@ snowwhite&7dwarfs:Once the left gets its way and Utah accepts same gender
marriage how long do you think it will take for a gay couple to sue the church
because they can't be "married" in one of our templesThey will have to be members of the church and like everyone else that enters
the temple have a current temple recommand. It won't be a case of "I
have rights and I want to get married in your church building" They will
have to follow the same rules/guideline for attending the temple just like
everyone else who enters the temple
For all of you who are so certain that the laws will never change remember this
- if you wish to keep an institution - you need to honor, respect and cherish
that institution not write laws about it. I do not believe that the honor,
cherish and respect have stood much of a chance during the last 100 years. The
laws will not replace what you have given up.
If a person is legaly married in one state, that person should be considered
legally married in ALL states regardless whether the marriage could legally be
entered into a given state. The Full Faith and Credit clause in the US
Constituion should apply to same-se marriage, just as it applies to
@zoar63 --"So if polygamy is illegal why do they not arrest all
those who are practicing it?"You might as well ask why all tax
evaders are not arrested. That's just life.Additionally, I
would *guess* that it would be difficult to "prove" polygamy in many
cases."Who is going to be hurt?"We've
already covered this. Women and children."why can't the
others be legal?"For one thing, legalizing the relationship
would stabilize it just like any marriage does. Which means that the women would
be more "stuck" in their relationship -- it would be harder for the
wives to get out if they needed to. Just as it's harder for an
abused wife to escape a relationship than an abused girlfriend, legalizing
polygamy would create more legal and financial entanglements that would be more
difficult for plural wives to get away from."How can something
be ruled constitutional but violations not be punished."Refer
back to tax evasion. No system is 100% efficient."you cannot
withhold those rights from polygamists."Canada's example
has already proven that you CAN do exactly that. And several other countries
also have gay marriage without polygamy, as well.
The People of Utah is going to have two problems in trying to prevent this
action: 1) is in their own State Constitution. It states:Article I,
Section 3.[Utah inseparable from the Union.] The State of Utah
is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United
States is the supreme law of the land.2) Is found in one of the
paragraphs of the Official Declaration. It states: As much as laws have
been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been
pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my
intention to submit to those laws,and to use my influence whith the members of
the Church over which I presideto have them do likewise. (Wilford
Woodruff, President of the Church) There is an old saying: "When
you start dancing with the Devil, you have to keep dancing with him until you
change the tune.
We are headed toward gay marriage nationwide.The only way to head it off
would be an amendment to the US Constitution. Many of us have been saying
that for thirty years - a generation.But the "mainstream" pols
serving in Congress and the Bush White House and in many other elected offices -
along with many religious leaders of many faiths have been poo-pooing that idea,
saying not to worry, it was a state matter. A federal amendment they said would
be unnecessary overkill. They didn't want to get their hands dirty on an
issue based on sex.In taking that stance they were all gutless Charlatans
-- most knew better. All should have known better.The dishonesty of that
stance has been very clear since the election of Obama put him in charge of
Supreme Court appointments at a critical time. Such an amendment could
have passed 20 years ago - maybe even ten years ago. It has no chance today -
unless the GOP gains a Congressional super majority after the 2014 elections.
That is unlikely. This Supreme Court will order same-sex marriage
nationwide before 2016.Justice Kennedy is the real Chief Despot. Just read
his opinion and weep.
the two women "partners" mentioned at the beginning of this article do
not "become single again" when they cross the state line. They were
always single. Marriage involves a man and a woman, period, and calling any
homosexual relationship a marriage doesn't make it so.
We are bombarded with words such as 'fair' 'discrimination'
and 'equality', And yet, not matter how much society tries to achieve
these goals through legislation, the truth is, freedoms are trampled on and
those who feel strongly about traditional values find themselves labeled as
haters and discriminators. Many social upheavals have been waged in this
country and each has only brought additional confusion and disillusionment. I
still remember the new morality push of the sixties which did little to make
life better for the masses, but instead promoted the ideals of anarchy and
irresponsibility.I am now waiting for the soon to come day when my
children, who cherish the ideals of growing up in a traditional family unit of a
mother and a father, legally married and devoted to each other - and who seek no
malice against anyone, will be labeled by their peers as ignorant, hate filled
products of a more traditional and reserved life style.
