JT: " the argument that some people use to cite that they must be made
equal according to the 14th Amendment. If that is true, then I demand
Obama's salary and equal use of Air Force One."--------You forgot the part "equal-Under the law-according to the 14th
Amendment." That "under the law" makes a world of difference. It
doesn't mean that everyone should be equal in money, things, and
circumstances. It means that the laws of the land cannot treat citizens who are
similarly situated differently. That is what Amendment 3 does. Geesh.
"But states that divide themselves into Republican, Democrat, Christian and
secular tribes are destroying any hope of a constitutional republic form of
government."I think I have a solution to your dilemma...Change the Democrat tribe into a Republican tribe.Change the
secular tribe into a Christian tribe.Change all minority tribes into
majority tribes.Change all female tribes into male tribes (well,
perhaps you can skip that one).Change all illegal immigrant tribes
into legal immigrant tribes.Change all same sex tribes into
different sex tribes.Unfortunately, we see this idea actually
playing out today in some mid-east countries where Muslims are telling
Christians to either convert to Islam or die. And Sunnis convert to Shia or
die."The list goes on and on."True.
@my_two_cents_worth:"Ruling a law of the State of Utah in violation
with the Supreme Law of the Land IS the supreme court's job."Do you feel the same was about a federal law such as the Edunds-Tucker Act of
1887 which banned polygamy? If the Supreme Court were to rule on that law
today, how do you suspect they would rule? Inquiring minds wanna know."Invalidating an unconstitutional state law is not legislation no matter
how badly you'd like to think it is."Utah's marriage
law is mot unconstitutional. The law says that ANYONE can marry provided they
marry someone who is not already married, of legal age, not closely related, and
of the opposite sex. This applies equally to all citizens of the state.If you think Utah's marriage laws are discriminatory against
same-sex attracted people, you also must say it's discriminatory against
all other forms of marriage such as polygamy, siblings, mother/son,
father/daughter, any other close relative, and even groups of people such as
three females and two males. And any other marriage arrangements that can be
@intervention:"And once again you are ignoring the other federal
amendments including the 9th and 14th that more then 20 different judges and the
subprime court have ruled do apply to gay marriage."Well, if the
9th and 14th amendment applies to SSM, it has to also apply to polygamous
marriages... and siblings, close relatives, children, and any other combination
that can be conjured. Perhaps even six guys marrying each other forming a
sextet.@Tolstoy:"So how many times have we all ad this
exact same conversation mike? how many more times do we need to have it before
you realize that your selective reading of the constitution does not match up
with the reality of the repeated court rulings...?"The court
erred in using the 14th Amendment to rule on interracial marriage. The issue
should have be remanded to Congress for resolution.'Equal
protection of the laws' simply means that everyone is treated exactly alike
under a given law. It says nothing about the validity of a law (such as
interracial marriage). If a law is discriminatory it must be returned to a
legislative body to correct, not the courts.
"The 1st Amendment prohibits a State from Legislating religion."Nope, the 14th Amendment is what prohibits a state from legislating
religion. The reason for that isn't immediately apparent to the layman,
but anyone who's actually versed in constitutional law and the history of
church and state in the US would know why. Not helping your bona fides here.
@ j Thomas As has been discussed before the first amendment protects
people from using government to institute a theocracy that violates others
rights to practice or not practice thier own form of religion and no matter how
many times you ignore the actual arguements already made it does not change the
fact that the courts are not legislating anything but rather ruling if the
legislation passed violates federal law or the federal consitution which is
thier responsibility as the third branch pf government.
@JThompson, You just said the Supreme Court cannot rule in matters
of Marriage because it is the realm of the State.So if Missouri were
to pass a law prohibiting Temple Marriages, what would your recourse be?
Remember, you said Federal Court was a no no.
J Thompson sai: "Pick your side. You are either with God or you are against
Him. No one who is against God has ever prospered. Eternal law is
ETERNAL."That your for or against only works for folks who
believe there are no grey areas in life, and don't seek to understand only
to obey another man, whom they have faith in.Which God? There's
so many, with different personalities, and different ideas on what they want
from their flock.How come you get to type in caps all the time, and
I can barely get comments thru following all the rules?
