there will be nothing truly off-limits - it will be simply a
matter of time until other groups wanting their sexual practices legitimized
also mount their own campaigns and follow the play-book until they manage to get
their way as well.
Despite all the flap on both sides of the matter (and I have my opinion just as
most everyone else), I don't yet see any argument so far that would seem to
negate or nullify the policy that states, (based on the Tenth Amendment) that
"powers not expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution,
nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people". I
challenge any of you to demonstrate that the ability to make marriage-related
laws has been reserved exclusively to the Federal government, or prohibited to
the states (if this is not so, then a heck of a lot of state laws around the
country are going to suddenly get dumped out the window in the wake of this
If I remember my history, the Federal Government had an issue with alternative
marriages back in the late 1800's. In order to become a state, the Utah
Mormons had to abandon polygamy. I believe there is a clause in the
constitution of the state that spells out what marriage is and should be. This
is simply not seen in any other state. This is just one more reason that the
Federales need to stay out of a state's business.
@The WraithJust because you don't agree with another
person's position doesn't mean their point of view is of no value or
that they don't have truths in them. I suspect if someone were to show you
hard evidence you wouldn't see it. You are so caught up in your point of
view you have become blind. If you believe in a society where the
rights of all people are valued, then what of the children? What of the future
generations? What of those who need a voice, who come to earth and are placed
in an environment they may not agree with?
I think the debating is a waste of time and energy. I don't see SCOTUS
responding any differently than in the past. The decision will be pushed back to
district and state courts who have plainly indicated they support SSM. It's
inevitable; Utah will join the ranks of a growing number of states that
recognize SSM. SCOTUS only needs to wait it out; one by one the states are
adopting SSM. Utah needs to accept it is going to happen and get used to it. Gay
marriage isn't going away; it's here to stay--no matter what you say.
@ Mercy re: "Removing male/female from the family and viewing this as
"normal" fundamentally changes society."So how does
marriage equality "Remove" males and females from the family? Please
describe specifically how the removing process works for traditionally married
opposite couples, when a same gender couple marries. Families of
same gender couples have been raising healthy children for generations. Please
explain how allowing them to marry suddenly causes armageddon? Could marriage
inclusion help strengthen the institution for opposite sex as well as same
gender families? Isn't this proven to be the more likely result?
@ Laura B re: "Who is eligible to get a marriage license in Utah is not a
value."Amendment 3 for most, is a reflection of sincerely held
religious belief. A majority of folks in Utah wanted to codify their religious
values into civil law. The US Constitution neither knows or
tolerates preference for one religious belief over another in the 5th and 14th
Amendments of Due Process and Equal Protection.
This is great news from the Supreme Court. As the Hobby Lobby decision
demonstrates, the true meaning of marriage will win out when all is said and
done. People of faith or even people of conscience that believe children do
best with a mother and father now have a voice and a fundamental right to have
their time tested views respected. The lords plan of salvation may take a few
turns, but marriage supporters will be victorious.
@firstamendment and @O'reallyChildren of gay parents are
speaking for themselves and do well in school etc. They do not repeat the old
time speculations made by other uninformed people that you seem to be stuck on.
Perhaps you should open your eyes and ears to learn about what is going on today
and join us in the 21st century.
@hockeymom;"I only know God expects us to fill His commands. I
know homosexuality is not within His plan of happiness. "You
don't "know" any such thing. You believe it, but you don't
know it.Let me tell you what I know. I spent 30+ years trying to
change. Praying every day for change. Nothing happened. When I changed my
prayer to "let me accept who/what I am and live the best life I know
how", at that moment, Hockeymom, every shred of guilt, anguish, pain, self
loathing, etc. just vanished, immediately, and I felt the greatest sense of
peace I'd ever felt in my life. I know that your belief is not fact. I
KNOW this. In the 20+ years since, I have never felt anything other than that
God is pleased with me and my life; including my life with my partner of over 15
@Meckofahess SLC,How is it that you and so many others are
concerned that some children may be raised in a home with two loving SS parents,
but have so little concen for all the children without homes or any parents.
Where is Christ's love in this hypocrisy.
It has never been uncommon for children to be raised by two people of the same
gender (albeit more often by two females), yet we never heard these concerns
when the assumption was that they were heterosexual. So I just can't
believe in the sincerity of this argument. I genuinely believe it has been made
up in an attempt to answer the challenge of just what is wrong with SSM. And I
genuinely believe people are hanging their hat on it because it's the only
argument that reflects what they believe about themselves and their religion:
that they are good, moral, and giving.People and religions can be
wrong and still be good, moral, and giving. History bears this out.