The LGBT agenda is upon us. I can see it now...........more and more LGBT
couples will move to Utah so that their voting voices will be heard. They will
move because of that soul reason. Citizens of Utah need to prepare themselves
for a battle from here on out. Not only will they sway the vote in their
direction over legalizing marriage, but they will sway the vote in all the
elections to go their way. They are a united group with lots and lots of money
behind them. This is not a scare tactic, and it is not out of
disrespect, it is very real. This is what is happening all over the country.
Don't be blind to what is inevitable. We have lived somewhat complacently
here in Utah for decades. It's time that we wake up and get involved and
know what is happening around us.
Amazondoc,There is a problem with your argument. Polygamy is
illegal in the United States yet the government for the most part does not
enforce it except in the most extreme circumstances. So if polygamy is illegal
why do they not arrest all those who are practicing it? For all intents and
purposes they might as well legalize it. Who is going to be hurt? The husband
already has one legal wife why can’t the others be legal? So you
are saying that judges in Canada reaffirmed the constitutionality of their
polygamy ban yet they allow polygamy to continue even with the abuses that you
have mentioned. How can something be ruled constitutional but violations not be
punished. What kind of system of government is that. why hasn’t the
government stepped in to put an end to it. It sort of reminds me of the
immigration problem. The government does not strictly enforce the laws they
make.If same sex marriage as you predict will one day become the law
of the land then you cannot withhold those rights from polygamists. Or will the
victim now become the oppressor?
@ RanchHand - as I tried to say an earlier post but did not state as well as I
could Have. There are no bad people only bad behaviors. If you would like to
turn this statement back on itself, it could also be there are no good people
only good behaviors. This also takes into account that all goodness comes from
God and all evil comes from Satan. This includes each and every one of us
(Including Charles Manson). If all of this legislation does get passed
effectively and properly in an enforceable decision, it will be God's will
as far as I'm concerned. He will give us everything we ask for. All of the
resulting implications and events whether positive or negative will be ours to
bear together in this world and individually in eternity.
@ RanchHand CC: CarabaoU- And there it is. the things that the LGBT community
think are RIGHTS covered under the Constitution are really PRIVILEGES that are
granted on a state by state basis. This is also why the Supreme Court's
decision is still a non-decision an Utah's amendment 3 is not
unconstitutional. Until the federal government is very clear in their decisions
and implementations or by directly amending the Constitution this issue will go
around and around and cause havoc. You ask for everyone to look at the
Constitution, please be more precise because at best all you have provided is a
generalization. As for your disdain for anything Godly or religious (by the way
God is spelled with a Capital G). Please be aware that all law in the United
States and most of the world is based on Mosaic law, The 10 Commandments.
Please extend the same respect to others that you expect.
@Coach Biff --"Ummm, yeah, homosexual sex does pose certain
health risks. "Ummm, yeah, what you call "homosexual"
sex is just as easily enjoyed by heterosexual couples as by homosexual
couples."I will also refer you to the UT study on adaptability
of children raised in same sex households."Oh heavens, not
Regnerus again! Regnerus' "study" (and I use the term
VERY loosely) has been very widely and very thoroughly debunked, many times.Regnerus compared UNSTABLE homosexual homes to STABLE heterosexual
homes. Naturally, he found that the kids in the stable homes did better than
those in the unstable homes.His findings had everything to do with
**stability**, and absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality.@carabaoU --"All men can marry. All women can marry. "This very same argument was used back in the day when people were trying
to block interracial marriages.They said: "Everyone
has the same rights. Everyone has the right to marry someone of their own
race."That argument didn't work then, and it won't
work now. The Supreme Court saw right through it in Loving v. Virginia, and
they'll see right through it again when the "gay" version comes
before them in the future.
@RanchHand and @QuercusQateHere is the amendment 3:The
amendment reads: Marriage consists only of the legal union
between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however
denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially
equivalent legal effect.I don't see any rights given to one and
denied to another. All men can marry. All women can marry. Like I've said
before, you want the same legal benefits afforded to those who marry, such as
hospital visits, tax filing status, etc. Those are separate laws, of which you
should get changed.
When they cross state lines and become single again, does that change how they
Ummm, yeah, homosexual sex does pose certain health risks. You are just being
purposefully obtuse on the subject. I will refer you to the CDC if you want
proof. I will also refer you to the UT study on adaptability of children raised
in same sex households. Traditional morality doesn't require cosmic
support. It stands on its own merits.
