CatsSomewhere in Time, UT"Dear Bob K:Religious people
don't have to accept being forced to do things that are against their
religion. There has clearly been an encroachment on religious freedom by the gay
agenda."-- A FEW PEOPLE have been told to pay fines for
violating public accomodation laws in their States. They chose to violate the
law. No one is forced to do anything. "I have great sympathy
with individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction"--I have
no sympathy for those who think their religion trumps the Constitution."I have no sympathy with the radical gay agenda"--You mean
like, wanting just to be free and left alone?"Anyone who wants
to know about the dangers needs only look at Massachussetts and what has
happened there over the last ten years of gay marriage. It's
frightening."-- What is frightening is that the untruths about
MA are swallowed so easily. Two troublemaking families moved there. Everyone
else is happy.-- Liberal areas should be as free to include
community norms, which may not be to your liking. Modern parents are happy to
have kids taught that not all of us are the same
Azagthoth: It was a pre-trial motion, not typically binding, and beyond what the
judge in California did. For there not to have been an immediate stay was the
fault ot another judge, which has caused a lot of confusion. Anyone on either
side of the SSM needs to understand that the judge tried to undermine legal
Constitutional authority to the States. This is huge. He should (at the least)
be impeached. ANY citizen of a State would have had less rights, and the
federal government would have MORE, no matter who you are or what your marriage
status is. This goes beyond the SSM issue. A ruling like this is
after a TRIAL - and it was not. Not only did this judge did the citizens of
Utah, and those seeking SSM marriage a huge disservice by ruling in this way,
but it is very revealing to me the agenda.
RE: Craig Clark ,Leviticus to Paul,… do you not know that the
unrighteous] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither
the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice
homosexuality(1 Cor 6:9)RE: A *Quaker, Discrimination is not only
allowed. True, …, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even
their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same
way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with
lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received
in themselves the due penalty for their error.(Rom 1:26-27)*Friends
as a whole have widely differing views. Liberals run the gamut from non-theist
to various flavors of Christianity to Jewish to Buddhist to uncategorized
spirituality, and on and on.
Seriously? They want a SLOWER process? Yeah, we need to be dragged into another
year of attorney fees.
Until the Supreme Court rules the whole argument is moot since a legal marriage
in one state isn't automatically recognized in another state. Just because
someone has a medical license or passes the bar in one state doesn't mean
they automatically can practice in every state, so just because someone is
married California doesn't mean they will be legally married or recognized
in Utah or any other state. And if same sex marriage is upheld by
the Supreme Court, then there isn't any argument against plural marriage
since the ethics, normality, and morality argument will a useless defense. Now let's talk about same sex marriages that end in divorce and
what happens to the communal property or any children that may be adopted. Who would get alimony, or child support?
re:MeckofaHess"David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a
kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were
discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him
arrested and put in jail overnight."You keep repeating this
falsehood. David Parker was arrested because he refused to leave the
school building at closing time. "Kindergartners were given
picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of
family, like their own parents."The book, "Who's in a
family?" presented all different types of families--including animal
families. The book was sent home, and was not mandatory reading."For example, we do not want men or women who have a gender identity
confusion to be able to enter into public restrooms designated for men or women
unless they are biologically a man or a woman. "You think a
woman, self-identifying as a man, looking like a man from outward appearances,
should be using the women's facilities? And vice-versa?
I've had several people comment on my earlier message.I will say this. I
believe in the constitution and I don't believe my rights or beliefs trump
the constitution or someone elses rights. However, I believe that the
constitution has left the decision about the right of gay marriage to the states
which is what this case is about. When it was left to the state, the state
voted to secure the definition of what marriage is by a constitutional
amendment. If SCOTUS overrides it, I will acknowledge it as law of the country,
just as I acknowledge drinking or peoples right to view pornography but I
won't support them either. As a citizen of this state I will vote my moral
stance. Many of our laws are already based on morality issues that affect
society, agreed upon by the majority of that society, I believe the definition
of marriage is one of these same issues. As many of you said I can't
dictate my morality. I'm not dictating morality, I'm voting for it.
SCOTUS will decide if my voting was constitutional not your rantings and
@ TrueChristian Are you saying that the message of the Bible is that we are to
love everybody, not judge them, and support them in whatever debauchery they
want to participate in? That doesn't seem to fit with all those prophets
telling people to repent, lest they be destroyed.
@TrueChristian, who said "To my fellow Mormons who are posting here about
gay marriage ruining our society and violating their beliefs, I have one word:
Repent."And to the many Mormons who have chosen to side with the
'happiness' of having same sex and have gone against the Lord's
'Great Plan of Happiness', we could say the same.TrueChristian suggests service and charity and I am all for those, and do
those. But all the kindness or service or charity or loving others
in the world has got nothing to do with someone's agenda that children must
be taught that same-sex is and I quote, "just normal and natural."
@cristoph The Democrat party has never been for the poor. Not for helping them
to not be poor anyway. It is in their best interest to keep the poor in poverty
so they can use their sweet promises of a better life every election to get
votes. Republicans do the same thing.If the government really
wanted to help the poor, they'd quit bolstering up skyrocketing costs of
higher education via loans, and they'd make welfare at least partially
dependent on whether the recipient was attending school and maintaining good
grades or not, in my opinion.
sharrona,"....consider the O. T. on this: The Holiness Code
contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations
or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the N. T.
(Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are
timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and
the like, are still abominations before God...."______________________________Same sex marriage must be a powerful
issue if it can prod someone steeped in Pauline doctrines of salvation to take a
sudden keen interest in Mosaic law. Leviticus reflects the culture and mores of
a time in antiquity that is long gone. After all these centuries, it’s
time for us to let the dead bury the dead. We need to move on.
@JosephSmith4ever It is not a bogus statement at all. Lawsuits have been filed
against people who refused to marry homosexuals due to their religious beliefs,
and a recent lawsuit was filed against a baker for refusing to bake a homosexual
couple a wedding cake. Not only that, but the judged ordered him to do so, if I
recall correctly.It's really simple. If somebody believes that
adultery is wrong, they probably aren't going to drive their friend to meet
his mistress. If somebody believes drugs are wrong, they're probably not
going to allow others to do drugs in their homes or places of business. And, if
somebody believes that homosexuality is a sin, they shouldn't be made to
participate in it, and indeed have a constitutional right to refuse to condone
or serve it based on religious beliefs.
@sharrona: Your self-serving reading of the Bible is lamentable. Don't
idolize words. Read the message.TrueChristian, above, correctly
implores you to read the theme message. Love God. Love thy neighbor. The
Bible says this many times, in many ways, over and over and over, in both the
Old and New Testaments. It is more than charity, it is a Commandment.Leviticus has 21 admonitions against abominable things. You've latched
onto an interpretation of one of them. What about the others? Do you even know
what the first one is? It concerns eating meat from an animal slaughtered more
than two days ago. Even the kosherest of kosher salami fails this by a mile.
Genesis has two creation stories. Before the Eden story, it tells
us that men and women are BOTH in God's image, something that Quakers take
deeply to heart. And, if both are in God's image, than in EVERY couple,
straight or gay, we see God's love paired with God's love.If you count yourself a Bible-believing Christian, please re-read The Sermon
On The Mount, and pay attention this time.
