Guess what, your right, the debate probably will not end soon! Give me a break,
to do unto others as you would have them do to you, isn't very hard to
understand! There is a lot of information these days about homosexuality and for
people to insist that there is something wrong with us, in my opinion, is
pathetic! Gay people have deep religious beliefs as well as Mormons, and you
know what, we were not some kind of accident! It is safe to say that God did
create people gay, which would mean that he has a plan for us! For somebody to
try and tell me that I am an offense to God is extremely insulting! then, for
people to pass laws that restrict us from living our lives the way we believe is
absurd! Come on! There is no need for God to be offended by my life! I have
lived a good life and shared it with my partner and it is so offensive that
others feel a need to degrade my life! To hide behind God while doing these
things is. well, pathetic!
2. Most attorneys general have actually refused to defend state laws against
same-sex marriage, and all federal judges who have heard cases have declared
such laws unconstitutional. With the 10th Circuit ruling yesterday, we have an
appeals court now in agreement.3. There is no way that SCOTUS will
let the states have their own way on this issue. Wildly different marriage laws
from state to state would not only be unjust, but affect other important issues
like interstate commerce indirectly. That is why the 2004 ruling in MA was so
important. 4. The makeup of the Court seems to suggest that the
Justices will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor,
Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote that way, and we have every reason that Kennedy
will do so as well. He is already known for opinions that respect
"dignity," and this case would cement that legacy as the capstone of his
1. The result of Roe v. Wade and the ensuing culture war about abortion is
relevant, but not a slam dunk. SCOTUS was way out in front of public opinion and
that is what sparked the backlash we're still dealing with today. In the case of same-sex marriage, no such backlash would occur because a
ruling that says banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional would not be
premature, but rather would reflect the opinion of the majority.
Dear Deseret News and friends. Living in the denial step of the grieving process
for a long time can be very stunting. We suggest you seek therapy. Marriage
equality is coming.
What culture war is he referring too? Did he start one?
@ Redshirt: You need to re-read the Constitution. Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."The 9th Amendment talks about
rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution - such as marriage - and
very clearly states that those rights are retained by the people. Starting with
Maynard v. Hill in 1888, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that marriage
is one of the unenumerated rights retained by the people. The
same-sex marriage rulings affirm that this right exists and cannot be limited
based on gender.The 10th Amendment gives states and the people the
power to create and define laws - as long as the states and/or the people are
not doing things delegated to the Federal government - such as declaring war or
creating treaties with foreign powers - or prohibited by the Constitution - such
as violating the 14th Amendment."Rights" and
"powers" are very different words with very specific meanings.
@redshirt So I don't understand your point. Are you agreeing with
their arguments that neither guns or weapons are actually enumerated in the
second amendment? The only thing you are doing is proving there point for them.
To "USU-Logan" Prove it, where has a judge said that marriage is a
constitutional right. You are the first liberal to say that it is a
constitutional right. Please give me a verifiable reference so that I can see
the context of it.I have searched the constitution, and nowhere does
the constitution say anything about marriage.According to a legal
dictionary constitutional rights are "rights given or reserved to the people
by the U. S. Constitution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights (first ten
amendments)." Tell me where the right to marry is written in the US
constitution. Until you can find that clause in the constitution, you should
hold off on responding.
@RedShirtYou want to go literally when it comes to marriage.But when it comes to 10th Amendment, suddenly, you don't want to go
literally, you no longer are consistent, "Anything not listed is up to the
States or People to decide"? Even though the 10th amendment clearly stated
"...NOR PROHIBITED by it to the States,...". You don’t
want to go literally this time because you know that part will fail your
argument that state can ban SSM, which has been rejected in 22 court decisions
since Windsor, so you would rather ignore this part of constitution, how
consistent!Whether marriage is mentioned in the text or not, SCOTUS
has affirmed marriage is a constitutional right for 14 times, I take it as
SCOTUS said. Simply because you don't like it cannot change the fact. And
like I said, post Windsor, there are 22 consecutive court rulings favor SSM, 22
straight wins, your side? Zero. DN only allows 4 post each ID, and I
reached the limit. I know you have many usernames to go on, if you find one
court ruling favors your side lately, I will get a new username and continue
discuss with you. Until then, Bye.