@phillyfanaticThis struggle for marriage equality is uniquely
American. The more we embrace our neighbors as our equals, the more we bocome
@carabaoUtah can only have its own marriage law (or any other laws)
only when those laws do not abridge the fundamental rights of others. If states
could legislate willy-nilly we'd still have anti-miscegenation laws in the
@carabaoU;Please go read the Constitution. It says that you
can't deny rights to some people that you give to others. Utah's
Amendment 3 does just that and is therefore unconstitutional.
@RanchHand,"You don't get to write your laws such that they
violate the rights of citizens of the United States of America, even if they
happen to be residents of Utah."How come I can carry a loaded
gun in my car here in Utah, but California won't let me? Isn't that a
violation of the rights of citizens of the USA? Anything not
regulated by Fed Gov't is left to the States to regulate. Defining
marriage is not regulated by Fed Gov't, so it is regulated by the States.
@RedShirt --"outside of the FLDS culture..."Sorry, Red, but your personal beliefs are not what matter in Constitutional
issues. Facts, expertise, and law are the things that matter.Supreme
Court justices -- whether American or Canadian -- do a heckuva lot of legal and
factual research on these issues before they make their court decisions. If you
disagree with them, take it up in court."With nearly 50% of gay
relationships experiencing violence and abuse"This simply
isn't true, Red. Please stop misrepresenting the facts.From a
National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center paper, "Violence
in Lesbian and Gay Relationships":-- "In a study asking about
whether a same-sex relationships had suffered from physical abuse, 7% of 706
lesbian couples and 11% of 560 gay men couples indicated physical abuse had
occurred." -- "Sexual abuse by a woman partner was reported by 1%
of lesbians, but 20% of lesbians indicated having been sexually abused by a male
partner. "-- "Design flaws in many studies also may exaggerate
prevalence rates, e.g., when asking lesbians about abuse in previous
relationships, some fail to distinguish between same- sex violence and previous
violence by a male partner."Keep trying, Red.
Moderate: I loved your comment. The record of fidelity to 'wedding'
vows would make any other form of 'marriage' an undeniable
improvement. In all this talk, I have heard very little about the voices of
children. Gay marriage is just an extension of the abortion debate.
Selfishness is a never ending cesspool. Where were the fathers when these
'choices' were being considered? A study of that element would be
worth a good solid look, exceptions noted.
@RanchHandDid you not read the court case? They left it up to the
States to determine their own definition of marriage. They also said the
federal benefits should be applied to all. That's why I said to update
Utah laws so these benefits can be added for these people. But Utah law says
marriage is between man and woman.
@carabaoU;Fortunately, Utah is a part of the United States of
America and subject to the Constitution of the United States of America.I am a citizen of the United States of America (as are you, I presume).
We are residents of Utah.You don't get to write your laws such
that they violate the rights of citizens of the United States of America, even
if they happen to be residents of Utah.
@midvale guy;It is absolutely bigotry when you use your personal
"dislike" to discriminate against others. You are welcome to
"dislike the behavior" (personally, I loathe religious behavior); nobody
is going to make you participate in same-sex behavior if you dislike it so much.
That said, you do NOT have the right to deny the benefits to same sex
couples that you, yourself enjoy, simply because you "dislike" their
behavior.That is why the courts are going to rule against Amendment 3.
Equal protection applies to ALL Americans, not just those you approve of.The majority of these comments are just dripping with hate. So much for
the religious being "good".@Redshirt;I've
always believed that "god" was a fool for choosing one of his children
over the others. Especially when he ordered that "child" to kill all
the others and steal their land from them.@phillyfanatic;Waaaah.
Majority Citizens of Utah have said marriage is between man and woman. If you
want same benefits as married couples, get those benefits by passing laws to
update the current laws to include your group into them. But marriage is
between man and woman in this state. If you somehow magically
changed our laws to allow you to "marry", then you will see an exodus
from this state to another state that still has marriage only between man and
woman. Then you will know He is coming. If you aren't religious, sorry, I
can't save you.
To "amazondoc" that is in the FLDS culture. Again, outside of the FLDS
culture, you don't have the child bride issue or the hyper male dominance
problems so the abuse, violence, and neglect problems don't exist.Justice Bauman doesn't know much about polygamy or people that have lived
in it. His comments, like yours, show that you only know the FLDS and similar
sects use of polygamy.Read Psychology Today's article "The
paradox of polygamy II: Why most women benefit from polygamy and most men
benefit from monogamy" There are also many other first person histories
written about women in polygamy, and they report non of the problems that the
judge claims.The biggest question is this. With nearly 50% of gay
relationships experiencing violence and abuse, why were those legalized when the
violence rate is less in plural marriages?
