This country was founded on Christian beliefs and morality. Homosexuality, and
subsequently, gay marriage, flies in the face of both. John Adams said:
"Our constitution was made only for a MORAL and Religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other." You do not have
the" right" under to Constitution to marriage. The people of the State
of Utah voted by an overwhelming 66% to keep gay marriage out. You are trying to
use back door tactics to try to push thru a liberal agenda that the people of
Utah don't want. You have your civil unions which give you all the same
privileges as marriage without the destroying the sanctity of it. I support
@Cats...Your self description is dead on perfect regarding yourself and the
countless other right wing religious fanatics..."Somewhere in time"
Wrong. It's 2014! Don't you believe it is about time that you realize
It seems that this should not be an emotional religious issue, but rather a
legal issue; after all, marriage is only recognized if first taken out by a
legal license. Also, this issue is now at the Federal Supreme Court, thanks to
Utah pushing it. Religion and government are not co-joined, but separate in our
country. Too much money has already been spent on a legal issue that cannot be
defended by religious books, and already ruled unconstitutional by a federal
judge. Soon the Utah out-of-state lawyers will admit this publicly - after all
none of them have won a case which ruled in favor of what traditional marriage.
Sad loss for Utah's tax dollars with a price-tag start of two million
dollars. Thankfully Utah County legislatures Saturday remarked that they would
flush this SSM issue from their budget having seen the losing battle in
California - instead they will concentrate on education and hopefully someday
the homeless youth in our state (and sadly, 40% are LBGT youth kicked out from
"If this is a battle for the hearts and minds of Utah's voters, my
suggestion is that proponents of SSM would do well to listen and try to
understand why some oppose their views rather than attempt to simply shout them
out of the public square."We know their views. We have listened
to those ideas our who life. We come from the same families, attended the same
churches, work in the same offices, and live in the same neighborhoods. For many of us we felt like we had to hide some horrible truths about
ourselves until we woke up and realized those truths weren't horrible. What
is horrible is the way we are abused, denied protection, condemned, and
abandoned because of those truths.If you are asking us to understand
your view, I would like you to understand that most of us already have that
background knowledge. We would like to turn that plea back to you and ask you to
try and understand what it is like to be on our side of the issue. I think our
pain is so much deeper.
"Your point only supports the findings that gayness is caused by severe
emotional hurt or abuse at an early age--not genetics." I know
of many studies that dispute this claim, but I will humor you a little bit. If,
like you say, we are gay because of severe emotional hurt at an early age, is
that an excuse to discriminate against us? Instead of fighting us as adults,
wouldn't a much better mission be to protect our children from emotional
and physical abuse? By your reasoning I could imagine some people
saying "well, they are used to being abused, so we don't need to change
"Could it not be possible to be a 'sympathetic neighbor' and at
the same time oppose a lowest-common-denominator redefinition of
marriage?"You do see how your choice of words can create some
contention, don't you? When you define another couple's relationship
the "lowest-common-denominator," you making us somewhat less than
everyone else. That's not being a sympathetic neighbor; that's not
empathy.What we need in this community is a monthly day of service
where gay and straight neighbors come together to clean garbage from their
streets, work together to get rid of tagging and graffiti that is creeping up
everywhere, serve meals at the local homeless shelter, and do whatever it takes
ti make Utah the best state in the nation. We need to get to know each other and
realize that we are all God's children and we all deserve civility,
respect, kindness, and equal protection from those things that really harm a
Folks can "rally" all they want. It will make no difference to the
Federal Judiciary. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United
States of America. The steady march towards equal treatment of LGBT Americans
under the law is inexorable. Marriage equality in all 50 states is coming, no
matter how many anti-gay rights rallies there may be.
"Secondly, children need male and female role models to help them avoid same
sex attraction."This is 100% wrong. People are attracted to
whoever they are attracted to. If it happens to be someone of the same sex, so
what? It's not your life.
@ AlfredThat same argument was used in the Loving v. Virginia case.
It didn't work then and it won't work now....
JSB, you haven’t heard “a logical response to this concern from
anyone supporting gay marriage” because your argument is specious.
Marriage requires two unrelated consenting adults. That leaves out your three
or foursomes. And perhaps you can explain how marriage equality will lead to
social chaos, crime, child abuse, and higher taxes. Massachusetts has had
marriage equality for ten years. Last time I checked they were doing just fine.
A two parent household is certainly better than a single parent household, for
logistical, financial, and emotional reasons. It does not follow that the two
parents have to be of opposite sexes.But for those who think that
there's something special about having a father and mother, please tell me
what efforts you are making toward getting children yanked out of their homes
when one parents skips or dies.
wrz: A marriage certificate is important to hold a family together in the event
there are children to raise. Homosexuals can't have children... at least
don't think two men can.-------------Can they raise a
child? Are any gays in Utah raising children? (hint: Read the caption under
the picture that goes with this article.)Actually, gays are raising
over 200,000 children right here in America. But you do not want them to be
raised in the most stable, legally recognized homes. Why? Is
defending the use of your special word so much more important than these kids?
Families come in all sizes and shapes. Lets support ALL families
and offer the best our government can give them - marriage and the stability
that goes with it.
Humans make mistakes. Unfortunately, even though we don't have enough
research on the impact of same-sex marriages on individuals and families, the
day will come when that impact will be made clear. What we do know and get as
humans is design, in fact we utilize design everyday to our benefit. We also
know that when we go against design that we get into trouble.I
suspect that the day will come that we will recognize the impact of going
against design in relation to this issue.
@Mr. Bean: > "Behavior is a choice, sexual orientation is NOT for
most..."> All sinful conduct is a choice. Bank robbery is a
choice... as is murder, even if predisposed.The "choice"
relevant to this discussion is each person's right to define "sinful
conduct."You may see someone's sex life as sinful, they may
see that as nothing of the kind and none of your business.You may think
some parents are better than others. Again, you don't get to say who is
allowed to parent and who is not.Comparing gay marriage to roberry,
murder and so on has not been successful. Those are crimes with victims that
cause demonstrable harm. Gay marriage has no victim and causes no harm (beyond
the insult to your beliefs its existence may present to you).
@Mr. Bean"One thing, children with same sex parents are disadvantaged
because they will more likely be teased and shunned by their 'heterosexual
parented' friends."This sounds familiar: "One thing, children with *inter racial* parents are disadvantaged because
they will more likely be teased and shunned by their *racially pure parented*
friends."This argument didn't work before and it
doesn't work now. The existence of racism and homophobia in
others is not justification for continuing racist or homophobic practices, such
as preventing some people from marriage simply because of existing prejudice.The problem is prejudice, not gay or interracial marriage.
@wrz: said, "A marriage certificate is important to hold a family together
in the event there are children to raise. "You should really
read your state's laws. Utah Code Title 30, Chapter 1 describes marriage.