RE: TrueChristian, If judging is totally forbidden, then that would make the
doctrinal and moral purity of the church impossible to maintain. This would
violate other teachings Christ has revealed in His word (see: Mt 7:16 ,By their
fruits you shall knew them). It would commit us to neutrality and that is the
very opposite of the stance Christ wants us to take.Jesus
taught,that we are given the right and responsibility to make judgments in order
to help our fellow man with their problem of sin, provided we have first
"remove the plank from our own eye." Jesus expects you to be able to see
clearly, so that you can "remove the speck from your brother's eye"
(Matthew 7:5). So there are judgments to be we cannot ignore our Lord's
commands that instruct us to make judgments. In John 7:24, "Do
not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment". we
are clearly commanded to judge with righteous judgment.RE: love all
men,(Example) Mother Teresa loved those who had same-sex attractions, but she
still called them to purity. it is precisely because she loved them that she
called them to practice chastity.
@RedWingsI apologize for the mistake. It was my negligence, never
intent to play on your screename.However, although I appreciate your
attempt for compromise by suggesting civil union, and even if people can put
their difference on "whether separation can be equal" aside, it still
can not change the fact that amendment 3 bans both SSM and civil union.
Therefore, your proposed compromise is not going to work in Utah, unless
amendment 3 is repealed.
@ Marco Luxe: Here is another study that shows the disadvantages of same-sex
"parenting", which shows that your assertions are counter-factural:NEW Canadian study - rate of graduation using census dataNow
a new study from Canada shows that children growing up in homosexual households
do NOT do as well as those growing up with married parents.Dr
Douglas Allen, economics professor at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia,
has published a peer-reviewed study titled High school graduation rates among
children of same-sex households”.It was published in Review of
the Economics of the Household, Vol 11, Issue 4.Dr Allen used a 20 %
sample of the 2006 Canada census to “identify self-reported children
living with same-sex parents” and investigated graduation rates of various
family types.He found that, “Children living with gay and
lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to
children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents
do considerably worse than sons.”
@TrueChristian: I see you were critical of sharrona's comments.
Well, sharrona made some very important and salient points related to this
whole issue. We are not judging the gay community un-righteously - we are only
following what God said about homosexuality, which is that it is wrong. That is
his judgment not ours. We love our fellow brothers and sisters who are gay, we
just don't love all of their behavior and some of their demands that we
sacrifice some of our basic rights as citizens. For example, we do not want men
or women who have a gender identity confusion to be able to enter into public
restrooms designated for men or women unless they are biologically a man or a
woman. We do not want our children to be taught in tax supported schools that
homosexual partnerships are the same as marriage between a man and a woman. God
judges morality not us - true Christians just follow his word - they don't
try to pervert it.
@RedWings - I think God calling sinners to repent is different from people
feeling that the government should enforce their view of morality. As an LDS
member, the law of chastity isn't bendable, and I'm not saying it
should be. But that doesn't mean I feel that the secular law of the land
should enforce my religion. People have their free agency, and gay marriage
doesn't change the law of chastity. If you feel that marrying someone of
the same sex is immoral, then don't marry someone of the same sex. The
Church also teaches that divorce is wrong, but I don't see anybody going
around trying to ban divorce - which is a much greater threat to marriage. Let
gays get married. Live your beliefs and set an example. Let God judge us all in
the end, but I'm tired of people using Christianity to make people suffer.
My concern is the example the adults of this world are setting for their
children. Boys learn how to be fathers by watching and learning from a
brother, father, grandfather, uncle, cousins, school or church leader. Girls
learn how to be women by watching and learning from a sister, mother,
grandmother, aunt, cousins, school or church leader. In a same sex marriage
have you thought about future generations? Our children are our future leaders.
This thought process and behavior will affect generations upon generations,
lets stop it before it gets totally out of control.
Sometimes I honestly wonder if people even read the Bible or just believe what
they are told without question.One man and one woman only?In the Bible, you will find that many of God's chosen servants, the
patriarchs, were polygamous (multiple wives) not monogamous (one wife). Abraham,
Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, just to name a few, and that polygamy came with
certain blessings (God's promises to Abraham).Is God the same
yesterday, today, and forever? So it says in the Bible.If your happy
with making up your own religion, that's fine, just don't try to force
it on others by the power of law, which is essentially collective force.People came to America to flee being told how to live and what to
believe, and what are we doing today?What a shame!
@Atl134In response to Cats who expressed concern over the damaging
things that gay marriage has led to in Massachussets you cavalierly said -
"Absolutely nothing except kids learn that some families have two parents of
the same gender". Well many people don't agree with you friend.One observer in Massachusetts shared the following - "Anyone who
thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which
won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in
Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and
normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What
has happened so far is only the beginning. Kindergartners were given picture
books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like
their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent
of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers
were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him
arrested and put in jail overnight.I and many citizens like me do
NOT want to have our children indoctrinated and forced to accept the
normalization of homosexuality - to us it is not normal intellectually,
biologically and morally!
Informed? said: According to experts, a traditional family is more likely to
provide a healthy and happy life...No, the experts don't say
that. There are all sorts of ways to a healthy and happy life, although the
experts do acknowledge that the stability of a legal marriage sure helps. You
thus imply support for SSM, as you should if you want to promote healthy and
happy lives. The definitional waffling in saying "We should even find ways
that they can financially be treated equal... but not marriage" is a
compassionate step toward the Golden Rule, but legally unsupportable. If civil
marriage is good for you, isn't it also good for those to whom you want to
show kindness and respect? Separate and unequal treatment shows neither
kindness nor respect, only underlying fear and self-interest. It takes courage
to truly embrace the Golden Rule.
TrueChristian: I hate no one. I have gay friends and co-workers
and have never mistreated anyone for their choice. However, Christ Himself came
to call sinners to repentance. As an LDS member, the Law of Chstity is not
bendable. Relations between a man and a woman in marriage is the only
acceptable use of the powers of procreation.YBH: "@Rightwings
and @2 bits"Clever play on my screename. The problem is that I
have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate in my life. My party
(Democratic Party) has left me behind by pursuing a platorm of hypocrisy.
Craig Clark: "Do you mean "separate but equal?" Where have I heard
that before?"Civil unions protect those in same-sex
relationships and provide for proection of religious beliefs by keeping
"marriage" where it belongs - in church. This is completely different
situation than "separate but equal" diners, restrooms, etc during the
civil rights movement.Again, SSM is about providing legal protection
for behavior, not a characteristic. The argument has completely shifted on this
basis. No one is forced to live a homosexual lifestyle. I have denied the SSA
desires I suffered with, and now I no longer struggle. And yes, I live a happier
life as a result.Choice in behavior is what separates us from
It takes great strength to live a life of personal integrity. Some
religions demand that gay people act the part in someone else's storyline.
But you don't have to accept a life of half-measures, semi-love, sort-of
belonging. You don’t have to suffer this "test." You can live the
life that's yours.You can have your turn to be swept away in
the love that is just for you: to find that person who makes every part of your
being tingle, who thrills you, who holds you, who sees you as no one else can,
who shares your darkest fears and most cherished dreams. You can find the one
your heart loves. You can marry. You can have a family.You can know
happiness, not through self-destructive determination and sacrifice, but through
bravery and integrity. You can be the person you were born to be.You
can be bigger than the religiously small. You can teach them about unconditional
love. Consider that the test is theirs, not yours.
@tiago I don’t know your life. But consider:Your body,
mind and heart have discovered you'll fall in love with a man, but you are
countermanding that to adhere to religious belief. You want to be
in the world you were born into, the lives around you. You knew nothing: they
taught you God. Heaven. How to believe. They taught you their beautiful world.
Their story casts them at the center of all meaning, all creation.
