20 straight legal wins for Right to Marry Same Sex advocates and 6 states refuse
to defend their same sex marriage bans sure makes same sex marriage look
inevitable. So why waste tax payers money in a losing fight?Outside
of knee jerk fear based in bigotry and unsupported myths how does same sex
marriage pose a threat to "traditional" marriage?
Fighting things that are wrong is the right thing to do!!
Just get government out of marriage and make it a private, legal practice. Get
married in your own church/religion/belief/etc. and draw up a legal agreement
granting your spouse equal legal rights with regards to healthcare, finances,
Dddd,Getting divorced is wrong too......do you believe we should fight
that too? Live and let live!
Dddd,What exactly do you think you are fighting that is
"wrong", and what makes it "wrong"?
Well thanks to Louisiana today we can't do any more 20 wins in a row since
Windsor type comments. Now it's something like 20-1 since Windsor. But
yeah, it's inevitable one way or another (though I'd be very surprised
if Kennedy didn't join the 4 liberals in siding with same-sex marriage).
Death is "inevitable". Shall we all rush into it?
"What exactly do you think you are fighting that is "wrong", and
what makes it "wrong"?"It's wrong scientifically
and it's wrong morally.Established science shows heterosexual
reproduction is how all sexual organisms on earth have consistently propagated.
Going against several billion years of mother nature and natural selection makes
homosexuality wrong. Or are you anti-science?
Well if a billionaire says so....who cares what huntsman thinks. he
also thought he would be the next president.Things are easier when
you have daddy warbucks to fund your life. If only all of us were given the same
advantages that he has.
To dddd: Good for you for being brave enough to stand up for your beliefs!
I'm on your side, although I do believe people have a right to their own
opinion. This world is getting scarier and scarier. Wars, famine, diseases, and
immorality. We are going down hill fast. Sad for our country and the world.
@illuminatedBanning same-sex marriage doesn't make gay people
straight and marriage has no child requirement to it, likewise one can have
children without marriage. Your science argument is thus non-applicable to
marriage and claiming that people who support same-sex marriage are anti-science
doesn't make any sense.
I was not a fan of Huntsman when he was governor but I agree that gay marriage
@dddd - Restricting the rights of citizens in the name of "doing what is
right" is not only wrong but offensive.
@Schnee"Your science argument is thus non-applicable to marriage
and claiming that people who support same-sex marriage are anti-science
doesn't make any sense."Any practice that promotes or
glorifies the destruction of life on earth is wrong. I would be against anyone
pushing humans to drink gasoline, or pushing humans to kill their own young. I
would be against these things because they hurt human life and our future as a
species. Homosexuality does the exact same thing by stopping human
reproduction. Supporting homosexual marriage is supporting a
practice which intentionally hurts human beings. Doesn't matter if
it's on a small or large scale. Anyone supporting homosexuality in any
institution is against the very process which brought and sustained life on our
planet.That's what makes it wrong. It's wrong to support
or promote human extinction. Why would we support something that supports that
very thing in homosexuality? I don't get it. It's absolutely
ludicrous for a species to desire to destroy itself. If extraterrestrials are
watching us from afar, they must think we're morons.
illuminated,Just more proof that reason is completely foreign to
Nothing in politics or with the Supreme Court is inevitable . . . nothing.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter how big of a majority
decides that wrong is actually right. And the argument can go both ways and
apply in various instances. Nevertheless, as long as I have a moral breath left
in my body I will fight against evil regardless of the cost, regardless of the
outcome. I do believe that the nation will eventually recognize
same-sex marriage as legal but it would be more idiotic to just throw my hands
up, give up and embrace just because some others see the truth as untenable. While this battle may be lost in the future, the God of all will win the
war much to the dismay of all nay-sayers.
The United Church of Christ is suing the state of North Carolina, because they
say that NOT being allowed to perform same sex marriages is a violation of their
freedom of religion. They, and 21 other Christian denominations are fine with
it. Murder, armed robbery, adultery, and rape are all considered
sins. Yet you can get married from prison or even while sitting on death row. We
even allow convicted child molesters to get married. But not gays, purely out of
animus.As for Gov. Huntsman, please run for senate here or
president. I will not only vote for you, I will knock doors, help with signs,
and phone bank.
You can produce offspring and more humans without doing it, these days. That is
gay couples can have children and can contribute to the sustaining of human life
on our planet. Your argument fails miserably on those grounds,
Elder Oak's talk on the tolerance trap is coming to my mind.
"You can produce offspring and more humans without doing it, these days.
That is gay couples can have children and can contribute to the sustaining of
human life on our planet."Doesn't matter. I can also
choose to adopt children of parents who died of drug overdose. That's not
a recipe that helps our species survive long-term though. Just because someone
else is actively creating human life doesn't mean that the person who
isn't doing it is in the right. More people giving birth on
the planet than the number of people getting beheaded in the Middle East
doesn't justify the things ISIS is doing to the human race. You justify a
couple going against billions of years of nature by saying that someone else
will pick-up the slack. Wrong is wrong.In the animal kingdom, when
a wolf in the pack isn't putting in his fair share of the work, he's
left behind or eaten. You want to go against nature by excusing the negative
impact of homosexuals to our species by telling someone else to do their job of
bearing children.This is both anti-science and anti-human.
FatherOfFour, "we allow" all sorts of things that are morally bankrupt.
That doesn't make them right. It only makes them "allowed." Not
anything close to the same thing.
Standing for what is right and bigotry are two completely different things.
@illuminatedAny practice that promotes or glorifies the destruction
of life on earth is wrong. I would be against anyone pushing humans to drink
gasoline, or pushing humans to kill their own young. ==================So...please identify whom exactly it is that is
forcing you into a same-sex marriage? Do that, and I will fight the system with
@Johnny TriumphStanding for what is right and bigotry are two
completely different things.-------------------Problem
is...who defines right and wrong? Whose God?Going on a limb and
guessing you and I are of the same faith (LDS), we probably agree on 99/100 (if
not more) times on what is right and wrong.But---- someone else may
differ; using their religion.We can have freedom of religion only in
a secular society. If it isn't secular, it means we have a State Religion.
It is binary, no in between.I want to be free to practice my
religion according to the dictates of my own conscience, not the conscience of
someone else; therefore, I must allow others that same freedom.