Nowhere does it contain language even remotely resembling what you suggest. In
fact, I'm unable to find any stated purpose whatsoever. Marriage is a voluntary arrangement to bind two people into one household with
certain legal rights and responsibilities. It is not a requirement for, nor
conditional upon, child-bearing. It is not mandatory for child rearing. Nor is
it difficult to dissolve a marriage, even when minor children are present. Your
rationalizations are not supported by your state's laws. And, by the way,
your state's laws are impermissibly discriminatory according to the
District Court's reading of the U.S. Constitution.Your marriage
laws are child-agnostic. And, your family laws regarding children (child
support, etc.) are marriage-agnostic. Neither depends on, nor is based on, the
other. And, these are the civil laws that we're talking about.
There's no basis to deny marriage on the issue of prospective issue.
@O'Really: said, "Also, just because a long list of churches have
abandoned a clear commandment from the scriptures..." That's quite insulting to over two dozen Christian denominations. Unless
you think you're God Almighty, you don't have an inside track on which
religions have "abandoned a clear commandment from the scripture," thank
you very much.Every denomination, every religion, can interpret
scripture according to their own leadings. My religion, for example, the
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), has a very straightforward and clear
approach to following the Lord and a very direct and personal relationship with
Him. But, we won't criticize anyone else's dogma or sacred texts. We
only hope you can use your religious foundation to find the Light.As
far as your own self-righteousness goes... If you are that enamored of the Old
Testament, you should know it contains 613 commandments. (Ask any Rabbi if you
don't believe me.) I wonder how your selective citation of one while
ignoring hundreds of others would be respected by those who actually worship
with the OT.
@No H8 - Celebrate:"Slippery slope arguments are considered to be
logical fallacies."If there's no slippery slope alotta
folks who would like to marry would be denied... such as polygamists,
polyandrists to name two."Sky will fall argumentation has no
basis in law."That the sky will fall has a basis in fact. "Parent and child and brother and sister relationships are not
intimate relationships and therefore are not legal civil marriages."Who said it has to be intimate? Many people marry today for many other
reasons besides sex, intimacy, children, etc.@A Quaker:"Why is it, in your view, terribly unimportant for a gay or lesbian couple
to have a marriage certificate, yet so important to you that they
don't?"A marriage certificate is important to hold a family
together in the event there are children to raise. Homosexuals can't have
children... at least don't think two men can.
@No H8 - Celebrate:"Where do sovereign rights take priority over the
constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process? Where is one
particular religious view supposed to be codified into civil law?"All citizens currently have equal protection. Anyone can marry provided
it's one man/one woman. This rule applies across the board to all. No one
is left out.If you're saying that equal protection has to
include SSM because they love each other and want to be together for any number
of other reasons, you have to say it also applies to any other combination of
loving relationships... such as polygamy, polyandry, siblings, children, etc.,
all of whom are now denied marriage.The Supreme Court has put itself
into a quandary with the DOMA ruling where the right to define marriage is a
state and not a federal government responsibility. It can't now say oops,
states can't define marriage after all. The Court can't open the door
for gays and not open it for other loving combinations.
@O'reallyMarriage IS between man and woman or the species would
cease to exist. It's simply the way it is. No animus on my part. Only
logic.=====================For your argument to carry
weight, one would have to assume that only those legally married can have
children...Plenty of teenagers can be offered as
counter-examples...No it does not take marriage, simply a sperm and
@ Evidence, Not Junk... Even the most learned historian of marriage who
completely discounts the Bible and the beliefs of millions in this country, is
still missing the boat. Marriage IS between man and woman or the species would
cease to exist. It's simply the way it is. No animus on my part. Only
logic.Also, just because a long list of churches have abandoned a
clear commandment from the scriptures doesn't make what they are doing
right. I feel for them when they have to face their maker and explain their
@wrz: If, as you say, it shouldn't be important whether a family headed by
a same-sex couple have some piece of official legal paper in their closet, then
why is it important to you that they shouldn't be allowed to have it in the
first place?I mean, is it important, or isn't it? If it's
not important at all, as you suggest, then why don't you want them to have
it?I'd be interested to see if you can put together a coherent
answer of the sort which might hold sway in court. Why is it, in your view,
terribly unimportant for a gay or lesbian couple to have a marriage certificate,
yet so important to you that they don't?
"Can any of you provide a rational argument defending the proposition that
same-sex marriage (SSM) harms children?"One thing, children with
same sex parents are disadvantaged because they will more likely be teased and
shunned by their 'heterosexual parented' friends.Secondly,
children need male and female role models to help them avoid same sex
attraction."Polygamy and Polyamory are not considered immutable
characteristics (race, sex, and sexual orientation)."Has nothing
to do with 'immutable.' Has to do with who loves whom... at least
according to many same-sex supporters."Behavior is a choice,
sexual orientation is NOT for most..."All sinful conduct is a
choice. Bank robbery is a choice... as is murder, even if predisposed."The 9th Circuit court of appeals, as a result of Windsor, determined
sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny..."So should
polygamy, polyandry, etc. There's a list somewhere showing who might love
whom and would like to live together as marrieds."You missed the
argument about immutable characteristics, the practice of polygamy is
choice."Not so. In the animal world of deer and elk, the male
usually rounds up several females. There's some 'immutable' for
RedWings: " Homosexuality cannot propogate itself. Is it by definition an
abberation that is gleaned out by natural selection. I believe that Darwin had
some things to say about this...."And yet homosexuality is a
remarkably persistent trait in the population. There is apparently some
selective value for it. Evolutionary theory has advanced in the past few
decades, well beyond Darwin's initial ideas. Altruism, group selection,
epigenetics, etc. don't fit within a simple Darwinian fitness model. It is
overly simplistic and inaccurate to argue that homosexuality is an evolutionary
aberration.Badgerbadger: "Churches can perform SSM if they
want. No one will get arrested for doing it, even in states that don't
recognize SSM. It is not banned. What they cannot do if force someone else to
honor that marriage."A marriage ceremony without legal
recognition is pointless. It does nothing for the children or the couple except
in their hearts. A church-only wedding without legal weight does not provide
hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and scores of other legal benefits to
the couple and their children. It's worthless and not a reasonable
@Badgerbadger. "It is you and your ilk seeking to make your 'god'
the god of all."You may be surprised to learn that there is no
God in civil marriage law. So you are incorrect meaning your argument is
irrationally based on nothing more than animus and discrimination
@equal protection:"I want the full menu of rights."You've go full rights... Everyone has, when it comes to marriage... pick
one person of the opposite sex.Wait! There are others without full
rights... polygamists, incestuous persons, siblings, first cousins, a
grandfather/daughter, etc.If you're going after full rights,
why not full rights for everyone not just same-sex?@oragami:"If this really is about the children (it changes every other day) then
what about considering the interests of those children already being raised by
same-sex parents."Why do children need to know that the two
people they are living with have a piece of paper in an album hidden in a closet
someplace that says they're married? Just live together as wife/wife or
husband/husband and let it go at that.@Sneaky Jimmy:"Once
you arrive at this epiphany then a person with a soul and a heart cannot wish to
deprive two loving people the chance to be married..."Are you
talking about polygamists, perchance?@JSB:"If we expand
the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, where does it
stop?"There is no stop... until marriage is completely
Junk Science,Churches can perform SSM if they want. No one will get
arrested for doing it, even in states that don't recognize SSM. It is not
banned.What they cannot do if force someone else to honor that
marriage. But why should they? It is a religious rite, and has not bearing on
anyone not of that religion. It is called freedom of religion. It is
you and your ilk seeking to make your 'god' the god of all.