They have order. The way to their own eternal lives. And it conveniently
corresponds to their own sexual impulses. No wonder it works for them.Conform, and all is well. But the only role they have for you is off to the
side. Seeing you as whole would require them to re-examine their
foundational worldview. They must see you through the lens of their own
sexuality, reduce you to an urge, or risk threatening their very identity, their
role in cosmic order. They've spent your whole life making your
world one with no place for you. But they have more to lose in accepting that
gay people are real than you do. You have everything to gain.
@sharrona - I think you missed the entire point of my post. I'm not saying
that you should believe homosexuality to be moral, I'm saying that the
Bible commands us to love all men, and not judge them. You can cherry pick the
Old Testament all you want and say that certain parts have to be followed and
certain parts not, but at the end of the day when Jesus was asked what the
greatest commandments were, he didn't say 'make sure you judge others
and tell them if they are moral or not'. In the parable of the good
Samaritan Jesus specifically used someone that was considered religiously
unworthy to demonstrate who your neighbor was. "Judge not, that
ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with
what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)
RE: TrueChristian,(Jesus)“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made
them male(Adam) and (Eve)female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will
leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become
one flesh’(Mt 19:4-5)Also consider the O. T. on this: The
Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to
dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away
with in the N. T. (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes,
and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality,
bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God.RE: A Quaker. Not all Quakers believe the Bible if not, how about,Mother (Saint)Teresa loved those who had same-sex attractions, but she still
called them to purity. In fact, it is precisely because she loved them that she
called them to practice chastity. “It is a false form of compassion to
lead others to think that they can find fulfillment by living outside the will
@orem_man_am_i"The constitution does not forbid an individual from
using personal values based upon religious conviction to make decisions on laws
and policy that effect the community."that is true, but the
court of law must decide issues based on constitution, which guarantee equal
protection for every citizen, and not based on religious conviction.@Rightwings and @2 bitsEven we may put "separation is not
equal" aside, and agree on civil union, amendment 3 already banned civil
union along with SSM, that is why this amendment is discriminatory and has to be
Also, for those who think that the radical gay agenda wants to force you to
change your religion somehow, that is patently false and without any proof. You
can talk about businesses who have had to follow anti-discrimination laws and
provide services to everyone, but you can't cite a case where a religious
clergy men has been compelled to perform a religious ceremony. It just
doesn't happen, and hysterics are no way to conduct responsible public
policy. The Constitution protects religions from that kind of risk, just as it
provides equal protection for all Americans, including the gay ones. We should
celebrate that we have a society where ALL men can be free, because the same
Constitution that is going to allow gay marriage is the same one that lets you
practice your religion freely.
To my fellow Mormons who are posting here about gay marriage ruining our society
and violating their beliefs, I have one word: Repent. The scriptures tell us
that our greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbor.
It's time to love your neighbor. We had same sex marriage in Utah for what
- two weeks or so, and it changed nothing. The gospel is still true, Joseph
Smith is still a Prophet of God, the Book of Mormon is still the word of God. We
gain nothing by trying to punish our brothers and sisters who are trying to make
their way in the world. Instead of spending your time and energy trying to make
life harder for people who have already had hard lives, help the poor. Visit the
sick and elderly. The Constitution was inspired by God and it provides equality,
even if we don't agree. Let people use their agency, we already fought a
war in heaven for them to do so - Gay marriage in Utah won't change my
beliefs or what is true, but it is a great opportunity to show Christlike
Justice Ginsburg may have tipped the hand of the majority when she said she was
worried the Court was "getting ahead of public opinion." I've
always suspected that public sentiment drives much of what the Courts do on
social issues, I've just never heard a Supreme Court Justice say it during
oral arguments. If that is the case, what the Big PLan?I doubt very
seriously that Justice Kennedy's choice of words in the Winsor ruling were
casual statements. I also suspect Scalia's rant was based on the
deliberations of the Court, not just the opinion delivered by Kennedy.I suspect they want more states to overturn their own laws either through the
legislative process or by not appealing Federal decisions overturning their
laws. Then when the majority of states allow Gay Marriage and a larger majority
of the public say they are in favor of it, the will issue the landmark decision.
@informed?Separate but equal did not work for segregation between
the races not will it work for the LGBT community. Claiming you want LGBT to be
equal and then deny them equality is frankly hypocritical. This is not an issue
in which people have a difference of opinion based on what they believe is
right, it is about denying people their constitutional rights and human dignity.
Arguments based on procreation and religion are just to give an air
of legitimacy to identity-based prejudice. Bigots love to use this arguments,
particularly those based on scripture, because it imparts an air of authority
that helps tamp down the stench of prejudice.
900 'marriages'. That is all?So, that means that there is
less than 1 in 1,000 people in Utah who are trying to dictate tyrannically to
the rest of us by corrupting and subverting our communities/society on the
function and purpose of marriage and family.How greedy and self
absorbed have these people become?
RedWings,"....This is not about equality for the LGBT activits;
it is about retribution and destruction for societal values...."______________________________You have the right to believe that
if you choose. I don’t share that view. But I would still be supportive of
same sex marriage even if I thought that gays and lesbians were pushing for
marital rights simply to lash out the world. If it was just a vendetta, it
wouldn’t have the support it has.
@Truthseeker Business should still have the right to do business with whom ever
they please. If a florial shop owner or baker does not want to participate in a
SSM then they should not have to do to their rights. That is the issue now is
that everyone has to bend over backwards for the minority in America. Is their
rights not being squashed? The people of Utah already spoke and voted not to
legalize SSM. So why should the majority have to compromise when those who
wanted SSM had a chance to cast their vote in a legal election. Those who
supported SSM lost it is not only the will of the people but the will of God to
not allow SSM.
Schnee said "the LDS church can choose to not marry people of other faiths
in their temples."Do you also agree that LDS people could have
their children protected from being taught that same-sex is natural and normal?
@mohrman:Yes, this country allows for religious freedom, and it should stay that
way. However, this country was not founded on religion, otherwise the word God
would appear in the U.S. Constitution, and the first amendment would not say,
"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion",
which is what you and other theocrats desire. You are free to believe as you
wish, but you are not free to impose your beliefs on others. If you want to be
a part of a religion that says gay marriage is evil, go for it; just don't
try legislate your religious beliefs. The U.S. Constitution opposes such
Here is a compromise.Call ALL unions conducted by the State
"Civil Unions" (Regardless of the sex of the couples). So a justice of
the peace or a judge could conduct a wedding resulting in a Civil Union. But a
religious ceremony based on the religious definition of "Marriage" that
goes back to Adam and Eve... would be called "Marriage".In
reality it doesn't matter what you call it. Call it "Marriage" or
"Civil Union"... as long as they both have the same legal rights, it
seems like this would satisfy BOTH sides. Ceremonies conducted by
judges and other government officials would be called "Civil" union, and
ceremonies conducted by religious clergy would be called "Marriage"...
but they both have the same legal rights. And we don't force God to
accept OUR definition of "Marriage" as his.We shouldn't
force either side to do it your way, or force one side to give up their beliefs.
They both get what they want (legal union) but you allow religious people to
still see the religious significance in their union. It may be fictional... but
at least it makes them happy. Why FORCE them to do it your way?