As a senior, step parent, married for 32 years, grandad, and pastor , college
teacher who is a Christian, I am tired of minorities telling Americans that
because they feel their lives are UNFAIR, that all laws, creeds, definitions
must be changed because : we are angry and will wail unless you do. Our
American heritage, Consti, history and values are built on 9000 years of
history, tradition and yes, even Biblical views. 10% of the public should not b
e able to call those of us who hold the above views, evil, rotters, biased
because we do not want the definition changed. Either should Utah or any of the
38 states who still believe in traditional values. I say, fight this chaos. Stop
caving into the secular, the perverse, the popular just because pressure is put
on politicians. Keep up the fight Utah. And I live in the soviet republic of Ca.
so I am helpless here but pray for your fight.
Gays destroy traditional marriage just like Rosa Parks destroyed bus-riding.
Polygamy will take a form never seen before, if it becomes legal. Women will be
able to marry as many men as they want to too.A woman could be a
wife, step-mother, sister-in-law and aunt to the same man with both sexes as
equals. It would be interesting...
@Red --"actually polygamy is a help to women. If you read
closely what you referred to, it is the culture of the FLDS church that is
damaging, not polygamy."You need to "read closely"
yourself.From Judge Bauman's decision: "Polygamy's
harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual
harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional
context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy
exists."Keep trying, Red.I don't know whether
my previous message is going to post or not, so I'll also repeat something
I said earlier:You: "She made the conclusion"Judge Sotomayor did not make ANY conclusions. She ONLY asked a question -- and
acting as Devil's Advocate is her JOB during oral arguments. I'll
repeat, NO conclusions were made.
To "Tekakaromatagi" I am still trying to figure out how you strengthen
marriage by redefining it? Marriage has been defined as a union between a man
and a woman. Now, it is being redefined as 2 of whatever you want. So, by
redefining it this way, what is to stop the eventual acceptance of plural
marriage in whatever form it may take?To "Wilf 55" the LDS
church will never change its stance on gay marriage and homosexuality. If you
think they will, you obviously don't understand LDS doctrine.To
"RanchHand" you don't understand Jesus at all. Just look at the
idea behind the Children of Israel. Using your rational, that is bigotry to
choose one family out of the earth to make special deals with. Even look at the
time Jesus was on the earth, he had little tolerance for those who sinned
without remorse. Why should his followers embrace sinful behavior?To "amazondoc" actually polygamy is a help to women. If you read
closely what you referred to, it is the culture of the FLDS church that is
damaging, not polygamy.
@patriotAs long as everyone in the relationship is a consenting
adult, and inheritance issues can be worked out, I really don't care who or
re:Henry Drummond...and Henry if gay marriages comes to Utah and the
rest of the nation why not polygamy too? We need to not discriminate right? Love
is all that matters correct? Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought this
very point up during the oral arguments for gay marriage a few months ago. She
made the conclusion that if homosexual marriage is ok constitutionally then by
the SAME EXACT reasoning so is Polygamy and one cannot legalize one without the
other. so Henry ... are you ready for polygamy? 30 wives? What about
a woman with 30 husbands too? It's all about fairness and love ...right
Henry?? I suspect the gay crowd won't bee too keen on opening up to
polygamy and neither will all the Hollywood flakes. I suspect the nation will
have to swallow pretty darn hard when then have to think about living next to a
Where are the fathers? Fortunately, people will now be compelled to think about
something before all of this came to the fore, states' rights. This is a
states' rights issue, just as the any other issue, including the causes of
the Civil War! We didn't need to have 600,000 people die in the Civil War
to get rid of the evils of slavery. Slavery existed because of the negligence
of fathers to teach principles of right and wrong. Same with Gay marriage.
Where are the fathers?
Is marriage an institution defined by each State or is it a National
institution?Ironically Utah made it into a National institution by
their nineteenth century practice of polygamy.Gay marriage will be
coming to Utah - and soon.
