Our poor and sick society has reached the point that we call good evil and evil
good.Let us stand for traditional marriage and be proud to do so!
@ David, Standards are set to be sought after, even when they are not always
met. This is certainly true in marriage. Are you suggesting that
it's fine to lay out the red carpet inviting convicted felons, drug alcohol
and spousal abusers into civil marriage? Then target ONLY same-sex couples with
vile anti civil-marriage animus?You said: "The state should
establish and maintain the ideal marriage and family situation for children,
even when it is not always attained."You don’t have a
rational or logical argument, it is animus.
First, there it the higher rates of domestic violence within their
relationships. Next, you have the high rate of gay or bisuxuals in positions of
authority abusing children.This statement is so blatantly false. As
a mental health care provider, that is not the case statistically, nor in real
life. Most abuse and domestic violence comes from heterosexual predators.
@moreman, I think that you fail to see what polygamy really was. When the LDS
church practiced polygamy, it is not like the FLDS church now. We practiced
polygamy because the Lord's law commanded it for a period of time. The
people that did practice it, weren't overly thrilled to accept that
calling, and they were the people closest to the prophet. There was not Child
molestation involved. Polygamy was also to help make certain that all of the
women in the church were cared for. Also I think that you will be
surprised that soon after Gay Marriage is legalized, people will begin to want
to be able to marry multiple people once again. LGBT stands for Lesbian Gay
Bisexual, Transexual. Once LG are satisfied, they will move on to BT.
It's not necessarily bigotry that drives people to oppose equal rights, but
it sure is dogma. Dogma that teaches people not to think for his or herself and
not to question authority. How many of these people would automatically change
their belief if their authoritative religious figure changed theirs? There are
many bigots that oppose equal rights and also there are those that aren't
inherently bigots but act as such because of weak minds and a desire to worship
and follow authority instead of using love, charity, reason and logic to help
them decide.Also, don't claim that the authority is God just
because a religious authority is saying it. With that logic, you can also say
that God was speaking through Brigham Young when he said terrible racist things
that the church now opposes and clearly states that it was his opinion and not
The church lost ALL credibility with the "polygamy" thing about marriage
that the churches 2 original prophets practiced. It's like letting a
convicted child molester define "molestation" after "meeting
God" in prison.
@Liberty For All"Hundreds of thousands of people suffering from
same-sex attraction have been fixed or improved their condition through
psychological counseling, and medical treatments like Depo-Povera (reducing sex
drive in males)"First, I suffered through four marriages -
including two temple marriages - while trying to pretend I was straight. I was
miserable, the women I was with were miserable. I have been with a wonderful guy
for almost five years now, and am happy and content. Second, over
the last few years the groups claiming to "cure" same-sex attraction
have one-after-the-other shut down, admitting their "cure" rate was
abysmal and most often temporary. Third, suggesting
chemical-castration as a cure is pretty radical. No thanks, I'll take
happiness over life as a drone.
"Our nation's uneven but dogged journey toward truer and more
meaningful freedoms for our citizens has brought us continually to a deeper
understanding of the first three words in our Constitution: we the people.
"We the People" have become a broader, more diverse family than once
imagined. Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices
suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed. We
have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more
inclusive, and our freedom more perfect."-Judge Arenda Wright Allen
I think I understand Danclrksvll when he says "God has pronounced his
judgement on gays and their lifestyle" . . . I don't agree with it, but
I understand it. So then, if that is the "definition of truth" to those
in opposition to gay people and their expressions of love toward each other,
then let them cherish it, believe it and revile in it; but STOP trying to
legislate your beliefs on to gay people in their pursuit of a civil right to
The issue here is really about the definition of truth. As an active Latter Day
Saint, God and His Word have already pronounced judgment on the gay lifestyle,
once and for all time. We are to flee any type of sexual immorality as
Christians, period! If we insist on putting on a parade for gay marriage we may
as well throw a party for getting drunk, fornication, and adultery, and throw
all moral restraint under the bus. No type of sin has a protected status in
God's moral universe, and ALL of it leads to spiritual death without Christ
All those people out there who say we are going to lose and know it are probably
very right in a legal perspective. The world is slowly turning that way, and
even in Utah, where our constitution forbids Same sex marriage, we can see that
happening in order to satisfy the National constitution, and there is nothing
wrong with that.Where you are all wrong however, is that as a church
we can legally continue to forbid same sex marriage within our buildings, and
that will stay true. Go ahead an legalize it, give everyone equality. I
realize where you are coming from. But just remember that Legal equality will
not always satisfy God's desires, and sometimes the Government is wrong.
The state should be able to marry any two consenting entities.Churches should marry those who God says should be married.Gays
get their rightsOthers get salvation.gg
@Donn:You seem to misunderstand the role of chaplains in the military.
They aren't there just to minister to their own flock. They provide their
services to all of the troops in the command where they're stationed. In
Korea, I (a Jewish medic) often played the chapel organ for our Catholic
chaplain while he was conducting Protestant services. In many ways, the military
is a unique situation as compared to civilian life. We looked out for all of our
people and tended to their needs; not just our own. In combat, I've said
last rites for a Catholic soldier and in a civilian assistance mission, baptized
a baby for a woman who had just delivered it. (For those unaware, the Catholic
church believes that it doesn't matter if the person performing these
things believes in them, just so it's done properly.) The point is, a
chaplain, like a medic, isn't there to take care of his own needs, but
those of the soldiers. If he can't take care of someone's religious
needs, his duty is to find someone who can; not to abandon his calling.
Suppose that the federal and state governments decided that home ownership is
valuable to communities and society at large. Suppose that they created tax
exemptions for mortgage payments to promote home ownership.Allow
that there are protections like inheritance rights that are granted to
homeowners and not to renters.Now suppose that renters wanted to
change the legal definition of home ownership to include renting. Suppose they
claimed that their civil rights were being infringed. What is the
most logical solution? To redefine home ownership and mortgage? Or to address
the specific rights that renters ought to have?(Before anyone says
that these two are not analogous because home ownership is a choice, I assert
that for many renters home ownership is not affordable, and thus not an option.)
The fact that something was done a certain way for a long time isn't a very
good reason for insisting that we do it that way now. For about fifteen hundred
years, the Catholic Church pretty much had Christianity to itself, providing the
basis for the same "tradition" argument, but I don't see any of the
Christians who make that argument here deciding that it's a good reason to
change their religion and join the Catholic Church. For that matter, until
Christianity showed up on the scene, Judaism was the norm. I'd continue,
but I think you can all see where I'm going with this argument. Bottom line
is that things change as society evolves. If it didn't, we'd be
riding camels,wearing robes, and buying our wives with sheep or herding sheep
for our future father-in-law (who might well worship idols) in exchange for one
of his daughters.
Bigotry = Intolerance = Prejudice; look it up in the dictionary. If you are the
benefactor of a civil right (marriage), but support a policy that denies other
people that same civil right, then by definition you are a bigot. Don't try
to sugar coat the topic and justify your exclusionary attitude by saying you
love the sinner, but hate the sin; if you want to promogulate the belief that
marriage is only between a man and woman, then keep it in your place of worship
and out of the public courts.
To state that you oppose marriage equality, but hold no animosity toward gay
people is equivalent to saying in the days prior to 1978, that you support the
Church's position that blacks should be denied the priesthood, but you have
no prejudice or bigotry against African americans. If you support a policy that
denies another person to have the same rights as you, then you are bigoted and
prejudice against that person or group of people. End of discussion.
@sharrona, lamenting the potential loss of "torn" chaplains: Being a military chaplain is not volunteer work. It's a well-paying gig,
and if you accept the gig, it's a duty. I'm sure there are plenty of
other ecumenical-minded chaplains who would love the chance to serve our troops,
ALL of our troops, for an annual pay of $56,900 (including "subsistence
allowance").There are at least two-dozen denominations to
recruit from, chaplains who not only don't object to performing same-sex
marriages, but may have even done one or two already. More importantly,
chaplains from these denominations are more likely to respect and honor the
religious heritage of ALL of our troops, unlike the reports we're hearing
of those Evangelicals who tell them they're going to burn in purgatory if
they don't convert.If you can't do the job, get out of the
way. There are others waiting to sign up.
RedShirt stated the following about gays:“First there is the
higher rate of domestic violence within their relationships. Next you have the
high rate of gays or bisexuals in positions of authority abusing
children.”Whenever I read such a statement, I would like to
see some source to validate that claim, and not just any old source, but a
citation from a reputable study by a trusted source. Otherwise, why
should any of us believe what RedShirt is asserting?
RE: RanchHand/AQuaker said, "chaplains" If they don't want to
serve) all members in our armed forces, get out.” Southern
Baptists have nearly 1,500 chaplains more than any other denomination or faith
group. There are 234 priests are active duty chaplains. About 25%t of all
personnel in the armed forces are Catholic, 8% of military chaplains are
Catholic. LCMS, 214 and Mormon 75. Plus other Chaplains that would not perform
gay marriage, or the great majority would be forced to “get out”.
Your view would devastate the military, especially the frontline
troops.AndSame-sex couples account for less than half of one percent
of couples in the armed forces and “such a small group cannot be allowed
to mandate policy for all.” RE: renatastar:.. we are created
in God's image[spiritual],…why does *he keep making gay people?Rom 5:12 , just as sin entered the world through one man(Adam), and
death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
The fall of man. Mt: 19:5 (Jesus) a man will leave his *father and
*mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
To "RanchHand" so waht you are saying is that it is ok to be bigoted
towards or discrimininate against people that could pose a threat. Well, lets
look at the LGBT community.First, there it the higher rates of
domestic violence within their relationships. Next, you have the high rate of
gay or bisuxuals in positions of authority abusing children.If you
think the LDS church is bigoted towards gays, why is it that they specifically
tell the local leaders that they are to accept gays into full fellowship in the
church? They don't expect anything out of the gays that they don't
expect from every other member. If anything, they bend over backwards to make
gays feel accepted. (You probably will now complain about members, but that is
just a strawman argument becuase the members are not acting in accordance with
church policy or doctrine.)
@Liberty For AllNARTH and the Family Research Counsel both file
amicus briefs for the anti-gay side. How convenient for the court. They
won't have to go far if they're looking for evidence of animus.
LibertyForAll,You really do need to read "Animal Farm" some
day. By "improved by Depo-Provera" you mean chemically castrated. This
was a not uncommon alternative sentence offered to sex offenders as well as to
male homosexuals who offended no one other then the sensibilities of the
non-participants. Alan Turing, the computational genius who cracked the German
"Enigma Machine" and saved untold thousands of Allied lives in WWII was
a subsequent victim of this "treatment," a treatment so dehumanizing it
led him to suicide. I'm not sure if all the old court and
medical records have ever been analyzed to see how many people were castrated,
lobotomized or administered ECT ("shock treatment") to "cure"
them over the years, or where your supposed number comes from, but we don't
still destroy people like that. Mutilation of our fellow humans,
whether physical, psychological or chemical, for simply having the propensity of
falling in love with otherwise-marriageable, consenting adults that don't
fit your model of who they're SUPPOSED to fall in love with, is a crime
against humanity. No mainstream professional medical, psychological or
sociological organization supports such physical or mental maiming anymore.
To RanchYou mentioned "choosing" to be "straight" or
"gay". I acknowledged that some people feel they don't have any
control over it. And someone should never be abused or hated because of it.But just because one has feelings of attraction to someone of the same
sex doesn't mean it's wise or good to act on those feelings. All human
beings deal with feelings that, if acted on will result in eventual
self-destruction even if at the time, seem alluring. Anger is a very
strong feeling that, if one chooses to act on, can cause people to do things
that absolutely ruin their lives and the lives of those they love, causing
incredible regret and pain.You seem eager to cast away a notion of
God, but even if someone doesn't believe in God, shouldn't they at
least consider what the effects of their actions might be and whether or not
it's the best for others and for themselves?
Many people who are FOR traditional marriage DON'T hate those on the other
side of the issue. We're not all "haters". Some of us are trying
and want to follow Christ's injunction to "love one another".
We're not better than anyone and want happiness for our fellowmen.We feel that choosing to ACT on same-sex feelings is harmful, not in a looking
down our noses way,(all of us in this crazy thing called humanity are in this
together. I think all of us have gut wrenching dilemmas, challenges and
heartaches, where we're faced with tough decisions) but we're trying
to ask ourselves what we feel is good for everyone involved.As I
mentioned before- As a parent I know loving my children doesn't mean
it's okay for them to O.D. on candy or video games even though they really
want to and like to. We set limits on behavior BECAUSE we want what is best for
the individual and others.
@ Born In Bountiful, Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court
has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these
cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due
Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by
free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the
State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” The last
case was two women in Windsor.
No prejudice? No animus? No willingness to distort evidence?Snips of
an article in the Washington Blade:...The Mormon Church joined other
major Christian groups on Monday in filing a legal brief supporting bans on
same-sex marriage in Utah and Oklahoma, although they rely on a study that
authors say shouldn't be used as evidence against same-sex marriage.---"Child Trends has been diligent in noting that it is inaccurate
to make conclusions about the well-being of children being raised in same-sex
households based on our study on heterosexual households" Walter said.
"As noted, this was not part of the study. In fact... our information was
being misrepresented."The study was also cited in the legal
brief that the state of Utah filed last week before the Tenth Circuit in favor
of its ban on same-sex marriage. The research also comes up in at least one
other friend-of-the-court brief that was signed by social scientists and Mark
Regenrus, who produced a discredited study against same-sex parenting.----what would Jesus say?
“Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it
constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without
other reasons,”- District Judge HeyburnMany believe what their
ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted
between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be
confused —even angry—when a decision such as this one seems to call
into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an
answer. Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of
society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for
themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once
the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it
must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based
limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it.
Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it
constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without
other reasons. The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our
individual faith, definition of marriage, while accommodating others....
Read the legal amicus brief from NARTH (National Association for Reparative
Therapy of Homosexuality). Hundreds of thousands of people
suffering from same-sex attraction have been fixed or improved their condition
through psychological counseling, and medical treatments like Depo-Povera
(reducing sex drive in males).
‘Born in Bountiful’ wrote the following “this is not an equal
protection argument”. However the federal judges in the Utah
Amendment 3 case, and in the Oklahoma case, both cited the equal protection
clause of the 14 amendment to the U.S. Constitution in their rulings.The Oklahoma judge called the ban on same-sex marriage “arbitrary and
irrational”.State courts in California classify sexual
orientation as a suspect class, and in Connecticut and Iowa, state courts
classify sexual orientation as a quasi suspect class. So there is precedent for
heightened scrutiny in those states.
Whenever I see in these comments the word “homosexual” as opposed
to “gay”, coupled with the term “lifestyle” I know
immediately that the person writing them is going to be expressing disdain
towards gay persons, and gay rights in general. The term
‘lifestyle’ is particularly offensive because it suggests that gay
persons ‘choose’ to be gay. Let’s get something straight:
it’s not a lifestyle. It’s a life! I would ask anyone
at what point he or she ‘chose’ his or her sexual orientation and
would any straight persons call their lives a ‘lifestyle‘? The
notion is absurd, and again, offensive. So, please all of you who
may support amendment 3, try to treat with some respect those who might be gay
and don’t support it.
All this rhetoric of preserving traditional marriage.Suppose for a
moment that LGBT marriage stopped tomorrow - for whatever reason and through
whatever means - that it was banned.Then what?Would
traditional marriage then, be saved?It would be the restoration of
what, exactly? Back to some make-believe world where things are ideal?Banning marriage from LGBT couples has the effect of placing energy and
resources where it need not be. Preserving traditional marriages - let's
say - if we speak about heterosexual couples will only result in doing exactly
that - preserving traditional marriage for heterosexual couples. What need is there to ban LGBT couples' marriages when heterosexual
couples want to preserve theirs?Ban the Smith Family from getting
married because the Jones Family wants to preserve their marriage. Huh? The
whole time, the Smiths do not want to marry the Jones, but the Jones feel their
marriage threatened. Is anyone touching the Jones' marriage?Preserve marriage and look after the Jones' marriage, but don't ban
the Smiths from getting married.