@RedWings"Civil unions provide for the same legal protections
marriage does. In CA, civil unions were already legal when Prop 8 was passed,
and later overruled by the court. Thsi is not about equality for the LGBT
activits; it is about retribution and destruction for societal values."Do you mean "separate but equal?" Where have I heard that
It's hard to tell if these "worries" that churches will be
compelled to sanctify gay marriages are honest, if ignorant, beliefs, or are
fabrications intended to sway others to oppose SSM.Because,
it's not true, there's no way, and the proof is all around you.. NO ONE can marry in a Mormon Temple without a Recommend..
Non-Catholics, excommunicatees, or divorcees can't marry in a Catholic
Church.. Non-Jews, non-members, or anyone the rabbi doesn't
approve of, can't marry in a Jewish Temple..
Interdenominational couples often can't marry in either faith.Discrimination in the offering of rites is not only allowed, it's the
prerogative of every religious denomination, and within most denominations,
within the prerogative of the individual cleric to further reject performing
them for anyone.Even in a Quaker Meeting where marriage is conducted
without a cleric, and a couple can just stand up and say their vows to each
other, no marriage will be witnessed without prior approval of the Meeting,
which involves three levels of committee approvals by my count.Plus,
it says right in the First Amendment that government doesn't have a say in
@orem_man_am_i – “The founding fathers were all religious men and
left Britain to be able to have that freedom.You mean these Founding
Fathers?"The United States in is no sense founded upon the
Christian religion." George Washington "Revealed religion
has no weight with me." Benjamin Franklin "I do not find in
Christianity one redeeming feature." Thomas Jefferson "This
could be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."
John Adams "I disbelieve all holy men and holy books."
Thomas Paine "Religions are all alike, founded upon fables and
myths." Thomas Jefferson "In no instance have churches been
the guardians of the liberties of the people." James Madison "The Christian god is cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust."
Thomas Jefferson "What has been Christianity's fruits?
Superstition, bigotry, and persecution." James Madison
Craig Clark:Civil unions provide for the same legal protections
marriage does. In CA, civil unions were already legal when Prop 8 was passed,
and later overruled by the court. Thsi is not about equality for the LGBT
activits; it is about retribution and destruction for societal values.We have gone from equal protection based on characteristics to protection
based on behavior. Homosexual behavior is different from same-sex attration.
SSA can and is overcome every day by men and women who strive to follow their
Higher Power. The entire human genome has been mapped, and no "gay
gene" has been found. If we are going to protect behavior,
where do we stop? Is it my right to run a prostitution business because that is
how I choose to follow the "pursuit of happiness"? I am not hurting
anyone else by this behavior.
Re: ". . . the law cannot legally force a church to marry a couple they
don't want to marry."Actually, the LDS church has already
been named as a defendant in a law suit claiming the church denied someone their
rights because they were gay. It was reported in all the local papers and on
the news. It was thrown out when the court discovered that the couple named as
the complainant didn't even know they were part of the law suit (turns out
it was an opportunistic lawyer that saw a possibility of getting a big
settlement without even going to court, and just grabbed a bunch of names of gay
couples and filed the papers without even contacting the people he claimed were
suing).But it's already happened. I think it's safe to
assume that the church will be sued again in the future if they don't
relent and allow gays to marry in their temples. The legal battles over this
have already started.
@PaganThe constitution does not forbid an individual from using
personal values based upon religious conviction to make decisions on laws and
policy that effect the community. The founding fathers were all religious men
and left Britain to be able to have that freedom.Also, I find it
hilarious that the so called "atheist" who clams to only use science and
reason in all of their decision making have to constantly resort to "name
calling" people of faith. So much for good sound logic based argument.
Nimble legislature? That's funny. In the same sex marriage debate we have:
a citizenry that voted on a law that went well beyond its stated intention, and
would clearly not pass again today. We have states' rights activists
claiming legal authority to effect unequal treatment of a minority group. We
have religious activists claiming same sex marriage is an affront to religious
freedom, despite any evidence and a powerful 1st amendment to protect them.
Then there are the family welfare folks who believe the only place for kids is
in a "traditional home" although that is a thing of the past (stats bare
this out entirely). We have "an activist judge" who "legislates from
the bench". A seemingly "activist supreme court" that places more
value on smooth and orderly social transition than it does personal freedom and
liberty! And finally, we have folks who are tired of waiting in line as a second
class citizen and simply want to get on with their lives, families and kids with
the full protection of the law. In other words, democracy is working PERFECTLY
CDL,"....Compromise. Civil Unions equal benefits."______________________________If you’re willing to go that
far, what's the objection to a legal spousal relationship? That’s all
that same sex couples are insisting upon. It accords them the same formal social
status that has long been enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Is it so hard to see
why they would yearn for that same level of acceptance in the world?
That’s what makes me wonder if what opponents to gay marriage are really
so desperately fighting to hang onto is a social pecking order.
@VanceoneIn New Jersey, the Democratic majority pulled a bill
legalizing gay marriage. Why? Because the bill gave religious institutions an
exemption from being forced to perform gay ceremonies.The truth is,
Democratic majority authored that bill, and it already passed both state
congress and senate in 2012. If republican governor Christie signed it back
then, religious institutions would already have their exemption. In
stead, Christie vetoed. Now, gay marriage is legalized in NJ by state court, and
no exemption for religious institutions was mentioned in court order. That is exactly the point this article’s author tried to make: rely on
legislative compromise to get gay marriage exemption for religious institutions,
before court rules, it will be a win-win. But if you refuse to
legalize gay marriage through legislature and wait for a court ruling, religious
institutions may risk getting nothing.
If you're for gay marriage you are not gonna get through people who are
against it and vice versa. Why waste your time to try and convince anybody to
see your way. Im not for it but I know it's inevitable,
it's a matter of time. The only issue for me is the government forcing
religions to marry gay couples. Is it gonna happen? I don't know. Could it
happen? It's definitely in the realm of possibility. As long as it's
written clear as day that gay couples that are turned down by a religious
institution for marriage can NOT pursue any sort of law suit then I'm
completely fine with them being married.
For those that claim that this does not affect or force clergy to marry, your
naïve. That would be the next step, to sue churches for not performing gay
marriages, just as the recent law suit brought against the LDS Church displays.
They do this in incremental steps, not in sweeping motions. Just as other
professionals face law suits by vindictive gays when they are denied various
services because of religious beliefs, once gay marriage is established in their
Pagan~ Marriage is a religious 'rite' or ceremony and traditionally
has been. Ceremonies performed at the court house are civil ceremonies performed
by judges. One religious and the other secular. No one is attempting to stop
individuals from coupling, and most agree there is the free agency to choose.
Even the religious understand it is not a sin to be 'gay' but
according to religious tenants it is a sin to act on it. A difficult struggle in
deed, a trial so to speak for them and their families and for how others react
to and treat these individuals. For those that choose to live the gay life style
I have no problem with them having civil unions, but understand that where some
'benefits' that do not match that of those that are married, should be
extended and that is where 'equality' is attained. Some claim that the
only way to attain equality is to provide 'marriage.' That is false
and opens up other issue where gays show their animosity anytime a religious
professional declines services based on religious believes. Courts defile
constitutional rights of religious individuals forcing them to go against their
religious beliefs. Compromise. Civil Unions equal benefits.
Re:Meckofahess"Please recognize that some things being pushed by the
gay community like "gender identity" laws that allow anyone to use
men's or women's restrooms regardless of their biological identity may
not be acceptable to the straight community."Consider a woman
who identifies as a man and from all outside appearances is a man. What would
your response be if this person walked into the restroom you are using? Would that be more acceptable to the "straight" community?
Having men and women who appear as the opposite gender using the bathroom that
represents their "biological" identity? My guess is it would be
unnerving to many women to have a man walk in and use women's facilities.