This was a fantastic event with over 1200 supporters. The speakers really showed
that defending Amendment 3 is defending children's rights and protecting
government's interest in families.
I'd like to commend the Deseret News for publishing a balanced, factual
article that tried to capture the scenario accurately, without papering over
some small but important details. It was interesting to read about
the very different nature of the two demonstrations. The indoor demonstration,
using the Capitol Building, was restricted to an invited crowd and was provided
professionally-printed signs, just like a professionally-organized political
rally, which sounds like that's how it was run.The outdoor
rally, in the cold, against Amendment 3, sounded much more grass-roots and
home-made, and more impassioned. The contrast was significant, and also ironic.
Those outside were rallying for those who are currently being kept outside of
full participation in Utah's society, whereas those inside want to keep the
outsiders out.And, the passion shown by the outsiders was an
important thing to note. It is those people's lives that are being held in
the balance. Nothing will change for the insiders, whether they win or lose
their battle, their personal lives will be unaffected. But the outsiders stand
to gain or lose everything, because the right to family IS everything.
I don't believe Uahans are hate-filled people. They simply don't want
homosexual relationships to hijack the respected, God-appointed title of
"marriage", which has forever been used to indicate a man and woman
united. Governmental approval of behavior is often mistaken as being moral and
acceptable. We have the same problem with governmental approval of alcohol,
cigarettes, and marijuan. They may be legal, but not beneficial to society as a
@standfirm "I support traditional marriage and I believe that the family is
ordained of God and that marriage is between one man and one woman."As long as you respect the religious freedom of other religion's
and their God to honor and perform legal same sex civil and religious marriages,
and that no religious view should be codified into civil law as per
constitutional laws of equal protection and due process for ALL Americans, then
I support your religious right in your own church to discriminate against anyone
you wish as doctrine dictates.
By allowing civil unions, we respect others rights to legal partnerships.To
allow other citizens the right to chose for themselves what lifestyle they would
embrace is not the same as teaching their choice as a recommended way of life to
your children. So we walk a delicate path of protecting individual rights of
choice and defending our own right of choice in our schools and other places of
gathering. Tolerance for others rights with respect for our choice when it
comes to teaching our own children the principles of a happy fulfilled life,
obeying the commands of our conscience. Because of the fact that children are
impressionable and do not have founded psychological beliefs in experience and
outcomes, we who have the responsibility to nurture and guide belief structure
have the ultimate say in what should be and not be taught as a viable lifestyle
for them until they are adults. Homosexual partnerships without science
intervention cannot produce offspring, this is the facts. So nature has female
and male as a parent structure and is the natural means of raising young humans
to adulthood. Beyond those facts this is fairly new territory, protecting
freedom of choice for both.
MeckofahessSalt Lake City, UTAs I have posted several
commnets suggesting a possible benefit to finding some "middle ground"
where the rights and needs of both the gay and straight community could be
addressed-----------Meck, I have been reading these boards for
a long time. When the vote for amendment 3 was looming, many on the gay side
pleaded not to include the second portion of the amendment - the part that
denies gays even any recognition of their relationships. They asked for those
who agreed with them not to vote for this amendment and to have it reworded
without denying even civil unions. They were told no in no uncertain terms and
were quite vitriolic and intolerant about their beliefs. In fact, of those who
voted, 66% were in favor of denying gays any recognition by the state. So much
so that it is enshrined in our state constitution.I think that
conpromise ship sailed away with that vote, don't you?
I am pleased that that both sides have a voice. Free speech is a fundamental
right and it should be honored and respected by all! It seems that loud, shrill
voices want to be the only voices heard, and anyone voicing otherwise is labeled
as hateful, bigoted and religiously pious. Civility and discourse are processes
that allow this country to thrive. I have a gay son that I love and support,
though I do not agree with his choice to marry, I welcome him and our new
son-in-law into our home and our lives. We differ in our beliefs and opinions,
we are on opposite sides of the issue on same-sex marriage, but we love and
respect the views of one another and we love each other. I support traditional
marriage and I believe that the family is ordained of God and that marriage is
between one man and one woman. I also love and respect our son and our new
Civility is such an interesting request for a group of people whose lives have
been diminished by the majority for far too long. Let's put
your marriage to vote, tell you you're immoral, degrade your lifestyle,
kick you out of your families, excommunicate you, tell you to live your life
alone, not allow you to adopt your kids, not allow you to live under the peace
of mind that a state-recognized relationship provides, and then tell you that
it's biology that makes it ok for us to do it- not bigotry. 5
kids act up in a rally, big deal! Sure, they pushed the envelop and made it
awkward for you. I'm sure you'll find solace from your
poor grief in the warm embrace of your opposite-sex spouse, wrapped even closer
by your state-sponsored marriage certificate, alleviated in the fact that those
gays will know their place-- separate and not equal.
@ Heleson "We the people of the State of Utah have sovereign rights. Our
forefathers established government declaring independence to choose laws they
considered pleasing to God."Where do sovereign rights take
priority over the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process?
Where is one particular religious view supposed to be codified into civil law?
The 10th Amendment (States Rights) does not take priority over the
5h and !4th amendments. Never has and never will (See Loving v. Virginia states
rights to keep their own miscegenation laws struck down as just one of hundreds
of legal cases).Slippery slope arguments are considered to be
logical fallacies. Sky will fall argumentation has no basis in law. Only the
facts as they currently exists are valid. Parent and child and brother and
sister relationships are not intimate relationships and therefore are not legal
civil marriages. Theft and murder are harmful and abusive. Same-sex marriages
(unlike legal opposite sex spousal and child molestion marriages) are considered
to be harmful and abusive. I ccould go on, but as stated by other
commenters "there is simply no rational justification whatsoever for your
aniumus and discrimination."
@windsor "If the SCOTUS makes SSM the law in all 50 states, it will still
not change or effect what the actual heart of this whole issue is..."As far as the constitutional guarantees provided by the Constitution, it
very much will be the heart of the issue.Your religion's
constitutionally protect right not to marry someone of a different faith, or
race, or sexual orientation and gender will still be protected. The sky did not
fall when interracial marriage bans were struck down, and they won't when
the hateful same-sex marriages are too. And that my friend, is the
"heart" of the issue. --Wants of the individuals? What
about the marriage rights of opposite sex couples who do not want children and
can civil marry (you don't ban those "wants of individuals"
marriages) or the thousands of same-sex families raising children who need
spousal health care, pension and social security benefits, just like opposite
sex couples? Wants of individuals indeed. As stated by another
commenter, "There is simply no rational basis for your animus and
discrimination." Homosexuals want the full menu equality, not the
compassionate crumbs thrown to them by their masters.