@ FatherOfFourMarriage is defined as a bond between a Man and a
Woman not anything else. Yes, there are some questionable circumstances
that you defined and you can make whatever assumptions up that you like for the
reason why people are against it all you want.To me the reason why I
am against Gay marriage because for thousands of years marriage has meant for
most people a union between a 1 man and 1 woman.I don't have a
problem with Same-Sex people having rights, living together, etc. just stop
trying to redefine marriage.
@Johnny Triumph, "Standing for what is right and bigotry are two completely
different things."I heard that same argument at a
Walgreen's lunch counter in Tennessee. They were wrong then too.
Interesting that so many are commenting on what is "right." This is not
an issue to determine what is "right." It is about what is
"legal." They are not always the same.
No, I am not gay, nor do I have any gay friends. But "illuminated" has
failed to show what is wrong with same sex marriage. There is NO scientific
organization that says same sex marriage is scientifically "wrong". What
would that even mean, anyway? That SSM violates the scientific method? That it
is not empirically demonstrable? That it is not "natural"? None of these
are true. Science has absolutely nothing to say about same sex marriage being
right or wrong.Morally "wrong"? How so? Legalizing SSM does
not force all marriages to be SSMs, and with less than 1% of the population
entering into SSM, it cannot possibly stop or even register a blip on the
fertility rates of the human race. Besides, reproduction has never been required
to make "traditional marriage" legally justified, so why would it be a
requirement for SSM?Families are comprised of a variety of
configurations and relationships, and for a variety of reasons. That SS couples
desire legal standing for their relationships can only benefit them and their
families.So I ask again, what is "wrong" with SSM?
@greatbam22To me the reason why I am against Gay marriage because
for thousands of years marriage has meant for most people a union between a 1
man and 1 woman----------------------Except when we
Mormons did polygamy back from 1842-1891...then it was 1 man, many wives.
Several Presidents of the Church had more than one wife...at a time.The time of Christ, the Church probably practiced polygamy then too (Why else
would Paul make a qualification of a Bishop as someone who had one wife)Solomon, David, Moses, Abraham, Jacob are documented to have several
wivesRome and Greece are known to have practiced same sex marriages;
so have Sodom and Gomorrah. Marriages have been used to unite countries, and to
only produce offspring, while the King had his "mistresses".
@dirt, et.al.Can you please explain how homosexuals have children? Sperm
donors? Surrogates mothers?Well, I guess there has to be some opposite sex
interaction somewhere, doesn't there.Maybe we are not considering
what is happening to our society with all this. While you all celebrate these
non-productive alliances, certain societies who hold animus particularly toward
these unions are reproducing like crazy and are overwhelming whatever country
permitting their entry. Just look at France and England. Any society that
discourages reproduction will eventually be crowded out by those who don't
hold to that belief.
@ Johnny TriumphAn Apple and an Orange are both fruits but they are
two completely different things.Red and Blue are both colors but
they are two completely different things.Right and Left are both
forms of direction but they are two completely different things.I
wonder if you actually know what a bigot is? Is it someone that doesn't
agree with your point of view on this particular subject?I have read
that this is typically the reason people have used this word particularly these
days.I think it is interesting label people like to throw around
Huntsman gets it. I wish Gov. Herbert would quit wasting our money on a losing
battle. Let him pay for that out of his own pocket.
I have said this a number of times. Get the Gov't out of the marriage
business. Give ALL couples a "Certificat of Civil Union" that conveys
the legal rights of what is now called "marriage". Let the various
Religions practice the institution of marriage according to the dictates of
their beliefs. Of course the far religious right will still cry about it but it
is the only way that I can see to make most everyone equal in terms of
@superovaYour idea that we live in a secular society reveals your
misunderstanding of the founding of this country; it had religious freedom as a
foundation but the founders did have a belief in a Supreme Being, whose order of
mankind was that of man and woman being the nucleus, upon which our laws were
based.Underneath all this is the concern many states have over States
Rights, which the Constitution says citizens of a particular state have the
right to define the parameters of marriage, as in those states where 1st cousins
or parent and child are allowed to marry or whether polygamy is allowed.
I Respect Huntsman and his views. I believe he's a realist and pragmatic
politician. Left wingers dislike him for his pragmatic conservative ideas,
while right wingers dislike him for his pragmatic liberal views.Sadly, he won't get the chance to lead. He would be good for the country
because he's interested in doing what's 'best' verses what
his party wants him to do.He would have my vote, if he's ever
given the chance. AND I disagree with him on this!
Thank you, Jon Huntsman. It absolutely is the right thing to do.
Do I have the right to oppose gay marriage?
@kiddsportThey believed in a Supreme Being? Are you sure it was the
same One? Or even the same One you and I believe in? Should we use
the United Church of Christs definition that allows Gay Marriage? Or the LDS
one that disallows it? Which side wins in a religious contest? Why should it
be yours? This is why our laws must be secular. How can they be anything else?
Our Founding Fathers went as far as eliminating any kind of
religious test for office, they wanted it that secular.Even if I
concede that the State has unlimited authority to define marriage as they
want...Rectify that with Article IV...even if Utah is allowed to not perform
these marriages, it MUST recognize the marriages from States that perform
them.And if the State has unlimited power to define marriage...can
Missouri use that power to prevent Temple Marriages? What if they said
"Marriage is a contract that ends at death, any marriage claiming power
beyond that is not recognized by this State"? Every other church marries
"until death do you part" what about their freedom?Just
pray the ballot box is not used against you someday.
@Say no to BODo I have the right to oppose gay marriage?-------------------Absolutely you do. You are no more or less
free than I am to support it.America is great!
Hunstman Jr. (emphasize the "junior" because his dad is a giant of a
man): "Homosexual 'marriage' is inevitable".Once
again this guy shows why he is not qualified to lead America....
I'm not so much opposed to legalizing gay marriage as I am about advancing
gay rights. Gay marriage is simply a legal arrangement. The government
shouldn't impede a legal arrangement unless it hurts a party outside that
contract.However, the gay rights agenda is devoted to promoting the
homosexual lifestyle, and that hurts impressionable children. Schools and media
have picked up the gay cause, and actively promote being gay as equivalent or
superior to being straight. Youth are at an age where they are
trying to find themselves, and it is natural that they will experiment with
various identities. It is now fashionable to be gay, and is an acceptable way
to rebel. Humans are versatile and malleable. The biggest lie of our time is
that we are "born that way."Gays shouldn't be
discriminated against, but adults should actively promote the path of happiness
for their children. Gay relationships are not the path of happiness.