Google and read the case of Jonas and Wyatt Maines, " Led by the
Child Who Simply Knew."
let's maintain separation of church and state, accept that religion or
faith is an individual right, and create an environment of inclusion rather than
exclusion. the biggest problem we have in this country is the never ending
struggle of the have not's trying to make a place for themselves and their
children in our economy which is becoming more and more reminiscent of the
oppressive days when the Vanderbilt's, etc. ruled the economic life of our
country and where most were relegated to a lower working class. we need to end
the slippery slope into a true class structure.
“I think the Supreme Court sent a very clear message to other lower courts
that these things should be stayed until they are finally resolved.”This was predictable… @bandersen – “what
you are calling SSA is nothing more or less than what ever human being suffers
with any other sin or thought that deviates from a Christ centered
life!”What if you were born into a religion (go with the irony
here) that told you opposite sex attraction was a sin and a deviation from a
“Flying Spaghetti Monster” centered life? Since gay
people do not chose to be gay (who would chose the hassle?) it follows that they
were born/created the way they are, so your admonition sounds (to them) exactly
like mine does to you.Is it any wonder that most gay people flee
religion the minute they can?
@JMT"Judge Shelby acted in a manner absolutely inconsistent with legal
protocol."It is the duty of federal courts to strike down
laws that violate the US Constitution. If that were not an option then
there'd be no point in ever challenging any laws. Guess what, sometimes you
lose (just like Chicago just had one of its gun laws struck by a federal judge
yesterday).@Meckofahess"May I also suggest that our
friends in the gay community need to try to understand the "straight"
point of view too "Roughly half of straight people in America
disagree with you on the matter of same-sex marriage.@Cats" Anyone who wants to know about the dangers needs only look at
Massachussetts and what has happened there over the last ten years of gay
marriage."Absolutely nothing except kids learn that some
families have two parents of the same gender, which probably helps reduce
bullying of kids with those families. Oh, and Catholic Charities doesn't
get state funding anymore because they don't follow state guidelines for
adoptions. They could still use their own funding to maintain their...
standards... but chose not to go that route.
I think a more fundamental question is, Does a State in the United States under
the Constitution have the right to create laws which are based upon a
recognition of the differences between Men and Women and their innate roles in
society? Traditional Marriage recognizes this, while a genderless marriage does
not. Is it constitutional for a law to recognize that men and women are
different, albeit equal, before the law? It is this fundamental principle which
is under attack.
>>No one ... should be using any aspect of religion, faith or God to
change your neighbor's ability to enjoy their rights as a Citizen of these
United States.You're demanding an impossibility. All laws are moral decisions about which behaviors we as a society consider
right and wrong. In the US, citizens cast votes to direct how laws get shaped,
executed, and interpreted based on personal beliefs about what is right and
wrong. Those beliefs, for most of us, are influenced by religion. So while
it's unconstitutional for government to prefer any one religion, it's
impossible to require that individuals or groups not us any aspect of religion
or faith to influence the shaping of laws (and even civil rights).My
religion informs my values, which influence my vote and political behavior. If
you can demand that I can't use religion-informed values to direct my civic
choices, then I can demand that you abandon whatever value system you use to
guide your civic choices. I think what you really want is for me to
abandon my values while you get to apply yours.
@Cats: Whether or not you intend it, your "slippery slope" argument and
fear-mongering serve the purpose of hate-mongering, since fearful people often
hate that which threatens them.The key point here is that no one is
threatened by allowing same-sex couples to pledge themselves to a lifetime
relationship. No one. There is no slippery slope. We are asking the exact
same thing of them that we ask of the 95% of couples who are straight. They
must be unrelated by blood, currently unattached by marriage, of the age of
consent, and willing to pledge to each other for life. This is not a
big change.To those who point to child-bearing as a requirement...
For this to be true, first:. Change marriage to require
child-bearing. Disallow all infertile marriage.. If a couple
doesn't bear a child within three years, dissolve their marriage.. If a couple's last child dies and they don't bear another within
three years, dissolve the marriage.. If parents can't support
their children, dissolve the marriage.Make those changes to
marriage, and your arguments will be valid. Otherwise, no.
I hope this stay puts some urgency on it for the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court needs to rule on this once and for all. They seem to keep stalling and
delaying. They SHOULD have decided this way back when they got the California
case, but instead of deciding they just send it back without a decision on a
technicality (deciding the people who questioned the lower court ruling
didn't have standing, and the California AG failed to defend the Amendment
approved by Proposition 8). I think State AGs should defend EVERY
part of their State Constitution (new or old, whether they agree with it
personally or not, whether they agree with it politically or not, it's part
of their job description to defend the Constitution). Just letting
this Amendment fall that was a result of a legal Constitution Amendment process
and got the required votes... was Government neglect of the will of the people
if you ask me. California should have defended it (even if the AG knew he
would loose) so the Supreme Court would have to actually DECIDE (not just reject
the case due to lack of standing allowing the lower court decision to stand).
It seems like a lot of religious people who have never felt same sex attraction
believe that sexuality is fluid and that there is a significant number of people
who could be happily heterosexual but are also curious about exploring same-sex
and other non-traditional relationships and will explore them if they are
legally and socially accepted. It seems they are worried about normalizing gay
love because it will make more people gay. Based on my experience, I don't
think this is true and I'm not worried about it.What I guess I most
want to add to the discussion is that we need to assume the best about other
people and not see evil intentions where they don't exist, no matter which
perspective you're coming from. There are legitimate concerns to discuss,
but we need to at least start by accepting that a gay person's feelings are
real and not inherently evil.
Every time I see that baby in the arms of two 70 year old men (Elton John and
his "husband") I can't help but feel sorry for that kid. Actually,
I get a little nauseous. Marriage is more than binding two adults.
It was ordained for the proper raising of children. As sympathetic as I am to
all the claims and testimonies of gay people, I can't help but wonder why
we can't all agree that the best way for a child to be raised is by a man
and a woman. It just seems like that natural order of things...like since the
beginning of beginning of time.
To Liberty For All: Your comments are your doctrine not LDS Church doctrine.
Whatever resolution is reached on what shall be the law of the land cannot
change religion. That’s not the issue. Likewise, sectarian religious
beliefs cannot be the basis for public law that applies to believers and
non-believers alike.Keep religious belief out of the discussion. The
picture is muddled enough without making it impossible for reasonable people to
work something out.
Re: ". . . the law cannot legally force a church to marry a couple they
don't want to marry."While that may be true today, there
are certainly liberal and LGBT activists that will continue to push hard to
change today's reality tomorrow.Recent developments clearly
demonstrate that it is now firmly entrenched in US law that a single radical,
agenda-driven, liberal judicial appointee is free -- without significant
consequence -- to disingenuously wreak tremendous havoc with American law.And that's the op-ed's point -- this issue is better
considered and more judiciously decided in legislative discussions than in legal
proceedings before corrupt, unhinged liberal judges, who have recently
demonstrated precious little fealty to the rule of law or their oaths of office.
I applaud the decisions to have the stay.Irregardless of how this
all turns out, I think that one benefit of the discussions is that a lot of
people are going to give more weight to the instituion of marriage as a stable
environment for the raising of children as opposed to sleeping around, living
together and getting married only when there is a pregnancy.
Good. Let's get the process correct and straight, so it eliminates that
entire segment of the argument against same sex marriage. Then, let's move
forward with it.