Those who ask a question that has been answered show that they either cannot
read or that they will not read. The 1st Amendment prohibits a State from
Legislating religion. It is not nebulous. It is not subjective. It is
explicit, not at all like the argument that some people use to cite that they
must be made equal according to the 14th Amendment. If that is true, then I
demand Obama's salary and equal use of Air Force One.The only
question that is pertinent is whether we are subject to our creator or whether
"Federal Judges" have the authority to legislate something that is not
written in the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly assigns the authority
to legislate to Congress. It expressly assigns all authority to the States
unless the Constitution explicitly addresses the question, which it has done
with religion.Pick your side. You are either with God or you are
against Him. No one who is against God has ever prospered. Eternal law is
So these coversation do flollow the same perdictable pattern, almost like a
poorly written soap opera: 1 those that appose gay marriage make the same
false claims they have made a hundrads times before. 2 those that support
gay marriage refute these falsehoods with the same facts they have posted
hundrads of times before3. Those that appose gay marriage retreat to
victimhood (despite the fact they are the ones aggressively seeking to deny
others basic human dignity and rights). And like any poorly written soap
you can tune out for years on end check back In for the first three post of one
thread and be completely caught up on the coversation.
@J Thompson"The creator has given no right to those who believe
in samr-sex sex."My creators were a couple of teenage kids
caught up in the passion of the moment. Both are cool with SSM. "THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT legislate"Ruling a law of the
State of Utah in violation with the Supreme Law of the Land IS the supreme
court's job. Invalidating an unconstitutional state law is not legislation
no matter how badly you'd like to think it is."Those who
mock our Creator "Believe me, we are not mocking your
creator."God instituted marriage "Yet neither
your God nor his representatives can marry anyone in Utah without Utah's
permission. What does that tell you?"We have just been
instructed by a prophet of God"If it is so darned important to
your God why doesn't he just come on out and tell us all? Why the need to
work through a middleman?
@JThompsonSo in your argument, Marriage is a total purview of the
State, and absolute. So if Missouri passed a law banning Temple Marriages, that
would be fine right? Isn't that the right of the State to define marriage
as they wish, and if a State wants to define a marriage as such that it MUST
expire upon the death of one of the parties; then they are under no obligation
to recognize a marriage that claims to extend beyond that.Or, is it
ok for a judge to rule against the State in that regard?
@j thomas typing in all capitals does not make your claims any more
valid then they were before. No one is mocking your creator, just disagreeing
with your attempt to use it as a weapon in your disagreements with how our
constitutional democracy, not theocracy, should functions.
The creator has given no right to those who believe in samr-sex sex. Goverment
cannot bestow rights. THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT legislate, unless it breaks the
Supreme Law of the land.The Americas have seen the destruction fof
at least two major cilivizations who were "swept off the land" because
they made laws that contridicted eternal laws.Those who mock our
Creator and claim that they are "superior" to Him will see their folly
whrn they stand before Him.We have been warned of false and foolish
teachings that will destroy us, if followed. Same-sex sex is ampoung those
warnings. God instituted marriage for a specific purpose. Those foolish enough
to argue against Deity will answer to Deity.We have just been
instructed by a prophet of God to stand for marriage, as instituted by our
Creator. Those who are faithful to Deity will stand for that instruction.
Those who mock Deity will stand against it. Life is binary. Each choice has
two possible choices. What we choose shows our character. We cannot avoid the
consequences of our choices.Take a stand and accept the
J Thompson1. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness - not agency to
choose. Some people find happiness in a ss marriage. 2. Governments
enforce rights and protect them.3. Judges are to evaluate written laws to
see if they are constitutional or not. 4. Any right that the
constitution does not give the congress is either the state's or the people
as far as the follow the constitution - read amendment #10.5. Rules of
marriage are left to the state if those rules follow the constitution - see
Loving v. Virginia.6. Read Article III - the Judiciary: "In all the
other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate
jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,"7. Yep8. Not yet.9. Baloney! That is their job to see if laws that have been enacted pass the
constitutional muster, right? Can you explain Loving v. Virginia? That is not
legislating, but striking down an unconstitutional law that allows people to
act differently than before. Are you telling me that a citizen of a state
cannot have a law that impacts them, looked over by the courts to see if it
denies them of a right?
@J Thompson"The Supreme Court cannot strike down Utah's
law"They can, and likely will. What will you do then?