@Meckofahess: Your "rationale" for banning same-sex marriage, on the
basis of some theoretical, unsubstantiated worries about child outcomes, is
little more than a hollow excuse. If you were really worried about children,
you'd focus elsewhere.By some estimates, lesbians and gays make
up about 5% of our population. Other estimates based on survey results are
under 3%. Of those same-sex households identifying themselves to census-takers,
less than one in four have children. Taken together, we see the number of
children raised in same-sex households are under 1%. Yet, despite the bigotry
and bullying aimed at their families, those children's outcomes appear to
be on par with those raised in man-woman households.Meanwhile, we
know perfectly well that heterosexual ("straight,"
"traditional") single parenthood and divorce have known, deleterious
effects on children, and the size of those populations are huge. Out of wedlock
births account for 41% of all births. National divorce rates are 50%, and
higher in Utah.Your argument has a complete disconnect in it.
Banning SSM does nothing to improve the lives of children, either in general or
@The WraithMarriage and family is fundamental to society. Removing
male/female from the family and viewing this as "normal" fundamentally
changes society. It tells kids they don't need mothers or fathers, and
therefore, they don't need to BE responsible mothers and fathers.Give it a generation or two, and you'll have all the evidence you need.
After kids grow up with this social experiment, you'll see the
following...A couple goes to the law to alter marriage again, using
the same logic behind SSM. Consenting adults? Plural marriage. Nothing to do
with sex/child rearing? Arranged marriage, including child marriage.Any two adults will do? Marriage between two feminists, not even sexual -
women eliminate men from the family unit.When an individual tries to
avoid legal punishment using "born with a pre-disposition" as an excuse.
Alcoholics, child molesters, incest, etc.The government can change
other fundamental definitions, that affect school, healthcare, business, every
aspect of our lives. Parental rights? What rights, when SSM implies kids
don't need a mother or father?
@Hey It's Me: "...but let's call it "Pairage"Sure!! And we can have pairage drinking fountains and pairage schools and
special pairage parts of town and all sorts of other seperate-but-equal pairage
stuff. Because seperate-but-equal worked so well in the past.
@skrekkDane, WIYou said "It sounds like same-sex marriage
affects your marriage in the exact same way that my mixed-race marriage
does". I can see how my comment could have been miss-interpreted. To
clarify, I do not view mixed-race marriages any different than same-race
marriages. In a mixed-race marriage children have a mom and a dad the same as
any other traditional marriage. I do not view so called "same-sex
marriage" the same as a mixed-race marriage. I simply believe that children
reared in a household with "same-sex parents" have to deal with a set of
variables that can be very confusing and difficult for them on a number of
levels (socially, psychologically and so-forth). I believe the optimal
environment for rearing children is in a household with a mother and a father in
a committed marriage relationship be it mixed race or same race.
@ RanchWoa there!! I'm not even sure I'll be making it to
heaven either! I have plenty of my own faults enough to keep me looking through
the bars of the pearly gates at my more deserving brothers and sisters on the
inside. No arrogance here. No thinking I'm better either. I only know
God expects us to fill His commands. I know homosexuality is not within His
plan of happiness. He loves you, you are His child. I have been commanded to
"Love my neighbor". I have no choice but to love you too. Yes, He is
happy when we love our fellow man. The command to share physical
love was intended by Him to be shared only between lawfully wed heterosexual
couples. This wasn't made up by our church leaders. This is God's
Law, not man's. No need to think anything different.
FirstamendmentI absolutely agree, there are activists out there who
have an agenda. I'll tell you a secret you probably don't know....
there are plenty of other ultra-conservatives and ultra-religious folks who also
have agendas. However, I think most people don't have an
agenda. They vote and fight for what they feel is right and of importance to
them personally. I'm pretty intrigued about your claims about
all the negatives about these "gays" out there who have nothing better
to do than choose to be gay, just like you chose to be straight. Could you please cite your sources so we can review them. Just stating all
those causes are meaningless without sources to back them up.
Meck, what "values" are you talking about?Honesty is a
value. Integrity is a value. Loyalty is a value. Fidelity is a value.