Regardless of what faith you have...Regardless of what religion you
have...Regardless of what church you belong to, or donate to...RELIGION IS A CHOICE!IF it was not a choice, then why do so
many religious groups employ missions, to convert people to their particular
view of God?Likewise, there are people who live long lives who do
not believe in a god.If you believe that atheists will go to Hell,
then that is THEIR choice!No one in the United States should be
using any aspect of religion, faith or God to change your neighbor's
ability to enjoy their rights as a Citizen of these United States.If
you do not believe in gay marriage, then DON'T MARRY A GAY PERSON!But you should not have the legal ability to block my choice of the one person
who I want to marry.
Dear Bob K:Religious people don't have to accept being forced
to do things that are against their religion. There has clearly been an
encroachment on religious freedom by the gay agenda. We are sitting on a
precipice of very dangerous actions that could completely unravel our society.
People of conscience have to continue to fight to save this country from the
slippery slope which will destroy us as a people if we don't wake up. I have great sympathy with individuals who struggle with same-sex
attraction. I have no sympathy with the radical gay agenda. Anyone who wants
to know about the dangers needs only look at Massachussetts and what has
happened there over the last ten years of gay marriage. It's frightening.
Those who represent a minority in this country, even if they're a majority
in Utah, are wise to remember the importance of protections for minorities.
It's unconstitutional for majorities to vote to deprive minorities of equal
treatment under the law. And it's civil laws we're talking about!
Separation of church and state exists for good reason. Just because your
particular religion doesn't approve of same-sex marriage doesn't mean
your religious beliefs should hold sway over state and federal laws and the
hundreds of benefits (and responsibilities) that civil marriage entails.
Everyone deserves equal rights. Then it's up to each religion to choose
whether or not they want to perform a religious ceremony in addition to the
civil license a couple has received (many religious denominations will gladly
perform ceremonies to bless same-sex marriages). No one is forcing any church to
change its practices surrounding same-sex marriage, but no one church has the
right to take anyone's rights away, or to stand in the way of the
continuing expansion of our understanding of justice and equality, which is part
of our heritage as Americans.
The only people who see chaos in all of this are the political people who
won't let it go. the Attorney General of Utah talks about the hurt this is
causing people but he is the one doing the hurting.
Tiago: You may want to chat, but, as is the case with any deviation from Christ
(which all sin is), I hardly think that a latent adulterer is going to ask for
the same leniency and understanding in public! So, if you want to chat, at
least admit that what you are calling SSA is nothing more or less than what ever
human being suffers with any other sin or thought that deviates from a Christ
centered life! Instead of announcing with proud acclaimation your on the edge
sinning possibilities, why not just quietly seek for remediation from Him who
heals all? That, my friend, would give you the best chance to make a difference
in not only your own life, but others as well!
@Tiago,I appreciate your sincerity and honest comments in this
discussion. I think your assertion that "Feeling same sex attraction, at
least for some people, is innate and unchangeable" is accurate from what I
have learned listening and learning about same sex attraction. I think we in the
"straight" community need to recognize and try to understand your point
of view and respect you as a child of God who has special needs like everyone
elso. May I also suggest that our friends in the gay community need to try to
understand the "straight" point of view too and work with us to find
some common ground and legal solutions that are fair and acceptable to both
sides.Please recognize that some things being pushed by the gay community like
"gender identity" laws that allow anyone to use men's or
women's restrooms regardless of their biological identity may not be
acceptable to the straight community.
Sal: "not a chance that the next step will not be a push for gays to be
married by religious clergy. They are already trying to force, through
legislation, religious photographers to do gay weddings."Nonsense. Commercial photographers who refuse to offer services to same-sex
couples are being treated exactly the same way you'd expect a private
business to be treated that refuses to offer its services to Mormons.
They're being sued in civil court. There is no legislation."Catholic adoption centers have been forced to close over this issue."
Only because they received state money for adoption services, and they chose
not to work on adoption at all rather than accept state funds. They could
perform adoption services with as much religious discrimination as they want so
long as they do it without taxpayer support."The religious
history of this earth shows that people of faith will be persecuted again and
they are and it will increase. "That's complete fantasy.
The actual history of human behavior is that people "of faith" do most
of the persecuting.
Cougar11: 'I cannot accept gay marriage because I believe in God and I
believe in his gospel."Well that's the very heart of this
issue.I _don't_ believe in your God, I _don't_ believe in
your gospel, and my status as an American citizen is equal to yours. Your
religious beliefs don't make you better than other people who don't
share them.You don't get to decide who has their constitutional
rights violated, ever.And is marriage a constitutionally guaranteed
right? Of course it is. Try to imagine your reaction to a state law forbidding
your from marrying the person you love on the basis of eye color, hair color,
height or bone structure.
>>Such a bill would be unconstitutional.History is
instructive. Anyone living in Utah should know that the Edmunds Tucker Act of
1887--upheld by the Supreme Court several times as constitutional--is
counterexample #1 to any claim that the First Amendment will be an effective
shield for people of faith against a Federal Government determined to enforce
its preferred definition of marriage.And note that the Ednmunds
Tucker Act, among other things dis-incorporated the church and put its assets,
including all temples and meetinghouses, under government control.
Churches and individuals already have protection via the Frist Amendment.
Businesses, in the public arena, should not be allowed to discriminate based on
"religion" (which is impossible for a business to practice, as they are
not living beings).@Tiago;I sincerely hope you
aren't going to be "single 'til death". Life is for LIVING;
that's what you're here for. You were given 'talents';
don't bury them.@BlackDiamond;Stop discrimination
and bigotry. Just stop it!@Cougar11;It isn't for
you to decide who marries whom. We are NOT a theocracy; god's will
isn't relevant to civil law (you never know who's god is going to take
precedence). Your church doesn't have to change it's INTERNAL policy.
It has no business interfering in the lives of non-members.
What I always find amusing is how the opinion of the Judicial Branch (whether it
be Federal Judges or the Supreme Court) swings like a pendulum. If the judges
agree with what we think as individuals, why then they are the wisest people on
the planet. But if they disagree with us and what we think and 'feel'
then the judge is reactionary, an activist, or a revisionist. It's about time that some people admit the judges in this case, as in
other controversial topics, are for the overwhelming part, primarily concerned
with the Constitution and doing their jobs in interpreting the laws and
determining whether or not any given law is aligned with the Constitution.
It's why Federal judges go through a vetting process. It's also about time for some to face the possibility that they (we), not
the judges are the reactionaries and activists, according to our beliefs, swayed
by our emotions and not necessarily an objective reading/interpretation of the
The very idea that we should oppose marriage of one American to another based on
gender is much like opposing it based on race (loving vs. VA) which was once the
law in VA and other states. Suggesting that it needs to be opposed
because children need both mother and father is even more bizarre. Are we to
only allow people to marry who can demonstrate their willingness and ability to
bear offspring? Are we to eliminate divorce in cases where there are offspring?
How old would the offspring need to be before we allow divorce? Do we abort
all fetus' which lack a married father? Maybe force adoption (only into a
married man and woman, of course!) in those cases of unmarried mothers giving
birth? The downstream consequences are unthinkable. Many millions of people
get married after their breeding years are over. Do we deny them as well?
>>That is a totally bogus statement. Mandating gay marriage doesn't
mandate religious institutions to perform gay marriage.Perhaps not
religious institutions, but there have been several instances where private
business owners who run wedding-related businesses (photography, venue, etc)
wanted to decline a same-sex couples' patronage on religious grounds, were
sued, and then ordered by the courts to make their services available.