Traditional morality is nothing to celebrate if it means that people of the same
sex are not allowed to marry each other. The most comprehensive study regarding
families of same sex families concludes that children are just as
psychologically healthy and well-adjusted. In fact, they are happier and get
along better with others? Can anyone guess why that would be the case? Why
would children of heterosexual couples not get along as well as children as same
sex couples? Does it have anything to do with parents teaching their children
to become bigots based on religious dogma. Seems plausible to me. The claim
that children lose with respect to same sex marriage is not supported by
evidence. We need to base our judgements on sound reason, not
@Mom Johnson"I can see it now...........more and more LGBT couples
will move to Utah so that their voting voices will be heard. They will move
because of that soul reason"No... nobody moves to a location
because of that reason. Besides, everyone knows the Supreme Court will declare
same-sex marriage a nationwide right long before Utah ever gets around to voting
for it much like the south had to be dragged kicking and screaming to have
@CP"The state of Utah came to be when LDS Pioneers came to establish a
place where they can worship God and obey His laws..I pray that the government
of this state will not forget that!"Depends... do you think
being able to do that involves imposing your view of His laws on everyone else?
If that's the case then you will lose your theocracy. If you think being
able to do that involves the church deciding which couples they want to marry,
don't worry about that. We have protections against discrimination based on
gender and religion but you still are allowed to have an all-male priesthood and
only marry LDS couples in the temple.
Trueblue - read the full faith and credit clause of our constitution. There is
a hue difference between laws and public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings. How would you like to go to CA on a vacation and become single
while there?If Utah can invalidate their marriages, so can CA
invalidate those that took place in Utah. Don't forget to take their
drivers test to get a CA license too!
Want to reinforce marriage values? Outlaw divorce.I imagine quite a
few of those in favor of Amendment 3 just squirmed in their seats at the idea of
You want to do a funny exercise? Go look up anti interracial marriage arguments
from the 50's and 50's. Then every time you see the word interracial,
replace it with homosexual. Then come back and tell me whats different about the
argument. Also, why are we having a theological argument about secular law? If
you have religious values you are allowed to practice them. But when did your
religion become the law of the land? It's not up to the Mormon, Catholic,
Southern Baptist or any other church to make the laws. In fact, I'd like
someone to explain how making laws based on Christianity are any different than
Sharia Law in the middle east, you know, beside the fact that it's YOUR
religion, not a "scary" Muslim? And, if you need more proof pull out
your Bible and read John 18:36, that's coming straight from the source.
What more do you need?
When any nation, past or present, elevates law over prophecy, they may have the
day - but eventualy confusion and disaster follows.
They are just trying to impose laws from other states on the state of Utah.
This is in essence similar to someone trying to come from Nevada and arguing
that Utah should allow gambling because he likes to gamble and he wants to live
in Utah. If you don't like the laws here in Utah, live somewhere else.
That is the beauty of living in the United States, if you don't like
certain aspects of one state, you can move to another.
If Supreme Court is saying same sex partners have to be treated equally with the
Federal Government, they will be able to file "married filing joint" on
their income tax returns. What's that going to do to the states that do
not recognize them as married when filing their state returns? In Utah, the
state return is tied to the federal return. I see lots of problems for the
states along these lines.
@Walt --"If these Liberals believe that all forms of marriage
should be recognized..."Straw man. Nobody has made this
claim.1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens.
Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal
freedoms.-- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which easily
reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though
they've had gay marriage for years now. 2. adult incest (adult
siblings, adult parent/children) -- illegal in every state because of public
safety concerns. Not only is there the question of undue influence/coercion
amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is
very high (roughly 30-40%). -- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent
court cases, in both state and Federal courts, which have very clearly and
uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings DON'T apply to incest.3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are
incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage
contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It
can't be removed. 4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't**
convey any special risk to public safety.
Please explain how the state of Utah will defend against this: "Full Faith
and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
Judicial Proceedings of every other State."Oh, btw, that is part
of our US Constitution.
@TekakaromatagiThat was exactly my point. You have a
traditional view of marriage. Others do not share the same view. The word
"traditional" is sufficiently vague as to cause the problem
@Ranchand- It is NOT bigotry. I do not dislike the person I dislike the
behavior. We are all God's children. The real problem is Nobody can express
disagreement or dislike of someone's behavior without someone else there
to immediately claim 'Intolerance". Just because I don't like the
behavior doesn't me I don't care about the person. Thank God, Jesus
loves the sinner because I know who I am too.
The Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 tells me it's a state issue. But, more
likely there stalling for more time. For a conservative state law banning same
sex marriage to come into the Supreme Court, for them to overrule. I wonder if
the Utah homosexual couples are capable of being civil at the capitol, unlike
what I've seen on video's at other rally's across the country.