Consistency is a value. Flexibility is a value. Who is eligible to
get a marriage license in Utah is not a value.
Hey everyone. You can still voice your anti-gay sentiments, just as you can
express sentiments that you don't like people of verious races and sexes.
What you can't do is control the way others will react to the things you
say. If you say something and people say that you're prejudiced that
doesn't prevent you from saying these things. You can say what you
want--just don't expect people to agree with you or think you're
Why do people not leave for places where there is already marriage equality when
they live somewhere where the law doesn't support it? Because, like any
other couple, they would like to marry in the place they love, maybe even in a
church where they worship if that's allowed there, or in a favorite
location. They have friends and family who are truly happy for them whom they
would like to invite to share their special day, and be there to witness as they
take their vows. They want to live and work and do all the same things as the
rest of us do--the same everyday things we all take for granted. At home, where
they love to be, just as the rest of us do. That's why they stay.
@hockeymom;What about the rest of the anti-marriage equality posters
here? They do what you say you don't."We love them and are
sad for them as we see it as a loss of their eternal salvation..."What makes you think that we're losing our "eternal salvation"?
Maybe you're the ones who are wrong. Did you ever stop to think that
perhaps your heavenly father is perfectly happy with our loving who we love?
Your leaders have been known to be wrong before, this time isn't any
different.It's pretty arrogant of you to think that you're
better than we are and that you're going to heaven and we aren't.
Captain Green says:"This is a matter that is clearly only within
the scope of individual States to decide. It is not a federal issue and
therefore federal courts should not be ruling on it."--- Are you
married when you move/travel from state to state, or is your marriage nullified
the moment you cross state lines? Still married? Then this IS a federal issue.
The fact of the matter is that it shouldn't have to be decided by the
courts, but due to straight people thinking they have a right to vote on the
marriages of gay people, it is something that must be decided by the courts. If
straight people had just minded their own business, none of this would have been
necessary.@Meckofahess;Odin will certainly lead them to
the right decision. Marriage equality.
@Rocket Science,A good public relations campaign can change
perceptions of a misunderstood group of people. I don't think anyone
understands that concept better than the LDS church. They have put together some
brilliant campaigns over the past thirty years, and placings advertisements in
the Book of Mormon playbill was genius. There is nothing wrong about putting
together a campaign to tell the general public "hey, maybe you were wrong
about us."@Hockey Mom,I am sorry that you are tired
of hearing about these stories of rejection. Unfortunately, you will continue to
hear them until such things stop happening. I, thankfully, was not rejected to
the same extent that I mentioned in my previous post, but I do experience an
intense amount of being shunned by people within my ward boundaries and friends
from the past.If you are tired of hearing about these things, do
something to initiate change among the people within your reach. Invite your gay
neighbors to sit with you at church. Talk with them when you see them at the
grocery store. Visit with them during an evening walk through the neighborhood.
We can all be better neighbors, can't we?
Leave "Marriage" as defined - between a man and a women! I agree with
letting them have their right to happiness as well as laws thatgive them spousal
health benefits etc. but let's call it "Pairage". They would have
all the rights as a man and a woman, but a different word with the definition
meaning"a pair of people united by the law.
@MeckofahessIt sounds like same-sex marriage affects your marriage
in the exact same way that my mixed-race marriage does.
Reading this article makes me feel like it is so wrong to keep same-sex couples
from being married.WHY does Utah want to tear families apart? I
picture for the people who wanted to get married, whatever the outcome is, it
would be an emotional one for them. Tears of joy or tears of hurt. For the
people who don't want them to get married, I picture anger if they lost and
jubilee if they won. In the latter, seems like they are just out to get them,
but for the former, it is emotional no matter what the verdict.Yes,
my heart strings were tugged to see people trying so hard to make another family
work in our society that is badly needing more. While I'm torn about what
the other side is doing.
@Brent T. Aurora CO "Minnesota Vikings suspending a coach for
exercising his freedom of speech..."Vikings suspended the coach
because of his homophobic remarks. He has his free speech right to say those
hateful things, and Vikings also have their right to suspend him. Just
like a white supremacist has his free speech right to call blacks N word, but
his employer also has the right to fire him because of his speech, because it
hurts the company's working environment and business.Can a
business owner refuse to serve gay couples? Yes, if the owner is in a state
without such anti-discrimination law.If in a state like Colorado, where
anti-discrimination law covers sexual orientation, the business owner must
follow the law and serve gay couples.