To "USU-Logan" you are confusing. First you claim that marriage is not
in the US Constitution, which I agree with. Now you say it is, but not
directly. Inconsistency is defined as "lacking in harmony between the
different parts or elements; self-contradictory". I say marriage is not
found in the Constitution, and you agree that the word marriage is not written
there. Now you say it is in the constitution in the 14th Ammendment, but it
isn't written their either but is implied.You do realize that
for something to be considered a Constitutional Right, it must be directly named
within the Constitution. Anything else is a state or right of the people, per
the US constitution. Marriage rights are, as the SCOTUS has pointed out, a
STATE right to regulate. This is where the rulings get weird. The states can
decide how to regulate marriage, but they have to regulate it in a way that the
Feds agree with.Please be consistent in defining Constitution
Right.You, with no law background, assume that just because a person
is a judge they have extraordinary credentials. That is wrong. Many are judges
because of political connections, not skill.
@RedShirtWhat is the inconsistency? you want to go
literally when it comes to marriage, but when it comes to 10th Amendment, you no
longer want to read the constitution literally, you want to go expansively,
claiming "Anything not listed is up to the States or People to decide."
Even though the 10th amendment clearly stated “The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED by it to the
States,..." which does not allow states to pass law or referendum that is
against other parts of federal constitution, i.e. equal protection and equal
liberty clause of 14th and 5th amendment. But that part of the constitution text
means nothing to you. because all the sudden, you don't want to go
literally, how consistent! Read the 10th circuit decision:"We hold that the 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry,
establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a
state’s marital laws....." And you apparently believe
these highly regarded judges with extraordinary credentials are wrong, while
you, with no legal credential, are right about constitution. I wonder what is
To "USU-Logan" waht is inconsistent? Being able to defend yourself is
written in the constitution in the 2nd Ammendment. I don't see the word
"marriage" anywhere in the US Constitution. Since marriage is not in
the constitution that means that it is NOT a constitutional right. The Supreme
Court has also said that marriage is not a Constitutional Right, but is a state
issue.The judges are just being politically correct, and are not
ruling based on the Constitution. They just use the constitution to justify
their beliefs. It wasn't politically correct 10 years ago to support SSM,
that is why it failed in the 1990's.To "Kalindra" and
"Schnee" here is the text from the Constitution. It states "A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There are 2
rights being listed here. First, we are entitled to a militia to ensure our
freedom. Second, we are given the right to keep and bear Arms. Militias
are/were government entities, and that is why the right was given to the people
(you and me) to own and carry weapons.
@RedShirYour way of constitutional interpretation is very
interesting. When it comes to gun, you prefer to read the 2nd amendment
expansively, the term "keep arms" in constitution and your "weapon
ownership" are interchangeable. But when it comes to marriage,
all the sudden, you prefer to read constitution literally, since there is no
word “marriage” in text, marriage is not a constitutional right. Can you be more consistent?And when it comes to 10th
amendment, yet again, you no longer want to read the constitution literally, you
want to go expansively, claiming "Anything not listed is up to the States or
People to decide." Even though the 10th amendment clearly stated "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED by
it to the States,..." which does not allow states to pass law or referendum
that is against other parts of federal constitution, i.e. equal protection and
equal liberty clause of 14th and 5th amendment. And that is exactly why so many
federal judges struck down anti-gay marriage referendum.And BTW that
term "so many federal judges" now include 10th circuit appeal judges,
who just overturned Amendment 3.
@RedshirtcaltechPretty sure the Founders didn't write half a sentence
We all make up this world! I think that it is really sad that so many people
choose to mock what we have to say about ourselves! Tell me, why do people feel
such a need to control and dominate the lives of gay people in a way that
demeans and degrades us? By now, it is common knowledge that being gay is not
something a person chooses and it is not a disease! I thank God every day that I
was born into a family that loves and supports me, which is how it truly should
be! Whatever happens with same sex marriage, we certainly don't have to
accept beliefs that make us out to be nothing but garbage in the eyes of many!