We the people of the State of Utah have sovereign rights. Our forefathers
established government declaring independence to choose laws they considered
pleasing to God.“…We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, …. it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”If the LGBT gets its way, overturning the voice of the people and we legalize
immorality, what is next? What if others push to legalize their belief in
marriage between parent/child or brother/sister. What if others claim their
belief says its ok to steal, murder – do we legalize this too? My fellow
citizens – this is a slippery slope. WE the people, choose
Amendment3 for our safety and happiness. Thank God America - Utah was founded
by faithful people.
One group cares about society and the other groups focuses on the wants of
politicalcents said: "....So give them a civil union-let them have tax
benefits, healthcare benefits, etc. and just get them out of the way so we can
get to more pressing matters."If you think that is what Gays and
Lesbians want--and will be happy with, and are pushing for--and are somehow
going to "get out of the way" you haven't been watching this battle
very long or very closely.
equal protecton said: "Marriage has been determined to be a fundamental
right 14 times by SCOTUS. You ignore the heart of the issue, which is equal
protection and due process, why is that?"Because that is NOT the
heart of the issue. And has no bearing on the heart of the issue.
If the SCOTUS determined it is a fundamental right a 100 times or a
1000 times, doesn't matter.If the SCOTUS makes SSM the law in
all 50 states, it will still not change or effect what the actual heart of this
whole issue is.
@ Innovate, "Why is it so important that Congress or a United States Judge
speak for God in determining whether or not marriage between same gender couples
should be accepted? "Which God? What about the religious views
of God for the following religions who honor and perform same-sex marriages?
Why discriminate against these religions and ban their right to perform these
unions? There is simply no rational justification for your animus and
discrimination. Affirming Pentecostal Church InternationalAlliance of Christian ChurchesAnointed Affirming Independent
MinistriesThe Association of Welcoming and Affirming BaptistsChristian Church (Disciples of Christ)Community of ChristConservative JudaismEcumenical Catholic ChurchEcumenical Catholic
CommunionThe Episcopal ChurchEvangelical Anglican Church In
AmericaEvangelical Lutheran Church in AmericaGlobal Alliance of
Affirming Apostolic PentecostalsInclusive Orthodox ChurchMetropolitan Community ChurchOld Catholic ChurchProgressive
Christian AllianceReconciling Pentecostals InternationalReconstructionist JudaismReform JudaismReformed Anglican Catholic
ChurchReligious Society of Friends (Quakers)Unitarian Universalist
ChurchUnited Church of ChristUnity Church
Equal rights should not be an issue when it comes to same gender marriages. We
are all different: Marriage is not available to everyone: children younger than
18, those who are cognitively disabled, siblings, and the list goes on. The
challenge is that same gender marriage is not sustainable. If a culture seeks
acceptance of same gender marriage wherein the majority of people accept it and
choose it for themselves, the response would be devastating to future
generations. There would be fewer of them with fewer choices for a marriage
companion who shares similar morals and perspectives on marriage and family. So,
in reality, marriage between heterosexual couples is on the line. Sustainability responds to three primary pillars: social, economic, and
environmental. Right now, this issue places the social and environmental pillars
on the line because the disruptive social sub-culture of same gender marriage is
infiltrating the standard of the family environment. How can same gender couples
reproduce off-spring that share the same genetics and good attributes of each
spouse? Isn't it true that a same gender spouse who gives birth to a child
while in a same gender marriage is being untrue to their same gender spouse?
As I have posted several commnets suggesting a possible benefit to finding some
"middle ground" where the rights and needs of both the gay and straight
community could be addressed. I have gay friends and I believe they are sincere
in their concerns. Unfortunately, it appears that many in the gay community who
post comments herein have become very vitriolic and tilted toward intolerance
toward regarding our concerns. I think there are many heterosexuals of
"good will" who want to see a "win-win" solution to this issue.
Sadly, I fear that the gay citizens are offending our good will by resorting to
bullying and disingenuous tactics. As I have said before, even if SSM is forced
upon us by the courts, it doesn't mean we will be accepting toward those
who bullyed us. You can try to force me to be your friend, but it doesn't
mean I will be your friend - and that likely will lead to unintended
I am saddened to see that there is even a dialog about marriage between same
gender couples. Why is it so important that Congress or a United States Judge
speak for God in determining whether or not marriage between same gender couples
should be accepted? I thought separation between church and state was the law?
@ Oreally "Because some renegade gay judge or whoever it was in the Prop 8
court in CA says " Marriage has never been universally defined as a union of
one man and one woman" does not make it so. Because someone with a law
degree says something doesn't make it right or even factual." Actually, Nancy Cott's facts were NOT disputed, not even by the
opposing side. She easily recalled dates, facts, historical accounts, and past
precedents. Cott presented the anti-miscegenation laws, which banned white
people from marrying minorities, as a historical parallel to discrimination
against lesbians and gays. Cott knows more about marriage history in the United
States than perhaps anyone alive. The other expert witness brought by the
plaintiffs, Yale Professor of History George Chauncey, had been Cott’s
dissertation advisee when she taught at Yale prior to coming to Harvard.I strongly suggest that Dr. Cott knows more about the history of
marriage than either of us, more over not one, but many have used her expert
testimony. There is simply no rational justification for your
animus and discrimination.
@Ranch "There comes a point in time where enough is enough. That point is
well past now. Enough is enough. We shouldn't have to beg for what is our
right. You expect us to be civil while you deny our rights? That isn't
"civil" of you."That's fine. I understand you see
it that way. However, the result is that you have lost the goodwill of people
like me (and I am far from alone) who still have a sense of fair play and
decency by which they try to live their lives. Just because you grew tired of
making your case and things weren't moving quickly enough for you
doesn't make the bullying tactics and intolerance ok. I
don't recall the "We've Had It Up To Here and the Gloves are
Coming Off" speech by Martin Luther King.
@RedWings"Place 500 gay men in a city away from anyone else and in 50
years you have a ghost town. Homosexuality cannot propogate itself. Is it by
definition an abberation that is gleaned out by natural selection. Place
500 gay men in a city away from everyone else, and in 50 years you’ll have
another 500 gay men born to heterosexuals outside the city."* *
*Your comment shows a slim understanding of evolutionary
reproduction.In many species, including humans, non-reproductive
members ensure the success and survival of a given line, which can explain why
evolution would produce processes by which some individuals would be less
inclined, likely, or capable of reproduction.Homosexuality does not
need to “propagate itself” through direct reproduction: it happens
as a result of heterosexual reproduction.Place 500 gay men in a city
away from everyone else, and in 50 years you'll have another 500 gay men
born to heterosexuals outside the city.