If these Liberals believe that all forms of marriage should be recognized, would
they endorse plural marriage as one of those forms?
Will they then try to amend the Utah Constitution: Article I section 29? See
the feds forced Utahns to put that in when they disagreed with polygamy. Guess
the LGBT lobby was less active back then huh?
@Jared:"Redefining marriage is not strengthening it, it is
changing it."Exactly right. We agree. Read my post again.
@sjc:Funny. You understood perfectly from those talking about
traditional marriage that they meant one man and one woman. What should we call
it instead? Some awkward term? How about a "Real Marriage".Lots of cultures had the view that generally speaking a man would pair off
with a woman for the length of their lives for the rearing of children and
grandchildren and that there should most of the time or all of the time sexual
exclusivity. That the man and the woman had different but equal roles. I have
a 400 year old poem composed (not written) by a woman living in a stone-age
society who mounrs that her husband left her for another woman. I have a story
about a man in about 1650, who in a time of crisis, traded his lands to get his
wife brought to him so they could flee into exile together rather than being
separated.That is the kind of marriage that I mean by traditional
marriage.Husband and wife, rather than Spouse 1 and Spouse 2.
Jared says: If you allow same-sex couples to marry, you allow them to divorce.
This means divorce rates can only increase.So you believe States
should enact laws to make it more difficult for people to get married so there
will be fewer divorces? What are you considering?
So, what this argument means is that there is no difference between man-man,
woman-woman, and man-woman relationships. I don't buy it. I think there
are big differences between these relationships and should be treated uniquely.
Traditional marriage ?Does "traditional" marriage mean
polygamy, as was traditional among many societies prior to and after
Judeo/Christian theology? In african cultures many wives were the norm. In other cultures, the sale of a 13 yr old daughter preceded a
"traditional" marriage. Anyone who uses the term
"defending traditional marriage" is ignorant of history. How many wives
did those described in the bible have ?
@WILF 55: Thanks for your amusing comment implying that the Church is slow to
follow the "wise" evolution of history, and that, with time, it will see
the error of its ways. Why don't you get familiar with the Church's
"The Family: A Proclamation To The World," and discover that that
statement is a statement of fundamental Church doctrine, amendable only by
direct revelation from God, Himself. Also, unbeliever that you may be, please
note that our Church leaders, as well as its devout followers, consider the
Proclamation a warning to those who violate God's laws, including countries
and, even, readers of the Deseret News.
Reading these comments has only made me more convinced of why using the
legislative arena to defend traditional marriage has wound up backfiring and
only angered those who see differently than we do. If we could stick to sharing
our values in a civil, compassionate way, through the normal proselyting
channels of the church, it's much more likely that people would be willing
to take a look at them with open hearts (or at least open minds) and then choose
to accept it or not on its face. Instead, we had to engage it in a hostile
manner, and now neither side wins. Oh, it's resulted in members of the
church voting more Republican and electing politicians who support anti-family
economics, which destroys families of all types - even the faithful members of
@Wilf 55You really must read the statement put out to each ward about the
BSA decision. It is not a acceptance of gay boys. It is an affirmation that
virtue and morals are still the foundation of scouting and the LDS church
continues to hold those standards: Celibacy before marriage (to one of the
opposite gender) and complete fidelity after. I pose this question: Once the
left gets its way and Utah accepts same gender marriage how long do you think it
will take for a gay couple to sue the church because they can't be
"married" in one of our temples? I'm betting about a New York
minute. This is not about gay marriage, this is about forcing churches to do
what the left wants. It was said quite well just a few months ago by an LGBT
activist. Masha Gessen 2012 "the institution of marriage should not
exist". Search "lesbian activists surprisingly candid speech gay
marriage fight is a lie to destroy marriage" for the video of her speech.
Acceptance of the premise is just another step into the Nile during crocodile
meal time. The agenda is the destruction of marriage in every form, not
Equal Protection un the law. The kestone of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yes it's a beautiful thing this constitution. Especially when it's
applied to EVERYONE !!
In the end, if you believe in the Constitution, the full faith and credit
provision has to be recognized or the nation will come unraveled. This means
that a legal marriage in one state will be honored in another. Eventually, this
has to happen.
So many of you claim to be moral and righteous and refuse to obey your Jesus.