It is only inevitable if the government keeps ignoring the voice of the people.
The good people of Utah and many other states voted against same sex marriage. I
think The government should recognize the voice of the people in this matter.
@ dirt - Sandy, UT "You can produce offspring and more humans without doing
it, these days. That is gay couples can have children and can contribute to the
sustaining of human life on our planet. Your argument fails miserably on those
grounds, illuminated."dirt, what 'illuminated' is
saying is that homosexuals cannot reproduce by themselves.Do you
really want to try and argue against that?Really?....Homosexual activity in any and all forms is sinful, it is immoral, it is
wrong.Why? Because when you add up all its consequences it causes
more harm than good.Period.The fact that same sex
individuals can NOT reproduce on their own is a part of that calculation. Will
non-religious/non-Christians believe that? Most likely not. But that
doesn't mean it is not true.
I truly don't understand the concept of using faith-based arguments
("right" and "wrong") to rationalize your disdain for marriage
equality or homosexuality in general. Your faith-based arguments exist only
within your "faith". People outside that faith do not necessarily share
your religious ideals. They are not universal. Thus, if a practice like gay
marriage doesn't affect you, which it does not (one whit), why are you so
afraid of it? Your position is completely irrational to reasonable people.
He's right. And I'm not stopping short of criticising the state for
continuing to waste money on it.
And we should care what Jon Huntsman Jr has to say what, where and when? Not at
RE: Illuminated.Your argument is weak at best. Lets get
the world population down to a sustainable 500,000,000 and then we will worry
about the homosexuals.
This is similar (not totally the same) as the days when people didn't
accept interracial marriage. It took time for people to accept that the
constitution is there for all law abiding citizens and not just those that they
may accept. That's not to say that people can't have an opinion on it
and that religion has to accept it, but it does mean that Democracy will prevail
for two people (plural marriage is another issue because of the number of women
and children involved and the inherent problems that come with it.) I say this
because many people compare it to gay marriage, but it doesn't compare
Don't care much for Huntsman, but do agree with him on this.Say
No to BO: sure you have the right to oppose. However, be aware that you risk
losing certain freedoms if you do so publicly.
We are all just frogs in the forever warming and eventually boiling pot of
water.Just because you have become accustomed and accepting to that
which is around you doesn't change the nature of what is around you.In the end incorrect choices will ultimately destroy those who accept
"Same-sex marriage is 'inevitable'"Well, John, you
need to describe what criteria you use to come up with that conclusion.The US Constitution's 10 Amendment reserves powers to states and the
people that are not specifically delegated to the United States by the
Constitution. And the power to define marriage is not delegated by the
Constitution to the United States. Thus, it must be reserved to States only.
Not to the Federal government nor to Appellate judges/courts, circuit
judges/courts or to the US Supreme Court.Oh, wait... Perhaps your
reference would be the 14 Amendment were it states that States... shall not deny
to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Well, Utah
marriage laws state that anyone can marry provided they choose someone who is
not married, of legal age, not closely related, and of the opposite sex. These
laws apply to everyone. If these laws discriminate against SS folks, it also
discriminates against many other folks such as polygamists, those who have not
yet reached legal age, close relatives, and a host of other marriage
combinations.John, you may wanna reconsider.
@illuminated 1:48 pmYou believe gay couples should not be allowed to
get married because they can not procreate. And "In the animal kingdom, when
a wolf in the pack isn't putting in his fair share of the work, he's
left behind or eaten."I wonder how would you treat a human being
if his lost his working ability and "isn't putting in his fair share of
the work"? And if a straight couple can not have children or do
not even want to have children, would you forbid them from getting married too?
I like Jon Huntsman and I think he was more correct when he supported
"same-sex unions". I think he is plain wrong in supporting so-called
same-sex marriage. I also think it is totally right to use as many millions of
tax payer dollars as needed to properly defend and support traditional marriage
in the courts and else where. The majority of tax paying Utahns support
traditional marriage between a man and a woman and we want our elected
officials to represent us in this. There is nothing more important for the
stability of America that stable families where children have a mom and a dad
and the balance the comes from those two complimentary influences. I cannot
think of a better way to spend our tax dollars.
@ greatbam22For thousands of years, the women in a marriage was
considered property and had no rights. Just because something has been done a
certain way for thousands of years doesn't make it right.
The former U.S. ambassador to China under President Barack Obama also said
another run for the White House in 2016 is a "strong no" and declined to
endorse a Republican in the race.====== I'm voting
for him again anyway...No one better in america to do the job, IMHO.
@ The Caravan Moves OnThe fact that homosexuals can't reproduce
is completely irrelevant. Infertile couples and elderly couples get married all
the time, and it's not an issue. Being married isn't required to have
kids either. 40% of childbirths happen outside of wedlock.If you
believe that homosexuality is immoral, then don't partake in that
lifestyle. It's that simple. Somebody else's sexual orientation has
nothing to do with you and has no effect on your life.
ddddLogan, UTFighting things that are wrong is the right thing to
do!!12:24 p.m. Sept. 3, 2014[Divorce is "wrong"
- If you want to make the World a better place, fight that.]========== @Say no to BODo I have the right to oppose
gay marriage?[Just like being a Gay Mormon is not a sin -- You have
the right to hate anyone you want, just so long as you don't act on it.]
@JoCo Ute:"... how does same sex marriage pose a threat to
'traditional' marriage?"It will eventually mean the
total demise of all marriages including the need to marry.@Schnee:"Banning same-sex marriage doesn't make gay people
straight..."By the same token, banning pedophilia doesn't
make pedophiles non-pedophiliacs. It's the workings of the law and
personal effort."...likewise one can have children without
marriage."I'd like to see two ladies or two gents produce a
child.@SuperNova:"Rome and Greece are known to have
practiced same sex marriages; so have Sodom and Gomorrah."True,
and that's likely why they declined into something like the Dark Ages.@kiddsport:"Any society that discourages reproduction will
eventually be crowded out by those who don't hold to that belief."You got that right. Any society that lags in child production will
eventually disappear. The US is almost there.@RDJntx:"Give ALL couples a "Certificat of Civil Union" that conveys the
legal rights of what is now called 'marriage.'"And why
are you limiting it to just couples? Shouldn't groups of, say, sextets
have 'marriage' rights as well as couples?