That we as a society have become accepting of homosexuality does not elevate a
lifestyle to a protected group status. What other group or lifestyle will seek
to take advantage of the same claim? Can society not say that we will uphold
certain values? This is not an equal protection argument. Nudists cannot claim
that they have the right to enter public places, such as courthouses, with
modifying their behavior. If you want certain rights in our society then you
have to act a certain way. A US citizen can carry a gun. Others cannot legally
carry a gun in this country. Both groups are people, both groups are entitled
to certain rights, but not all rights while in this country. There are a myriad
of other examples. Society can protect itself and can enact laws that some
people will never like.
@The Owl;Quaker said it way better than I did. Those so-called
"chaplains" who refuse their duty to our service members are doing
everyone a disservice. If they don't want to serve all members in our
armed forces, get out. They can go act in their church in any manner they
please, but the military chaplaincy is NOT a branch of any church, but rather an
amalgamation of all of them.@Liberty For All;The
"proclamation to the family" is not law. It has no relevance.@sharrona;Once again, the Christian god is not the only god in
this nation. He has no more relevance than any other god. @RedShirt;You are the one who is incorrect. Anyone harming others
suffers consequences of their actions. LGBT are NOT those criminals you are
comparing us to. You are once again being offensive and the DN allows you to
post your offensive comments. Yes, your church is bigoted toward gays,
they've done everything they can think of to oppress and deny civil rights
to LGBT.@juangone;WHEN did you choose to be straight?
Azazael,"Granting same-sex couples protections and freedom from
discrimination is a separate issue that should be pursued in a way that does not
change the definition of marriage."______________________________Remedial legislation regarding protections and freedom from
discrimination doesn’t address the central issue of establishing legal
recognition of spousal relationships between members of the same sex. Some
opponents argue that broadening the scope of legal marital status beyond present
restrictions effectively redefines marriage. That view is not shared by many
proponents of same sex marriage. That’s why Federal Court review to
resolve the matter is looking increasingly inevitable and perhaps desirable.
@ManzanitaBy seeking to define marriage no one is forcing religious
beliefs on anyone. No one is infringing upon rights and liberties. No one is
seeking to control conscience. No one is seeking to suppress the freedom of the
soul. No one is seeking to make homosexuality illegal.By defining
marriage Utah is simply defining what relationship it will promote with the
benefits of a legal status of marriage. By supporting this
legislation the Church is promoting a measure that they feel is good for
families and society; in accordance with the mandate in the Proclamation to the
World.(Granting same-sex couples protections and freedom from
discrimination is a separate issue that should be pursued in a way that does not
change the definition of marriage.)
@Lane MyerThanks. Your explanation makes sense, if you frame the
question as one of denying rights.I would argue that the state is
seeking to define marriage for the purpose of defining exactly what
relationships the state wants to promote with a privilege; rather than seeking
to deny rights. As for laws restricting felons and sex offenders,
aren’t these issues for separate legislation? Why should this amendment
be conditional upon the existence of laws preventing other conditions from
Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134 Verse 4 reads:4 We believe that
religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him
only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to
infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that
human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the
consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the
civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should
punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.I truly
hope that one of the amici for the same-sex marriage advoctes will cite the
above scripture for the proposition that the LDS Church's current
activities are wholly inconsistent with its canonized doctrine on the
impropriety of religious activity that seeks to impose through the law its
convictions on others. I'm an active, believing member of the
Church, and even I can see the duplicity in the Church's arguments.
renatastar posted:Marriage should be a civil contract regulating property
onership, taxes and benefits. I have no idea why churches think they have a say
so over it.=================================Churches have a say,
because Marriage is religious in it's origins. It's been the last 200
years or so that governments have gotten involved, tied government benefits to
it and muddle everything up. Personally, if I had the power,
I'd completely sever any government connect to marriage. Let them create a
whole new realm of legislated benefits which do not involve marriage as any
criteria. But, since marriage and government are now so tightly
interwoven, I doubt such could ever happen. At best, we can only insist there be
some comparable civil tool put in place.
RanchHand posted:You didn't address the issue of poor people (not
good for children) being able to marry; felons (certainly not good for children)
being able to marry; spouse/child abusers (not good for children) being allowed
to marry. Why only the gays?================================I fail
to see the relevancy of associating the gays with these subgroups. As you have
all these subgroups among the gays as well.
@guitarbabe:We already have separation of Church and State.Marriage is already "cut in half."A church wedding
doesn't count unless it occurs concurrently with a civil marriage.A civil marriage (with license, witnesses, etc.) always counts, without a
church marriage.The reasons society grants legal status to married
couples are manifold, but mostly because society benefits over and above what
single individuals provide. Marriage creates a strong household, one less
likely need financial support or abandon children, or become homeless, and more
likely to care for elder relatives of both spouses, as well as to support and
care for each other during setbacks that an individual can't handle.Recognizing them as a household unit, as a vital resource for each
other, lessens the burden on society, as well as recognizes that they are
next-of-kin. Family.It'a a net gain, not a cost, to
society.Your other arguments are false. Churches have discretion as
to who they perform rites for, and can't be sued. Ever been to a Jewish
wedding at a Mormon temple? Me neither. As for the Public Accommodations law
issues, sorry, but we don't have segregated lunch counters anymore, either.
AzazaelSalt Lake City, UTMany are claiming that the
state’s purpose for defining marriage for the benefit of children is
disingenuous because there are marriages allowed that don’t produce
children, or other laws that don’t benefit children. These marriages and
other laws are beside the point.-----------------Please
understand what "simularly situated" means in regards to equality under
the law. If a couple who cannot have children naturally is denied a
privilege (marriage) because of that condition, then all other simularly
situated (cannot naturally bear children - including infertile and older
couples) should be treated equally under the law. Since they are not treated
equally under Utah's law, there is definately a problem with the 14th
amendment and Utah's Amendment 3.If a gay couple is proved to
harm children by raising them in their home and is denied marriage because of
that, then we must look to other situations where we know that harm can come to
children and see if Utah treats those couples the same way. Look at child
molesters. Can they marry and raise children? Yes. Murderers? They too can
marry. Why are just gays prohibited? This is a big problem to explain.
Many are claiming that the state’s purpose for defining marriage for the
benefit of children is disingenuous because there are marriages allowed that
don’t produce children, or other laws that don’t benefit children.
These marriages and other laws are beside the point. A law can be
genuinely enacted for a stated purpose even if all applications of the law do
not satisfy that purpose. And the state does not need to be 100% congruent in
all of its laws. Other laws have no bearing on the genuineness of the purpose
of this law.Legislators can genuinely define marriage for the
benefit of children even if some marriages do bear children.
IT'S NOT ABOUT BIGOTRY...it's about defending freedom of
conscience.*Because the equal right laws will infringe on the rights of
churches and the freedom of their parishioners to follow their conscience
(people will get sued for teaching and following their own beliefs in their own
churches). If you don't understand the importance of being able to
follow your conscience than you don't understand the history of this
struggle for religious freedom. Why are we still fighting about
this? Simple.It's also about equal rights.*Because
according to the law, married and single citizens are NOT treated equally (as
proponents of same-sex marriage have kindly discovered for all of us). On both sides there is name calling, accusations, and trying to define why we
believe the way that we believe...as if we can actually convince anyone else of
it--it isn't 'what' we believe, but the protection of our right
to believe that is important. Can anyone else see that both sides have valid
arguments?Don't we truly want a solution that will preserve ALL
of our rights and liberties?
The only solution is to cut marriage in half. Yes, let’s go
“Solomon’s Wisdom.” Separate church and state.CHURCH: Sees marriage as a sacred ordinance. Like baptism, marriage also has
rules (# participants, gender, age, authority). *If same sex marriage is
enforced then opposing churches must perform them. Opposing photographers,
bakers, etc., would be forced to participate or get sued. STATE:
Sees marriage as an institution that allows certain benefits (taxes, medical,
death, family, housing, legal protections). *Singles vs. marrieds have
different rights, so yes, we should ALL have these rights if we are citizens,
even if we don’t hold romantic attachments to anyone. Should
equal rights interfere with freedom of conscience or vice versa? No.1. Everyone should be equal (including singles). Give everyone the rights or
no one. 2. Give marriage to the people where they can perform it in
their private institutions, churches, etc., according to their own
conscience."Render unto Caesar the things that are
Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.
@TheTrueVoiceThank you. Flattery it is. (I too admire A Quaker for her/his
reasoning skills and measured tone.)
Marriage is a GIFT from God to us; the Quality of our marriages is a GIFT from
us to Him.
RickLT says,"To say traditional marriage is bigotry is laughable. Even
the most debauched societies of history did not allow same-sex marriage."The only thing laughable is your certainty.From before Rome
until the 16th Century in the Catholic world, and the 18th in the Anglican,
there were no marriage ceremonies or registrations. Other than affairs of state
(royalty), all marriages were common-law. We can't know with any certainty
who married whom.As for your debauchery, you need to update your
history. For several years now, a number of nations have moved to extend
marriage equality to same-sex couples. Currently included in these
"debauched" countries are the very staid Canada, Norway, Iceland,
Sweden, New Zealand, and the very Catholic nations of Spain, France and
Portugal. And eight others and portions of two more. Massachusetts
may be liberal, but judging from their superior marriage-stability statistics
and low divorce rate, they're far less debauched than Utah. There's
no sign that the last 10 years of allowing a previously neglected minority of
their citizens to also marry the ones they love has hurt society in any way.
I know comparing two groups is unfair, as the challenges and details are not the
same. In fact I am totally against comparing gay rights to the civil rights
movement. I find it very insulting to think that what the African-American
people went through is anything close to what gays go through. Gays have every
chance in the world to be succussful in school, the work-place, and to
participate in whatever activity they want. African-Americans didn't have
anything close to that. Continued...
As has been mentioned many times, there really is no current proof that a person
is "born that way". I have no proof for sure either, although I do know
several friends and acquaitances that have come out and said they were gay, only
to then change their minds and become heterosexual again. I mention that
because I really don't believe it's the same for everyone. There are
so many different factors that might trigger it, and there have been many
studies that would support that (ie abuse, tramatic life experience, wanting to
be accepted, experiementation, etc.). So I just can't agree with people
that argue this is how they are all born, so we need to accept it. It's
not a valid argument, because that's not how it is for many people.
Juangone: The rights and privileges that come with marriage are important. Same
sex partners need that protection. For heterosexual couples, there is no
discussion regarding inheritance, property ownership, pensions, taxes, etc.
Because of my profession, I've seem cases where same sex partner who built
businesses and bought properties as a couple lose everything due to the sudden
death of the other partner. I've seen a family denying visitation rights
for someone who had been the half of a couple for 54 years!!! This is wrong and
it needs to be addressed. Those are civil rights. Those are matters of equal
rotection uder the law.
To say traditional marriage is bigotry is laughable. Even the most debauched
societies of history did not allow same-sex marriage. In Rome, quiet same-sex
trysts were allowed, but never marriage. Marriage to a brother or sister, or a
horse (Calligula) was a horror to them. Saying it's bigotry is like saying
putting up two stop signs on a minor cross street of a major intersection is
bigotry against those that choose the street less traveled, since it impedes
their progress. Clearly, those signs are there to protect the traffic on the
main thoroughfare. It's for the public good......just like
one-man/one-woman marriage is good public policy (for the last 5,000 years of
human civilized history.
If all the homosexual proponents wanted was equality, they would seek to change
laws that benefit married couples, such as the death tax, end of life decisions,
tax codes, etc. That is not what they want, and many posters here
have told us that.It amazes me that those who deny God want his
servants to perform a religious rite for them. They say it is about equality,
but it isn't. They want to mock those who are religious, grind
everyone's noses in their violation of nature, and demand that we endorse
them for it. They seek domination, which is the opposite of equality and
freedom. I hope that those who have been more than tolerant, and are
now embracing this power grab by the homosexual community, will see it for what
it is, plain pure bigotry, oppression, and power mongering.
Dan Taylor: If you believe we are created in God's image, have you ever
asked yourself why does he keep making gay people? Do you think he wants to tell
us something? I've been married for 38 years. We have 4 children and 3
grandchildren and to this day, I've never heard an argument that would
convince me that a gay couple marrying is somewhat detrimental to MY marriage.
About your fictitious example: Life finds its way (from Jurassic Park).
Life always finds a way to perpetuate itself. We have in vitro fertilization
already. And that society will progress, because gay people have been affirming
live all around us: they are raising children, they are scientists, teachers,
judges, artists, doctors. They are just like everyone of us, trying to
"progress the good in society" every way they can. It's a pity you
can't see it.
To "RanchHand" but you are wrong on every front.For example.
A sex offender is denied their "freedom of association" when they are
restricted from living close to schools and parks, and put their name on sex
offender registries. Why don't they get equal protection? Why do they
have their "rights" cut short compared to non-sex offenders?As for polygamists, lets look at what your ilk wants to do. They want to say
that you can marry the person that you love. Marriage is no longer defined by
anything biological, but by emotion. You are now saying that a person can only
love 1 other person at a time. That is very bigoted against polygamists, since
they are capable of loving more than one person at a time. If a 2 gays can love
eachother enough to be married, why can't a group of people do the same?
You are denying them their basic right to marriage.To "Red
Corvette" the irony of your statement is that those that typicall call
others bigots are usually the biggoted ones. The LDS church is not biggoted
towards gays. This can be seen by the gay travel magazines that promote Utah.
Aunt Lucy: For billions of people living in this 21st. century, "because God
said so" is not good enough reason for denying civil rights to other human
beings. The Bible condones slavery. We know slavery is an abomination. The Bible
preaches vengeance "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". We know
forgiveness is the right thing to do, every single time. The Bible says "if
your child disobeys you, the child should be put to death." We know this is
lunacy. Are we wiser than God?We cherry pick the Bible, choosing the parts
that support our own beliefs and bigotries. Horrible crimes have been committed
in the name of God throughout the centuries and we have not witnessed any
manifestation of outrage. As a Brazilian poet once wrote "God, oh! God,
where are you and why you don't answer me? In which world, in which star do
you hide, wrapped in the sky?" His name was Castro Alves. He was writing
about a slave's lament."Because God said so" is not
acceptable for all the people going through persecution, torture, and murder on
this planet because of the way God created them.
@A Quaker, regarding those opposed to equality: "Their primary objection to
marriage equality is letting gays and lesbians share the word "marriage"
with them."As far as I can tell, this is the absolute bottom
line. After all the smoke-and-haze deflection arguments have cleared away, we
see this is *precisely*, *exactly* the heart of the matter.Does it
sound stupid? Does it sound completely mad to have this much upheaval and strife
because Utah's religiosity objects to sharing a word?You bet it
is. It is completely barking mad. I am with A Quaker: those that embrace legal
bigotry had better pray hard, because the defense the state has mounted has no
prayer whatsoever. It is doomed, with absolutely no hope of prevailing.As it should be, because at the end of the day, Amendment 3 is just one big
insulting awful package of pure hatred for the LGBT community and human beings
with working souls. It’s actually impressive, in the same way ebola-tipped
bullets fired into crowds of baby seals is impressive: just overwhelmingly,
unremittingly awful on multiple levels.