The pro gay marriage groups say that they are not asking for anything different
than what everyone else has....however marriage has always been between a man
and a woman for thousands of years and now all of a sudden they want to Change
it completely! If you want to live that kind of lifestyle than that is
your choice but don't ask us to legitimize it by calling it
"marriage". It is not the same thing!If we do not have boundaries
than we have nothing but chaos.
This argument is not about the love two gay people have for each other at all!
It is about Children! We can not call a union between a gay couple the
same thing as a union between a man and a woman because it is not the same!If Gay marriage is legitimized than that means that when a married man and
woman seek to adopt a child and a gay married couple want to adopt the same
child....who is going to get the child if both couples are considered
"married"If you don't give the child to the gay couple then
you are discriminating against them. But study after study has proven that
children are better off in a traditional home with both a mother and a father.
You think it is only about you but it isn't. there are so many other
factors that this debate will effect. Please look at the bigger picture for a
bit and recognize the huge impact this would have on everything else.
@Red Wings "Assisted reproduction" s biology, but not natural. Place 500
gay men in a city away from anyone else and in 50 years you have a ghost
town.Where is natural a requirement of civil marriage law for
opposite sex couples? You want to deny the use of assisted reproduction to
couples you dislike for no rational reason? Or, do you think voting on civil
marriage law for same-sex couples will do the trick? Same-sex couples actually
have the ability to "naturally" procreate, but in civil marriage law, no
one is required to procreate in order marry. Why do you have a double
standard?Place 500 women in a city far away from anyone else and in
50 years you will have a ghost town, AND they really DON'T have to be Gay
or Lesbian. Why single out and target only homosexuals for the animus?
@nycut - I believe most understood that I was referring to the ugly truth that
some who support same-sex marriage cry and call for compassion, understanding
and for others to recognize their rights, while simultaneously trouncing about
like a bull in a china shop, running roughshod over people's livelihoods
and trampling their right of conscience. Hence, the analogy of an "eye for
and eye" - you don't overcome bigotry and tyranny with more bigotry and
tyranny. If this is a battle for the hearts and minds of Utah's
voters, my suggestion is that proponents of SSM would do well to listen and try
to understand why some oppose their views rather than attempt to simply shout
them out of the public square. That is why I no longer support gay marriage as I
cats: "One group of researchers studied
identical twins and found that, of 56 sets of identical twins in which one
member was gay, the other twin was also gay in 52 percent of the cases. That
means that nearly half the identical twins of gay men were not gay, so it
suggests a strong but not determinative genetic component (Adler, 1992) In
Thomas Bouchard's study of identical twins separated at birth, there were
three pairs of male identical twins in which at least one was homosexual. In two
out of three cases, the other twin was homosexual also, despite being raised in
a different household and never seeing his twin brother during
childhood."" Psychology: An Introduction by
Russell A. Dewey, PhDYour studies?
It's hardly surprising that the 'traditional marriage' crowd was
more respectful and less angry than the 'marriage equality' crowd.
There's really nothing at stake for the 'traditional marriage'
crowd. It's an issue of purely academic interest. But yes, being denied
basic human rights can get someone riled.
@equal protections Because some renegade gay judge or whoever it was in the
Prop 8 court in CA says " Marriage has never been universally defined as a
union of one man and one woman" does not make it so. Because someone with a
law degree says something doesn't make it right or even factual.But here is some truth not based on manmade law or fact. Just simple truth
that anyone who is being honest with themselves can recognize. "Fallacies do
not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." GK ChestertonSomething to think about.
@Euroskeptic;There comes a point in time where enough is enough.
That point is well past now. Enough is enough. We shouldn't have to beg
for what is our right. You expect us to be civil while you deny our rights?
That isn't "civil" of you.@HeresAThought;"Utah's laws should be respected when supported by the
voters."Not when they're in violation of the US
Constitution.@Cats;You should do a little research on
the statistics associated with identical twins. The prevalence of BOTH being
gay is statistically significant. You also need a course in biology and
genetics. There are numerous factors involved during development that affect
the outcome of each twin.
They are all saying that traditional marriage involves one man and one woman.
Most of these people are Mormon, and the biggest part of their beliefs,
including the Book of Mormon came from Prophets who clearly did not believe in
this traditional marriage! Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were so far from
traditional that it would make same sex marriage a non issue! Also, I do believe
that the Church still allows a man, after losing his wife to death, to marry a
second wife in the temple! Who knows, if the second wife dies, I am sure he can
be sealed to a third! You people are giving us a lecture about traditional
marriage! Give us all a break, please. Most of us gay people here in Utah were
born into Mormon families. We went to church every week and we went to seminary
and went on missions and then fell flat on our faces when we tried your
traditional marriage! In other words, we know how it all works. It truly is an
insult hearing what you say when we all know that amendment 3 was specifically
formed to discriminate!
"Right to marry" is a slight of hand. What it means is a supposed right
to re-define marriage to accommodate gay people and a supposed right to
society's approval of homosexuality. Not that long ago the cry
was -- it's none of your business how I live my private life (I agree).
Now it's -- I have a Constitutional right to society's
approval of my lifestyle.And we're seriously supposed to
believe there is no slippery slope?
My real issue is that this issue is so large right now. Homosexual individuals
make up less than 1% of the US population. We have MUCH more than 1% of the
population underemployed and unemployed (23% and rising), starving, illiterate,
in poverty, homeless, etc. The list goes on. As much as I understand that
homosexuals are people (which I do, I have a brother that is homosexual), there
are more important things to deal with. So give them a civil union-let them have
tax benefits, healthcare benefits, etc. and just get them out of the way so we
can get to more pressing matters. I admit am morally against
same-sex marriage, and will always have my personal opinions about it. However,
I have the same opinion about many things that are legal. We are taught correct
principles and left to govern ourselves. Should we choose to follow a path we
know to be wrong, we will bear the consequences.
@ Eliyahu: 66% of the voters passed Ammendment 3. Sounde to me like Rep.
Christensen is representing the voters just fine.@ equal protection:
"Assisted reproduction" s biology, but not natural. Place 500 gay men
in a city away from anyone else and in 50 years you have a ghost town.
Homosexuality cannot propogate itself. Is it by definition an abberation that
is gleaned out by natural selection. I believe that Darwin had some
things to say about this....
@JBQ " Justice Kennedy that "the people" have the right to make the
laws based on states' rights." No they did not. in
Hollingsworth v. Perry — California's constitutional H8 amendment
initiative barring same-sex marriage. The decision allowed same-sex marriages in
that state to resume after the court ruled that the proponents of the initiative
lacked Article III standing to appeal in federal court. The Supreme Court
declared Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the
liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."Civil
rights are simply NOT determined by the outcome of an election. Where did you
get that idea? Three starving wolves (66%) and a delicious succulent lamb (34%)
cannot legally vote on what to eat for dinner. It is a violation of the 5th and
14th amendments (due process and equal protection). The 10th amendment (states
right) does not trump the 5 and 14th amendments.