Cougar11: "The [Mormon] church cannot change and I cannot change because God
has made it clear and has commanded it so."I understand this as
far as it concerns its own church members. But how can the Mormon doctrine of
eternal marriage (official basis to reject SSM) be valid to deny SSM to
non-members who marry civilly "till death do you part"? I recommend the
article comparing Mormonism and Catholicism in the latest issue of Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought (free downloadable article). It argues that Mormonism
is more compassionate and thus amenable to soften its viewpoint on SSM, as far
as it concerns civil society.
What has bothered me most about this is the radical zeal of the Left, exposed,
once again.Judge Shelby acted in a manner absolutely inconsistent
with legal protocol.Most leftists are in fact 'low
information' voters and when the actions of this judge were pointed out,
they simply didn't care because 'the end justifies the means.'
They want what they want and they have zero regard for a "democracy"
(actually a republic but...)Many leftist are super-high informed
voters, knew the judges actions were out of protocol and again, didn't care
because 'the end justifies the means.' They simply want what they want
and will destroy anything to get it.This is like the Senate end the
filibuster, passing the Affordable Care Act via the made up 'deemed'
rule, the President implementing 'the DREAM Act' even though Congress
never passed it, sending money to the Muslim Brotherhood even though...To my leftist friends, these are not the actions of a free people (yes, debate
that) but of tyranny and fiat. The 'means' matter. If this is OK what
I disagree with the process needing to be more slow. The LGBT community has
waited too long for equal rights. The state of Utah should have never gotten a
stay. I believe it will be resolved quickly and it will pave the way for
equality in the rest of the country. Love will prevail.
Utah, bigotry with a smile. :)
The beginning of this article sets the stage of an attitude I do not and will
not agree with. To say Utah wants to be slow in making progress makes the
assumption that progress means putting aside the religious beliefs of the
majority of the people in Utah and more importantly, it's saying that
progress means to put aside the teachings of God that have been around since the
Bible. To those who do not wish to believe in God, that is your choice but this
country was founded on religious liberty. No matter how much noise the media or
groups scream and try to make it the mainstay, who are we to tell God what is
best for a family...who are we to tell God the definition of marriage. Yes
there are those who will be single as they have SSA. Isn't life about
having faith though? If one simply pulls away from all the noise of the world
and read and study what God has shared, it would be less complicated. I wish
people would simply stop throwing God away as that is the ultimate lack of
respect to others and to this country.
It is NO surprise that the writer, a DN employee, manages to see the obvious
coming, but does not offer a reasonable chance of a fair result that everyone
can live with.1-- The religious need to accept that businesses open
to the public in States with public accommodation laws can't say no to Gays
without paying a fine, or being sued by the State Attorney General.---
There have been a tiny number of cases.2-- The religious need to
give up the heinous lie that Gay people are on a crusade to force them to
perform same sex marriages. Only ONE case, where a church owns a facility for
weddings away from the church, open to the general public, has caused a suit.--- Please use your brains to realize you have been lied to: no legislature is
ever going to pass a law saying clergy must perform church weddings for
anyone.3--- Everyone needs to remember that Gay people are your
children, friends, and neighbors, who want to get along, not some enemy
conspiracy against religion.4--- If we are honest, we know that the
problem is not Gay strangers oppressing religions ----- religions must get over
making their Gay children 2nd class.
@Tiago,I'm concerned about your statement "I would not love
a woman". I love a lot of people regardless of gender, or whether
they're gay or straight, or whether I'm married to them. Perhaps you
meant something different than "love".I know of at least one
instance of a gay man who married a woman, had children, and remains faithful to
his wife and children because he knows it's the right thing to do in spite
of his natural sexual attraction to other men. He and his wife did this with
their eyes fully open - their was no deceit or hiding of the situation. What was
his motivation? I believe it was love - love of God, to begin with, and love of
correct principles. He understands the importance of having children, and the
importance of raising children with appropriate gender roles. But I'm
pretty sure he also loves his wife and children.Sexual attraction
and love are two different things that are perhaps often confused.
VanceoneProvo, UTIn New Jersey, the Democratic majority pulled a
bill legalizing gay marriage. Why? Because the bill gave religious institutions
an exemption from being forced to perform gay ceremonies.The gay lobby
objected vociferously. They do not want churches to be exempt. =---NOT TRUE -- the bill was pulled because it was overkill,about ONE church
that owns a wedding hall open to the public.Cougar11Highland,
UT".. marriage is a three-way commitment between one man, one woman
and God."YES, to some religions, but the Constitution does not
support your view.TiagoSeattle, WA"I'm also
gay, or deal with SSA, or however you want to say it. 100%. I can't change.
I've prayed and done therapy. I have no romantic interest in women."---I am sorry that you placed remaining in a procreation-based
prosperity scheme church above the true nature that God put into your heart. Jesus died on the cross so that you would not have to. You are deceived into
trying to do His job.Cougar11Highland, UT--- Your
brother in law, whom you claim to love, might want to marry.Your false
interpretation of what God wants in 2014 stop him.
The stay is not an indicator of how the Supreme court will decide this issue, or
even if it will accept certiorari if requested. They just like to have cases
fully briefed and argued before a decision is made. The stay just allows
everything to play out. Wait and see what happens.
To the dismay of Chris B. Black Diamond and my personal favorite Joseph
Smith4ever...The ruling will stand. More whining will ensue and reality may set
in. SCOTUS simply desires an opportunity to etch their mark in history and
finalize equal rights for all.
The institution of marriage has hooks into every part of society; that's
what making a decision on SSM so difficult. We try to anticipate what SSM will
do to the fabric of society today and in the future. Here is an angle not
discussed. It can be argued that the role of males is the most fragile in our
system or any system. Socialization of males is critical and difficult - women
as bearers of children have a much more secure footing. What will happen to
boys being raised by two women? We know that one of the problems faced by black
America is the lack of male presence in most black families - with disastrous
consequences for boys raised under that circumstance. Those boys are in turn
not ready to form households, being not well socialized into the process. In my
view there is a real threat to boys and young men (and the families they might
have formed) coming from SSM.We socialists try to say that we are
biological beings, and for that reason we can't mix and match at will in
defining families. SSM is a bad deal for boys and young men.
Since no one is talking about how the Full Faith and Credit Clause would provide
a way for the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriages for many, if not all
couples -- it's probably a safe bet that's how it is going to be done.
I really appreciated the previous comments. Salt Lake City, Utah is home to
more same-sex couples with children (approx 26%), thus leading the nation's
metropolitan cities (see UCLA School of Law recent statistical report). Has
Utah's pushing this issue to the higher court led to a possible federal law
to approve same-sex marriages? Could polygamy and polyandry be included as
well? Would this protect all married spouses to a greater degree? Just a few
thoughts ... looking for guidance as to these questions. Thank you!
Remember when the Democratic party used to be for the poor? The poor don't
get talked about much now.
I think there is a huge misunderstanding, as most people who do not support gay
marriage do not wish any ill will towards those who do support it. Please
don't be confused. In fact, we need to assure that those who live a
lifestyle that is outside of One man and One woman, are treated kind and
respectful. We should even find ways that they can financially be treated
equal.However, that is not marriage.Marriage is for one man and one
woman. Whether you believe in God, or in Evolution, or both it is the same.
Man and woman can procreate. No other combination works in human beings. Two
men or two women cannot procreate. Their genes will die off if they are true to
their way of life. According to experts, a traditional family is more likely to
provide a healthy and happy life for those involved compared to those who are
missing a mother and or father. The evidence for Gods Plan of happiness in
families is everywhere for those who choose to look and see.