It's still bigotry folks...trying to impose your religious limitations on
the rest of us!
@RedWings "SSM will fuundamentally alter society in ways we are just
beginning to see in states like MA, where it has been legal for a while. Some
changes are good; some not"I have lived with my partner in
Massachusetts for over 50 years, married 10 years. Nothing has changed for
anyone in the commonwealth during these years except 10 years ago we got
married, a good change. I do not nor have I heard of any changes that are not
good. Now, since the DOMA ruling last year, our tax guy told us to file our
taxes jointly as a married couple this year because we would save over $3,000
which we did. I consider that a good thing for LGBTs. So what change(s) are
@ firstamendmentYou've provided a good picture of the biases
you hold. Biases are not facts, however. What evidence do you have that the
way LGBT individuals react to various environments - accepting, rejecting,
equalizing, oppressive - falls outside the constellation of human behavior we
expect to see in such environments?@ Brent T.I believe
it’s best for our society when everyone in the public square is treated as
equals. Therefore, IMO it is correct to honor equality before the right to
religious expression because equality protects EVERYONE from discrimination,
including the religious. Honoring what you desire actually removes this layer
of civility and invites discriminatory treatment.@ Rocket ScienceYou complained of children being exposed to normative messages regarding
homosexuality. Atheist's children are constantly exposed to normative
messages about worshipping gods. It happens in a diverse society. Children
quickly learn that their parents' views aren't necessarily shared by
everyone. And, hopefully, they learn that it's their right to choose for
themselves when they come of age.Also, I hardly think school is your
biggest problem. Do you have a TV? A computer? Even homeschooling
doesn't eliminate the "threat." Information: It's everywhere!
Just keep spending the taxpayers dollars on this.
Marriages today in modern corporate America are old fashion and out dated. Now
days all unions should be corporations. After all they are people and they lack
sex or gender to argue over and for those who feel the religious need they can
Rocket Science worries that his child will be taught that people who oppose
marriage equality are bad and are bigots.I guess the same thing
happened to Daddies who told their children that blacks were inferior and should
be taught in separate schools. But then the kids saw with their own eyes that
what daddy taught them was nonsense. And you know, the same thing
happened to Daddies who told their children that Mormons were strange and
clannish and weird and that they were going to "recruit" their children
to be polygamists. But those kids, too, saw, with their own eyes, that what
daddy taught them was nonsense. If you don't want this to
happen to you, perhaps you should consider moving to Uganda, where no child
would dare argue the government's position that gays should be put to
@Rocket ScienceThank you so much for taking the time to share what
you have learned through research and study to help expose the homo-sexual
agenda which strives to confuse people about what is right and wrong. We must
stick to our deeply held beliefs about the sanctity and uniqueness of
traditional marriage while not hating or ostracizing those who have same gender
attraction. The SSM marriage agenda does affect my marriage because it's
agenda intrudes in presenting conflicting values in the schools and elsewhere
which contradict traditional, time honored values that we teach our children.
SSM harms children who are adopted in SSM homes because the adopted children
realize that there is something very different about their lifestyle and this
often results in confusion and psychological harm to them. In turn this can and
does harm society.
@Brent T. Aurora CO"We have other behaviors in our society currently
universally abhorred for which this legislation will pave a path of acceptance
via precedent."No, the precedent would be Loving v Virginia
which involved striking down interracial marriage bans. Same-sex marriage would
not be the one that sets the precedent. That's why same-sex marriage
supporters are so confident (aside from the 19-0 or something like that since
Windsor), because the courts have already done something similar.
We humbly pray that Justice Sotomayor and the other Justices who may hear this
case will be guided by God's eternal wisdom and arrive at rulings that are
fair and just for all concerned. May there be solutions identified that address
the needs and rights of all Americans including those who are mothers and
fathers and husbands and wives who for millennia have valued the unique pattern
of marriage commitments between men and women that stretch back even as far as
Adam and Eve - our first mortal parents. We desire that the rights and needs of
persons who feel attraction to others of their same gender who live in committed
partnerships may have their legitimate legal rights protected and afford them a
just resolution of their concerns in this great country. May the rights and
needs of both groups be protected.
@ Really???I'm tired of LGBT's who call traditional
marriage supporters, "haters". I'm tired being accused of thinking
the LGBT community are "wicked", "evil", or "an organization
out to destroy families". I don't believe that, and it's clear
you want to have your version of a family. I don't know of any entire
families who "reject" their children "excommunication" style.