Just read an article about the FLDS forcing a non- FLDS family out of their
community here in Southern Utah.Is this what we want Utah known for?Will Utah become a state that only wants what it wants and others "need
not apply, not to mention try to live in Utah!Or is it already known that
way to the rest of the country?
I saw this same specticle at the Hawaii State capitol back in 2013; those who
would deny marriage equality to gay people were the most vocal and rude crowd I
have ever seen assembled in such an outward expression of disgust and loathing
for the gay minority. It was pathetic. More and more, day by day, this debate
is being defined as a civil rights issue and it will go down that way in
history. Don't be on the wrong side of history Utah.
This issue is really emotionally charged - I believe the Federal Attorney
General has ruled nationally that SSM marriages are recognized and legal - why
is Utah still upset - it's a done deal in our nation and probably Utah
having pressed it to the federal court system will allow it to be accepted
statewide nationally. There are an estimated over 5,000 homeless youth in the
State of Utah - let's fight for their voice - let's get them shelter,
food, education - this issue is much more valuable to the life of a child that
cannot represent themselves. Think Utah - prioritize!
@Euroskeptic:In criticizing the tone of pro-equality protesters, you
suggest they heed Ghandi's metaphor: "An eye for an eye leaves the
whole world blind".Your analogy falls flat.There is
no movement to deny marriage to heterosexuals.There IS, however, a
big group of heterosexuals holding a knife, called Amendment 3, in the faces of
a much smaller group of gay people, while saying they want respect for their
:"beliefs" that gay people simply shouldn’t be allowed to see.
Dear Lane Myer:You need to actually look at some of these studies.
NO study ever conducted concludes that anyone is born gay. Also, I dispute your
figures. Studies show that in identical twins there is only a 20% chance that
both will be gay. In addition, your point only supports the findings that
gayness is caused by severe emotional hurt or abuse at an early age--not
genetics. Unfortunately, political correctness has made it very difficult for
these studies to come forward. Please, view Dr. Lopez's video. For those
who are unafraid of the truth, it is very enlightening.
"Us v them" is not the answer or the question. This is a matter of the
rule of law. It is admitted by the Supreme Court and especially by the
"swing vote" of Justice Kennedy that "the people" have the right
to make the laws based on states' rights. This was a two-thirds decision
and not even close. If a vocal minority is allowed to make the laws, then we no
longer have a democracy. This issue first goes to the Appeals Court and then
will undoubtedly go to the Supreme Court. The strategy of the left is ensconced
in the philosophy of Marx and Lenin. You rate two theses and the violent
confrontation of the two will create a viable new thesis. The problem is the
issue of morality and the belief that religion is the "opiate of the
@Chinyacre re: "the use of polygamy negates the discussion because polygamy
is still about marriage between two sexes, not one. The "right" to marry
may indeed be a "right", but what makes it "right?" Just because
we say so? "You missed the argument about immutable
characteristics, the practice of polygamy is choice. You ignore the states
interest in preventing harm and abuse in closed FLDS like communities, where
because of religion, is under-reported. Your argument about stable families is
negated because it ignores the marriage rights of opposite sex convicted child
molesters and spousal abusers. You ignore the stable families of same-sex
couples and the scientific consensus of every (not just one or two) main stream
medical, psychological, and sociological organization on child outcomes. Marriage has been determined to be a fundamental right 14 times by
SCOTUS. You ignore the heart of the issue, which is equal protection and due
process, why is that?
@ O'really re "You know perfectly well what they mean by
"traditional marriage". "... Man and woman- that's it."
AND "It IS a choice! Everyone makes it. Gay or straight.""Marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one
woman, and religion has never had any bearing on the legality of a marriage.
Marriage has historically been used "punitively" to demean disfavored
groups, legally enshrined gender roles in marriage had been disestablished
during the 20th century. Changes in the institution of marriage had mainly
involved "shedding inequalities" e.g., women as chattel." - Prop H8
Court testimony.Behavior is a choice, sexual orientation is NOT for
most, I suspect you recognize your own sexual orientation for the most part is
NOT a choice (like which socks your going to wear each day). The 9th Circuit
court of appeals, as a result of Windsor, determined sexual orientation merits
heightened scrutiny, just like discriminatory classifications based on sex. Your arguments have no basis in fact or in law. Support of Jim Crow
laws are similar to same-sex marriage bans today, and undeserving of respect or
tolerance when it comes to civil marriage and public accommodations law.
re: equal protection: the use of polygamy negates the discussion because
polygamy is still about marriage between two sexes, not one. The
"right" to marry may indeed be a "right", but what makes it
"right?" Just because we say so? The Constitution guarantees rights
and equality, but it does not guarantee outcome. Marriage at the time of the
founders was a given - between a man and a woman. The state promotes
traditional marriage because of outcome - stable people, stable families, more
stable communities, more stable nation. That sounds harsh, I know, but the
obnoxious behavior at the rally is a visual reminder of why a society wants
stable families.Oragami: The rational argument for traditional
marriage is because of history. There are different versions of history, of
course, depending on the intent of the author, but one needs to read ALL the
sources of history, and make up one's own mind and judgement in the realm
of history, not just one source. Read them all.
Somehow this seems like a scene out of you-know-where. One gets the feeling that
dialogue is almost impossible, since people refuse to address the issue with a
common set of terms. But maybe that is inevitable; maybe some issues engage
moral and/or metaphysical worldviews at too fundamental a level. I would just
say this: could it not be possible to be a "sympathetic neighbor" and at
the same time oppose a lowest-common-denominator redefinition of marriage? To me
that makes a lot of sense, but only because I am particularly resistant to
letting other people set the terms of a discussion for me in advance. Are we way
beyond the point for such subtleties?
@Cats"He had no idea how to behave like a man"Behave
like a man... what is that supposed to mean? The only way that could make sense
as a complaint is if you had patriarchal views as to how men and women are
supposed to act and you thought there were problems with women working or
something like that.
As we celebrate and support marriage we strengthen the homes children are born
into. The marriage rally was in support of all marriages between and a man and a
woman. That includes support to heal marriages in trouble.Pointing
out that some homes are less than ideal is no excuse for failing to seek the
best home possible for each child. Settling for second best is not the goal
here.Children adopted by married man and woman couples are always
wanted as well, and the children get a MOM and a DAD. Children are
people with rights. God/nature gave every child the unalienable right to a
Father and a Mother. We should not violate that right.