RE: RanchHand,In the name of your god? True,Acts 5:29 We ought to
obey God rather than men.1 Cor 6:9 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.I was on Military bases in the western U.S. for over
30 years. Military families in base housing have a more conservative and moral
culture. RE: A Quaker, Vietnam: Chaplains are very important to the
morale of the men:Chaplain Watters was fatally wounded while ministering
to fallen comrades under intense fire near Dak To in 1967.Iraq: Chaplain
Vakoc after celebrating Mass(communion) with troops in 2004, they were attacked
and he died from his wounds in 2009.I’m a Vietnam Veteran (AF
infantry). When were attacked, The majority I was around prayed, in Jesus
name. I.e.., Defensor Fortis:"Lord, you have called us to be
guardians of a nation founded on your principles. Whatever our tasks as Security
Forces men and women, we do them to serve you and our nation. You bless those
who obey you, Lord; Your love protects them like a shield."
I am pro-SSM and therefore necessarily pro-marriage. If I didn't think
marriage was a good thing, I would be trying to convince ALL of my family and
friends to avoid it. I don't believe that most anti-SSM's
are bigots. I think the beliefs they hold on this issue are bigoted. One
belief does not a bigot make.I also don't believe that most
anti-SSM's act out of hatred. I believe them when they say they believe
they are acting out of love. I do not agree with their definition of love and I
believe that their definition leads them to inflict great harm without seeing it
as such. But I believe harm is what LGBT and SSM advocates are proving in
courtrooms across the land.I hear the genuine concern that religious
liberty is being threatened. I think religious privilege rather than religious
liberty is being challenged, and I think that these privileges have been
unconstitutional all along. So I believe the efforts my side of the argument
are making actually serve to PRESERVE and STRENGTHEN religious liberty, and I
believe this will be borne out in the end.
The Proclamation to the World is doctrine that cannot be ignored. Society will
be much better off when we can codify this wonderful word from the Lord into our
civil marriage laws.
I'm amazed that liberals have reduced themselves to advocating what
RanchHand states..."No LGBT military couple should have their religious
leaders refuse to perform services for them". Are you suggesting that
religious leaders be arrested or just shamed for refusing to perform a gay
marriage ceremony against their conscience? Liberals pride themselves on how
"open-minded" they are so long as others agree with their narrow point
of view! This sounds like a proposal coming out of Russia - not the USA.
Liberals continue to use false arguments of "equality" to support their
misguided causes and then charge those who disagree with being bigots. Of
course, it worked in the last election with the supposed "War on Women"
waged by Republicans because of an ignorant electorate. I suggest you think
through the consequences of changing long-standing traditions like marriage
before jumping on the bandwagon. Were President Obama and Hillary Clinton
bigots a short 6 years ago while running for President for having the same
stance on marriage that many of us still have? And comparing gay marriage to
the civil rights movement should be offensive to any black person as this is a
Having read all the arguments and accusations here against gay people, and
against marriage equality for same-sex couples, I am truly disappointed in the
poor reasoning and lack of basic decency in some of the comments. Not to mention
the level of hypocrisy.They cry "selfishness" while being
selfish. Their primary objection to marriage equality is letting gays and
lesbians share the word "marriage" with them.They cry
"intolerance" while being intolerant. It's fine for them to call
gays and lesbians name, to baselessly accuse them of all manner of evil, to
defame them in every way possible. But if anyone points out their animus and
bigotry, the bigots cry "oppression" and "religious freedom."They trumpet "children!" as their battle cry, but can't
answer why they don't care about children in heterosexual marriages. Or in
orphanages. Or in single-parent homes.My advice: pray. Pray hard.
Because your arguments don't have a prayer of their own.
@ The OwlUnwed people, regardless of sexual orientation, can already
adopt in this state. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of children in this
state being raised in loving homes by same-sex parents. Allowing these couples
to be married will benefit these children because they will have two legally
recognized parents. This alone renders the "for the children argument"
completely null and void. Also, a lot of people have said that same-sex couples
can't have rights similar to traditional married couples. Amendment 3
explicitly forbid civil unions for same-sex couples as well as marriage.
@donn: As far as I'm concerned, the Evangelical chaplains of whom you
speak can't leave the military fast enough. Since the large influx during
President GW Bush's Administration, they've been notorious for
disrespecting the denominations of our troops and pressuring them to convert. I
don't know how well-represented Mormons are in the military ranks, but
I'm surprised you haven't heard the stories by now.Military chaplains are there to serve troops of every denomination, not just
their own. Whatever religious mission they have in civilian life must be
relegated to the service of everyone once they join the service, be they
Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Jewish, Islamic, Mormon or Hindu. There is no
"one true religion" in the military. These are volunteers from a
diverse nation, not a Crusade.
How can if be fair that the spouse of a married couple who has been married for
30 years can make end of life decisions when a gay couple who are legally denied
the right to marry are not afforded the same right. As long as property rights,
inheritance rights and all the rights that are extended to married couples are
denied to same sex people then the government is withholding those rights from
gays. If marriage were simply a religious rite then there would be no argument.
But it carry's legal protections that should be extended to all. I am LDS and I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I
realize that the religious aspects are separate from the legal aspects. Maybe
government should get out of the business of marriage.
Typically racists are accused of racism, misogynists of misogyny, and bigots of,
well, bigotry. Usually if one is not acting in a bigoted way, one will not be
accused of bigotry. Perhaps the accusations say something, quite possibly
correct, about those pushing so hard to deny gay people their civil rights.
Who cares about who the state marries. Give people benefits and what ever. Who
cares.The moment they start trying to accuse churches of
discrimination for not marrying them... this is the moment I have lost all faith
in any sort of equal rights...The only problem I have is that
sometimes It looks like it's not just equality but legislated acceptance
that people are after.
@donn;No LGBT military couple should have their religious leaders
refuse to perform the services for them it performs for everyone else. You
don't think that it is bigotry, to refuse to perform your duty for those
offering their lives for your protection? In the name of your god? Not much of
a good example, imo.And, you are wrong about the 'morale in the
military' being reduced. I work with many service men/women in my job
(many of whom are LGBT), and they're not showing any reduction in morale
that I've witnessed.
The main point that many are missing is that legalizing gay marriage will also
grant "equal rights" to adoptions. I believe that every child deserves
a mother and a father as evidence shows this is the best environment for child
rearing and establishing gender identity. Gay marriage, where children will be
routinely adopted, would amount to an experiment that could have devastating
consequences. Numerous studies show the importance of having mothers and
fathers in the home. No one is proposing taking children away from loving
families who become nontraditional, but most would concede that having a mother
and father provides the best environment for kids. That is what the briefs are
addressing. This whole debate should be about what is best for children rather
than what is in the self-interest of adults seeking validation of their
lifestyle! No one is suggesting that 2 consenting gay adults cannot love one
another or have a relationship with many rights similar to married couples. But
they don't need marriage to provide those rights as these concerns can be
addressed in other ways. Society may vote to change the definition of marriage,
but in the end, a gay relationship is something quite different.
As was said before..."just because it is legal, does not make it moral."
We are certainly seeing the fulfillment of prophesy. They call "good evil
and evil good."
RE: RanchHand, “You're just fine with you pushing your beliefs on us
though. Hypocrisy at its finest.”Your view is significantly
affecting the moral and the retention of the military.Over 2,000
Evangelical Christian military chaplains says its members will not perform
homosexual “wedding” ceremonies. The Chaplain Alliance for Religious
Liberty said that it is joining the Catholic Archdiocese for Military Services
to say “no” to the September 30 Pentagon directive authorizing
military chaplains to do homosexual “marriages.”They
have decided to leave the military. No American service member should be forced
to deny their religious beliefs..
Wilf 55,1 - We love others, even if they don't return it2
- We find agreement, seek after good things, etc3 - We try to build
friendships, not burn bridges4 - Christ established a doctrine of peace,
not contentionIf every time someone didn't like the church we
reacted with contempt, we would lose our way. It may not be the way the world
does things, but it's our way.
I think it's time for god to come down from the heavens to clarify this
mess. Does he want gay people to be treated like second class citizens here and
be persecuted, tortured and killed abroad? If he hates homosexuality so much,
why does he keep creating homosexuals? He needs to stop sending these mixed
messages. Marriage should be a civil contract regulating property
onership, taxes and benefits. I have no idea why churches think they have a say
so over it.
The Constitutional Amendment 14 must be respected - and has been ruled
unconstitutional. UCLA Williams Legal Institute has statistics for SSM divorce
rate which is 1/2 the rate of those divorces from traditional marriages. Nice
comments 10CC - makes perfect sense - cute couples at 80 years wouldn't be
allowed to be married due to non-bearing child state - great points.
I sent the following comment earlier in the day today, and received a message
from you that the message was being held for further scrutiny. I'm not
sure why, and I haven't seen it posted:While the Mormon,
Catholic, and other faith traditions may not see their support of amendment 3 as
bigoted, the increasing acceptance of gay persons throughout America and in
several other western nation, makes it more difficult for those opposed to total
equality to make their case for denying it to gay people. It
certainly doesn't help those opposed to full equal rights that current
controversies such as Russia's harsh laws aimed at gay people, are in the
news, especially at the time of the Olympics. It certainly doesn't make
Vladimir Putin look very good.Nor does it help that several
countries in Africa and the Middle East sentence gay people to exceedingly harsh
punishments, up to and including the death penalty. It also
doesn't help that the arguments against same-sex marriage and other full
equality measures have not been proven to be terribly convincing, especially in
the light of Constitutional protections. The die is cas
@nycut: 100% guilty! Yes, we are in 100% agreement, mea culpa :( Honestly, I
wasn't sure if I was ripping off A Quaker words, or nycut words. Between
the two of you, you both about have this discussion handled! Erm...
I'm going with flattery. :)
@procuradorfiscal: Thanks for the response. A pink herring maybe. SB89 is
relevant to the amicus brief argument that limiting marriage to male-female
couples furthers state interests.From the amicus brief: "A
gender-neutral marriage definition unavoidably changes the message and function
of marriage by altering it to serve the interests of adults. That would be a
case of those in power (adults) using law to bring about change that is
self-serving... But we do agree that changing the legal definition of marriage
would alter the way society views marriage, making it adult-focused rather than
child-focused... Transforming marriage into a relationship primarily directed
at adults... will further deepen the devastating effects.. with the devaluing
marriage as a child-centered institution." pp. 17-19By mandating
sterility as a condition to marry, SB89 decouples marriage from procreation. It
creates a gender-neutral marriage definition stamped with the state's own
imprimatur (the couples may be male/female, but by mandating sterility gender
doesn't matter any more). In other words, it says gender-neutral marriage
furthers a state interest. The state can no longer claim otherwise with a
straight face and the amicus argument fails as irrelevant.
I support Marriage Equality. All adult men have the right to marry an adult
woman who consents to the arrangement, and all adult women have the right to
marry an adult man who consents to the arrangement. Because nearly all people
on the planet fall into those two categories, equality has been met. The definition of Marriage has been pretty well set for the last 2000 years.
Only in the last 15-20 have we seen dictionaries start to change it. Even
today, the vast majority of law dictionaries still retain the
'man/woman' definition.It's like the US has stepped
into a Twilight Zone episode where words no longer mean the thing they have
always meant. Next we should change the definition of "car" to include
things that have a low melting point, or the word "water" to mean "a
sharp metal utensil used for descaling a fish". The vast
majority of "Rights" granted through the marriage contract can be
obtained through other legal vehicles. Which leads me to believe that this
fight is not about 'Rights', but about a group of people wanting
society to condone/accept their lifestyle and behavior.
I agree holdtotherod, it's great to see churches standing up for their
beleifs. The world may be going topsy tervy, but we knew it would
@TheTrueVoiceTo our comment, I would add that people expressing
bigoted viewpoints seldom benefit from the observation that their viewpoints are
bigoted, since those viewpoints most often stem from low-level prejudice that
they haven't yet examined. It's always a struggle to help someone see
their own blind spots without alienating them completely."I
support traditional marriage" is an easier position to stake out than "I
need to examine my actual knowledge of gay people and their lives."I have some hope that comments on these boards help with that.
Those who are defending traditional marriage say the words that they aren't
bigoted, but then they want to give one group of people a different set of
privileges than they want for themselves.
Adultery opposition not due to bigotry either.Some people can't
draw the line between right,and wrong.Pathetic! No wonder our
society is having problems!
@Meckofahess asks:"Why can't people get along without pushing
their beliefs on others? The majority of Utah's citizens do not want the
minority gay community forcing their beliefs on them! Why must the gay
community intrude on the rights of others who wish to live differently than they
do? We need to live and let live and not try to force peaceful citizens to
accept amoral and objectionable beliefs."Good question. But
you've got it backwards: Amendment 3 doesn't say "only gay people
can get married-- no heteros allowed.”But yes, why DO people
keep pushing their beliefs on others?Live and let live means people
marry who they love, and raise the family they want the way they want. OK, so you don't like the neighbor's petunias. Well, they're
none of your business and they're not growing in your yard.That's the "live and let live" part.
Laura Bilington,Actually, what I stated regarding the anatomic and
physiologic impossibility of two women joining together to conceive a child, or
two men joining together to conceive a child, is accurate. It is absolutely
impossible, and not meant to be. We were not created for such a relationship.
It has never happened, and will never happen.In this life nothing is
perfect. I suppose 5% of heterosexual relationships are unable to have
children. It may be more or less than that.But I can guarantee you
that 100% of homosexual relationships are unable to bare children. Gay marriage proponents like to point to the scientific techniques of
artificial insemination or other medical techniques that make it possible for
gay women to carry and bare children. However, I maintain that it is not meant
to be. I suppose it is possible for science to attach an arm to a
tongue and have it thrive there. But it is not meant to be that way. And
though same may want that, it doesn't make sense.Again, 100% of
gay marriages are unable to conceive and bare children.
The religionists don't seem to understand the legal argument. It's not
about what marriage is, but rather, can the state let some, but not others,
marry. Those folks not allowed to marry cannot be denied the right to marry
unless the state has a rational public purpose in doing so. I can see where
opting for a procreational argument seemed like a good bet, but it doesn't
explain why senior citizens and other infertile couples are allowed to marry.Why would a state not allow a gay couple raising children to marry, but
would allow a childless senior citizen couple to marry? It sure doesn't
seem like the state of Utah doesn't really have the interest of children at
heart in this.
Almost ten years ago, my son told me he was gay. I prayed, fasted, and attended
the temple weekly, hoping for his "change." Well, the change did happen.
But it was my heart that changed. I completely love my son and his partner,
and I know God loves them too. So, stop the needless prejudice. It's
okay. Let them marry.
So when evangelicals and Baptists cite the Bible in calling out the LDS church
as being heretical because of flawed doctrine and the work of the devil and, I
might add, the LDS church doing the same of other faiths citing the same Bible,
does that mean they are all doing it with love and admiration for one
another...especially when calling for prejudicial behavior towards one another?
@TheTrueVoiceYour comment included: "People who
consider themselves good-hearted (who obviously are in many ways) find
themselves characterized as small-minded and bigoted, not recognizing
they've behaved in small-minded, bigoted ways - expressing ignorance and
prejudice, rushing to enshrine their religious views in exclusionary laws
targeting the object of their prejudice - are hurt by charges of
mean-spiritedness.""While arguing the *right to their
beliefs* exempts them from charges of bigotry, they fail to see that those
*beliefs* are the REASON for their bigotry. This creates pathos. Like fish that
do not know what water is."I'm not sure whether I'm
insulted or flattered that you used my words to express an opinion we share. I
do think it's polite to add something like "As Nycut said in a related
post..." when you quote someone else so extensively.
@RedShirt;Sex offenders harm other people. We ARE NOT sex offenders
or addicts and it's very offensive for you to compare us to them.