His own words were: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
He didn't put any qualifiers on that commandment.Bigotry is
immoral. Discrimination is immoral. Nobody is going to force you into a same
sex marriage. Nobody is going to force your churches to perform same sex
marriages.It's time to grow up kids. It's time to realize
that you have been wrong all this time and actually start LIVING your religion
Tick, tock, tick tock....
So first the federal government FORCES the settlers of Utah to END polygamy
because they don't like it in order for Utah to become a state. NOW Utah
will be FORCED to accept gay marriage by the federal government because they DO
like it. Meanwhile, complacent LDS people worry about what flowers to put on the
RS podium for their Sunday lesson.
The gay marriage issue is now history, as the homosexual lobby, given the
proverbial inch has taken the proverbial mile and gay marriage recognized in all
50 States is virtually fait accompli. There is no restraining the rushing waters
of social family change, and can no longer be held back from going over the
falls. The genie is out of the bottle, Humpty Dumpty USA has fallen off the wall
and is broken, and all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot
put Humpty back together again.
@Christoph --"Thank-you Al Gore and John Kerry, the last of the
Democrats to have never endorsed same gender marriage."Guess
again.Al Gore 2008: "'I think that gay men and women ought
to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women, to make contracts, to
have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage,' Gore said.
'And I don't understand why it is considered by some people to be a
threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians. Shouldn't
we be promoting that kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one's partner
regardless of sexual orientation?'" John Kerry 2011:
"Many of us who once believed civil unions were sufficient to protect legal
rights because we thought of marriage as a religious sacrament between a man and
a woman, have seen that no church has been forced to do anything that
contradicts its teachings. But when two committed people apply for a
Massachusetts marriage license, they are equal whether they are gay or straight.
It’s not about a word - it’s about equality under the law."
Tekakaromatagi: "The liberals and progressives are those trying to
strengthen marriage not dilute it."Nothing could be farther from
the truth. So if liberals are all about strengthening marriage, are they going
to fight to end no fault divorces? Are they going to stop trying to redefine
marriage as something other than between man and woman? Redefining marriage is
not strengthening it, it is changing it. If you allow same-sex couples to marry,
you allow them to divorce. This means divorce rates can only increase. Are they
going to fight for policies that encourage complete fidelity to spouse? Are they
going to push for more church participation (those who regularly go to church
have lower divorce rates)? I could go on and on but much of what liberals and
progressives do is not meant to strengthen marriage. In fact, many want to do
away with the institution completely.
It's really as simple as this - states may not pass laws, including
amendments to their state constitutions, that violate the constitution of the
United States.It was Justice Scalia himself who, in his ranting
dissent, observed that if DOMA is found to be unconstitutional that state
equivalents to DOMA would similarly be found to be unconstitutional. Which they
are.Utah's Amendment 3 will be challenged in court and it will
be found to be unconstitutional.The majority cannot vote away the
rights of the minority.
"Inherent discrimination."Apparently Utah must recognize
anything that is legal in other states. We can gamble in West Wendover, NV, but
when we cross a state line we can't. Does this principle work both ways?
How about with gun laws. Should the whole country be forced to recognize
Utah's gun permits?Are these also examples of inherent
Look through the eyes of the children. We blundered big time with no-fault
divorce. Artificial reproductive technology is being abused. And those two
social experiments do not hold a candle to the social experiment of radically
redefining the institution of man woman marriage. Children lose. Children
always lose. There is no way around the fact that those states that have
legalized same-sex marriage also by law decide that children do not need, do not
have a right to their natural parents so far as it is humanly possible and in
the best interest of the child. No right to both a mother and a father. We
either move towards the ideal for children or away from it.
After reading this and other articles it just seems to me that the gay and
lesbien group will never be satisfied. They want to change the Boy Scouts, and
marriage. Face it they will never be satisfied until they take over the United
States..actually now it seems to be more the Disunited States. The state of Utah
came to be when LDS Pioneers came to establish a place where they can worship
God and obey His laws..I pray that the government of this state will not forget
One more thought. Around the world Utah is known as the "Mormon State".
The international media report on what the Mormon Church does and tie it to Utah
politics and events. A major positive effect for the church's image came
from "Mormon building bridges", when Mormons marched for equality.