If there is sadness on your part, it must come from within and your in-ability
to wholly accept yourself as you are.There are many traditional
families who are grieving their children who are wholly embracing their
LGBT-ness. We love them and are sad for them as we see it as a loss of their
eternal salvation and a loss of what God wants for them under His plan. There
are cases of people who have identified as SSA and still go on to live
monogamous, heterosexual lives with temple marriages even. We see this LGBT
"trend" (for lack of a better word), picking up steam, and moving
God's children in general, further from Him. That may or may not be viewed
as wicked, but is certainly misguided and sad.
It's good that Justice Sotomayor ruled the way she did on this temporary
issue. But it still remains a volatile and dangerous subject that a small group
of people, usually decided by one vote, can determine the final outcome of. This
is a matter that is clearly only within the scope of individual States to
decide. It is not a federal issue and therefore federal courts should not be
ruling on it. The vast majority of States have already decided by votes of the
people that they do not condone perversion... and that should be the end of the
discussion for those States.
@RocketScience: I think you need to be reminded that:1) Being
homosexual is completely legal in America.2) Homosexuals form as strong
romantic bonds to each other as heterosexuals do.3) Private consensual
sexual practice is private and protected by the Constitution.4) Your
religious beliefs concerning homosexuality are hardly universal to other
denominations.5) Religious freedom includes the freedom for denominations
like ours TO HAVE SSM. You also need to be reminded that at a time
not very long ago, being left-handed was also considered deviant, a mark of the
devil ("sinister"), and naturally left-handed children were punished and
force-conditioned in school to avoid using their left hands. The
history of repression of various groups in America is a sad one, but eventually
we seem to come around to realizing that and changing our ways. With regard to
homosexuals, now is when.There is no scientific, medical,
psychological, or social evidence that there's anything "wrong"
with homosexuals. They can be as productive, creative, stable, supportive, and
contributory to our society as anyone else. Your religious prejudice against
them doesn't reflect upon them, only yourself.
Gosh, Mr. Warren, I didn't know that opposition to one thing put a person
automatically, or by and large, in all of the other categories you mentioned.
SSM was never needed if someone in Congress had paid attention to the human
needs of those who have a partner and they can't make medical decisions
for their partner, spend a lifetime accumulating wealth or income and then are
taxed as individuals, children issues, and a myriad of other problems of a
committed relationship. But, too late now.
Justice delayed is justice denied again by the US Supreme Court.
Wraith asks -- "How exactly will same sex marriage fundamentally alter
society?"Here's one answer which gets to the heart of my
objection to its legality. See the story coming out today about the Minnesota
Vikings suspending a coach for exercising his freedom of speech. See any number
of cases across the nation where privately owned businesses who do not wish to
offer their services or goods in support of gay marriage proceedings are being
criminally and civilly prosecuted. Read thousands of articles where objection
to SSM is being labeled as hate and discrimination.If this is indeed
bigotry, citizens of a free nation such as ours (our society) are losing their
right to believe and express those beliefs, and to be bigots.Hate,
discrimination, bigotry -- strong emotionally charged words with legal
ramifications being forced upon people with core values and beliefs that are
being violated by this "movement" in our society, in the name of
enlightenment, to normalize behavior that a generation ago was universally
repugnant.The LBGT defenders don't like this point being made:
We have other behaviors in our society currently universally abhorred for which
this legislation will pave a path of acceptance via precedent.
Once again I hear nothing from those who oppose SSM that hasn't already
been debunked many times. There is the idea that children raised in a SSM must
be psychologically confused. An interesting hypothesis; if only we had actual
data to test it. We do and it shows that hypothesis is wrong.Next.What about everyone's right to teach their children what
they believe to be right and wrong. Well you're in luck; you still will.