Polygamists already have the right to marry one person. The right to marry the
person of our choice is not a "new" right, it is one you already enjoy
and we are soon to enjoy as well.@jimhale;Would you be
happy if we required you to marry someone of the opposite sex? No? Then why
demand we marry someone of the opposite sex?
davs says:"I only ask that my beliefs and opposition to same sex
marriage be treated with respect also."--- Your beliefs are one
thing; using them against other American citzens is quite another. I will not
respect your beliefs if you're going to use them to deny me equal civil
rights. @Ariz;They don't understand the word
"all"; to them it means "only those we like".@spaghetti;When did you "choose" to be straight? Were you
born that way? If so, how come it's so hard to understand that we're
born this way?@loaf;As religion "encourages the
lie" that gays are sinners.@LDSareChristians;You
didn't address the issue of poor people (not good for children) being able
to marry; felons (certainly not good for children) being able to marry;
spouse/child abusers (not good for children) being allowed to marry. Why only
the gays?Meckofahess says:"Why can't people get
along without pushing their beliefs on others? The majority of Utah's
citizens do not want the minority gay community forcing their beliefs on
them!."LOL. You're just fine with you pushing your beliefs
on us though. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Meckofahess,"....The majority of Utah's citizens do not
want the minority gay community forcing their beliefs on them!. Why must the gay
community intrude on the rights of others who wish to live differently than they
do?...."______________________________At least the
majority is finally finding out what it feels like to be on the other end.
Actually Judge Shelby did not base his decision on "animus." He said the
rights of the individual under the 14th amendment trumped the interests of the
State of Utah.By the way, Nevada gave up its attempt to defend their
law a earlier today because the 9th circuit declared that Gays are a
"suspect class." I suspect you will see something similar in the 10th
Most European countries and Mexico also have a civil ceremony requirement. A
marriage in Mexico is legal only if it is a civil ceremony. The religious
ceremony occurs later. The purpose behind a civil ceremony is to provide state
(government) recognition of the union. I wish our country would move to this
system so that regardless of sexual orientation every union would result in
equal secular, civil benefits. Then each religion would be free to impose upon
their congregation whatever restrictions they wanted for purposes of solemnizing
the marriage in the eyes of god.To put this in perspective for
Deseret readers, imagine if marriage that took place outside the Mormon temple
was invalid on a civil level but valid on a religious level. Would you feel
your marriage equal to the marriage of your catholic neighbor even though your
catholic neighbor gets additional tax deductions, insurance benefits from their
employer, the ability to pass their estate tax free to their spouse upon death,
and a whole host of other benefits that you would be denied?That is
why this argument is about equality rather than the procreative abilities and
parenting skills of the partners in the union.
Same sex cohabitation is not marriage - any more than opposite sex cohabitation
is marriage.Anyone can get married. No one is denied that opportunity.
They can marry anytime they find some one of the opposite sex that is willing to
marry.Please do not respond that same sex attraction is involuntary
because that concept is (1) not proven and (2) not germane.It is asserted
by many that they can't help being attracted to the same sex and/or that
they have always been attracted to the opposite sex. Neither belief has been
proven. Some parents and others accept these assertions far too easily. No
genetic link has been proven.Even if it were proven, such attraction is
not germane to legislatively derived law - including the Utah amendment enacted
by the voters on their own behalf. Taking action on homosexual attraction is a
choice. Abstaining from such action is also a choice.That choice is not
significantly different than any other sexual choice that society has chosen to
legally sanction. We do not accept "I can't help it" as a legal
excuse for those choices.The State of Utah need not accept it in this
@procuradorfiscal: You wrote, "The ONLY issue presently before the courts is
whether or not Amendment 3 is rationally related to the state's
democratically-defined interests..."False. The rational basis
standard of review is not applicable. Rather, the more stringent heightened
scrutiny standard applies. This was the standard of review that the 9th circuit
court of appeals stated was to be used in reviewing laws that target gay people,
in a case decided in late January. The 9th circuit panel said that the decision
in United States v. Windsor requires a heightened scrutiny standard.This recent development is exactly the reason the Nevada AG and Governor said
their legal arguments were no longer tenable under the law.
To "Ranch" you are wrong. The problem is contradiction within the
interpretation. Read the Cornell University Law school article on the equal
protection clause. In their article they state that "The equal protection
clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or
classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore,
of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its
application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection
clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights."Now before you start crying civil rights, lets look at the
ramifications. Look at sex offenders, they are being denied their right to live
next to schools and parks. Polygamists are being denied their right to marry as
many people as they love and care about. What about addicts that are denied
rights, or ex-cons that are also denied rights. What about women using the
men's bathroom. What right is being protected by denying them access?
What about a teacher and an 18 year old student, why can't they have sexual
relationships just like everybody else?Do you really want to flood
us with new rights?
Why can't people get along without pushing their beliefs on others? The
majority of Utah's citizens do not want the minority gay community forcing
their beliefs on them!. Why must the gay community intrude on the rights of
others who wish to live differently than they do? We need to live and let live
and not try to force peaceful citizens to accept amoral and objectionable
Re: "Provide a rational, nonsophist explanation of how the
legislature's overwhelming passage of SB89 in 1996 conforms to the
"child-centric" model of marriage . . . ."You're
changing the subject. Typically, that happens when one runs out of persuasive
arguments on the real issue. But, let's humor the question -- the correct
answer is: who cares?The ONLY issue presently before the courts is
whether or not Amendment 3 is rationally related to the state's
democratically-defined interests, including -- but certainly not limited to --
optimizing the child-rearing environment.And, it clearly is.Whether aged cousins should be allowed to marry is a whole other issue.
Interesting, perhaps, from an academic standpoint, but entirely unrelated to the
issue before the courts -- whether or not the state's valid, recognized
interest in promoting an optimal child-rearing environment is rationally related
to Amendment 3.Whether it's rationally related to SB89 
is a matter of surpassing indifference to today's legal argument. And,
conflating unrelated arguments, for or against unrelated issues is typically
referred to as a "red herring."The question clearly
The US Constitution does not give any branch of the Federal government any power
to define or legislate marriage -- so anything any Federal employee says or does
on the subject is unconstitutional.
Kalindra posted:That would be fine if they actually wanted to focus on
children - but they don't. They deny marriage to same-sex couples with
children while granting it to heterosexual couples without children. Obviously,
marriage is about more than children. ============We ARE focused on
the children, a SS environment is not the best for children. Hence the
discouragement of such by denying marriage. The fact that some
heterosexual couples are unable or choose not to have kids is irrelevant to the
debate. If children arrive, the environment is statistically most correct. To Hemlock at 9:48p 10Feb2014 I agree 100%.To
panamadesnews at 10:08pm 10Feb2014 Right on!
continued...Everyone deals with urges that aren't good that
will cause harm to self and others if acted upon. That's why we have laws-
to protect.Denying people civil rights, like the Jim Crow laws, were
horribly unjust. Having a certain skin color is not an action and it
doesn't hurt anyone.I think many have problems with
homosexuality because having sex with the same gender is harmful to the
individual and to those around them. It encourages the lie that it doesn't
matter what we do, that anything goes and who cares what the eventual
ramifications are for individuals or society.
I don't understand why people compare homosexuality to race. Homosexuality
is a feeling and an act. Race just is. I know some homosexuals feel
they were born this way. All human beings, regardless, should be accepted and
loved. But being accepted and loved does NOT mean that any feeling one has is
right, should be acted upon and accepted. As a parent I know loving my children
doesn't mean it's okay for them to O.D. on candy or video games even
though they want to and like to. We set limits on behavior because we love.
@PunkJones "The references to the 14th Amendment are convoluted because the
Amendment itself identifies restrictions to sex, age, salvery "You might want to re-read the 14th Amendment:Section 1. All persons born
or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.There's nothing in it about previous status of servitude, gender, age,
religion, skin color, hair color, favorite flavor of soda, etc.
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I have thought
about this issue and I feel that if I am going to rely on the scriptures as the
word of God, then I, as a believer in God, must try to keep his commandments.
The Proclamation to the Family states, "The first commandment that God gave
to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife.
We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and
replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded
that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and
woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." I believe this to be revelation
from God to his prophet. I have nothing against and do not judge those who
choose a same sex relationship. They are free to choose their own path. If they
can get a law changed so they can legally marry, it is their choice. I only ask
that my beliefs and opposition to same sex marriage be treated with respect
@evansrichdm;Is it going to kill you to accept that other people
marry the person they love? I don't care what your scriptures say. This
is America. We are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. We also have religious
freedom and are not beholden to your version of religion. Nobody is telling you
to have a gay marriage. You aren't being hurt if someone else has one.@grounded and rooted;"Legitimate concerns"? How,
exactly is SSM going to affect you personally. (not at all).@jonjonhill;You believe it? You abide by it; stop trying to force
others to abide by it.@bleeding purple;Denying others
what you enjoy is bigotry. Not simply the beliefs.@RedShirt;The 10th amendment REQUIRES states to adhere to the rest of the
Constitution (look up 'prohibited').@CB;Our
marriages are not "bad behavior".@Tators;Civil
Unions aren't allowed in Utah either.
@evansrichdmYou live in a society, you're going to deal with things
you don't like. I live in Utah, and i'm an atheist. So I know how you
feel. But you're talking about two separate issues. One is a legal context,
the SCOTUS needs to decide if gay marriage bans violate the 10th amendment. The
other is a social context, and frankly, you can't stop that. Let me give
you an example, I'm an atheist, and a lifelong Utahn. So that means most of
the state totally disagree's with me in terms of religion. But I don't
get to MAKE them agree with me. I don't get to MAKE them pass laws that I
agree with as an atheist. I don't get to change the cultural makeup of the
state, even if I disagree with it. The fact is young people don't care if
someone is gay, and they don't care if they get married. Culture is
shifting, and you will have to learn to deal with not holding the majority
opinion on this issue.
I am tired of judges reading things into the constitution that are not there.
The 14th amendment was simply to ensure that every individual had basic rights
guaranteed by the federal constitution. If the the 14th amendment was really a
total equality amendment there would have been no need to have an amendment
giving women the right to vote. Abortion, pornography, gambling, drug laws,
marriage are not part of the federal constitution. By the way if you want to
talk about equality where is my equality as a straight white singe mormon male.
I have none. I have to keep my mouth shut at work and other places because you
see I do not have 14th amendment rights.
@juangone"One way that gay rights has gained huge support is to claim
it is about equality. That is not accurate. This is about additional rights. It
has no merit when claiming it's about inequality. I, as a single man, have
the exact same rights as any gay man. I can only marry a woman. He can only
marry a woman. I can't marry a man. He can't marry a man. "Was getting rid of interracial marriage bans a movement for
"additional rights" rather than "equal rights"? @procuradorfiscal"a democratically-recognized interest in fostering
what is best for its citizens. "And yet single people (even
single gay people) can adopt. Infertile couples can marry and marriage has no
requirement to have children. Statistical averages aren't used to limit any
other kind of marriage (after all, it's a well-established fact that
children in poor families have lower test scores and higher crime rates, should
we ban poor people from marrying because of averages too?). You're just not
consistent. The arguments against same-sex marriage are not consistently applied
when it comes to marriage and family law in Utah, so they seem more like
I am sure that gays will have the right to marry in every state before long.I don't hate anybody, but if I disagree with the gay community,
they hurl all sorts of insulting labels at me. What will happen next? Suppose every state gives the gays this right. Is that enough? Or will
they insist that everyone who continues to feel that it is wrong is punished in
some fashion?This is what I feel will happen. I fear that many gays
will want to decide what's for dinner, and force those who don't like
the food to eat it anyway or face consequences. Fun days ahead!
It's absolutely bigotry. Plain and simple.
Interesting comments. I find it amazing how well this new view on marriage is
playing out. Interesting that bestiality isn't included as those who
practice it want to make love to their animals and love them dearly, or a
brother and sister cant marry even though they love one another and of course
most of human existence young women at age 13 were already pregnant yet the LBGT
community does not include equality towards these people and their values, very
bigoted on their part to claim equality. Where is the plural marriage as Muslims
practice and other societies? For those who toss human history to the
wind, all their forefathers and mothers, most religions values and beliefs it
amazes me to think they think their ideas are right and 10's of billions
are wrong. Love the person not the action, follow natures procreation design and
your better off especially with the Children.
@ Rebe:If what you said it true about gays not wanting to change the
definition of marriage and only wanting the rights afforded by marriage, then
why don't they just push to expand the rights already given in Civil
Unions? Doing so would be a much easier approach and a lot less
controversial. But since that hasn't been their approach, it's obvious
they want more than that. They do want to change the current definition of
traditional marriage and to force the rest of their agenda on everyone else.By not allowing others the right to believe as they prefer to (and
whenever different from their own beliefs), they themselves are demonstrating
bigotry and causing resentment. Suing others for such things as not wanting to
take pictures of their controversial ceremonies isn't conducive to wanting
mere acceptance. It's pushing an activist agenda.In taking the
approach they currently are undertaking, they may eventually get the law to
force others to legally accept their lifestyle, but they are causing the hearts
of others to turn against them. By forcing their non-traditional views on
others, they are understandably causing resentment toward both them and their
"The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not
exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers,
sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent
felons"I love that a pro SSM person is comparing homosexual
partners to this group. It doesn't help your case. Unalienable
rights - inherent rights you are born with. Our government is not the author or
creator of these rights, but it recognizes these as preexisting rights.Religious rites - ceremonies performed by churches for religious purposes. Marriage is a religious rite, not an unalienable right. The state should
be separate/neutral.Child's right to a father and a mother is
an unalienable right. Children are ALWAYS born to a father and a mother, even if
the father's contribution passes by test tube to the mother. It is a right
we are all born with. Adoption to families with less than a father and mother is
a violation of children's unalienable rights.It is a shame that
the religions need to defend themselves against the false accusation of bigotry
(they did it very well!), especially when it is anti-religious bigots making the
I find it funny - and strange - that anyone would think it a valid argument that
slavery and marriage should be equated in any manner. I also find it to be
false logic to believe that something, because it is traditional, is inherently
evil. Gravity has been around for a long time - it isn't evil - it just
is. Most human beings have chosen to walk on two feet, therefore, is that
tradition evil and outdated? Should it be compared to slavery. False thought
is what causes slavery - not tradition.
I find it rather disingenuous that this appeal has been framed as LDS Church vs.
the same-sex marriage lobby when there are 28 separate briefs filed and the LDS
Church is only 1/6 of one of those filed briefs. The references to the 14th
Amendment are convoluted because the Amendment itself identifies restrictions to
sex, age, salvery - thus cherry-picking out an opinion based upon sex from an
Amendment that clearly uses sex as restriction in other ways, muddies the
waters. This should prove to be good legal theatre if nothing else.
procuradorfiscal, 2/11 9:23am: "The better model would be the legal,
Constitutional approach... The proof is in the pudding -- America is not at war
with itself over sovereign immunity, slavery, female suffrage, ..."Generally agreed (imagine that!), but the counterargument is "Justice
delayed is justice denied." Do you think that the slave in 1850 or the
nonvoting woman in 1910 was better off justice-wise than their descendants
today? How long should an oppressed group wait for public opinion to catch
up?procuradorfiscal, 2/11 10:28 am: "This current crop's
only tools are transparent sophistry and snark."Spoken by one
personally familiar with both.Now your homework: Provide a
rational, nonsophist explanation of how the legislature's overwhelming
passage of SB89 in 1996 conforms to the "child-centric" model of
marriage presented in the state's brief and the amicus briefs described in
the article. Prior law already provided for "responsible procreation"
by prohibiting marriages that were prone to genetic defects. So why carve out a
small exception and specifically endorse and mandate nonprocreative marriages
other than to acknowledge that sometimes marriage can be about satisfying adult
needs and not just children?