Tiago, Many wanted to come to earth in the pre-existence, but were not as
worthy or valiant as others. The lord wanted to provide the opportunity for
eternal happiness and celestial glory if they could prove themselves worthy of
such blessings. Such is your task on earth you were given the
"blessing" of same-sex attraction to overcome in your short mortal time
on this earth. Live your life in righteous and show the lord you are indeed
worthy of celestial glory and eternal blessing.
This keeps going between lower and higher courts, it will never end !The
fundamental rights are not defined, who might have a "gender", who does
marry any of another "gender", if people manage to twist such
fundamental dimensions what is left to define ? They might define what Gay
Marriage would be, but what comes next ?There is no hope in this
struggle, until people stop making such things popular all the time, as
reflected in polls, that do show a merciful attitude, but no thoughtful balance
for future generations. What should change is, people must change.
They go by the rush of time, to let everybody do whatever fits them, in
order to gain peace and to be left alone. That is what this government is all
about lately, people stay out of it, so the rule of thumb is more involvement of
government, less involvement of people.This LGBT movement is showing
forth weakness of its own people to rule country.The Constitution was
intented to tell us just that. We forgot ?
Re:Cougar11"However, I cannot accept gay marriage because I believe in
God and I believe in his gospel. He has said without hesitation that marriage is
an institution between one man and one woman. "(Except when He
said marrriage is between a man and a woman and another woman and another woman
and a man and.....)Marriage is a secular institution as well--not
just a religious institution. You live in a pluralistic society--not just an
LDS one. Nobody is requiring the LDS church to sanction or perform same-sex
marriages. Ultimately, what you do is between you and God. If you
believe same-sex marriage is a sin-- don't get one. Will He hold you
responsible for your brother-in-law's "sins?" Re:SalCatholic Adoptive services in MA placed 2 children with same-sex
couples. It became an issue when it was reported in the Boston Globe and
Catholic leaders were made aware.Public businesses are required to
conform to anti-discrimination laws. Religious institutions are not. Many
religious organizations still discriminate against women. The LDS church
restricted the priesthood based on race for many years after the Civil Rights
‘Supreme Court stay on marriage shows desire for slower process' -
Title I disagree. *'Gallup Poll: Majority of
Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews -
05/20/2011'For the first time since Gallup started studying the
issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor
legalizing same-sex marriage.' *'Poll: More Americans
favor same-sex marriage' - CNN - 04/19/11 *'Poll:
MAJORITY backs same-sex marriage' – By Paul Steinhauser and Bill
Mears – CNN – 06-26-13'According to the CNN/ORC
International survey, a majority–55%–of Americans back same-sex
marriage, up 11 percentage points from 2008. *Same-sex marriage
legalization seen as INEVITABLE to most Americans' – By Anjani
Trivedi – TIME Magazine – 06-07-13 *'Poll: Support
for gay marriage UP among Catholics' – By Jillian Rayfield –
Salon – 03/08/13 *'A Majority of Young Republicans
Support Gay Marriage' - —By Tim Murphy – Mother Jones –
03/08/2013 I could see how some want to 'slower
process'…when all they are doing is holding America,
@JosephSmith4ever: not a chance that the next step will not be a push for gays
to be married by religious clergy. They are already trying to force, through
legislation, religious photographers to do gay weddings. Catholic adoption
centers have been forced to close over this issue. The religious
history of this earth shows that people of faith will be persecuted again and
they are and it will increase. Darkness has to put out the light that reveals
the sin. It won't rest until it is extinguished. Then the catastrophes
befall the nation.
Tiago,I am sorry for the struggles of your life. I know only a few
gay people including a brother-in-law who we love very much. He is in a
monogomous relationship for several years and I hold no ill will to the gay
community. However, I cannot accept gay marriage because I believe in God and I
believe in his gospel. He has said without hesitation that marriage is an
institution between one man and one woman. The church cannot change and I
cannot change because God has made it clear and has commanded it so. I believe
in fairness and thus believe that the state should allow the rights that a two
way relationship should demand regardless of gender. However, marriage is a
three-way commitment between one man, one woman and God. He does not recognize
it; he has said clearly it is a sin and therefore can not stand as a marriage.
Just as if two heterosexuals are living together outside of marriage, he does
not recognize that and calls that a sin as well. I am sorry for your struggles
and wish you well in life.
Stop Gay Marriage! Just Stop it!
' It seems that that religious zealots lack the mental capacity to draw a
distinction between a state issued marriage license and the marriage ceremony of
the couples choosing (religious, at the court house, or other type).' I think this was perfectly stated to get to the crux of the issues. You can marry in a church as much as you like. You get zero
legal recognitions until the marriage is recognized by the state. So
all religious arguments are now moot. Whatever region you subscribe
too…. the state is the one that has given marriages legal
recognition for the last 153 years. It's about time some
recognized that instead of fabricating some recognition in their own
religion… upon person who do not subscribe, to that
religion. That, is tyranny.
To my LDS friends who oppose same sex marriage: We have a bit of a reprieve now,
so let's chat. I am a 100% Mormon--RM, BYU grad, YM presidency, go to the
temple, etc. The family is the most important unit in society. A natural mother
and father is ideal. Promiscuity and debauchery are not the way to happiness,
Christ is the Way. I'm with you 100%. We know this and love it. Awesome!I'm also gay, or deal with SSA, or however you want to say it. 100%. I
can't change. I've prayed and done therapy. I have no romantic
interest in women. At all. Anatomically I could have kids, but I would not love
a woman--so I am single 'til death.Feeling same sex attraction, at
least for some people, is innate and unchangeable. To have a conversation about
this, it is important to show empathy for this reality and think about what that
means. If you have never really talked with someone who is a gay then
there's a chance you have some false assumptions about what it means and
what motivates people. Please meet a gay person and try to understand.
"Where the courts have mandated gay marriage, Wilson said, no such religious
liberty accommodations are offered."That is a totally bogus
statement. Mandating gay marriage doesn't mandate religious institutions to
perform gay marriage. You notice how it was the county clerk offices that were
being told to offer marriage licenses in Utah and not religious authorities
being told they had to perform the ceremony. It seems that that religious
zealots lack the mental capacity to draw a distinction between a state issued
marriage license and the marriage ceremony of the couples choosing (religious,
at the court house, or other type). No such religious liberty accommodations are
offered because all necessary accommodations are already there.
Nice! Order restored.
Proposition 3 was declared unconstitutional by a Federal Judge. The State of
Utah appealed the decision and got a stay by the SCOTUS.The SCOTUS
has to review the 50 pages of Shelby's ruling. Study Utah's appeal and
make a decision.Please let's stop the speculation, name calling
and emotional discourse, let's history take its course.
Just remember-- In New Jersey, the Democratic majority pulled a bill legalizing
gay marriage. Why? Because the bill gave religious institutions an exemption
from being forced to perform gay ceremonies.The gay lobby objected
vociferously. They do not want churches to be exempt. So the Democrats pulled
“The other side says we have to do that to avoid a backlash, but all it
takes is a bill to remove the exemption,” Such a bill would be
unconstitutonal. Now that's not to say there won't be people who want
a church to change, but any push would be through public pressure (and mostly
internal, consider the United Methodist Church who is facing some dissent in
their own clergy) but the law cannot legally force a church to marry a couple
they don't want to marry. That's why we have laws protecting from
religious discrimination but say... the LDS church can choose to not marry
people of other faiths in their temples.