The message is pretty clear! I don't like being rude, but there is nothing
nice about the way we get treated! I do my best to respect the beliefs of
others, but I will not accept beliefs that make me out to be something like a
disease! Excuse me, but my God knows me and He created me and He would respect
the choices I have made! Too bad that others do not!
@redshirt Once again it the second amendment says nothing about
weapons and certainly does not enumerate guns a being among them. You are as
entitled to own a butter knife as anyone after all we all have the same rights
and protections to do so.
To "Schnee" no, the arms are not for a well regulated militia. The
statement that you have the right to bear arms is a separate clause from militia
within that sentence. So, if you understand engligh grammar rules, that means
that the right to bear arms is separate from a militia.
@wrz"it will open the door for all other conceivable combinations of
marriages such as polygamy, polyandry, siblings, father/daughter, mother/son,
cousins, children."Would you accuse interracial marriage of
having that effect, or do you just use this against same-sex couples?"why marry at all?"If you can't answer that question
yourself then I think marriage has far worse problems than same-sex couples."If the courts rule in favor of SSM it will be interesting to see
how they arrive at that decision. "They could just do what they
did with interracial marriage.@Baccus0902"If you believe
in democracy you wouldn't put the rights of other individuals in the
ballot!"Actually, if you believe in democracy, you can. However,
if you believe in a Constitutional Republic, you wouldn't. @Redshirt" However, since it stated to keep arms, that means that
you retain ownership of arms."For a well-regulated militia. Are
you part of the armed forces? National guard? Personally I think gun owners
should be first in line if there's a draft because of the 2nd Amendment
(besides, they're the people who know how to use guns).
It would sure have been nice if the founding fathers included a few basic rights
for children when they wrote the constitution. Those we don't kill off
before birth go to broken or alternative lifestyle homes. Welcome to the U.S.A.
Meckofahess writes, " Children growing up in gay homes notice that their
family structure is different from the majority of families and this raises
serious questions and doubts for them."Who told you about these
"serious questions and doubts?The majority of children are NOT
growing up with June & Ward Cleaver. There are families with stepkids,
families with no kids, grandparents raising kids, single moms and single dads,
each with kids. Then there are families with two moms or two dads, and some
have kids and some don't. Then there are foster homes and group homes and
homes with adopted kids. And families with his, hers, and ours. And families
where both spouses work and families with disabled parents. And three
generation families. Some of these families raise happy and confident kids, and
some mess up badly. The gay parents I know teach their kids that
they can grow up to be anything they want and they can love whomever they
choose. It sounds like this bothers you.
Meckofahess"I personally favor some type of a state recognized
"same-sex partnership" which includes equality in typical benefits
(taxation, inheritance, etc) but which also recognizes a legal definition
difference between a same-sex partnership and a man-woman marriage."KJKThat same logic was used when the South had separate drinking
fountains for Blacks and Whites. The law gave both races the same cold clear
water (government benefits) "but which also recognize(d) a legal definition
difference between" them.MeckofahessToo many gay
relationships end up in separation and any children adopted into those
circumstances must suffer the consequences. Children growing up in gay homes
notice that their family structure is different from the majority of families
and this raises serious questions and doubts for them. Children adopted into gay
households most often don't share in the same-sex attraction which again
causes them to have doubts about that lifestyle and results in confusion for
them.KJKGiving gays marriage would discourage separation as it does
with straight couples. Mixed race/religion/step families are likewise different
than most. Should those too be outlawed?
Ah oh!Another marriage equality domino has just fallen. The 9th Circuit Court has --rejected-- the sua sponte call for an en banc
rehearing in the SmithKlein v. Abbott Labs case, thus allowing the original
3-panel decision to stand. (SmithKlein ... is a jury selection case involving a
potential juror, who is gay). This latest event is somewhat
complicated and obscure, but has very real implications for the federalism
argument made by Drew Clark in this opinion piece. -- Heightened scrutiny at the
circuit court level for LGBT people, throws all kinds of monkey wrenches into
the scenario Mr. Clark imagines. Keep in mind, this case pertains to the 9th
circuit, not the 10th -- but this does NOT help Mr. Clark's arguments. Dissenting in the rejection of the en banc rehearing were justices
O’Scannlain, Bea and Bybee -- first two Catholic, Bybee, Latter-day Saint.