The Caravan Moves On wrote:"The fact that same sex individuals
can NOT reproduce on their own is a part of that calculation."Question: What do famine, disease, drought, urban deprivation, pollution, and
global warming all have in common? They're all causes of untold misery
exacerbated by overpopulation! The fact that gay couples don't breed as
efficiently as straight couples is a GOOD thing. There are too many people in
the world! U.N. estimates suggest that global population will top ten billion
within forty years. We don't even have enough food to feed the people we
have now! We're on the verge of breeding ourselves into a global
catastrophe. Don't believe me? Go to Liberia, or walk around a slum or
two in Mumbai where kids as young as five root around in trash heaps searching
for enough salvageable plastic to trade for a day's food. They're
already there. Overpopulation is tearing these places apart, causing
incalculable suffering in the process. It's not gay people doing that.
It's straight people.
@SuperNova:"Rome and Greece are known to have practiced same sex
marriages; so have Sodom and Gomorrah."True, and that's
likely why they declined into something like the Dark Ages.===============Actually, the dark ages started when Rome fell, and
the Catholic Church came in a filled the power vaccuum. Any time there was a
threat of progress, they were quick to squash it. No progress, hence the dark
@LDS Liberal 5:08 p.m. Sept. 3, 2014The former U.S. ambassador to
China under President Barack Obama also said another run for the White House in
2016 is a "strong no" and declined to endorse a Republican in the
race.====== I'm voting for him again anyway...No one better in america to do the job, IMHO.---------------------------------You're absolutely correct.
My husband and I will be writing him again too. He is head and shoulders above
everyone who is being considered, suggested (or being talked about being
drafted) for the office. He's really what the country needs. too bad
he's to rational and truly conservative to make it through the Republican
I find the claims that there's no animus against gay people in these laws
difficult to believe. Why? Well...@The Caravan Moves On"Homosexual activity in any and all forms is sinful, it is immoral, it is
wrong.Why? Because when you add up all its consequences it causes more
harm than good."@illuminated"It's wrong
scientifically and it's wrong morally.""Any practice that
promotes or glorifies the destruction of life on earth""Supporting
homosexual marriage is supporting a practice which intentionally hurts human
beings."@Cleetorn"as long as I have a moral breath
left in my body I will fight against evil"@gmlewis"Gays shouldn't be discriminated against, but adults should actively
promote the path of happiness for their children" (your version of the
latter includes the former)@Meckofahess"There is nothing
more important for the stability of America that stable families where children
have a mom and a dad"I'm still waiting for your rallies to
ban single-parent adoption (legal in this state) the way you oppose kids adopted
by gay people gaining a second parent of the same gender.
Perhaps gay marriage will be 'inevitable' as he states, however, my
hope is that churches which believe in traditional marriage are not forced into
performing those same sex marriages.
The farmer who plants rocks in his garden is not made equal to the farmer who
sows seeds in his garden just because a few seeds do not germinate. Government
(society) is interested in promoting responsible procreation and since SSM
cannot procreation within its union it is not being discriminated against;
whether SSM hurts other unions or not is irrelevant.
Thank you, Deseret News readers, to remind me how you truly feel about me and
others like me. You may smile at me and be polite to me in public, but your
somewhat-anonymous words on this forum speak volumes about what you say about me
in the privacy of your own homes. Do you realize that your attitudes make us
feel unsafe in our neighborhoods and even more vulnerable whenever we go out in
public? Sure, we have developed thick skins, but that's out of necessity
for survival. Nobody should have to live this way.Imagine how lonely
life can be for us because people who are unwilling to take a chance and truly
understand us instead insist on reminding us that we are sinful and responsible
for the moral decline of America. I long for the day when Utah finally bursts
from the bubble and starts accepting others in spite of their differences.
@ wrz"It will eventually mean the total demise of all marriages
including the need to marry."There is no "need" to
marry. It's a conscious choice made by two adults. Also, nobody
else's marriage can effect yours. Only you can influence your own
@Hmmm... wrote: "Government (society) is interested in promoting responsible
procreation and since SSM cannot procreation within its union it is not being
discriminated against; whether SSM hurts other unions or not is
irrelevant."Nonsense.The state of Utah specifically
allows one class of marriage (first cousin marriage) on the condition that they
do *not* procreate.There is obviously no requirement for a married
couple to procreate or be able to procreate, and it is risible that this
argument keeps coming up.
I seriously doubt that gay marriage will lead to the extinction of the species.
That is really a bit of a silly argument. When the vast majority of the
population are straight, there will be plenty of babies to sustain the species.
Jon Huntsman is honest. That is why he will never be president.
@Really???:"Thank you, Deseret News readers, to remind me how you
truly feel about me and others like me."Almost all mankind has
some sort of peccadillo to overcome. Same-sex attraction seems to be just one
of many. This life is the place and time for correction. And it can be done,
or a least put in the background of ones life... Consider a person with a
penchant to steal. They have to overcome somehow. Or how about pedophilia?
Same response.""You may smile at me and be polite in public,
but your somewhat-anonymous words on this forum speak volumes about what you say
about me in the privacy of your own homes."You need to
understand that the very act of homosexuality is repugnant to many. Of course
there should be forgiveness and acceptance. But many can't do that.
Perhaps it's a personal peccadillo that needs work to overcome.@Two For Flinching:"There is no 'need' to marry."True, for the animal kingdom. But human kids need a stable environment
to grow and develop in... called family. Marriage helps hold families together.
Marriage isn't needed for adult companionship.
I wouldn't be so sure it is inevitable, when all that needs to change is
one man's mind - Justice Kennedy. There will be four justices that support
marriage as defined as one man and one woman and four against. Even though
Justice Kennedy wrote Windsor he still is a libertarian. He might hesitate to
write an opinion that forces people in society through compulsion of a judicial
decree to have to recognize as legitimate a relationship that is against their
will and contrary to his church's teachings (Catholic). Also don't
forget he sided with the conservatives in Hobby Lobby and he might listen to
well thought out arguments concerning religious freedom on this issue.
dddd: but it's not right, it's clearly wrong.I wish other
republicans had Huntmans' foresight. Until then I'll keep voting for
Children need a good father and a mother. We as a nation need to do more to help
this happen. Allowing same sex marriage is not a step in the right direction.