Mike,First, we live in a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution
is the Supreme law of the land. Only by an amendment can the people change the
constitution.Second,"On the other hand, the 14th Amendment
specifically addresses a person's right to be free from slavery" - is
incorrect. The 14th amendment says absolutely nothing about slavery and has
been used for many decisions that have nothing to do with slavery. Your reading
into it that it only dealt with slaves is incorrect per our judicial history.
@Mike Richards"It is not often that the majority of people will
ever choose to do anything that is harmful to society."You mean
like running the indigenous peoples off the lands they have occupied for eons?
Or trading in humans brought forcibly from their own home lands? How about
treating women as chattel? Or purposely imposing voting laws to keep
"undesirables" from the polling place?"yet slavery was
allowed because of 1.4% of the people."This is deliberate
dishonesty on your part, and I suspect you know it. Slavery was allowed because
the majority allowed it. "We learned once that when 1.4% of the
people choose the wrong thing, "Be careful throwing your numbers
out--they could bite you. 1.7% of US Christians are LDS. My money says 98.3% of
American Christians think that 1.7% have it wrong."A
Constitutional form of government allows the majority to set the rules. "And the Bill of Rights protects the rest of us from that majority when
they get it wrong. Deal with it.
@Mike RichardsSomething like 90% of Americans are not in an interracial
marriage, does that mean society rejects interracial marriage? 98.3% of
Americans are not LDS, should their rights be restricted because society rejects
that faith as being true? Society's generally always right, right? Or
perhaps we live in a nation where we're supposed to have a strong
constitutional foundation to protect the rights of people including minority
groups. Oh, and stop trying to put people like me in with your ilk.
I support same-sex marriage even if I don't want one for myself.
@TwinLights"Second, elected leaders with the backbone to tell their
constituents no when their demands interfere with the long-term welfare of their
state and nation.”George Bush and congressional Democrats when
they passed the bailout bill is perhaps the most recent big example I can think
@j J thomas So then your answer is at least one more time then.It is one thing to read the constitution and another to not willfully
misrepresent it. 1 the rights are protected by the state both for
your right to believe in a creator and my right to live without your beliefs
infringing upon my choices. 2. your right but I really do not understand
your point since government is merely protecting gays rights in this situation.
3 and 9 Judges are not writing laws in these cases they are determining
if the laws written square with the federal constitution which is their role as
the third branch of government. 4. The courts have ruled that the denial
of gay marriage is a violation of the constitution and therefore is a matter for
the courts. 5. The rules of marriage are left to the state provided they
do not run foul of the federal constitution. does anyone else see a pattern
here? 6. federal judges have not only the right but the duty to
"interfere" when states pass laws violating the federal constitution.
7. and 8. ultimately the supreme court has final judiciary say over such
matter but only if a case is appealed to that level.
Those who will not read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
will claim that those insist that marriage be only between a man and a woman are
in error.Let me write plainly so that no one can twist my words.1. God, our Creator, gave us our rights, among which are life, liberty
and agency to choose. 2. Governments have no rights to bestow on
us. Government is instituted to protect our rights.3. Only
Congress can write law. Judges cannot write law.4. Any issue not
specifically addressed by the Constitution is left to the States or the
people.5. Marriage is licensed by the State. Rules of marriage are
left to the State.6. No Federal Judge has authority to interfere in
a matter of the State.7. The Supreme Court decides Constitutional
matters.8. The Supreme Court has not ruled on Utah's right to
define marriage.9. The Supreme Court cannot strike down Utah's
law without legislating. The Court is prohibited from legislating.
had not ad, sorry
@mike richards So how many times have we all ad this exact same
conversation mike? how many more times do we need to have it before you realize
that your selective reading of the constitution does not match up with the
reality of the repeated court rulings, including the supreme court? It does not
matter if its 1 person or the 5 million people the constitution guarantees
protection of the individual from the tyranny of the majority. You have the
right to practice your religious beliefs and I for one will always fight to
ensure that happens but your rights do not extend to stripping others of their
@Mike RichardsEveryone is entitled to marry someone...of their own
race.Everyone is entitled to drink from a drinking fountain...as
long as it is designated for their raceAn African American can sit
anywhere on the back of the bus that he wishes.You are free to
worship...in any Catholic church you like.You can vote for whomever
you think the best candidate is...Any democrat on the ballot that you like.Or we can flip this around entirely...You can marry anyone
of the same gender you please. My 5 year old thinks boys and girls kissing and
holding hands is icky.See how easily this can get out of hand?