Another positive effect came from the Church supporting the BSA decision to
allow gay scouts. But in most cases negative reporting on Mormonism prevails and
is detrimental to the church's worldwide image and to missionary work. The
church's racial policies of the past are still haunting media reports on
Mormonism today. We know now the church was on the wrong side of history. As
scores of countries around the world have accepted same-gender marriage (and all
civilized nations will soon), the Church will find itself again on the wrong
side of history. And totally unnecessary because same-gender marriage is a
civil matter that does not affect the church's internal policies nor
If you don't like the laws in Utah, then don't go to Utah. Simple as
that! And also, you just can't get married and get benefits in
Utah.However, no one is stopping you from expressing your love for
your partner. So quit trying to make this sound so horrible.
Let's hope the LDS Church will quickly realize how much good it would do
for its own long-term future to support this change in the law. See how the
"1978" decision came two decades too late and is now haunting the
church. Not fighting against this marital change because it is a purely civil
matter, and which does not affect religious freedom nor traditional marriage,
would be a wise step for the Church.
Anxious to hear from you!As soon as those who appear so terribly
frightened of change, have found something tangible to present to America,
incidents they can document and publish that have "destroyed" their
family... Please do not delay in immediately calling a press conference for all
media outlets.Until then, beware of those maddening headaches caused from
those make believe terrors taking over inside your head.
Five of the nine US Supreme Court Justices were oppointed by Conservative
Christians (Republicans)Presidents. Roberts ,Scalia,Kennedy,Thomas Alito.
Appointed by GH Bush,Ronald Reagan and GW Bush Jr. We have no one to blame but
ourselves. We point the finger at "liberals"; when we voted in the
leaders who nominated the Justices to determine our laws, and they have found
favor towards "same sex marriage". When will we ever learn that
political parties will rarely favor, God given law.
It's interesting that liberals lock into "equality for equalities
sake" but have a hard time thinking that "different things should be
treated differently." Being a male or female is outdated to liberals. To
stop the confusion, every liberal should be named Pat. Gay marriage
is not the enlargement of an institution, it is the destruction of an honored
I don't believe Mr. Bryne has ever believed in marriage for himself and he
is welcome to return to New Hampshire; nobody forces him to live here.
Thank-you Al Gore and John Kerry, the last of the Democrats to have never
endorsed same gender marriage. There is still a few sane people in the media.
Memo to those who live by the law suit, life has never been even-steven since
the beginning of time.
So who is responsible for protecting minorities?As Thomas Jefferson once
said, "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the
will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must
be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law
must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
@John Charity Spring:"The usual group of left wing liberals is yet
again trying to impose its brand of thought on the rest of society. Indeed, it
well stop at nothing until it has destroyed traditional notions of
morality."I don't see anything left wing or liberal about
this at all. Strengthening marriage rather than redefining it sends a message
that discourages out of wedlock births and that men should be responsible for
their reproductive actions. Traditional marriage is a powerful tool to fight
poverty.The liberals and progressives are those trying to strengthen
marriage not dilute it. Now, some of those on the side of traditional marriage
will characterize themselves as 'conservative', but this is a liberal
issue also.We have to stop thinking of politics as a bipolar entity,
right and left, red and blue.
Legal does not mean the same as right, or beneficial.The left is
progressively tearing down every bit of the moral, cultural and economic bases
that made this country great. They win, but the country and our children
lose.Congratulations on your legal victory, but your joy at actions
that destroy my country offend me.
In utah, marriage is a state issue........and the state has spoken! No judicial
activists will ever change that here......
This is a very biased article that is full of the language of only one side and
totally ignores the other side of the issue.Man/women marriage keeps
the purpose of marriage focused on creating an institution that will make it
most likely to have children raised by their biological parents. The key is a
form of child rearing, not a reality in practice. The definition of marriage is
about large forms that achieve this.The pressing of this issue by a
business executive also shows that this is an elietist attempt to destroy the
traditional definition of marriage rooted in commitment and community.
Although Utah must often walk through pools of mud, I am grateful we have
progression in other states to guide us through the mirky pools with amendments
to end the prejudicial views. Just as many could never accept marriage between
races, so will many never see a world where one can choose to freely become a
citizen of any country on earth.
The usual group of left wing liberals is yet again trying to impose its brand of
thought on the rest of society. Indeed, it well stop at nothing until it has
destroyed traditional notions of morality.The left wing has failed
at changing the law through regular democratic channels, so it now seeks to do
so through coercion and intimidation, just as in California.This is
an issue for the voters, not judicial activists. We cannot allow the left to
impose its brand of morally bankrupt anarchy.