“I don’t want to have to teach my kids about homosexuality or gay
marriage” – Then don’t. Do you bother to teach them about
drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, sexual promiscuity….? Last I checked those
were all bad too but I don’t see the fervor or outrage about those
issues.“Being gay is a choice, they can control their actions”
- Just like choosing to be heterosexual and control those actions? Double
standard here. Why is heterosexuality so different? (Its really not) “I don’t want the gays morals being forced down my throat”
– So who’s morals win? If gay marriage is outlawed, people are
DENIED the ability to legally marry. If gay marriage is allowed, who is DENIED
the ability to_________?“Gays have the same rights as everyone; to
marry someone of the opposite sex” – I’m fairly confident that
you as someone of legal age and ability were able to marry the partner of your
choice, without legal reprocussions. The same is not true of gays. Flip the
scenario, would you like to marry someone of the same sex even though you have
no desire to do so?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Absolutely. Unequivocally. Where it
gets messy is when laws are enacted that adversely affect a segment of the
population, and not another. Yes this is new and we are in somewhat uncharted
waters – but truly, where is the harm by allowing same sex marriage to an
individual, personally? Yes, you will have to explain to your children about
how you don’t believe that gay marriage is right (just like adultery,
fornication, drug or alcohol abuse). Yes there will be conflict with people
that don’t want to provide services to gays (just like some don’t
want to cater to other races, religions, etc). Marriage is important to you,
we get that. But please think and understand that maybe its important to us
too. Why are you allowed to show your love, commitment and dedication and we
are not? It seems a bit selfish and elitist to participate in marriage but not
be willing to share that with others whom you disagree with
@PJB Newsgram:"Even though Justice Kennedy wrote Windsor he still is a
libertarian."So, it's come to that, has it? Liberal vs
conservative. I thought the US Supreme Court was to rule on constitutionality
and nothing more.
Really getting tired of the idea that “gay tendencies can and should be
controlled.” Or “homosexuality is unnatural.” These
statements are being made as though they are fact. I wished people would
understand that it is an OPINION, and one they are most certainly entitled to.
Clearly there is no understanding that you can make the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT for
heterosexuality. Why is it that heterosexuals can have children out of wedlock,
commit adultery, have copious amounts of sexual partners, but because they are
heterosexual, its natural and isn’t of grave importance to be controlled?
Where is the outrage that any two irresponsible humans can create a new life and
abuse it, neglect and or abandon it? Where is the outrage that heterosexuals
marry for TV ratings instead of love and commitment? Its sad to me that so many
people say that marriage has nothing to do with love….. maybe that’s
the problem with your marriage. It’s the main reason I want to be
@wrzI am just stating reality, since constitutional decisions are
often based on a matter of interpretation. The constitution is rather short and
somewhat vague. Have you read many constitutional decisions over the last 20
years? Liberal ideology dominated in the 60s and 70s, but things went too far
for many people. Republican presidents began to appoint justices with
conservative interpretations of the constitution. The influence of ideology is
undeniable. Most cases are not divided on the liberal versus conservative line,
but almost all hot button cases are decided on the liberal versus conservative
line. Personally I would like for there to be an actual check on the supreme
court by the people in addition to the indirect way of electing a president and
senate (who appoint and confirm justices), since constitutional authority was
originally supposed to be derived from the people.
It's pretty simple. Gay activists have long made it plain that they intend
to destroy the family. Once SSM is legal, then the next step is criminalizing
"bigotry." and teaching homosexuality as normal, healthy, and a
preferred form of human relationships. California and Massachusetts already do,
and they have arrested parents who object. People are being fired
and businesses extinguished based on whether they kowtow to gays who are looking
for anyone who dares stand up for morality. Huntsman is right: SSM
is inevitable. And so is the coming tsunami of restrictions on speech,
religious conduct and belief, and whatever else the gay activists will try to
ram through. It still is wrong, and we should still stand up to the
gay activists who claim they are "First among equals" and that their
rights trump everyone else's rights.
@wrz 10:35 p.m. Sept. 3, 2014@PJB Newsgram:"Even though
Justice Kennedy wrote Windsor he still is a libertarian."So,
it's come to that, has it? Liberal vs conservative. I thought the US
Supreme Court was to rule on constitutionality and nothing more.----------------------------------True. And if he rules to
invalidate the bans against SSM he will be ruling in favor of he Constitution
(specifically the 9th and 14th Amendments).
@wrz,I understand that everyone has their own sins, but I want to
ask you something that I want you to think about honestly. Do you read comments
daily where people are condemning your sins? Are you compared to thieves and
pedophiles in newspapers and radio talk shows? Are you told that if you really
wanted to and prayed hard enough you could change the color of your eyes, skin
color, or other inherent trait?You see, what you need to understand
is that we, just like you, are children of God who need love and empathy. We
don't need you to call us to repentance; that's not your job. If you
really believe what you confess to believe, you should allow us to make our own
life choices--even if you disagree with them. Isn't that God's plan?
I believe that you think you truly love us, but how can you when you
really don't understand us? Perhaps we can all pray for more empathy so
that we can get along.
Society: Gays are abomination. Gays are just as bad as pedophiles. Gays want
to destroy the family, and will not stop until they do.Gays: Hey
guys, we are people to. We love, fear, cry, laugh, smile and feel just as you
do. We may be different, but we are people too.Society: Whoa,
where is your tolerance? Why are you calling my persecution of you bigotry?
2 generations from now all these arguments will be as old hat as past arguments
that women must dress modestly and stay home and raise families. The world
changes, but unfortunately some people just can not grow with the change.
If something is wrong it is wrong regardless of whether it's inevitable or
not. Of course politicians don't ever care if something is wrong, only how
it will make them look in the polls.