The KKK still exists and they teach their children what they believe is right
and wrong.Next.I see the book After the Ball has been
mentioned. By all means lets judge an entire group of people by a book one of
them wrote a few decades ago. Kind of like a book I read recently: Five Views on
Law and Gospel edited by Stanley Gundry. It was my first taste of Dominionism
and since I've read others where the Christian Right feel it is their duty
to take over every aspect of our government. I guess we should take away rights
@AerilusMaximusThe old "they should move" canard. One of the
more disgusting things to say to anyone. I've sat around and heard many of
my Mormon relatives, teachers (when I was a member), and leaders complain about
the horrible treatment Mormons received in the early days. They bemoaned the
fact that their ancestors were forced to move. And now we hear the same thing
from their mouths. How poetic. A group of people once persecuted and rivaled,
forced to flee their homes time and again (in large part due to their strange
idea on marriage)now playing the part of the persecutor. Again, disgusting.What is more! You failed to answer my question. I can only assume you
didn't answer because you have exactly zero evidence to support anything
you claim. You have nothing to show that society will change. Nothing at all.
Steve c warren. Yes I'm that person.It's about stepping up and
acting like adults.So yes I'm against all that stuff you listed.
The book, After the Ball – how America will conquer it’s fear and
hatred of Gays in the 90’s, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. The book
argues that after the gay liberation phase of the 1970s and 1980s, gay rights
groups should adopt more professional public relations techniques to convey
their message. That marketing has worked very well. The book laid out a six
point plan to transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to
homosexual behavior including: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and
as often as possible... Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive
challengers... Give homosexual protectors a just cause... Make
gays look good... Make those who disagree to be victimizers and make
them look bad... Get support from corporate America...Sometimes words are intentionally changed to give definition not originally
intended. Gay began to be used in the 70's to soften the correct term of
homosexual. Now the attempt is to change the definition of marriage to make
homosexuality mainstream. Coming soon, with a broadened legal definition,
indoctrination efforts in the schools to teach children, even in elementary
schools, to accept, appreciate and embrace homosexual marriages. This is
already happening in some states.
"And, as it has been shown, increasing homosexuality increases: promiscuity,
suicide, drug addiction, racism, anti-religious bigotry (and religion has been
shown to be good for humanity)..."Actually, the rejection that
thousands of homosexuals experience within their own families and religious
communities is a major reason many turn to promiscuity, suicide, drug addiction,
and anti-religious bigotry. You see, too many lose hope when they are pushed out
of their families and their religion, and this is why they turn to these
artificial and damaging ways to ease the pain.Fortunately, people
are starting to realize this and reaching out to make sure this doesn't
happen any more. It's too bad that there are still people listening to the
lies that want to make us out to just be an evil organization with the sole
intent to destroy families. Come on, folks, get to know your
neighbors; you'll discover that most aren't as wicked as you imagine.
@ firstamendment I agree with your assessment of "Crafting Gay
Children" It opens eyes to what is really going on. If two people of the
same gender want to live together as married people do, that's their
business. When children are brought into it or end up in these homes
by default, it's incredibly damaging to them. I have no doubt those
children are physically healthy and well taken care of. I believe they can excel
academically. But psychologically it must be so confusing for them. Their
so-called "parents" are of the same gender and yet it takes two
different genders to create a baby. I believe they will feel that something in
their lives will feel "wrong" or just oddly out of sync. And this will
lead to more and more of these mixed up kids who turn into mixed up adults.
That's the next generation. As if they don't have enough other issues
to deal with.
One answer to the question that was posed, how exactly will SSM adversely affect
society? For those of us who want to teach our children what we
believe is right and wrong, the legalization of SSM undermines our efforts. In
Mass. they teach in elementary schools that it is just as good to have two
daddies as to have a mommy and a daddy, That homosexuality is a good thing.If you believe in SSM you will say, but that is a good thing,
nevertheless it will affect me in the way I teach my children.It
will happen here too, and parents will hear: Daddy why is it wrong to have two
daddies? My teacher said all people can marry, so it is good and people who
teach me it is wrong are bad. She taught us a new word and said those kind of
people are bigots. You told me it was wrong for two men to be together are you
a bigot daddy, are you bad daddy.
I believe that Justice Sotomayor is sending the message that SCOTUS wants to
hear and rule on the issue as the final voice. Many SSM advocates
mention the recent Circuit Court rulings that have been in their favor. They
want to believe that with recent cases SCOTUS will not hear the issue and let
Circuit Court rulings stand. We should remember in 2006 the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals — which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — overturned a lower
court’s ruling and upheld a ban on same-sex marriage. Granted that was
before the Supreme Court struck down DOMA and, by virtue of that ruling,
extended federal protections to married same-sex couples.I believe
it is far from a given on how SCOTUS will rule and I believe that is why SSM
advocates just want States to give up now.