Logical extension of one of the arguments against gay marriage: It's not
in the Constitution. Well neither is traditional marriage, so following your
logic, a state could ban all marriages.
To "Darrel" the power of the State and People are not unlimited. They
are limited by the US constitution and State constitution.A state
could not institute a ban on interracial marriage because that clearly goes
against the 14th Ammendment. Yes, Alabama was right in refusing to go along
with segregation.Some states could leave the Union, however, I think
most have a clause similar to Utah which says that that Utah is part of the US.
Utah Constitution Article I, Section 3. Without changing the Utah constitution
they cannot leave the union. There are good arguments on both sides for
individual states being able to establish an official religion. I haven't
decided which one makes the most sense to me.A state could set up a
board to determine what profession each child should have. I doubt any would do
@RedShirtSo are the powers of the State and People otherwise
unlimited? Could a State, for example, go against Loving v Virginia and
re-institute a ban on interracial marriage? Was Alabama right in refusing to go
along with Segregation in schools (after all, education is a State matter)Can a State leave the Union? After all, it is not prohibited in the
Constitution. Can a State setup a State religion, or ban it all together?
After all, the First Amendment only prohibits Congress.Can a State
setup a board that determines what profession each child shall learn?
To "Darrel" yes, according to the US constitution if the right is not
listed within it, it is up to the state and people to decide. If they want to
do away with a right they can.To "Kalindra" now you are
being silly. A butter knife is not considered a weapon. If we followed the
constitution strictly there would be no limit to what I could have as a
weapon.Gays are equally protected under the marriage laws that say
marriage is between a man and a woman. None of the laws state that to be
married you must love the other person, they only state that a marriage is
between a man and a woman. Sexual orientation is not taken into account when a
man and woman are married. They are granted equal protection as they are not
questioned about their sexual orientation nor are they denied marriage to a
person of the opposite gender because of their sexual orientation.
Light and LibertySt. George/Washington, UTHere is the crux of the
issue. It is wrong (just as slavery was wrong). ======= Dude, enough with the Slavery issue already.You have it 180
degrees completely backwards.Slavery was about a Majority, dictating that a minority were lesser Humans, and therfore not equal or
protected the same under the law.The Progressive Abraham Lincoln and
others passed the 14th Amendment and said they are.
@Light and LibertyCall it another name, for Marriage is only between
a man and a women and can not be changed!==============If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck.Or
as Shakespeare so eloquently stated "What's in a name? Would a rose by
any other name smell just as sweet?"Besides, wouldn't a
different name create a kind of "caste system" for marriages? Could all
rights be guaranteed if it were something else? And for these
people, there relationships are just as special to them as mine with my wife is
to me. Who am I to say they can't say they are "married?" Why
don't we give them "marriage" and if you feel offended by sharing
the word, call yours something different?Marriage has always changed
to suit the times...at times it was man and several women; at times it involved
concubines; at times wives were property; at others they could give hand maidens
to their husbands. But ultimately it has always been the ultimate commitment a
couple could make.
Mr. Clark misses the point entirely. The United States Supreme Court will
decide how the United States Constitutional principle of equality will be
applied to all people in all states. We are still the United States of
America.Equality is not a principle that can be
"compromised" and mean 50 different things among the states.And Amendment 3 was anything but a "compromise."
Here is the crux of the issue. It is wrong (just as slavery was wrong). The
SSM advocates want to overturn thousands of years of tradition and protections
for society and children in one fail swoop, all because they want to change the
meaning of one word. I am not against granting gays all the rights that every
other citizen enjoys, just don't claim it is marriage. Call it another
name, for Marriage is only between a man and a women and can not be changed! As
far as being wrong, which it is, and blatantly so, the division and contention
will only get wider and stronger because, just as slavery, conscience is a hard
thing to sqealch on a societal level. Individually, it can be, as evidenced by
slave owners in the south who wanted it to continue. Societal level brought
eventually to the breaking point and it was eventually eradicated, thank God!
higvDietrich, ID"@10cc The right to keep and bear arms is in the
constitution the right to marry someone of the same gender isn't. Laws on
woman's suffrage, against segregation were made by the legislature, roe vs
wade and judges overturning the will of the people are based on things not found
in constitution. Equal protection never did or will give people of same gender
right to marry. Why are they just now finding that out a century and a half
after amendment was passed?"--OK, then: the Supreme Court is not
meant to rule for the basic fairness intended in the Bill of Rights?--In my view, the issue behind opinions such as yours and others is that they
are diversions, to shield one's religion from having to notice that their
own children are being damaged.