@Mike Richards And once again you are ignoring the other federal
amendments including the 9th and 14 th that more then 20 different judges and
the subprime court have ruled do apply to gay marriage. You also seem to have
this idea that religous freedom some how extends to dictating how others live
and trumps all other rights which frany makes no sense to me.
The Founding Fathers valued religion so much that the FIRST part of the FIRST
Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" On the
other hand, the 14th Amendment specifically addresses a person's right to
be free from slavery and to enjoy the same rights of freedom as any other
citizen of the United States.EVERY person in the United States has
the "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex. There are no laws
that restrict that except in cases of close family members marrying. There is
no "same-sex" clause in the 14th Amendment. ALL PEOPLE are allowed to
marry, but marriage is not defined by the U.S. Constitution. That definition is
left to the State. Some people don't get that concept. Some
people think that rights come from government. They are in error. The
Declaration of Independence declares that rights come from our Creator. He has
specifically stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is an
eternal truth that cannot be changed just because 1.6% of the population
disagrees with Deity.
@Mike RichardsRoughly 2% of the US is LDS...so by your logic, if
Missouri passed an amendment to their Constitution outlawing the practice of
Temple Marriages, that would be fine.As you like to articulate, the
First Amendment only prohibits Congress from acting in the Religious Square.
We live in a Democratic Republic where we elect Representatives to represent the
will of the People and Senators to represent the States. The President is
elected by the States (electoral college). When our Representatives will not
represent us, we have the right to change our Constitution. We did that in
Utah. Marriage between a man and a woman ONLY was ratified and is part of our
State Constitution. Amendment 10 states that everything not enumerated in the
U.S. Constitution is left to the States or to the people. There is no marriage
definition in the U.S. Constitution; therefore, it is a matter left to the
States or to the people. There is no RIGHT to married someone of the same-sex
in the U.S. Constitution; therefore, it is a matter left to the States. No one
is being denied the right to marry. People can marry anyone of any race. When 1.6% of the people try to undermine marriage to suit their sexual
preferences, the people have the right to step in and define marriage.
@Mike RichardsSo do you understand why we have a consitutional form of
government with a bill of rights instead of a simple democracy? It sounds like
you would prefer a simple democracy. Even if the number of people that identify
as LGBT was 2 people those people still have rights under our form of
The Constitution is the voice of the People that limits the authority of
government. It is not often that the majority of people will ever choose to do
anything that is harmful to society. The minority, on the other hand, often
want to change things so that they can do whatever they want without
recrimination.Only 1.4% of the people in the United States owned
slaves. 98.6% of the people DID NOT own slaves, yet slavery was allowed because
of 1.4% of the people. It took the death of 618,222 Americans before slavery
was abolished.Today 1.6% of Americans practice same-sex sex. 98.4%
do not practice same-sex sex, yet from the rhetoric of that 1.6%, you would
think that we need to change the definition of marriage to accommodate them.
We learned once that when 1.4% of the people choose the wrong thing,
that lives are ruined and society suffers. A Constitutional form of government
allows the majority to set the rules. The majority seldom makes the wrong
choice. Marriage is not a right defined in the Constitution.
It is precisely this kind of airy exercise in ideological essentialism that Mary
Barker tore apart so artfully in her piece today. Meanwhile, back in the real
world, parties exist, and need to be worked with.
@Twin LightsAfter George Washington, when has this actually been the
case?----------------------George Washington was an
excellent example of a Paragon American. The man who could have been King. The
man who told us to avoid political parties. The man who told us to refrain from
entanglements with Europe. The man who set the two term precedent of President,
for fear that if were to die in office a precedent would be set that a President
be elected for life. A man who almost single handedley funded the Revolution.
A man's whose mere presence at the Convention allowed the Constitution to
come forth.I wish we could have one today.By
today's standards he had character flaws (owning slaves) but it is
important to not judge the morality of previous generations with ours of today.
I would certainly hope that we continue to progress in this area, and I know I
would not want my grandkids judging me by their morality in the decades to come.
“constitutional law, if followed, yields the following: First, elected
leaders, free from partisan politics. Second, elected leaders with the backbone
to tell their constituents no when their demands interfere with the long-term
welfare of their state and nation.”After George Washington,
when has this actually been the case?
Chaos; to control the people and punish the unruly.Liberty; is to choose
what you want and freedom from bondage. I understand Nathan Hail.