For those who claim that pushing SSM will help reduce anti-gay bias, please
think again. Promoting hatred against people who disagree with the agenda (as
activists do, daily) and pushing something on our children that is harmful, etc.
isn't the way to win friends and influence people. I used to be much more
supportive of gay marriage (especially since I have gay family members,as you
know)before I actually interacted with activists and before I saw what the SSM
agenda was doing to our Country and so on. As a result of my interactions with
many of you I have started to research SSM and have learned much more about what
is going on behind the scenes. SSM propaganda has nothing to do with
"equality" or "love" etc. Gays can already work, live, love,
have bridal registry, etc. and laws against bullying etc. are completely
different (and gays are not only victims of bullying, they are often bullies
themselves). The SSM agenda is simply an agenda that financially benefits a
few, and harms humanity. Please read "Crafting Gay
Children" on defend the family. That was one that really started to open
Wraith, if SSM doesn't alter society then why do you want it? Judge Vaughn
pointed out that the reason he wants SSM wasn't so he could get married
(wink wink) but it's for the social meaning ie. it mainstreams
homosexuality. As we have seen, mainstreaming homosexuality increases the
numbers of children who believe the propagandists who say they were born that
way and can't change, it also increases numbers of people who abandon
children, spouses, faith, and so on, for homosexuality. And, as it has been
shown, increasing homosexuality increases: promiscuity, suicide, drug addiction,
racism, anti-religious bigotry (and religion has been shown to be good for
humanity), depression, violence, domestic violence, etc. etc. and, as it has
been shown, children do better if they are raised in traditional homes etc. I
know that those pushing the agenda do their best to suppress information, alter
findings on studies, etc. but the truth is surviving still.
The people who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage by and large are the
same people who are anti-immigrant, who supported the war in Iraq until the
bitter end, who won't allow their states to accept much-needed Medicaid,
who can't find anything wrong with anything Israel does and who want to
sabotage the Affordable Care Act in spite of evidence that it's working. In
other words, these people are messing up the world.
EstoPerpetua:"@Mr. Bean and @WTZ Is there something in Arizona that is
affecting your all or nothing thinking about marriage? You think marriage
equality should be applied to siblings, family generation? You may as well throw
in animals just to spice it up a bit. :>)"I don't know
Bean or WTZ... Marriage equality should apply to all who wish to
marry. And that would include... well, that would include all who wish to
marry."Why not think a little harder and you may see that
marriage equality is for adults..."I know sibs who are adults.
At least, they look to be adults."...that are not
related..."We're all related. Have you not heard of the
Garden of Eden's Adam and Steve?"...and who are able to
think such as reading, writing, and answering questions at the marriage license
bureaus."The adult sibs that I know can read, write and answer
questions... Questions such as: "What's happenin' dude?""I assume they have some in Arizona. :>)"They
"If marriage is so important to them why dont they just go move to a place
where it is legal and encouraged instead of trying to force a whole state to do
something that they don't believe is right?"Because even
with some of the flaws in this state, a lot of us actually like living here. We
also want to make this place a safer and better environment for all of its
residents. It's not the American way to expect people to move to a
different state in order to enjoy basic human rights. Also, believe
me when I tell you that the LGBT community still experience poor treatment. I
have been assaulted while jogging in my neighborhood and had slurs painted on my
car window within the past year. This fight is important because
it's long overdue for everyone in our communities to be treated with
dignity and respect, feel safe, and enjoy strong and healthy family bonds.
@ the wraithAll the answers arent prevalent in how SSM will shape
society.There are plenty of places where SSM is legal. If marriage
is so important to them why dont they just go move to a place where it is legal
and encouraged instead of trying to force a whole state to do something that
they don't believe is right?And don't start down the whole
civil rights / slavery issue. LGBT arent slaves they have been treated badly
but I think a lot of the public has been a lot kinder to them in recent
times.Sure there have been a few businesses that wont photograph
their weddings or make them a wedding cake but I havent been hearing about hate
crimes and such that were associated with the actual civil rights movement.
This is a correct decision now lets hope that the 5-4 continues to be correct
otherwise society will pay for the error of the lower courts.
GREAT decision by the Supreme Court. Hopefully they'll take up this case
eventually and help protect the definition of marriage for future generations.
Repubs have used up all their Supreme Court victories on citizens united and
hobby lobby.Now we get to win gay marriage.I don't
want to hear any repub complain. You folks told us to deal with the Supreme
Court decisions that we didn't like. Now you must learn to deal with the
Supreme Court decisions that you won't like!