@grounded and rooted"it's hard to respond to condescending
and patronizing comments like this. We are not children, but intelligent adults
with legitimate concerns."You have elected to take my comments
as "condescending and patronizing"... perhaps some introspection is
indicated to determine why you feel this way.That having been said,
your point is well taken; I appreciate that many posting here are indeed
intelligent adults who believe they have legitimate concerns. I understand
this.People who consider themselves good-hearted (who obviously are
in many ways) find themselves characterized as small-minded and bigoted, not
recognizing they've behaved in small-minded, bigoted ways - expressing
ignorance and prejudice, rushing to enshrine their religious views in
exclusionary laws targeting the object of their prejudice - are hurt by charges
of mean-spiritedness.The resulting cognitive dissonance is the
source of their angst. While arguing the *right to their beliefs*
exempts them from charges of bigotry, they fail to see that those *beliefs* are
the REASON for their bigotry. This creates pathos. Like fish that do not know
what water is.
Constitution: "Banning gays from marrying is clearly against the 14th
amendment of the US Constitution."No, it clearly is not against
the 14th amendment. It might be against your interpretation of the 14th
amendment though. The 14th amendment was controversial when it passed (1868) and
has been controversial since that time. It's been used for both good and
ill over the years. If one thing is clear it's that the 14th amendment
(specifically, the equal protection clause) is not clear for any given issue.
@ daehder1:At it's height, polygamy was practiced by only a
very small percentage of LDS members and has never been "covered up", as
you put it. In fact, in it's official web site at lds.org it openly
talks about polygamy as being a part of the history of the church, it's
reasoning for bringing back the plural marriage as it was practiced throughout
most of the Bible's history, and when and how the practice was again ended.
There is no "coverup" whatsoever.You stated "Mormons
believed that the best setting for raising children was with one man and several
women". That is an utterly false statement. If not, then please provide any
credible evidence for your statement. No Church leader has ever even insinuated
such an idea, let alone stated anything like that. I don't know
what your definition of "not so long ago" is, but the Church has
officially disavowed any practice of plural marriage for about 120 years...
which is about half of the entire timeline history of our country. So it was
actually quite a long time ago. In order to be viewed credibly,
please do some research before commenting.
Nevada is letting it go.
Secondly, I have a real issue with the way "Hate" is being used to gain
support. Just because somebody doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, they
are labeled as a bigot and full of hate. So of course anyone that is hearing of
this will think, "well I dont' hate them, so I have to support this
cause." I can certainly say I don't hate any gay person. In fact I
have huge respect and love for many people that are gay and close to me. If a
parent doesn't want their child to be allowed to do something, does that
mean they hate their child? Not at all. Right or wrong, it's not fair to
use this tactic to gain support for the cause. "You don't support my
cause, so you hate me." Yet it's been used, and honestly most people
are afraid to speak out about it simply because they are afraid of being labled
as full of hate.
Re: "I do not understand the state's reasoning."Clearly.Its reasoning is based on the state's interest -- a
democratically-recognized interest in fostering what is best for its citizens.
That interest is democratically defined by the state, not by LGBT activists or
agenda-driven liberal judges. Minority liberals may agree or disagree, but
fortunately, they can't overrule.The only matter here at issue
is whether Amendment 3 is rationally related to that state interest.And, it's simply not honestly arguable that any action to optimize the
child-rearing environment is not rationally related to fostering the best
child-rearing environment. So, it's not honest to assert Amendment 3 is not
rationally related to a valid state interest.Liberals may assert the
state's definition is too broad, too narrow, too late, too soon --
whatever. But, not that it's invalid. That's not theirs' to
decide.Once you cut through the emotion, bullying, and sophistry,
the answer is clear -- there's no Constitutionally protected
"right" to same-sex marriage.If LGBT activists want that to
change, their only legal resort is to the legislature.Anything else
While I agree that such opposition is in fact not due to bigotry, the real
problem is that where advocacy groups are permitted to define the terms, the
media by and large just reprints their definition irrespective of anything other
than that strained often inappropriate and itself bigoted usage. It is entirely
possible to disapprove of gay marriage on a host of rational grounds not related
to morality or religion. That said, it's also not inappropriate to rely
upon moral grounds and pose the question to the advocates, who defines morality?
Just a few comments:I have no problem with people fighting for
things they believe strongly in. But I do have a problem when it is done in a
way that is misleading.One way that gay rights has gained huge
support is to claim it is about equality. That is not accurate. This is about
additional rights. It has no merit when claiming it's about inequality.
I, as a single man, have the exact same rights as any gay man. I can only marry
a woman. He can only marry a woman. I can't marry a man. He can't
marry a man. We both have all the same rights when it comes to marriage and any
other aspect of life. They are in fact fighting for additional rights, that
would then allow both of us to marry a man. But by using the term
"Equality" to gain support, it's very misleading, and of course for
anyone that has a heart, why wouldn't they support a cause that involes
I would be more than happy to allow the gay community have their 'precious
piece of paper', but they are not just after that, they want to
force me and like minded to celebrate their bad behavior. Note the suing
of those who do not want to be a part of this celebration,-
photographers,bakeries, etc. Let them be married, but allow me to choose who I want to offer my services too under conditions that are offensive to my own
beliefs.Shopping around for someone to sue seems to more their intent than
celebrating their union.
It's nice to hear the why of Marriage. "No other institution joins
together two persons with the natural ability to create children for the purpose
of maximizing the welfare of such children." I would say I have emperical
evidence that this statement is correct. My wife and I have had the natural
ability to have children and we are, and continue to be, grateful beneficiaries
of this Great Plan of Happiness.
It is sad that people are forgetting that this current battle is more about
State's Rights. The problem as stated in the original ruling is the 10th
ammendment and the 14th ammendment to the US constitution.One says
that if it isn't in the Constitution that it is up to the states to decide.
That is also what the SCOUS said in the DOMA ruling.Now we have the
14th Ammendment that specifies equal protection.So, the questions
are what is not being protected by prohibiting gay marriage recognition and can
one ammendment trump another ammendment when the rights conferred are in
As an active LDS member, I believe that "marriage" is between a man and
a woman. However, I cannot support a bill that denies rights to a minority
based on my religious beliefs. If Civil Unions provided the same protections,
rights, and responsibilities as marriage, the many homosexual people I know
would be satisfied. One said to me, "I don't want to change the
definition of marriage. I just want the same rights as those who marry, and
Civil Unions do not provide that." Our Constitution protects minorities
from being suppressed by the majority based on "beliefs." It isn't
the other way around, as I've seen by many comments that say, "The
majority voted and they said no to marriage for gay people." That is
unequal and don't we believe in equality under the law? We may not agree
with the lifestyle, but who are we to deny others their rights (don't we
believe in free agency)? If the government weren't involved in marriage,
this wouldn't even be an issue.
"It is offensive to equate the struggle of civil rights in the last two
centuries with the current same gender marriage issue." I
think it is absurd to recycle the same arguments from those who opposed
advancements in civil rights then criticize people for making comparisons
between the gay rights and civil rights movement. The arguments proffered by
those opposing gay rights are no different than those who argued against racial
discrimination. The only thing that's changed is swapping out skin color
with sexual orientation. To dismiss the comparison is to say those were really
good arguments but they were just applied to the wrong issue. Gay
rights may affect a smaller number of people. I see that as a sign of progress.
It means we've learned lessons from what went on in the middle of the
last century and before. Fewer people are effected by injustice as we move
forward. Forgetting the lessons learned in the civil rights era is far more
offensive than making apt comparisons.
why is it today that the LGBT community can protest and that's all fine and
good but when Churches protest they get pounded by the media? It is wrong and it
is pervasive throughout the media. The anti-Christian bigotry in this country is
real ...it is ugly ...it is led by the media and supported by Democrats. Most of
all it is anti-American because America is a Christian founded nation...like it
Comment to lovely Just because we are sick and tired of religions
persecuting homosexuals and women, does not mean that we do not want that
marriages between a man and a woman should be sacred, faithful and committed. I
think any woman who loves her husband and wants a family wants this precisely
but why persecuting homosexuals. Just because homosexuals exist does not prevent
those who want to have a family to defend values of marriage, fidelity,
committment, love and respect to exist.
Airnaut ... you give this definition ... big·ot·ry/ˈbigətrē/nounnoun: bigotry; plural noun:
bigotries.bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different
opinions from oneself.To all of you who say I am a bigot because I
prefer marriage between a man and a woman ... doesn't this go both ways?
How nice, we are all the same after all - a bunch of bigots! woo!
@jeclar2006 "Seems to be the appropriate word in the English language for
LDS and 'other faiths'..."Seems to be that, by your
definition, there are plenty of bigoted comments on this board in support of
LGBT as well. A more correct definition for you is " bigot: anyone who
disagrees with my opinion".I believe homosexual behavior to be a
sin. You obviously do not. What makes your belief any more valid than my
opinion? Who is forcing their beliefs on whom?
I am no expert on scripture but I wanted to take the opportunity to clear up
misconceptions presented by many who have posted scriptures on this thread. The
Old Testament was the old law and was fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The new law
removed much of the "letter of the law" and replaced it with "spirit
of the law". No more counting steps and killing people but the new law was
more strict in some ways. Not only is adultery wrong, even lusting after a
woman is now wrong. The moral wrongs remain.God loves everyone, He
I think it is a slippery slope when religious people start to believe that they
have a right and obligation to enforce what they believe to be God's laws
and intents. Nearly every mass atrocity ever committed since the beginning of
recorded time was done so by people who believed they were the emissaries of God
on earth. I've never actually understood how people who
believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing entity, also believe he has to delegate
law enforcement to mere mortals.
@ riverofsun:You're letting yourself get confused too easily.
The LDS church has always advocated marriage as being between men and women...
people of opposite gender uniting together in holy matrimony. It (the LDS
church) has never accepted (nor is there evidence of God ever accepting)
marriage being between people of the same gender. Please read Leviticus 20:13
and 18:22 in the Old Testament and Romans 1:26-27 in the New Testament. Where
God stands on the issue is indisputable.@ Tiago:The
Church isn't fighting against gay people, nor look at them as "the
enemy". What they are fighting is changing the traditional definition of
marriage, which has it's roots as a holy institution originating from God.
And now a relatively small group of people are trying to change all of that. In
so doing, they lessen the sanctity of marriage.@ Turtles Run:It is not a proven fact that gay people were born that way. And until it
is, it's just another theory advocated by gay activists. Gays have indeed
changed.@ ValiesVoter:The existence of God has been
established. Maybe not to you. But to many of us, it truly has.
I do not understand the state's reasoning. If they say it is all about the
children, why do they allow gays to conceive (which many do, btw) or adopt.
Both are perfectly legal in Utah. But, instead, they will not allow gays to
marry - even if they are raising children!Will someone explain to me
how this protect any children at all? It sounds to me like they are
just protecting the status quo...and their right to have all the privileges of
marriage for those that they deem "worthy" instead of treating all
citizens as equal.Am I wrong? Anyone?????
If religions had been and were more concerned about insuring that women are
treated proplerly in the first place, maybe they could have a say in the
matter.I, as a women, find homosexuals to be very nice and lovely
people, far better than many heterosexuals i know who abuse women, cheat on
them, even kill them and sadly enough in some cases with the help and support of
their God, (as it has been since the beginning of time) while the men are given
a privilege and double standard status.So frankly, i think Utah and
other religious people should use their efforts to ensure that men no longer
abuse women in any way and are faithful and let the homosexuals live their lives
since, to be true, they are no worse than what many men, religious or not do.I know some lovely homosexuals. I know some horrible heterosexuals so
some people are in no good position to lecture others on how to behave.
Thank God we are waking up and refuse to be steam rolled by persons who want to
destroy God's definition of Marriage.When a nation collapses it does so
from the inside. The final symptoms of a fatal moral disease is an addiction to
sexual perversion by a majority of the people who either practice such things or
give praise to those who do so.There are millions of us from all faith
traditions who utterly refuse to bow down and worship this false doctrine of so
called ''gay marriage'' and will defend the integrity of
Holy Scripture as it relates to such matters,and we will defend the Holiness of
our God who has wisely given us both a warning if we are disobedient or a
blessing if we speak the truth on this issue, and live like we should.
Traditional marriage is alive and well -Whatever is not working in
heterosexual marriages - it's not because of the gays.For
people who are afraid of same-sex marriage, don't worry, gays don't
intend to marry you, unless you want that.
"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Association of
Evangelicals, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Ethics &
Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the
Lutheran Mission Synod say they bear no "ill will" toward same-sex
If you believe in the Bible and the word of God as interpreted by the holy
prophets of time, then one believes that marriage is ordained by God between the
two, man and woman and no other. It is that simply and that easy, no spin, no
debate, only the true word of God. I don't understand how one can debate
God's word or those of the Holy Prophets? It is not truth.
Religious belief, in the form of a majority vote, does not trump the
Constitution. In this “free” land, you may believe and live as you
wish, but you have no right to compel your neighbor, by force of law, to live as
you do, nor to deny them to live differently. If religious entities choose to
define marriage in a certain way, that is their business, but by what authority
do they have the right to define marriage for those who are not of their faith?
It is common knowledge that the majority of Utah's population is LDS (about
63%), and that Amendment 3 passed by a majority vote of 60%. It is pretty clear
that religious belief, and the state’s majority faith, were determining
factors in the passage of an unconstitutional law. Just because you may be
powerful or able to rally others to your cause, does not make it right for you
to push the little guy around. That's called being a bully. The Founding
Fathers knew all about bullies, that's why we have the Constitution.I don't think God likes bullies much.
It wasn't too long ago that the Mormons believed that the best setting for
raising children was with one man and several women. Why do they try to cover
that up? I actually don't understand why that was so bad, but the xians
forced them to give it up.
Re: ". . . the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage
to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of
promoting the optimal environment . . . ."Yeah, of course it
did. Its justices were appointed by politicians that expected exactly that
ruling, along with hundreds of other reliably liberal, thumb-on-the-scale
rulings, as the quid pro quo to secure their appointments in the first place.That analysis is, not just flawed, sophomoric, and biased, but
embarrassingly so.In the old days, liberal activist judges knew how
to couch their biased, legally unsupportable opinions in disingenuous, but
wildly soaring, somewhat inspirational rhetoric. This current crop's only
tools are transparent sophistry and snark.Sad.
@TheTrueVoice:It will be okay, Utah. Really. Breathe deep. Relax.it's hard to respond to condescending and patronizing comments like this.
We are not children, but intelligent adults with legitimate concerns.
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour
upon it, the more it will contract." Oliver Wendell HolmesI
love to read these comments but surely you know this is a waste of energies.
Bigots are never hateful just like racists have no animus towards that not so
pale they were born superior to. Comparing this situation to civil rights
issues will go nowhere. I'm certain many of these "anti gay" folks
would prefer blacks marry "their own" and sit at the back.
"God's chosen" have little need for self reflection.
Since the church is talking about its definition of marriage and saying they are
not showing bigotry, I guess now it depends on what my definition of bigotry is
on whether I believe them or not. Things I'll also consider in
my decision is how the church came clean with its stand on blacks and the
priesthood by saying it was a policy based on Brigham Young's belief about
blacks and not a revelation from God. I'll also consider how
Utah came into the nation as a slave territory because Church leaders talked how
slavery was ordained of God and supported in the Bible. Of course
having all the other organizations weighing in with the church might give the
Church more credibility but there have always been other churches and
organizations that have supported discrimination based on skin color or race.
So I look at bigotry not so much as what a group says it is or is
not but by looking at if that group really wants to deny something to another
group that they themselves enjoy.
I think that people and organizations that don't agree with same-sex
marriage should work on securing their own rights rather than trying to control
others on this point. -It appears to be inevitable that ssm will be an
acceptable part of our society- but will those who disagree because of faith
reasons be forced to accommodate? like bake cakes, take pictures and perform
ceremonies against their conscience?