@Really??? Bravo for adding a voice to the people who are the subject of this
conversation. Your comments are more powerful than any of those trying to make
irrational, fear-based arguments. I wish your posts would have an effect on
those who believe your sexuality "choice" is "wrong" but
it's highly unlikely considering the belief system that informs those
opinions. Such opinions of what's right and what's wrong in the world
are not considered opinions by them. They are thought of as factual. It's
so unfortunate that there is such a massive disconnect between reality and
theology sometimes. It's like debating with a stick. Frustrating! Ironic
that most of the opponents to marriage equality and homosexuality in general are
exhibiting behavior contrary to teachings at the crux of their belief system.
Marriage is a civil right.
Wow, that was full of the same arguments once again.Let me add my
usual questions here to get some of you thinking. (The ultra liberals can just
chill and ignore what I write because you won't think about it anyway.)Why do we have to give equality to something that isn't equal? Two
people of the same gender that want to be united cannot ever be the same as two
people of opposite genders. This is more than just biological, but the
psychology of men is different from women. That is just how things are, and
because of those differences a heterosexual couple is distinct and different
from a same sex couple.The same sex couples should look for an
alternate term if they want their unions to be accepted by society.
@ Redshirt1701So you're saying things should be separate but
equal? Great idea, I'm not anyone has ever tried that before. Also,
Amendment 3 banned civil unions, along with marriage. The pro-SSM crowd tried
to compromise, but it fell of def ears. Now it's all or nothing, and the
Utah voters only have themselves to blame.What makes you say
same-sex relationships aren't equal to heterosexual relationships? Gender
isn't what determines a solid relationship. Love and commitment determine
that, and people in same-sex relationships have the same capacity to love as
anyone in a heterosexual relationship. You're whole point is extremely
vague and too general to be taken seriously. Everybody has different
"psychology". Trying to say "all men and like 'this' and
all women are like 'this'" is inherently false because we're
all very different. Which is why we have the free agency to chose who we
associate with and who we get married to. We should ALL get that choice.
Redshirt: "Why do we have to give equality to something that isn't
equal? Two people of the same gender that want to be united cannot ever be the
same as two people of opposite genders. This is more than just biological, but
the psychology of men is different from women. "-----------I'll answer you with another question and use your own phrases:
Why do we have to give wuqlaity to something that isn't equal? A man and a
woman cannot ever be the same! This is more than biological, but the psychology
of a man is different from a woman. Why do we need to treat them equally? Why
do we allow women to vote? Why do we allow men to choose to stay home and take
care of their children?Understand? Equal under the law
is not the same as totally equal in abilities, wealth or situations. Equal
under the law is the basis of our democracy. You get rid of that, you have
undermined the constitution.
To "Two For Flinching" I am not saying separate but equal. I am saying
you don't treat things that are not equal as equal. Just because you call
a Potato an Orange does not make it equal or the same as an orange.Plus, I never said that marriage is about love. Before the SSM movement,
marriage licenses were granted based on easily measurable criteria. They made
sure you were not already married. They made sure there was 1 man and 1 woman.
They made sure that you were not brother and sister or cousins (unless you were
beyond reproductive age). All things were measurable.Now, SSM comes
in and says that marriage is based on love. How do you measure love or
commitment?as for psychology, I am talking about the typical male
and typical female, I never said that it applied to all men or all women. The
fact is that men and women (in general) are different psychologically, in
addition to biologically. The compromises that have to be made to make a
successful marriage are different for a heterosexual couple than they would be
for 2 men or 2 women.
@Redshirt wrote: "Why do we have to give equality to something that
isn't equal? Two people of the same gender that want to be united cannot
ever be the same as two people of opposite genders. This is more than just
biological, but the psychology of men is different from women. That is just how
things are, and because of those differences a heterosexual couple is distinct
and different from a same sex couple."Your argument would only
work if all men matched a single male archetype, and all women a female one.But even if your argument weren't a specious one, my answer would
be: so what? Can you name a single reason to ban same-sex marriage that is not
based on Religion, on "That's just how things have always been", or
on the Regnerus study?"The same sex couples should look for an
alternate term if they want their unions to be accepted by society."If you've looked at the poll numbers, you'd see that same-sex
couples are already accepted by the majority of society.
To "Lane Myer" but we don't treat men and women as equals. Women
are a protected class, men are not. Women are granted many legal rights that
men do not get. There are laws specific to violence against women and not men.
Many laws regarding rape treat men and women differently.Plus, in
society, women are treated differently than men. For example, if a women runs
around town bare chested, they get arrested for indecent exposure, men are given
a pass. In polite society it is wrong to hit a woman, but acceptable to hit a
man. Men are expected to open doors and pay for dates, women are not expected
to do the same for men. If a woman stays home to raise her kids, nothing is
said about her decision, but if a man does the same his manhood is questioned.
Belching and farting among men is considered humor, but is disgusting if done
around women.You see, not only does society treat men and women
differently, but so does the law. Your argument has no merit. Try again.
@Redshirt1701"Why do we have to give equality to something that
isn't equal?"Same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage
may not be equal to your eyes, but they are equal in the eyes of law in 19
states, and that number is increasing each year.Majority American
people and 70-80% of young people also have no problem to give same sex couples
equal right as their heterosexual counterparts. and those numbers are also
increasing over time. Your opinion is in minority now, and can only get worse as
time goes by.Even if SCOTUS refuse to rule in SSM's favor next
year, (which I think it unlikely), people can still repeal such ban by popular
votes, by state legislature, or by state court. and when majority states have
marriage equality, like the situation by the time of Loving v Virgina, the
SCOTUS will have no problem to rule against the last stronghold states.That is why Gov. Huntsman is right, SSM is inevitable, maybe not next year,
but definitely inevitable in the future.
@Furry1993-Wrong. This guy is not "head and shoulders"
above anyone else being considered. Unless, of course, Dr. Ben Carson is not
being "considered". But, on the other hand, Dr. Carson has way too much
COMMON SENSE (or uncommon sense) for most people.
To "USU-Logan" so what you are saying is that if 70-80% of Americans
wanted to call Potatoes, Oranges, you would be cool with that.Your
comment is a distraction from the issue I am raising, which is simple. Why call
same sex unions marriage when they are not equal to heterosexual marriages?
Just because most people want it does not make it right. Most people want to be
rich, but does that mean if we redefine rich as anybody making more than
$20,000/yr that everybody will now be rich?