"We are past the point of civility..." Sad
"We are the 66 percent," a reference to Utah's constitutional
definition of marriage that was passed by 66 percent of voters in 2004. ===Amendment 3 not only bans SSM, but also bans civil
union.According to DN its own recent survey, now, majority Utahans
already support civil union for same sex couples, and similar survey conducted
by Salt Lake City Tribune shown 72% of Utahans support such compromise. However
amendment 3 has clearly made it impossible, which is exactly why amendment 3 has
re: "If we expand the definition of marriage to include same sex couples,
where does it stop? If homosexuals can marry because they are presently
committed to each other, why can't polyamorous families (two or more adults
of different sexes) be allowed to marry also?"The slippery slope
logical fallacy argument again. Civil rights are never dependent upon what
someone else might ask for (allowing African Americans to vote, then women are
going to want to vote). Polygamy and Polyamory are not considered immutable
characteristics (race, sex, and sexual orientation). Un-like ones choice in
religion or morality. Therefore, courts have determined that the
government is not obligated to recognize every relationship a person may want to
Cats,I have an adopted brother who, even though he had a mother and
a father in the house he grew up in, had the very same feelings of damage by not
knowing his biological parents. He has no idea who his biological father is.
It made him feel inferior in many ways. Those feelings have actually help him
become a very successful person.Twin studies show that about 50% of
identical twins are both gay. That does not mean that they both do not have a
gene or genes that influence their homosexuality. It means that one has had
this gene "tripped" or turned on. If you check into indentical twins
with type one diabetes, you will find that only about 30% of them are both
diabetics. We know that type one diabetes is a genetic disease, but the other
twin has not had their gene for diabetes turned on. Check out those studies and
it will change your mind regarding using twins for examples. Actually, 50% is a
very high percentage of both having the same trait!
To the supporters of Amendment 3: Can any of you provide a rational argument
defending the proposition that same-sex marriage (SSM) harms children?If gay couples already have children (and more of them in Utah do than in any
other state) then what outcome do you believe best supports their well-being?
Denigrating their parents by castigating them as "Evil"? How do you
think those children feel when you deny THEM equal protection under the law and
use the rhetoric of sin and evil when referring to their parents and families?
YOU are the ones harming children!Children of gay couples will be
empowered and uplifted when their parents are allowed to be married. Gay
marriage is good for these kids. In fact, I strongly suspect that if Mr.
Rodriquez' parents had been brought in to the protective social and civil
bonds of marriage, his experiences would have been much improved. Again, by
denying equal rights under the law, YOU are the ones harming children!
Lagomorph: I encourage to you view Dr. Lopez's video. You
will understand why he feels the way does. He suffered a great deal of damage
by being deprived of a male role model. He had no idea how to behave like a man
and consequently was drawn into a gay life. He states that he doesn't
believe he would have done this if he hadn't been raised in a gay
environment. He is now married and doesn't believe anyone is born gay.
The reason gay supporters oppose what he says is because they don't want to
hear it. And, of course, if you don't want to change your behavior, it is
always easier to claim you can't help it because you were born that way.
No scientific study has ever concluded that anyone is born gay, including
studies of identical twins.
Why is the unscientific, unsupported assumption advanced that these relationship
changes, in the name of marriage, will cause "dysfunctional homes, more
poverty, more crime, more child abuse, more divorce, more venereal disease and
higher taxes"? Talk about nonsense! Right now "traditional"
marriage (which isn't "traditional" at all) isn't doing so
hot, either. Why don't we just do everything we can to support love, love,
love, wherever we are lucky enough to find it...and start dealing with all the
reasons why we can do something, rather than why we can't?
We are past the point of civility. Certainly appears to be true of the few
angry dissenters.This is a case where the glaring exception proves
the rule.The standard of traditional marriage will endure through
all challenges, in spite of every effort by the few deviants to discredit the
ideals of the majority. Mr. Reyes asserted this in his speech outlining legal
recourse by the State of Utah, to the thunderous applause and assent of the
rally crowd. It was a high point of the evening.
dmcvey: The proponents of traditional marriage felt very much threatened at the
rally. Those who are spraying others with glitter ought to be
charged with assault - it is a crime against another person. To breathe in that
stuff would be deadly. To force someone to breathe glitter in is a crime.
@ EqualProtection You know perfectly well what they mean by "traditional
marriage". But I'll explain anyway. Man and woman- that's it. Not
man and man or woman and woman. That's what marriage has always been. The
only combination that has survived the test of time over thousands of years.
Yours is another nonsensical talking point of the SSM crowd. @
Sneaky Jimmy Very slowly now...some people are attracted to their same gender.
Some are attracted to the opposite gender. At some point everyone decides
whether or not to act on that attraction. Those with same gender attraction can
choose to never act on it just as heterosexuals ( priests, nuns, et al.)choose
to never act on their heterosexual attractions. It IS a choice!
Everyone makes it. Gay or straight.
It sounds like in 2004, UT voters spoke their minds about what they wanted,
which was a traditional definition of what marriage is, and what marriage
isn't. Like JSB said, if the line is erased between hetero and homosexual
marriage, then that line doesn't just encircle those two types of
relationships, but has to now be redrawn to include (and exclude) whatever else
people may find acceptable or off limits. I've yet to hear a valid argument
about this topic that doesn't include disparaging terms like
"bigot" and "homophobe" to mar the traditionalists as
insensitive and reproachful. This ad hominem approach is disdainful and lacks
merit; furthermore, it is not helpful in coming to an agreement we can all live
with. I believe in traditional marriage because to me, it is sacred. When God
joined Adam and Eve, He sanctified and approved this family unit as the basis
for all human organization. I'm not saying there isn't a way that
federally, same sex couples can't enjoy the same protection under the law.
As a state though, Utah's laws should be respected when supported by the
Badgerbadger: "Too bad he didn't think about 'his?'
children's desire to have what everyone else is getting, a Mother and a
Father."I would maintain that having two parents period is much
more important than having one of each sex. It's more about sharing
workload than gender modeling. Consider that there are no "accidents"
with same sex couples. Every child is wanted. Can't say that about
straight parents. Given that about half of marriages end in divorce, straights
are doing more than there share of ensuring that children are denied a mother
and father. The percentages show that political effort would be better spent
shoring up hetero marriages than fighting gay marriage, if you sincerely want to
help children.Cats: "Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez was particularly
powerful with his appeal in favor of children's rights to have both a
mother and a father. Being raised in a same-sex home and living in the gay
community for 40 years, he knows whereof he speaks."I
haven't seen the video you cite, but it seems like he has turned out pretty
well despite his alleged limited upbringing. He is his own counterexample.
The people who claim to be "supporting traditional marriage" aren't
really being honest. Marriage between heterosexuals is not threatened here.
They aren't "supporting traditional marriage" they are trying to
prevent gay people from having equal rights. Marriage equality won't make
heterosexual marriage illegal.