@light and liberty So you are equating those fighting to end the
oppression of the gay community who are being forced to live as second class
citizens with those that supported slavery and segregation, while equating those
that are the oppressors with being the slaves and those forced into segregation?
The only thing the religions that appose gay marriage are being "forced"
to do is not force others to live by thier religious dictates. They can believe
gay marriage is a sin that is thier choice they do not however get to force
others to live as second class citizens because of those beliefs.
@Light and Liberty,Who is advocating the reinstatement of
slavery?It's arguments like that that make your other arguments
seem silly. Slavery causes an obvious infringement on the rights of others (the
right to Liberty) and almost universally Dred Scott is regarded as the biggest
mistake the Supreme Court has made.On a religious level, I fully
agree with you; however in a legal realm, where laws must be secular for us to
enjoy religious freedom, no harm can be shown to you, your marriage, or your
kids if your gay neighbor can marry the man of his dreams.If you can
show demonstrable harm, you need to race on down to the AG office, because all
of them are getting their tails kicked (something like 19-0 since Windsor)
RedShirt says: "See the 10th ammendment for what to do about rights not
listed in the Constitution. Anything not listed is up to the States or People to
decide."EXCEPT you forgot to read this phrase which contradicts
what you just wrote:"...nor prohibited by it to the
States,...". This little phrase effectively PREVENTS States from violating
other clauses in the US Constitution; including the 14th, 5th and all others.
States absolutely do not have the right to violate the Equal Protection
clause.@Kalindra;Actually, the appendages from his
shoulders to his wrists would qualify as "bear arms". :)
For all those who want to defend something wrong(think slavery), it doesn't
matter how long or how hard you defend it, it is still wrong. it doesn't
matter whether the courts rule in your favor(think Dred Scott), the travesty and
division that it causes (as the nation's conscience can not be squelched)
will inevitable lead to its eradication (either civil war or God's wrath or
an emancipation from its destructive effect on God's children).
Compulsion to do make legal(think slavery) is no justification for the 10th or
the 14th amendment! What do the SSM supporters suppose they are to do wth those
who know that Marriage is between a man and a women and that children who come
to this earth deserve a chance to live under God's greatest instrument for
their opportunity and growth?
To both wrz and MikeBoth of you failed, and failed miserably, in
your response to me. Nothing you posted even remotely approached something that
looked like a list. Furthermore, nothing you said was backed up by actual
evidence from nations that legalized same sex marriage several years ago. I
asked for actual evidence and neither one of you could come up with so much as a
single point. wrz could you please provide me with actual evidence
from one of the nations where same sex marriage is legal and the things you have
mentioned have become a reality?As for you Mike the burden is in
fact not on me but on you. Unlike you I've actually studied history and
I've seen where homosexuality was an important part of some cultures that
not only thrived but lasted longer than the U.S. has been in existence so far.
Given these facts the burden is on you not only to provide actual evidence of
your claims but also to provide that the deity you worship is actually exists
let alone actually means anything. As of now your deity is worthless.
@redshirtIf you want to play semantic games I could just as easily hand
you a butter knife and say, "there you have your arms and therefore your
rights are not being violated, after all the second amendment does not say I
have to allow you to own a gun." silly you say? no more so then claiming
that gay peoples rights are not being violated by claiming they have equal
protections and access to marriage because they can marry someone of the
opposite sex and therefore the ninth and fourteenth amendments do not apply.
@RedshirtSo if by your account there are rights we posses not listed
in the Constitution, can we vote then away? Can I put your marriage on a
ballot, or your right to pursue happiness? Create a special officer at the
State level that gets to determine how you seek happiness?