@Redshirt: "The compromises that have to be made to make a successful
marriage are different for a heterosexual couple than they would be for 2 men or
2 women."So what? The compromises in any couple's
relationship do not matter. Has not one thing to do with the legal question. The
compromises I made with my (ex)wife were wholly different than the compromises I
make with my husband. The former relationship did not work, this one is. So
what?Further, SSM arguments are not based on "love," they
are based on exactly the same arguments for OSM couples - the state has an
interest in promoting stable couples, and those stable couples should have the
various legal benefits of marriage. Your seeming view - that
marriage is about procreation - does not hold water in modern society for any
couple. I see very few people getting married for the sole purpose of
procreation or to train themselves to get along with those of the opposite
gender or any other specious argument presented here. People marry
for love, the state supports the long-term stability of their relationship.
illuminated says:"Established science shows heterosexual
reproduction is how all sexual organisms on earth have consistently propagated.
"--- You would fail a science class with that comment. You
forget that there are many sexual organisms that propogate without
"heterosexual sex". Slugs and snails are one example. Many fish and
amphibians can change their gender too.@Clarissa;The sky
is falling, the sky is falling... (we also allow bigotry which is immoral
imo).@Cleetorn;God will blah blah blah. Prove it!@trekker;Elder oaks is as irrelevant as your god in our
civil society.@greatbam22;You need another history
lesson on marriage? You keep making false statements about its history. (ps. a
bigot is someone who enjoys something and does everything they can to prevent
another from enjoying that same thing).@kiddsport;Kindly
explain how SSM discourages reproduction. I'm dying to know. States
don't have the right to violate the rights of citizens; they must act
within the parameters of the US Constitution.@wrz;Please
re-read the 10th. Again, states must operate WITHIN the Constitution. BTW, I
find religion to be repugnant; can I therefore prevent the religious from
@Redshirt1701"70-80% of Americans wanted to call Potatoes,
Oranges" is your imagination.70-80% of young people support SSM is a
fact verified by various media outlets."Just because most people
want it does not make it right."Just because you believe SSM and
heterosexual marriage are not equal does not make it right."if
we redefine rich as anybody making more than $20,000/yr that everybody will now
be rich?"If most people agree with your imagination, I have no problem
whatsoever. but will they? I don't think so.
@Redshirt1701: "Why call same sex unions marriage when they are not equal to
heterosexual marriages?"Equal. You keep using that word. I do
not think it means what you think it means.Your assertion is not a
fact. In personality and structure OS marriages have many differences, as do SS
marriages. The gender of the partners is but one variable, and it is arguable
that it is not even the most important variable. The real difference
is how the partners of any marriage partner with each other - do they
successfully navigate their differences and build a strong relationship? Does
their partnership fall apart? Or do they muddle through, not miserable enough to
separate, not ever really happy? Equal treatment under the law is a
totally different thing. Nothing you have said shows why a same-sex couple
should not be treated equal to an opposite-sex couple, under the law. And remember, not one state in the country connects child-bearing to the
legality of a marriage. Not one state ties "the compromises" that will
be made to a marriage license.
To "Stormwalker" you are wrong. You obviously only listen to the
propaganda that the MSM puts out. If you actually read what most people say
about SSM, they are saying that gays should be allowed to marry the person that
they love. They throw in stable families as a secondary issue. The fact is
that gays don't form families, since less than 25% of gays raise children,
in comparison to 75% or more of heterosexual couples. So the "family"
argument doesn't really work either.You have yet to actually
prove that a SS couple is the same as a heterosexual couple.I
didn't say they shouldn't be treated well, I said that what they have
is not the same as marriage. If they want to form a union similar to marriage,
call it something else, just don't call it marriage because it isn't
the same as marriage.
@RedShirt;Were you and your spouse a family the day you were married
or did you have to wait until kids came along?We want the same legal
benefits as a couple you have. You anti-LGBT people keep telling us we have to
marry someone of the opposite gender; yet you were able to marry the person you
loved; all we're saying is we should be able to do the same.The
proof that we're the same is clear. Come by and we'll show you. Since the bible tells a man to cleave to a woman, perhaps we should call
heterosexual marriage "Cleavage" instead? You take the new word.
When will people learn that organized religion is believing in everything your
read in the Bible and other holy Books and mostly not the truth about Gods Laws
or will.The bible has been revised, with thousands of pages removed, and
then new ones added with superstitious nonsense reinterpreted by Mortal Men and
some books and religions are just pure fiction...God does not hate and is
not vengeful... The only thing that God punishes mankind for is Murder and being
Evil. Witchcraft, Devil worshipping and so on...Also you can not just pick
and choose one of Gods laws and use it to discriminate and cause hate while you
Ignore the other 199 of Gods Laws that everyone does...
@wrz...You may want to attend Law School prior to any more nonsensical partisan
posts regarding laws and how they should be properly applied. Continue applying
religious scripture and texts in ANY legal argument. Especially regarding SSM.
In closing. When all else fails and reality begins to sets in you can always
fall back on the "activist judges" line.
@Red Shirt...Your continued nonsensical comments and posts bring laughter and
comedic relief daily to those of us that posses Law Degrees. Please continue
using religious references regarding ANY judicial issues at hand. Especially
SSM. The majority of us that support civil rights for all rather a select chosen
few once again thank you for your complete misunderstanding of this crucial
@Redshirt" The fact is that gays don't form families, since less
than 25% of gays raise children, in comparison to 75% or more of heterosexual
couples."Well if you have a state where gay marriage is banned
and a state where single-parent adoption is banned, then it's literally
impossible to have a gay couple raising children as a state-recognized couple...
@ Red Shirt, would you be willing to extend this fundamental right to same
gender couples? If not, why?Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479,
486 (1965) The United States Supreme Court, established the fundamental right of
married persons NOT to procreate. “This Court has long recognized
that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of
the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
All the comments seem to be about trashing Gay people, mainly using an lds-based
definition of marriage, and ignoring civil law and civil rights.---
respectfully, any national poll asking "Which do you trust least, Utahns or
Gays?" would result in about 2/3 picking the Gays, and 100%, if you leave
out those over 65 and the evangelicals.The real topic of discussion
here ought to be "Why did we judge and dismiss Huntsman, who might have
beaten Obama, in favor of Romney, who lost by a very embarrassing margin of
electoral votes?"In 2014, how very odd and old fashioned and
prejudiced to knock Gays for not reproducing. All the effort and money spent to
keep a few Gay folks from marrying might have fed children, or educated straight
people on how to pick partners that they can stay married to.