It's biology, not bigotry.
It seems to me, more than anything else, the Church is adding it's
"testimony" in defense of true marriage not strictly, nor primarily, for
the sake of political posturing, but to show obedience to the Being whose
footstool this earth truly is.
The issue isn't about equality. It is about using the boogeyman of
discrimination to shout out religious voices and stances on morality. It is
about forcing everyone who disagrees with their morality or lifestyle to shut
up. A law limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't keep anyone
from loving each other or having a relationship, or even raising children. It
does keep them from suing business owners for discrimination if they so much as
utter a word of support for traditional morals or refuse to participate in gay
ceremonies. Business owners who even dare state support for traditional
marriage are being boycotted, threatened, and sued all across the U.S. (Case in
point, Chic-Fil-A) If you don't believe it, try reading the news.
@evansrichdm"Old TestmentLeviticus ch. 18 vs 22 Thou shalt not
lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.Pretty clear
on that one,"That's why I never tell men "no, of course
that dress doesn't make you look fat". What's the
point of quoting one piece of Levitical law when so many other pieces of it are
ignored by Christians today? (And for good reason, who'd want to be in
charge of kicking women out of town for a few days each month?)
"The accusation is false and offensive," according to a 53-page court
brief. "In truth, we support the husband-wife definition of marriage because
we believe it is right and good for children, families and society. Our
respective faith traditions teach us that truth. But so do reason, long
experience and social fact."I agree. When people communicate or
observe across a cultural barrier they have to keep an open mind. If you see
something that doesn't match your cultural paradigms be open minded enough
to conclude, "Well this is different. Maybe I can learn something from being
exposed to diversity." What happens instead is people say, "Well this
is different. Something is wrong with those people!" It is the heigth of
cultural intolerance to conclude that someone's religious or cultural
beliefs are the result of them being bigots.People have learned
nothing from 25 years of diversity.
@lehiaggieYou used a key phrase: "They are not mutually
exclusive."Why do you feel your support of traditional marriage
competes with and necessarily excludes same-sex couples from the institution of
civil marriage?I support traditional marriage (although the word
"traditional" feels like code to me). I revere the marriages of my
parents, siblings, and other relatives & friends, yet I see no conflict with
also celebrating the marriages of gay couples. For me, it is a matter of
embracing the full humanity of gay people. I think the past stigmatization and
marginalization of gay people is a bad thing and I'm glad even the LDS
church seems to have recognized this.
donn,"....It is God who provides the means whereby sinners can
be changed, transformed to new creations...."______________________________Looks like both sides are waiting
for the other to be transformed into new creatures.Marriage between
a man and a woman is not diminished by broadening the scope of traditional
marriage to include a group that is presently denied. In time, the country will
shed its more irrational fears regarding some of its citizens.
Ranch, Let me be claer, It is being forced on me that I
got to accept gay marriage as socially acceptable or else I am a bigit, am I
right with that line of thought. Now as far as my God base on the Bible, Book of
Mormon has made it clear in those writing that being gay or acting on gay
feeelings is worng. Old Testment Leviticus ch. 18 vs 22 Thou shalt
not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.Pretty
clear on that one, but hey you tell God that he is wrong. Tell if he changes his
mind on this one.
lehiaggie wrote: To tell me otherwise is akin to telling someone that is Gay or
Lesbian that they can change the way they feel.+++No it
is much different. Homosexuals were born that way. The desire to not want
everyone to enjoy equal treatment under the law is a learned behavior. A
behavior that can be unlearned with education and understanding. A person
cannot change their sexual orientation no matter how hard they try.
Doesn't this get confusing?Those on this forum who say "we must
listen to God about marriage", mystifies many of us.We hear that
marriage should only be between one man and one woman.According to the LDS
scriptures, Pleural Marriage was initiated for the LDS by God. This was the norm
for LDS people in the 1800s.Although it is "not on the earth now",
doesn't it say in Doctrine and Covenants scriptures that Pleural Marriage
will be the way marriage will be in the after life for those who are have
"followed God's word"?Isn't this why the numerous
polygamous off shoot groups who left the LDS Church abound here in Utah?Because of this, one would think that LDS people, perhaps, would have a more
open mind about the term "marriage?Wow, this gets confusing!
From the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa: "The statute, the court found,
is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of
parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to
provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than
optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting,
many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian
people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit
same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive
because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further
noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay
and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of
marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the
interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a
classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not
substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to
raise children."Utah's case is in trouble.
evansrichdmLove Everyone, Wish it could be so, but I am
being told by pro gay marriage people I am a bigit for my personal beliefs.++++Well if a person believes other people do not deserve to be
treated as equals based on some inherent trait of those people: color,
ethnicity, nationality, sex, or sexual orientation, then what would you call it.
Re: "Isn't this exactly what opponents of mixed race marriages said in
their time?"And, if they did, so what? They were wrong.Now, back to the subject at hand . . . .LGBT activists are never
going to accept logic and reason. If they do, they lose.So, they
attack. They bully. They use disingenuous sophistry as their primary tactic.
Just as the pro-abortion crowd did before Roe v. Wade.But, if they
think they'll actually win anything by their anti-Constitutional tactics,
they should consider what the similarly collusive Roe v. Wade accomplished -- 40
years later, and we're still at war over the rights of the innocent
unborn.The better model would be the legal, Constitutional approach.
It acknowledges that the legislature, not a contrived, collusive case before a
dishonest, agenda-driven judge, is the proper forum in which to have the
necessary discussions, make the necessary case, and arrive at the necessary
consensus.The proof is in the pudding -- America is not at war with
itself over sovereign immunity, slavery, female suffrage, the legality of income
taxation, succession in the presidency, or the voting age.
This is interesting as a study in which groups the church chooses to tolerate
and align with and which it classifies as the enemy.We have huge doctrinal
and even moral disagreements with some of the churches we've partnered.
Some of them have called us names and actively preach against. I'm actually
glad to see that we can overlook differences and see the causes that unite us.
Most Mormons would be happy to have a Baptist or a Catholic at a BBQ or as a
neighbor and I think that's great.I'm surprised though that the
church insists on classifying the gay people who want to marry as the enemy and
fighting against them. These are also good people, who support monogamy,
faithfulness, marriage, and families. Many of them are also religious. In Utah,
many of them are part of LDS families. It seems like we should be natrual
allies. Why are we making them the enemy?
I would like to point out that you should identify your Lutheran church
reference as the Missouri synod. The main stream of the the church, the ELCA is
not joining the law suit and is in fact in favor of same sex marriage. Please
be clearer in your reporting.
In these comments I am told that I am a bigot, that I have feelings of hatred
because I support traditional marriage. But deep down in my heart I feel none of
that. What if I can truly care for those in the LGBT community and still support
traditional marriage. They are not mutually exclusive. The only evidence I have
is in my heart.To tell me otherwise is akin to telling someone that
is Gay or Lesbian that they can change the way they feel.
No one wants to be thought of as a bigot, but most people probably are, at least
to some extent. No one I know is perfect. And yes, maybe I'm a bigot, but I
don't want to be.Everyone has opinions about how the world
should be. And the idea of homosexuality is just repugnant to a lot of people.
That attitude is changing now, but it's not changing quickly.Personally, I would have preferred to see the whole gay marriage issue placed
on a back burner, because this nation already has more important (in my opinion)
and pressing issues to deal with, and we really don’t need something like
this to further divide the nation.Well, against my wishes, the world
saw fit to take this issue off the back burner and place it at the forefront.
It's here, it's near, it's the Q word, and it's not going
anywhere. And now everyone has to confront it.So now what? Just get
used to it I guess.
It is offensive to equate the struggle of civil rights in the last two centuries
with the current same gender marriage issue. To do so is offensive to those who
struggled for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It represents a lack
of education by the "drum beaters of the moment". Please don't
clump these together. What some same sex marriage people want is a narrow
specific legal status. What african americans wanted was ability to eat, have
homes, education, dignity, employment, security, and opportunity. That
opportunity was shut to them on every front in every facet of life and in every
It really doesn't matter what reasons (no matter how specious) these
religions use. The fact is, they are seeking to deny American Citizens equal
rights, opportunities and protections under the law. These churches will not be
forced to perform or sanction marriages they don't approve of. The real
concern is that, just as the Mormon Church was viewed to be bigoted for their
stance against black men holding the priesthood (and that view was justified,
the church has now admitted the whole thing was because Brigham Young was a
bigot), their anti-gay views will be viewed as bigoted and backwards.I don't really care how the church or its members view gay people. I
care that they are trying to make their religious views the law.
@ FlashbackThe existence of "God" has not been established,
let alone what any such entity's opinion is of the intimate arrangements of
consenting adults. If you have a personal concept and belief in such
an entity, I say live it! love it! BE it! -- but do not try to reach into a
secular constitution and legislate your version of this entity above
RE: Tethered, WHICH IS CHANGEABLE, yet blocking other mutable characteristics
from being protected!Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today,
yes and forever. (Hebrews 13:8).While God does not change, sinful
men must change in order to enter into the kingdom of God. This
“change” is from one who is a vile sinner, deserving of God’s
eternal wrath, to a forgiven sinner, who now stands clothed in the righteousness
of God, through faith in Christ.It is God who provides the means
whereby sinners can be changed, transformed to new creations, forgiven,
justified, having an imperishable hope. What is required of men is to repent, to
cease thinking and acting as they once did, acknowledge their sins, and trust in
A lot of heterophobic people on the forum today as well as a lot of apostates.
You don't want God to have a voice? That's fine but he should have
Isn't this exactly what opponents of mixed race marriages said in their
time? It has nothing to do with bigotry. It's just the way it's
always been, and what the Bible advocates.
Thanks to all those who wrote and filed amicus briefs. The LBGT community
I'm quite sure will target those who have stood up for their beliefs. For
tolerance to them is only a one way street. It takes courage to know you are
going against a vocal group that only tolerates what they want to hear and then
retaliates with words of hate while claiming they don't. The gay groups
want so much to make this about them rather than about the definition of
marriage. They want to play the victims and say their "rights" are
being abused. If the courts allow the definition of marriage to mean nothing,
why can't anyone claim the "right" to marry? Why not groups of
people? Is there any reason to limit it to two people? Why not minors? Why
does it have to even be with other humans if "love" is the only
requirement. I've seen people who really love their pets.
Understand that each side of this issue is pushing their own sense of what is
right and wrong. Wisdom is often lost in a "think tank" where every
possibility is not just sorted through but is considered of equal value. Wisdom
knows, for example, why everything that is liquid shouldnot be called
water and licensed for human consumption. In this way discrimination is
essential to preserve human life. "same-sex marriage" should not be
given license or sanction.
@airnaut quoted -big·ot·ry/ˈbigətrē/nounnoun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries. bigoted attitudes;
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.---"I don't know -- Seems like it fits the
definition precisely."For which side??? sounds like the gays
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. (not
including the laws of the land)....ouch, that one turned on you :-0 Anyone can tell which side has more hatred toward the others by what is being
said on here.Heres another pointless argument..."Are you married
when you cross state lines? We can't allow state-by-state non-recognition
of marriages or you, yourself might end up divorced by driving to California or
someplace other than where you were married." No comment necessary :-0And don't get people started on the similarities of the civil
rights movement.. You do not want to go there, dont even think about bringing
that up. That would be shameful on you.Have a nice day..I know I
will, because I love living in the state of Utah. :-)
@ tetheredAn excellent point you are making there. And remember
churches have legal status due to governmental approval, you do not. You need to be better recognizable as an organization.This issue goes
back to political partisanship, it is void from the beginning.I am
not for your cause, but I can not recognize your voice as you are not belonging
to some defined organization. Your "community" goes beyond recognition.
How instructive to see what proponents can list as examples of traditional
cultural practice. They seem to be quite familiar with deviant practices that
have been outlawed or are unpopular, even in aberrant small social groups.It would seem obvious that those who advocate change to traditional
standards bear the burden of proof that what they are proposing is a substantive
improvement.I note instructive parallels with "Modest
Proposal" by Johnathan Swift in 1729. Swift clearly understood that none of
it was to be taken seriously. The problem with the modern advocates that oppose
traditional marriage standards is that it seems they fail to recognize the
satire of their arguments.
I'm with U-tar - gay eagle scout, gay football player, gay rights activists
and on and on and on. You want to be gay, fine, be gay. I don't care.
But the incessant stories about gays is getting really, really old.
David, you stated “In a homosexual relationship, anatomically and
physiologically is it simply not possible to have children. It is not meant to
be.”This quote is eerily reminiscent to what was said at the
trial of the mixed race couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, “Almighty God
created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on
separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there
would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows
that he did not intend for the races to mix.”When marriage
equality is the law of the land, your reasoning is going to sound as quaint as
the judge in Virginia did in 1968.
The actual facts, all religion aside, is that men and men, women and women
don't go together biologically, physically, or anatomically. Never have,
Question LDS people. Why is gay marriage different? Plenty of things you
don't believe in doing are 100% legal. Coffee, liquor, pornography,
cigarettes, tattoos, piercings on men, more than one ear piercing on a woman and
R rated movies are all legal, but your church has said that you shouldn't
do that stuff. What is so different about gay marriage? I don't see rallies
at Wal Mart trying to make Folgers illegal, Utah doesn't seem to have a
problem taking the money I spend at the State Liquor Store, even though
it's against the LDS religion. So what is so different about this one
I find it quite amusing that many of these letters tout traditional marriage in
Utah and years of "long held tradition". Doesn't anyone ever
remember polygamy? Thousands of Mormons are the products of this
"traditional marriage"! Lets not forget our history OK? My forebears had multiple wives which acted as single parents while they were
breeding new populations. They were neglected in many cases, placed in poverty
and ignored for years at a time. They managed to survive. I guess an LBGT
couple raising good well adjusted children really isn't so bad.
@KarenR:"The brief also expresses concern that a finding against SSM
bans “would necessarily declare that Utah and Oklahoma voters hold views
on marriage that are irrational or bigoted,” and that this would
“malign their deeply held convictions” and thus “demean”
them. "As you point out, it's a poor argument. Change the
subject from SSM bans to integration and the states from Utah and Oklahoma to
Mississippi and Alabama, and consider whether the idea of "maligning their
deeply held convictions" about race would be a good reason to sustain
segregation. People always have deeply-held conviction about many things.
Unfortunately, those convictions are sometimes incorrect or wrong. Essentially,
the brief is asking the court to make a ruling in one direction to keep from
hurting someone's feelings. Imagine the derision the Supreme Court would
have been subjected to had it sustained segregation to spare the feelings of the
good white folks of the south. It boggles the mind that a licensed attorney
would put forward such an argument in apparent good faith. Had he done it in law
school, the professor would have given him a failing mark and laughed in his
Every day, it is all gay. Can't we stop with the stories? How much do we
have to endure?
Perhaps next you guys could ban taking the lord's name in vain? I mean, if
you're going to force the rest of us to abide by your religious beliefs,
why not go all the way?Maybe we could also ban tattoo parlors? I
mean, if a kid sees someone with a tattoo, that could send the wrong message,
right? And as we've established, it's all about the kids with you
guys. We gotta protect the kids. From EVERYTHING!
". . . opposition not due to bigotry" ?LDS leadership, many
(though not all) Mormons, many (though not all) Utah voters and most of the
organizations that signed on to this brief are in the very unfortunate position
of having their own anti-gay statements, arguments and actions already out
there. So many past anti-gay statements and attitudes are congealed in print,
searchable at the click of the mouse, that trying to un-ring the animus bell at
this point, simply can't be done. (I appreciate that a good team of lawyers
would work vigorously to counter the perception, though).Personally,
I try not to use words like "hate", "bigot",
"homophobe", etc. -- not that those words don't fit in many cases,
it's just that it tends to halt conversation and is not very productive.