To "my_two_cents_worth" I don't like the idea of "implied"
rights becuase that comes down to opinion that can change from year to year.To "MaxPower" I don't see any problem with that. All it is
saying is that not all rights were listed in the Constitution, and that you
can't twist the constitution to deny somebody rights that are retained by
the people. That is why we have the 10th Ammendment, so that we know what to do
with the rights that are retained by the people. The 9th Ammendment has never
been part of the question with SSM.
@RedShirtSo...how does the Ninth Amendment play into your thinking?
It specifically states that not every right is enumerated, and the enumeration
of rights cannot be construed to be exhaustive.This nation was
founded on the rights of "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness"
and John Locke (not a framer, but it was his ideas that influenced the Social
Contract known as the Constitution) included the Right to Property. Governments
role is to protect those 4 rights, in exchange for some of our Rights (generally
Rights that when exercised to their fullest would violate one or more of the
rights listed above for someone else) otherwise our ability to engage in said
activity should be protected (like choosing the partner of my choice)Actually, reading Article I (assuming that is what you meant by Section I)
there would be no restriction on Congress from implementing a communistic
economic model (important to separate economic model from the political model)
would you please cite for me at least one provision that would be violated?
@Red Shirt.The constitution does not state that the people have a
right to own weapons. The right to "keep and bear arms" is subject to
many interpretations one of which could be "own weapons." But since
"ownership" like "marriage" is not specifically stated, using
your argument, we cannot assume either are rights. You can't
have it both ways: either ALL of the constitution is literal or All of it
includes implied rights not specified.
To "my_two_cents_worth" wow, you really need to go back to grammar
school. To "keep and bear arms" means to own weapons. The 2nd
Ammendment states that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed." The word keep means "to retain in one's
possession or power" or "to continue having or holding" If it was
only a matter of being able to use government issued weapons, then it would only
state that you can bear arms. However, since it stated to keep arms, that means
that you retain ownership of arms.Please go back and re-read the US
Constitution.To "MaxPower" very good. You do not have a
federally protected right to persue happiness, and that is good because how can
you define happiness? Actually, the government cannot engage in a communistic
society because it violates most of Section 1 of the Constitution.Yes, we could rescind the tax laws that gave ALL non-profit organizations tax
exempt status.See the 10th ammendment for what to do about rights
not listed in the Constitution. Anything not listed is up to the States or
People to decide.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.===== RedShirt, Please tell my what "well
regulated militia" you belong to, and "keep and bear arms"
says nothing about ownership.The Government "issued" an
M-16, and KC-135 jet to me to keep and bear.
@RedShirtThe Constitution also makes no mention of the "Right to
Pursue Happiness" so are we to assume that is not a right? It
also makes no specific reference to capitalism or the "free market" are
we to assume that the government can create a complete communistic society?It makes no reference to churchs being free from taxation...are we to
assume we can rescind that? Or can we assume there are some rights
not enumerated in the Constitution that are just as important as the ones so
listed? (See amendment IX).
@RedShirt;The Constitution is clear about the right to bear arms.
It is ALSO very clear about the right to Equal Protection.
@ RedShirt"In the first about guns, the constitution is quite
clear that the people have a right to own weapons."The
constitution makes no such declaration. It says they have the right to "keep
and bear arms"; nothing at all about "owning weapons." If you are
going to play a semantics game with the constitution to support your argument at
least have the decency to be consistent.
I have read this article a couple of times and the article seems to be a series
of wishful thinking. The author is attempting to use "federalism" as the
constitutional element that will allow Utah and other states to maintain their
stance against SSM. "State-by-state disputes will be messy. But conflicts
about fundamental values are best reconciled through politics, and through the
mediating institution of federalism".However, this concept seems
to imply the notion that the United States is the same as in 1786 when travel
was difficult and most people were born and die in the same area. The pre-amble
of the constitution ndicates that : "We the People of the United States, in
Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."If
the Constitution is the base of our laws. Then Federalism cannot be applied to
restrict the rights of citizens of this nation.