To "Schnee" the surveys do not look for state recognized couples, but is
a survey of gays to find out how many are raising children. Plus, there is
nothing stopping gays from having children of their own. A lesbian can still
get pregnant and have a child, and a gay man can father a child through a
surrogate and have full legal custody of that child.To "Evidence
Not Junk Science" you should read the ruling on the latest DOMA case. The
SCOTUS stated that the right to define marriage is up to the states. If states
have the right to define what marriage is, then the states that have defined it
as between a man and a woman are not infringing on any rights because they have
defined marriage, and gays are the ones trying to infringe on the state's
rights to define marriage.
Redshirt: "To "Evidence Not Junk Science" you should read the
ruling on the latest DOMA case. The SCOTUS stated that the right to define
marriage is up to the states."------Why do you leave
out the most important part of that ruling - that the states can define marriage
but must still follow the constitution.THAT is what the fight is all
To "RedShirt" but they are following the constitution. The 10th
Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." That means the States have the power to
define any right that is not specifically written in the Constitution.
Technically they were following the Constitution when they defined marriage
since marriage is not in the Constitution.The fight is about
redefining marriage and forcing that definition on the US.
@RedShirt says: "The fight is about redefining marriage and forcing that
definition on the US."Actually the fight is about whether a
state can restrict marriage based on the sexual orientation or relative gender
of the spouses. A similar issue was raised 50 years ago in regards to the
relative race of spouses, a restriction which the LDS church also supported.So far no rational reason has been found for such restrictions. And
don't worry...in 9 months marriage equality will be a fact in all 50 states
but you still won't be forced to marry someone of the same gender as
yourself. The only difference will be that gay couples will now have the same
civil rights you've always enjoyed.
To "skrekk" again, you are wrong. The issue is about the state's
ability to define marriage according to the 10th amendment. Marriage is not a
civil rights issue, it is a legal issue that, according to the SCOTUS is a
state's right. If it was a civil right, then why are the gays not pushing
for an amendment to the Constitution?If gay marriage is forced on
the US, it will not mean that marriage equality has been achieved. Polygamists
will still be outcast and cannot enjoy the same rights as gays. That will open
up the definition of marriage to be anything you want it to be. Do you really
think it is a good thing to have an anything goes mentality with marriage?
@Red Shirt...Continue using God and or religious ideology regarding SSM. Those
of us that posses Law Degrees and believe in equality for all rather a select
chosen few thank you!
To "Jimmyisliberal" but I have not used God or religion. I have only
used logic, biology, and psychology.Since you have obviously run out
of arguments to support yourself, and have resorted to personal attacks, that
means that I have made points that even a lawyer can't disprove. Your law
degree can't explain how a typical homosexual couple is 100% equal to a
heterosexual couple. I guess law schools aren't as good as they used to
be.Please go and learn something about biology and psychology, then
we can have a discussion.If you are after equality for all, are you
going to also fight for polygamy in any and all forms?
@Redshirt says: >>>"Marriage is not a civil rights issue,
it is a legal issue that, according to the SCOTUS is a state's
right."As the supreme court noted in Windsor, any state
regulation of marriage is subject to certain constitutional guarantees.>>>"If it was a civil right, then why are the gays not pushing
for an amendment to the Constitution?"Did mixed-race couples
need to do that, or did the court ruling in 1967 do it?>>>"Polygamists will still be outcast and cannot enjoy the
same rights as gays. That will open up the definition of marriage to be anything
you want it to be."Interesting that the racists in the
confederate states made the exact same erroneous argument against mixed-race
marriage. The court didn't buy it then either.
@Red Shirt...My dear confused friend. Personally I have come across several of
your Bible thumping comments regarding SSM. If you desire to now use logic
please at least make sure it is intellectual. The biology angle you are now
using is utterly comedic. Care to site examples along with sources? (You have an
m.o. of cherry picking specific sources so please include the entire source). In
regards to personal attacks all one must do is read the numerous comments
yourself and many others continue posting regarding this matter. As far as
"proving that a homosexual couple are 100% equal to a heterosexual
couple" this is what we call moot in the legal profession. However, please
feel free using these continued nonsensical angles. In closing. If in fact you
did know anything regarding the law and the constitution you would in fact
realize that psychology, biology and polygamy are completely irrelevant. In
conclusion, my dear confused friend this is what I learned at the Yale School of
Law. How about yourself? Have yourself a wonderful day researching.
To "skrekk" there are quite a few articles out on the internet that can
explain to you and your ilk the differences between interracial marriage and gay
marriage. The main argument is the fact that interracial marriage was an
equality issue and gay marriage seeks to create something new.To
"Jimmytheliberal" I think you are confused. There are many sources that
back up what I have said. For biology, go to WebMD and read about all of the
biological health issues that are different between men and women. You can also
go to any high school and read their Health books to learn more of the
differences. As for psychological differences, one good source is the book
"Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus". That book describes the
psychological differences between men and women.So, biologically and
psychologically men are different from women, and when a heterosexual couple
marries they have to learn to deal with those differences. Now, if you 2 people
of the same gender, you no longer have to deal with those differences.Nice try, but you still have yet to prove that a gay couple is the same as a
heterosexual couple. Try again?
@Red Shirt...Apparently I am no longer allowed to retort. After 7 attempts and 4
screen names it has become futile. Isn't it interesting how many are
allowed a different set of standards. Even name calling. Oh to be a neo-con in
Utah. Life is so blissful under the bubble....Jimmytheliberal.
@Vanceone...Continued "facts" from Faux Entertainment News and a.m. talk
radio I see..."It's pretty simple. Gay activists have long made it
plain that they intend to destroy the family. Once SSM is legal, then the next
step is criminalizing "bigotry." and teaching homosexuality as normal,
healthy, and a preferred form of human relationships. California and
Massachusetts already do, and they have arrested parents who object.;People are
being fired and businesses extinguished based on whether they kowtow to gays who
are looking for anyone who dares stand up for morality". Personally, I am from California and have a sister living in Massachusetts.
There are absolutely no such laws in place! Care to site sources or would you
prefer to continue on with another non factual anti equality rant?