Is there ANY leader of ANY religious group who will publicly acknowledge that
religion and faith isn't solely biological and can change over time?After all, if people could not change their religion, then how come
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists
have various forms of missions...Whose goal is to convert other
people into THEIR religion!Yet these legal briefs filed by religious
groups rely on the fact that are "a protected class", while noting that
homosexuality is not "a protected class".This is a clear
case of Protectionism... The groups who have legal rights, trying to block
others from attaining legal rights.And intermixing religion &
law to further their unique status.WHICH IS CHANGEABLE, yet blocking
other mutable characteristics from being protected!
@johnthomasjones 9:31"Are the State's interests in
responsible procreation and optimal child-rearing furthered by prohibiting
same-sex couples from marrying?"Thank you. This is the simple
question that completely destroys the State's argument.
@evansrichdm says:"If you are going to force gay marriage on us
...,"--- The moment that someone tries to force you to gay
marry, I'll be the first horse in the cavalry to your rescue. Until then,
nobody is "forcing" you to do anything except accept others rights.@Virginia Reader;And what if your "god" isn't?
The "traditional" version off a single man, single woman marriage is
contemporary version of marriage. The word "traditional" is nothing more
than a code word for bigotry, just as some NFL teams use the word
"distraction" as another word to mask bigotry. It is beyond me that so
many people would put so much effort into denying people the right to form a
civil union, because in the eyes of the courts and governments, that's all
a marriage license is.
This article hurts the gay community...More people standing behind the
definition of marriage....you can see by so many likes on comments against it.
Tis is a good one @kjb1 says this "The fact that they're
talking like this means that they're grasping at straws. They're going
to lose and deep down, they know it."Really...do you really
think the other side knows deep down that they are going to lose?? Why even
try, if its "deep down".Here is the bottom line with all
respect and dignity....Lets talk about tradition, and how it always was...
Beliefs define values of a society, and values determine the law in a society.
Why is that so hard to understand. So many people value marriage between one man
and one wife. As soon as the majority wants the law changed, to
allow gay marriage, most of this fight against it will be gone...plain and
I know it: "Don't believe me? Go ask your bishop if you're loved.
You may be surprised how powerful you'll feel it."---------My bishop actually told me not to come to church anymore.
I made everyone feel uncomfortable and he could see what the effect of not
having even one person talk to me was doing to me. That was in 1985. Maybe
things are different today?When I called him one night, he told me
to quit calling him. It was ruining his life. Just accept my excommunication
and go on with my life. I have.
The religiosity in Utah is truly showing desperation by claiming they are not
engaging in bigotry.What they are doing - defending Amendment 3 - is
the *very* definition of bigotry.Those that demand the state
continue to engage in legal discrimination against a minority population of
law-abiding, tax-paying citizens had best start preparing themselves for the
inevitable. Your ability to deny your fellow citizens their civil
rights is ending.Take a look at your next door neighbor, Nevada.
They are doing it correctly, and your AG should take a lesson from the Nevada
AG. "After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its
arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer
sustainable," Nevada AG Masto said in a statement.Guess what?
The animus-laden arguments that Utah has wasted $2,000,000.00 to pay these
out-of-state lawyers to draw up are the *exact*, *same* animus-laden arguments
that have already been thrown out of court.There can be no hope of
Utah continuing its state-sponsored discrimination.It will be okay,
Utah. Really. Breathe deep. Relax.
The most advanced democratic countries in the world have already legalized
same-sex marriage or are in the process of legalizing it -- because mature
democracies support tolerance and equality. At the other end, fanatic Islamic
and dictatorial African nations that persecute and incarcerate gays and lesbians
and abhor same-sex marriage -- because tolerance for people who are
"different" is not part of their mind-set. Isn't that difference
between two kinds of countries telling enough?
It's like asking someone to except you putting leaves in the gas tank of
the ambulance that you're in instead of gas. It's telling you it is
just the way the leaves were made and that they can't help it. Furthermore,
the leaves should have those rights even though it won't (at this time)
make the ambulance get you to the hopsital in time to save your life. The leaves
feels that you should except it in your gas tank because it's the only way
to be fair to the leaves and yes there are those that believe trees have
spirits, so we must look out for thier rights as well. Right?
No court case will ever fix the fact that Gay people have no way of producing
children. 5 million gay people on their own planet will all be extinct and gone
within 110 years give or take a few. It would be a barin waste land. My point
here is the entire gay lesbian way of thinking is contrary to life itself. It
doesn't work plain and simple. It cannot progress the good in society
because it can't progress society. It must have straight people to help it
to even exist at all.
why do people from the community whom believe that being gay is correct always
scream 'biogotry and unfair' ? they only see what they want to see.
just like other groups whom scream racism. look, they know they are not in the
right with their choices so the guilt makes me respond in unkind ways.
Like it or not, the argument is inherent bigotry. The only way to resolve this
is to separate the civil and religious functions. All should be treated equally
under the law, and for religious beliefs and practices, the churches may decide
for themselves. Note also that even if the State of Utah prevails in the
short-term, this issue will never go away. It would be best to accept equal
protection under the law and move on. That way, religious groups will have no
need to beat their chests, and gay/lesbian couples won't feel a need to
protest or otherwise draw attention to their actions (like a gay marriage
ceremony at the Grammys - I don't tune in for that purpose). It's
time to normalize.
Bigotry by any other name would stink as foully.
As Mama always said, hate the bigotry but love the bigot.
I find it amusing that these people who want to ban same sex marriage are okay
with existing gay couples living together OUT of wedlock (they're not
trying to ban that), and they're okay with existing gay couples raising
children out of wedlock (they're not trying to ban that, either). Marriage
of parents (straight or gay) provides security for children. The folks opposed
to allowing existing same-sex parents of children to marry, are directly harming
For such a non-issue as bigotry, the churches opposed to SSM are sure expending
a tremendous amount of energy to reassure everyone.
It's quite interesting that both the LDS Church's brief and the State
of Utah's brief assert that a primary purpose for limiting marriage to
heterosexuals is to ensure that children are raised by their biological parents.
Unfortuantely, the actions of both the Church and the State show that they do
not really believe this. Both organizations would deny marriage rights to a gay
family where the children are biologically related to one of the parents (a
quite common scenario). And yet, both organizations would grant marriage rights
to an adoptive heterosexual family where the children are not biologically
related to either parent (also a very common scenario). The actions
of the Church and State, rather than their words, conclusively show that their
marriage policies are not designed to ensure children are raised by biological
parents. Instead, the policies are designed to ensure that children are raised
by two different genders. Whatever the merits of requiring two different
genders, THAT is the issue for the court, not biological relationships.
I don't see how this situation is so hard for the gay and Lesbian people to
understand when it comes to raising children. It is a well known fact that
children learn from their parents. They not only learn the about life, but they
learn mannerisms and thought processes as well. When a father clears his throat
many times his little boy will clear his. When a mother puts on lipstick her
young daughter will want to do that as well. This is a well known fact of life.
With that in mind, I have always heard gay people say such things like, "If
I could be straight I would, but it's the way I am", or "I wish I
didn't feel this way but I do". Growing up in a gay lifestyle only
sends the message to a child that that behavior is right, or ok and then if ever
thinking about relationships when they get older, they will obviously lean in
that direction. Now, if that were right, in a few short decades the human race
would become extinct because we all know that Gay people can't contribute
to life on earth.
plural noun: bigotries. bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who
hold different opinions from oneself.---I don't
know -- Seems like it fits the definition precisely.As for
"it's been that way for Centuries"...So was Human
Sacrifice, Slavery, Flogging, and Stonings, That
arguement doesn't hold up to current scutiny.
Love Everyone, Wish it could be so, but I am being told by pro gay
marriage people I am a bigit for my personal beliefs.
Excellent point, Wilf 55. How quickly Mormons forget the downright hateful
comments that were made by Tea Partiers about Mitt Romney's religion,
before he became the Republican candidate. They didn't vote for him
because they liked him, let alone because they respected his right to choose his
own religion; they voted for him because he wasn't a Democrat.
I so appreciate those who have come together to support and defend traditional
marriage--for their expertise, intellect, wisdom, and common sense. They have
put into words my feelings exactly concerning this highly volatile subject.
As Ronnie Reagan would say, "there we go again". The "state
system" is a big problem for efforts to create a national religion based on
"liberal views". Cokie Roberts of ABC stated yesterday on NPR that the
reasoning behind the decision by Eric Holder to offer federal acceptance of gay
marriage in every state is a political one. She stated that gay marriage is
very acceptable in the young. Mr. Holder wants the young to vote in the mid
term election. He sees this as a cause that may rally the voting bloc. Since
the young are easily brainwashed, that is the reason for efforts to control the
education system and to reform it based on federal standards.
"Education" is a "state function" under the U.S. Constitution.
These efforts are all aimed at creating a perfect society and negating the
"opiate of the people".
@jcobabe"Let the proponents of redefinition iterate things we
have done as human beings for thousands of years that aren't the right
thing to do."Pre-arranged marriage has been practiced for
thousands of years and continues. Slavery has been practiced for thousands of
years and continues. Its the culture to molest young boys in parts of
Afghanistan and its been going on for centuries. I could carry on and on and on
and I will if you wish."Its been done for thousands of years" is
one of the worst reasonings I have heard. I do not care if people
want to have a same sex marriage, it has no impact at all on my marriage or my
family. Stopping same sex couples from having legal rights with their partner
and children seems cruel, even going by Utahs standards.
David from Centerville:In some heterosexual marriages it is
impossible to produce a child, for whatever medical reason. These couples often
see artificial insemination as a solution.It turns out that lesbian
couples also have that avenue of reproduction available to them.Why
should the state decide that one situation is legally sanctioned and receives
the benefit of various tax & legal benefits, while the other is not? Doesn't this arbitrarily hurt the child produced in the second
Sal, civil rights are not for states or churches or voters to decide. You can
marry the person you want to marry. It sounds like it wouldn't have
bothered you if a Samoan man and black woman in Montgomery couldn't have
married because the state of Alabama hadn't gotten around to repealing
their laws against interracial marriage--because it isn't your ox that is
This issue goes much deeper than any of us realize. God ordained marriage
between a man and a woman and we don't question God - even if it
doesn't make sense. God is God and if he gave us life and a world to live
on than surely he can tell us what is right and what is wrong. I feel for those
who are opposed to my views, I know it is not easy, but I fear God more and his
David, a two parent family--where the parents love and respect and are committed
to each other-- is the ideal situation for children raising. When
gay marriage is legal across the country--and that will happen sooner than you
expect--life will go on; the sun will rise and set. But we will be a fairer and
more just society. And the children of gay unions will know that they were
God has said what God as said get over it. People still believe in God and
follow his commandments, get over it. If you done wnat to follow God
that is your right, but dont get all high and migthy if other want to follow God
and voice their belief, even if it by just living their belief. People have a
right to be against gay marriage and voice it, just like those for gay marriage
have voiced their opinion. Then in the next life both sides can try to explain
their position to God and reap their rewards. If you are going to
force gay marriage on us then let those that want more then one wife or husband
get marriage, but I am sure the gay marriage people will have a fit over that.
Also who is to say that old people that marry is this life wont be able to
have children in the next? Will a gay couple be able to produce children in this
life or the next based on science?
@LovelyDeseret: It is the religious beliefs and the people that hold them which
are trying to force people into second class status, not the other way around as
you apparently claim. I'm sure Justice Sotomayor will work to support the
rights of ALL people, not just the religous.@Sal: Would you also
recognize the fact that a marriage reco0gnized in once state would, pursuant to
the Full Faith and Credit clause in the US constitution, be considered legal and
binding in another states, regardless whether that marriage could be formalized
under that state's laws?---------------I've
read, studied and analyzed the amicus brief. There's nothing new or
different in it; just the same arguments and "facts" produced before. I
do wonder about one thing -- the religions reprsented in the brief claim that
their positions are not the result of animus or bigotry, but the those are
evident in every argument. I wonder whether they don't recognize their
animus, or are just trying to ignore it so they look better in their own eyes.
Either way, it's really sad to see them make an argument that just
Scoundrel 8:47 pm: You forgot to mention how inappropriate it would be to
believe anything President Obama said...
The brief was neither accurate or convincing, prejudice & bigotry is still
wrong no matter how lawyers try to paint it. One is free to have their own
beliefs but to try impose those beliefs on everyone is not only wrong, it is
disgraceful to think in the 21st century some still believe this is the right
way as dictated by God.
We are not bigots and we don't hate you. We just want you and your children
to sit in the back of the bus, and use your own drinking fountains, and stay out
of our country club. We can be friends - in fact, some of my best friends are
gay - but I wouldn't want my brother to be one and get married. It is especially telling that some of the same groups that supported "No
other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or
given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" are now upset that
Gay men and Lesbians aren't willing to settle for domestic unions. My
husband and I have been together for 5 years. I want to know that he and I have
the same protections as our married neighbors. No more, no less.
Same-sex marriage advocates: Admit it. Today, you support homosexual marriage
because so many people demand it; the hue and the cry for it has "come out
of the closet." Therefore, your logic insists, it must be allowed. Tomorrow,
when enough people demand it, will you also support a revamp of the term,
"marriage" to include unions with multiple partners? Can you, with
greater wisdom and insight than traditional marriage supporters have, predict
and promise a beneficial effect on society if that occurs?
@III;I don't care what Boyd Packer says. I don't care
what your bishop says. I don't care what your god says. I care what the
US Constitution says. Equal treatment for all citizens.@Hemlock
& panamadesnews;A marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a
marriage. You need to stop focusing on what other people call their marriages
and work on your own.@Badgerbadger;That's pretty
rich, calling us "selfish" when all we want is to enjoy the privileges
and protections you enjoy - that you want to keep for yourself.@David;"The law of god" is irrelevant. This is civil,
secular society we're discussing; not religious law.@Sal;Are you married when you cross state lines? We can't allow
state-by-state non-recognition of marriages or you, yourself might end up
divorced by driving to California or someplace other than where you were
I find all the claims in the article and the comments about being for the
betterment of the children disingenuous.You claim that SSM will hurt the
children, yet in Utah, 1 out of 8 children go to bed hungry. Lunches are taken
away from children in school and thrown in the trash.There is a rainy day
fund, it should be empty as long as ONE child does not get 3 meals a day
regardless of the reasons why they are hungry.1 child dies every 10
seconds on this planet, THAT should be your concern if you actually care about
the welfare of children, not whether or not they have one father and one mother,
or two or more of the same or different sex parents.What do I see in Utah?
Hungry children not considered worthy of money hoarded for a "rainy
Now they say that this is not about bigotry. How they carve themselves out of
the bigotry assessment ia amazing. For years they waged this war against the
gays behind closed Church doors (Mother Jones expose). They fought hard to enact
Prop 8(California), they enacted Amendment 3 (Utah)and they said that "gays
" were an affront to Utah for insisting that their marriages be recognized
after Judge Shelby's ruling. All these steps afforded the Church the
opportunity to demonstrate their "love" of their gay members. They
failed in all of these earlier attempts and they are failing now. They should
have kept their word when they said they were neutral after Judge Shelby's
ruling.The LDS Church is not now neutral, has never been neutral and will never
Seen a lot of bad reasoning in this thread. One person argues that
there's so much divorce and bad heterosexual parenting that gay marriage
cannot possibly "worsen" existing marriage. That's a poor argument,
because it is taking the worst examples of nongay marriage and claiming it
compares to the best examples of gay marriage. That's specious unless gay
couples are claiming that there will be no gay divorce, which we already know to
be false from states that have attempted this social experiment.