Not an unexpected ruling, but it's telling that Sotomayor (apparently)
queried the rest of the justices before issuing this stay, ie, "are you guys
sure we want to take on this issue?"Assuming the SCOTUS hears an
appeal, presumably next year, it will likely be another 5-4 decision, either
way, which is probably appropriate, considering how divided our nation is on
this - and many other - issues."The Wraith" asks a pertinent
question - how exactly will SSM adversely affect society? My sister-in-law and
her partner of 27 years got married in late December, and I've yet to
detect any impact on my marriage, in any way. Actually, their marriage has had
a calming, stabilizing effect, if anything, for *them*.Regardless,
in 20 years we'll be having to answer to younger generations about why the
State of Utah was opposed to people getting married. We've
seen this movie before, folks.
Sotomayor has made a wise decision granting Utah's motion so that there can
be no doubt as to the fairness of hearing Utah's appeals. Although I
don't believe that Utah has a forceful case, due to their recent February
ruling in favor of alternative marriages (polygamy), I believe Sotomayor needed
to allow them this chance so they will not have the ability to re-appeal
following a nation-wide decision.
As I continue to read through the comments on all the articles related to SSM
and the State of Utah, I gotta wonder why the State spent good money to hire
high-powered lawyers from out of state to plead their case when they have so
many home-grown, local legal and constitutional scholars to hand-pick from? My
guess is the AG and Governor are not reading these comments.
A reasonable decision by the court, even though the families who brought the
case will have a bit longer to wait for things to resolve.
Well I'm sure glad the Mad Max level of chaos that would have unfolded in
Utah without this emergency stay has been avoided.I have a few
genuine questions for anyone who thinks same sex marriage will
"fundamentally alter society". I've asked these questions a few
times but so far no one has had the courage (or I suspect the facts) to
answer.How exactly will same sex marriage fundamentally alter
society?If it in fact does this then why is it that in societies where
same sex marriage is legal and has been for years has this fundamental
alteration not occurred?OR if it has occurred what are the signs of this
fundamental alteration?I would love to see a detailed list that
answers those questions with actual evidence from the nations and even U.S.
States where same sex marriage is legal. I say actual evidence because I've
seen some reports about the chaos in Mass. but not a single one of the points of
evidence listed in these reports is backed up by actual fact. I eagerly await
This, by no means, is any indication of what SCOTUS will say in regards to
Amendment 3. Personally, I don't think the higher courts will take on the
appeal because there still has not been conflicting ruling in any of the lower
courts. Today, as a matter of fact, the tenth circuit ruled Oklahoma's law
banning same sex marriage to be unconstitutional. SCOTUS has no compelling
reason to take up this case, so I believe the tenth circuit's rulings will
stand. Then, the courts will also tell the state that is has to legally
recognize the marriages that have been performed.
So-called "same sex marriage" is ultimately a policy issue not a legal
or Constitutional question. As such it should be the people who decide it not a
bunch of appointed judges!
The stay is a good idea. Means less marriages that have to be undone when
SCOTUS rules against SSM. If they ever get a round tewit.
Judge Shelby must have known Utah would appeal his decision, so if anyone is to
blame for the 1300+ marriages currently in limbo, it’s him for not
granting a stay in the first place to prevent the marriages from happening.
Governor Herbert promises to recognize those marriages when they are good and
legal, but the case isn’t settled yet, so everyone just needs to be
patient until the end. The Supreme Court made the right choice today.
RedWings... what are some of the negative changes in MA?
That's too bad. It will come about, of course, but the courts are all being
cautious and if they can pass it off, they do.
The court isn't trying to decide if same-sex marriage is Constitutional,
it's trying to decide if Amendment 3 is unconstitutional. Since the verdict
striking down Amendment 3 was stayed, however, it's currently law (hence no
more same-sex marriages being performed). That means it'd trigger the
second clause of Amendment 3 since same-sex couples don't fall under the
first so I would consider the stay on this to be the correct decision.
Rhetoric from both sides of this issue aside, this is a good decision by the
SCOTUS.SSM will fuundamentally alter society in ways we are just
beginning to see in states like MA, where it has been legal for a while. Some
changes are good; some not.I am glad the SCOTUS is taking a more
cautious approach to this issue than some of the federal judges.