If we expand the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, where does
it stop? If homosexuals can marry because they are presently committed to each
other, why can't polyamorous families (two or more adults of different
sexes) be allowed to marry also? Already there are hundreds of thousands of
these "families" in the USA anxiously looking forward to the recognition
of gay marriage so they can receive legal recognition. Or what will prevent
three or more people of the same sex to marry? Before long, the word
"marriage" will have not any meaning at all. What we will have is social
chaos: lots more children being raised in dysfunctional homes, more poverty,
more crime, more child abuse, more divorce, more venereal disease and higher
taxes. This is a legitimate concern. I've yet to hear a logical response to
this concern from anyone supporting gay marriage. Doesn't he state of Utah
has a legitimate interest in preventing this kind of social disruption and abuse
People are still making supremely ignorant, arrogant comments about choosing to
be gay. If one stops and thinks logically then that should be a choice for
everyone. If you are heterosexual ask yourself when you made that choice.
It's just they way you are. Once you arrive at this epiphany then a person
with a soul and a heart cannot wish to deprive two loving people the chance to
@play by the rules"I will stand with the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob on this issue."You do recall, of course, that Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob had multiple wives. Can we assume this means you're in
favor of polygamy?Rep. LaVar Christensen seems to think that our
legislature has been elected to represent either God or Christianity, rather
than the voters. This is a republic; not a theocracy, and Rep. Christensen would
doubtless be outraged if another representative announced that he was backing a
measure in the name of Krishna, Shiva, Allah or Mohammed. I saw all
the same arguments used years ago when the "defense of marriage" issue
was interracial marriage. They didn't fly then and they won't fly
now. And unless people are prepared to take some sort of legal action against
the millions of single-parent homes with children, the "children need two
parents" argument is clearly just a pretext.
For marriage, not against anyone... says the signs held up by people who are
directly against marriages (and anything similar like civil unions since
Amendment 3 banned those too) for same-sex couples.
"We are past the point of needing or wanting you to understand, it is clear
that the tears, heartache and devastation do not speak to your hearts," she
said, addressing opponents of same-sex marriage. "We are past the point of
civility, as calling us unnatural, asking us to stifle our love and promoting
only one type of family as traditional is beyond being civil."This is precisely why I have become unsympathetic toward same-sex marriage. At
one point, I was a supporter who lost friendships over my views on SSM. However,
as the movement has developed I have watched it become an ugly smear campaign,
void of any even attempt to understand or compassion for those who disagree. The
tactics and rhetoric used by proponents of SSM are more akin to those used by
Tammany Hall than to those employed by the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, leaving any comparison to the civil rights movement farcical and
lacking. Indeed, as Gandhi (to whom they should look more closely
for inspiration) said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".
They have never found that their is anything in one's 'biology'
that determines that one is 'gay' though they had certainly made many
efforts to find some link. All have failed. Even more recent studies on
identical twins where one became gay and one not failed to determine that one is
born 'gay.' Biology is biology and one is female or male though
sometimes something happens in development where one is born with the sex organs
of both. But their chemical makeup still is male or female. Simply put. If one
has chosen to live a gay life style they have that freedom of choice. But all
applicable research still shows children do best ideally in a traditional family
situation, as long as it is within a 'good' or 'healthy'
From the article, a homosexual partner with children said "We are not asking
for something different or special, just what everyone is getting."Too bad he didn't think about 'his?' children's desire to
have what everyone else is getting, a Mother and a Father. He freely took that
from them, without thinking about what they would want.No surprise
that there was a rude and uncivil outburst from the SSM side. They have
progressively become less tolerant over the last few years. I posted that it was
likely on Monday. I am no prophet, it was just easy to see coming.
I will stand with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob on this issue.
I was at this rally. The only ones who were disrespectful of anyone were the
LGBT protesters and hecklers. They were REALLY tacky. BTW, there were a lot
more than 700 people there in support of traditional marriage. Dr.
Robert Oscar Lopez was particularly powerful with his appeal in favor of
children's rights to have both a mother and a father. Being raised in a
same-sex home and living in the gay community for 40 years, he knows whereof he
speaks. I encourage everyone to go on youtube and listen to his story. It was stated at the rally that our country has gone to a very dark
place. That is true and if we don't turn it around, I'm not sure how
much time is left for us as a nation or as a civilization.
I saw a very large group of Traditional marriage backers who were respectful and
well behaved. I saw another group filled with hate with posters of religious
symbols slashed out. It spoke volumes of the two sides of the argument.
Being "for traditional marriage" does put oneself against gay people and
their civil rights, contrary to Amendment 3 supporters' claims. It's
like someone saying in the 50's that they're "for white
rights", but "definitely not against black people, heavens no".
There's no good way to sugarcoat discrimination.
The anti-constitutionalist religiously aligned must come to the understanding
that no religious rationalization makes their position right or legal under the
Constitution of the United States.I applaud the young people at the rally
that challenged the anti's and reminded them that their continued
discrimination will not be tolerated.
If this really is about the children (it changes every other day) then what
about considering the interests of those children already being raised by
same-sex parents. Do you propose to take them away from these couples? What
about same sex couples getting married is bad for the kids they are already
raising? I see that as a very important and valuable step toward protecting
those kids from harm. How, exactly, will kids who would otherwise be in a home
with their biological parents, be harmed by this? Are same-sex couples going to
steal children from heterosexual couples?Look people, none of the
arguments the opponents are presenting are logical. They are driven by a
religious mandate, pure and simple. Allowing same-sex marriage in the state of
Utah would undermine the very foundation of the Mormon religion. THAT is why,
despite presenting no compelling evidence that children are at risk, these
people are so afraid. This is an existential threat to their religion. It is
time to call a spade a spade.
These arguments simply have no common sense and are not grounded in reality. 1. "Biology is not Bigotry." Assisted Reproduction is Biology
and legally available for both opposite sex and same-sex couples, therefore
civil marriage is not logically limited or defined by biology or body parts.
2. "Every child deserves a mom and a dad." Civil marriage
law doesn't make that determination for same-sex couples, adoption and
reproductive law are obviously the correct legal tools. Marriage
discrimination only hurts same-sex families, without legal rights, spousal
health care, end of life decision making, social security and pension benefits
to name just a few of the approximate 1100. 3. Some explain to me
what they mean by "We believe in traditional marriage"...which
tradition? History is riddled with dozens of different variations...and exactly
are they trying to protect it FROM? Historical view provides perspective;
"We are not against anyone, we simply believe in marriage for only those of
the same race." -------In the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu:
“I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the
table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of
I enjoyed attending the traditional marriage rally this evening, and loved
seeing so many people coming together to voice their support of a child's
basic right to a mother and father.
Why do protesters have to show ill-mannered action when the other side of
traditional marriage just want to meet and express their views in an honest and
straight-forward manner? Let every man have his turn to say what is in his
heart. To be disruptive during a a man's sincere speech is very
disrespectful and does nothing for your cause!
It's so sweet that so many showed up for the "battle",
but....um....this is only going in one direction. On the one side there is an
argument, and on the other there isn't.