Opponents of inter-racial marriage would also argue that their beliefs are not
based on bigotry. Saying it, doesn't make it so. As far as raising
children, it doesn't take a specific bodily organ to raise a child. It
takes commitment, patience and love. Same sex parents in many ways are probably
BETTER parents than heterosexual couples, because their conscious decision to
raise a child often entails overcoming a number of hurdles, so it requires a lot
of commitment and patience in the process.
Of course it's bigotry. If you deny someone the privileges you enjoy
simply because of your beliefs then you are being bigoted against that someone.
Bigotry; Utah's bylaws.
I am pro-Gay marriage and I want to go to the concept of free speech when it
comes to saying opposition to Gay marriage is not based in bigotry. With the First Amendment, we must accept and allow that speech we do not think
appropriate because we are a pluralist society---we accept that more than one
idea has value even if we disagree with it. In order to preserve free speech
for everyone, we must allow for the free expression of thoughts and speech for
everyone, especially if we disagree with those thoughts and expressions. It is
the only way to truly ensure free speech.Much like free speech, not
everyone has to agree with Gay marriage for it to be on the same level as other
rights like speech or the right to bear arms. Why? Because the Supreme Court
has on more than one occasion upheld marriage as a fundamental human right. Not
a fundamental religious right or fundamental heterosexual right---a fundamental
human right.It doesn't much matter why people oppose Gay
marriage. Those who oppose Gay marriage may not be bigots, but they are opposed
The brief claims that the positions of these religions isn’t about being
anti-gay. It’s about being pro-marriage. “That support [for
traditional marriage],” the brief states, “predates by centuries the
controversy over same-sex marriage and has nothing to do with disapproval of any
group.” The brief also expresses concern that a finding
against SSM bans “would necessarily declare that Utah and Oklahoma voters
hold views on marriage that are irrational or bigoted,” and that this
would “malign their deeply held convictions” and thus
“demean” them. This attempt to decouple their position
on marriage from centuries-long denigration of LGBTs is insulting to the
intelligence, as is the suggestion that the opponents are the ones in danger of
being victimized here. I think the followers of the religions represented by
this brief are being poorly served. I think the leaders of these religions have
lost their moral credibility on this issue.
"No valid reason but God said so." In my book that's valid enough
and end of story. If god says homosexuality is sin, then to me it's sin.
God will not be mocked.
Court Brief includes:"...groups joined together to rebut the
contention that their belief in marriage between a man and a woman is borne of
bigotry. The accusation is false and offensive..."Thank you,
thank you! Whatever hate you are feeling, is devised in your own heart.
Don't throw these awful intentions at us. Supporting Traditional Marriage
is not a form of hatred!
First understanding what LGBT community is saying is very important.They don't like to be molded into a setting, which is bewildering and
strange to them.It is up in the head to fight about the definition of
marriage, and one line of view will not change the other to comply.They
are in despirate need to equalize the law for SSM, because the whole world is
demanding to put on a "social revolution", why come short of that?Second the people of Utah are afraid that political mainstream is going
to endanger safety for their children and education. They want to stick to what
is known and not reconsider their family values each morning over and over
again.Conclusion. The miracle or solution to this fight is in the
change of mind, as people have set their mind on what they think definitions of
marriage should be. You cannot change the mind of the people, unless to offer
them something instead.A Roundtable such as in Syria would be a good
idea, and that to be for a while.Pushing each other into corners will
increase the tension over time.
Societies have had marriage well before Christianity existed, all over the
world. The institution provides a stable situation in which children can grow.
Since man-man marriage will have no expectation of a drop in the sex-partners
per year count, the stability portion of marriage will cease to be meaningful.
I just don't understand why supporting traditional marriage has to be tied
to opposing gay marriage. How does gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?
There are no shortage of licenses available. Many heterosexual marriages have
zero procreation opportunity, so that is not an issue. What am I missing? What
harm is it if two adult women marry? Giving them normal legal protections
associated with marriage does not diminish or limit those same protections
enjoyed by traditional married couples. Just because traditional marriage is
best doesn't mean non-traditional marriage is harmful.
I find the argument "marriage should be between one man and one women
because that is how it has been for centuries" to be quite compelling. There
are many cultural practices that have persisted for centuries, because they have
been found to have merit. We do not need to debate about the societal value of
marriage, since the historical evidence and legal precedent is so overwhelmingly
in favor. The burden of proof would seem to be upon those wishing to invent
something new. Let the proponents of redefinition iterate things we have done as
human beings for thousands of years that aren't the right thing to do.
Supporters of traditional marriage will keep on demonstrating the lasting
We hear the right claiming. "Marriage is between one man and one woman. It
has been that way for centuries. It is Gods will"Coming from
the religious in Utah, doesn't that ring a bit hollow? Didn't your
church founder "change" the definition?It is like everyone
on here "conveniently" forgot that when making their marriage argument.
I wonder if those on either side of the debate who are so strongly certain and
confident that the other side is going to lose have considered what they will do
when they are wrong and the courts decide against them?What will the
LGBT and the Rainbowers do if the SCOTUS decides they are wrong and it is really
a State's Right issue?What about those religious organizations
and those on the other side of the argument?Sadly, the
"I'll burn the mothers down" attitudes and riots in the streets
people don't seem to be in the religious camp; so whose being the bigot and
whose being unreasonable?
The inconvenient truth too hard for the for LGBT to accept is that those who
oppose SSM do not do so because of:BigotyHatredAnimusReligious belief or religious controlorPrejudiceThe
truth is hard to accept and hard to bare. To claim it is these other
reasons is easier for them. And so that is why they do it.
Equality, human rights and religion never mix. This is a constitutional
issue not a religious one. Just because the Church has an opinion doesn't
mean it's important or worth listening too when constitutional issues are
involved.I'm always astounded at the "pick and choose"
mentality when it comes to scriptures.Let's look at the same book
that mentions homosexuality that is so fervently rendered as the word of God.Exodus 35:2 :"For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day
you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does
any work on it shall be put to death." Shall we gather up a militia
and start executing everyone that work on Sundays?The Bible says so. It
must be true.
Its always bigotry when equal rigths are denied!
Why, why, why, why?So much fuss over a small number of taxpaying
citizens attaining their rightful equal rights?As every court has
found, all the legal arguments boil down to:A-- Religion-based
objections (not constitutionally relevant)B-- Desire of some
citizens to hold onto negative opinions of other citizens (not nice)Let's get real, folks, please! The big problem is that some
religions have doctrines which do not allow equal status to their own members
and children who are born Gay, and have COMPLETELY lost sight of what Jesus Christ would say and do. He would welcome the Gay people, His children who
have been persecuted and oppressed, and toss out the "religious" folks
who refuse to repent of their part in that.The meaning of the story
of the camel, the needle, and the rich man:---When you get so full of how
right you are, how virtuous you are, how much better you are than others, how
your church has the right to control society, heaven is NOT where you are
"More focus on satisfying adult needs will not benefit vulnerable
children." How true that is. It is all about the adult needs. Why
wouldn't the Gay and Lesbians want children to be raised by a mom and a
dad? They had that opportunity. Gay marriage - The thought makes
I find it sad that my church, the Mormon church, cooperates with churches that,
for the rest, despise my faith as blasphemous. It is an illusion to think that
the Mormon church will gain respect from these other institutions and be
recognized by them as a truly Christian church. Perhaps in Utah and a few other
states for opportunistic reasons, but never on a worldwide level. Moreover, all
of this costly, temporary cooperation is for a lost cause.
I just don't understand how you can be LDS and support gay marriage. Does
this mean more and more church members are doubting the Proclamation to the
World, church leadership, revelation, etc.? Aren't these things that church
members should live their lives by and believe in? The real conflict
I am trying to understand as related to gay marriage Utah is not between
religious vs. non-religious but between religious vs. religious.
When LDS folks defend their own religion, does that mean they are attacking
traditional Christian religions?.... NO it doesn't mean that.When Gay
folks defend their right to marry, does it mean they are attacking traditional
marriage? ... NO, it doesn't mean that.
If 49 states voted to ban Mormon temple marriages, I wonder how many Mormons
would be defending those 49 states' "Rights": to do something that
is clearly against the US Constitution? Banning gays from marrying is clearly
against the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. States do NOT have the right
to overrule the US Constitution.
@ BadgerbadgerIt's funny how you know that same-sex parents
harm children, when not a single lawyer has been able to prove that point in
Hey now Sal - don't go bringing the concept of "immorality" into
the debate. If there is actually such a thing as immoral behaviour, then the
LGBT gang's obfuscating arguments of "we want our rights" become
moot. Regardless of how they want to phrase their arguments in order
to obtain their "right" to "marry," if their behaviour can be
ultimately still be defined as "immoral," they will never win in the
poll of public opinion. And in my opinion, sexual contact between
LGBT persons is immoral.
Words are meaningless. Actions are what count. Saying it isn't bigotry
doesn't magically make it so.Do you have any other religious
beliefs you'd like to force upon the rest of us, Mormons? Perhaps
you'll want to band drinking coffee next? Maybe shopping on Sundays?
LovelyDeseret:Do you mind explaining how people who hold religious
beliefs would be forced into "second class status"? They'll still be able to marry whoever they like and have as many
children as they decide on. They'll still be able to raise
those children based on whatever moral tenets they choose. How will
legal recognition of same-sex couples prevent from happening that in any way?
In fact, with the exception of knowing that you can't use the
law to force others to live by your beliefs, how will two men or two women
marrying affect you at all?
Should single people be permitted to marry themselves? Then their children will
be blessed by living in a married home. But how does that help the children? Or
the adult?Calling single people married is completely silly. Yet if
we redefine marriage to include same sex couples, why not include single people
too? Both are equally silly and should not be done.
News Flash: The Governor and AG of Nevada announced today that Nevada is
dropping its defense of the state wide gay marriage ban. The quote from the
AG's office is "the state's argument cannot withstand legal
scrutiny." This statement came today in a motion filed w/ the US 9th
Circuit court of Appeals. According to the AG's office, based
on their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this
position is no longer defensible in court.
Let the people decide state by state whether to uphold traditional marriage or
not. There will be less divisiveness if this process is allowed to play out.
Witness the hatred, contention, and anger Judge Shelby has stirred up by
circumventing the normal democratic process. It has been years of contention
and anger since the courts decided Roe vs Wade--should have left it to the
people. They were approving abortion state by state. The same is happening
with gay marriage.As Americans abandon God and religion they are
gradually accepting of most immoral behaviors.
I wonder if Justice Sotomayor will be persuaded by the religious issue. I doubt
she wants to force religious beliefs and the people that hold them into second
class status. She might be the wild card.It is good to see these
religious groups uniting in a common good. I look forward to the day that
marriage is once again cherished and respected.
If polygamy is a red herring, then so to is the fact that in some heterosexual
marriages children cannot be conceived. It is beside the point.One
major purpose of marriage is to fulfill the law of God and to have children,
raise them within a family, with a father and a mother. The fact
that in many cases those ideals are not present does not mean that we should aim
for the lowest common denominator and normalize the breakdown of marriage and
families. I am sure that in most of those marriages where having children is
not possible, the husband and wife feels great pain.In a homosexual
relationship, anatomically and physiologically is it simply not possible to have
children. It is not meant to be.Standards are set to be sought
after, even when they are not always met. This is certainly true in marriage.
The state should establish and maintain the ideal marriage and
family situation for children, even when it is not always attained.
Those who favor calling unions between same sex couples 'marriage'
have only their self interest in mind. They want societal endorsement for
themselves. It has nothing to do with what is best for society or children. It
is 100% selfish. If there are children involved, the
'parent(s)' have selfishly denied the children a father or a mother
for their own gratification. Even though some marriages don't
last, (it would be better if they did) that is no excuse for normalizing
relationships as parental when they are not, hurting children in the process.
Call it what you will, it manifests itself the same.
To Hemlock:Very good points. I agree 100%.
Re: Church MemberThere are also things that are done now that are
not the "right thing to do". Gay and lesbian relationships cannot be
considered marriages because they cannot be solemnized by the conjugal process.
The uniting of gay and lesbian partners should be considered "unions"
and such unions might be given all of the benefits that marriage partners enjoy.
But to consider them marriages is a real stretch for the reason stated above as
well as many more reasons not mentioned in my posting.
Heterosexual marriages end in divorce 50% of the time, tearing the children
between their parents. Heterosexual marriages and partners sexually abuse,
physically abuse their children. With the scientific capabilities of artificial
insemination we have today, any gay couple can have children. Gay couples do not
turn their children into gay children. These are all issues that I struggle
with on this issue. I also don't believe people who are truly gay (as
opposed to bisexual)turn into heterosexual. When we quote the bible on this
subject, why then do we choose other parts of the bible to ignore?
The brief's assertion is not "dishonest and desperate." It is
acknowledging that marriage is between a man and a woman - a biological reality
to become "one flesh." Anyone wanting to have legal rights and
commitments to another person, irrespective of gender, is free to make those
commitments. Co-opting the term "marriage" is disingenuous and
They keep focusing on this idea of children and claim that marriage should be
child centric not adult centric. That would be fine if they actually
wanted to focus on children - but they don't. They deny marriage to
same-sex couples with children while granting it to heterosexual couples without
children. Obviously, marriage is about more than children. I really
don't worry myself with what a church I don't belong to thinks about
marriage or anything else - but they should not be able to use the law to force
me to follow their religious teachings.
Are the State’s interests in responsible procreation and optimal
child-rearing furthered by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying?No.Then why is the State and it's backers fighting so hard to
prevent same-sex couples from getting married? ANIMUS pure and simple. Quit
hiding behind these stale arguments and religious privilege.
Are the State's interests in responsible procreation and optimal
child-rearing furthered by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying?
“We do not reject you. … We cannot reject you. … We will not
reject you, because we love you.”-Boyd K PackerThe
problem with hard feelings is that it's hard to see clearly. But the
message is clear!God placed leaders on the Earth for our benefit.
When messages of encouragement and hope are given, we have a choice to accept
the conditions of the truth or reject them. We can't change the truth, we
can only choose whether we will live by it or not. As a law of happiness, or
code of conduct, it can be hard to live. It can even be hard to want to live by.
But along with positive messages we are given something much more- Every General
Conference the brethren remind us of their love for us and our Heavenly
Father's love. There is no hatred found in these messages. What is found is
open arms and love; a plea to return, yes, but a plea to return to something
good.//Don't believe me? Go ask your bishop if
you're loved. You may be surprised how powerful you'll feel it.
Why is it okay for a single person to adopt a child in Utah but allegedly
harmful if a same-sex couple does so? The lack of consistency suggests that this
is all just an excuse to try and justify a same-sex marriage ban.
Most homosexuals are not for equality, they are for what they want.Most oppose people like Cody Brown who has multiple wives. Shouldn't he
have rights to marry multiple people if he wants?(all consenting adults)
It is a church or a political organization?
I feel it's best to judge people on what to do, not what they say. They
can sugarcoat it all they like, but they still want to enshrine their own
personal biases into law based on no valid reason besides "because God said
so."The fact that they're talking like this means that
they're grasping at straws. They're going to lose and deep down, they
I find the argument "marriage should be between one man and one women
because that is how it has been for centuries" pretty funny. Slavery has
been around for centuries, should we allow that? Women have been treated
inferior to men for centuries, should we continue that? Since when does doing
something for a long time make it the right thing to do?? There are many things
that we have done as human beings for thousands of years that aren't the
right thing to do.
This whole line of reasoning would be credible if senior citizens were not
allowed to marry, if childless marriages were easily dissolvable - on the basis
of not being able to produce children (or unwillingness to adopt children) - and
divorces where children were involved were much more difficult to obtain.Since none of these things are true, the argument is pretty flimsy, no
matter how many churches, citizens, or even Vladimir Putin's opinion, not