Meckofahess, I would gently suggest that you not speak for the "gay
community" (which is about as monolithic as the "straight
community"--which is to say, not at all) in your assertion of what they do
or do not like. My own marriage (which has lasted 35+ years) is considered a
"counterfeit marriage structure" by the Catholic church, since I was
divorced from my first husband. I (and, I suspect, most of the "divorced
and remarried" community) could care less what the Pope or anyone else
thinks. "That said, we will need to find some post SCOTUS
decision pathways to compromise with our gay and straight citizens."If you voted for Amendment 3, could you tell us when you changed your
mind about "compromise"?
To wrz: I accept that you sincerely believe that SSM legalization "will
open the door for all other conceivable combinations of marriages such as
polygamy, polyandry, siblings, father/daughter, mother/son, cousins, children.
The net effect being, marriage would totally disappear from society. "How soon do you think this would happen? Two months? Two years?
Twenty years? Two hundred years? How soon would we see the start of this (e.g.
lawsuits being filed to permit polygamy, etc)?"If the courts
rule in favor of SSM it will be interesting to see how they arrive at that
decision. The courts can't use federal law because there is not (since DOMA
ruling). They can't use the 14 Amendment's equal protection because
that clause applies to State law and State law says anyone can marry provided
they marry someone of the opposite sex, who is not married, of legal age, not
closely related, etc."If you believe that the justices
can't use the 14th Amendment, then I would urge you to write all justices
in the various circuit courts and tell them this, since, as we speak, dozens of
cases are headed their way.
To "10CC" your examples are flawed. In the first about guns, the
constitution is quite clear that the people have a right to own weapons. There
is nothing in the constitution about marriage. In you second example, the
Supreme Court in their majority opinion for the DOMA defense said that marriage
is a state issue and is for the state to decide. So, if California decided to
define marriage in some wacky way, that is their right.
Tolstoysalt lake, UTPlease do tell us were the compermise was in
amendment 3. Funny how all of a sudden those that are against same sex marriage
want got compermise when they are on the losing end.8:57 p.m. June
22, 2014======= Ya, They sort of remind me
of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.After finally
loosing everything -- both arms and legs in this case, Tells King Arthur
to "compromise" and call it a draw...Silly.
@wrz"I'll give it a try... it will open the door for all other
conceivable combinations of marriages such as polygamy, polyandry, siblings,
father/daughter, mother/son, cousins, children."If your argument
is so compelling, I wonder why the defendants of DOMA and Prop 8 did not use it
in court. I also wonder why state attorneys of NJ, NM, OH, UT, OK, KY, VA, IL,
TX, TN, MI, IN, AR, ID, OR, PA, did not use such argument to persuade the
judges. Is it because so-called "argument" is only a
sensational claim, but can not stand the scrutiny in the court of law and can
Mike Richards says:"The Constitution states: "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof;" "--- Amendment 3 prevents the "free
exercise thereof" by religions that believe in SSM. You're advocating
this prevention. You clearly do NOT believe in the Constitution - except when
it adheres to your own beliefs."Deity has already spoken on the
subject. "--- No it hasn't. Fictional beings do not
speak.wrz says:"They would not be married in Utah
and thus would not be eligible for any Utah benefits accorded married
folks."--- Which is in clear violation of the 14th Amendment -
Equal Protection.@Alfred;Not just state laws, any
laws.@Light and Liberty;Odin is the source of all things
good. He is the only god, yours is a pretender.
"...compromises between the rights of gays and the ability of states to make
democratic decisions governing family law."--- Drew; Is your
marriage recognized when you travel from state to state? Please provide a
*valid* reason that the marriages of LGBT citizens shouldn't be recognize
likewise."One side cannot obtain its hopes and dreams without
crushing others’ deeply held beliefs."--- Garbage and
nonsense. Legal recognition of SSM does not "crush others' deeply held
religious beliefs". "I predict it will uphold a
state’s authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman."--- I predict that you're wrong."How will
legislators protect the free exercise of religion, including the right of
businesses and educational institutions not to be coerced into supporting
..."--- Businesses DO NOT have/practice/abide-by religion.
They are NOT living, breating beings.
@Light and LibertyWait, why are we talking about Hitler? Who was
extolling the virtues of Hitler?To say without God there is no
honesty, one would have to conclude that all atheists lie 100% of the time.
That humanity is inherently incapable of any good action.I believe
God is a perfect being, and being children of that Perfect Being we are able to
achieve what He has, and have the innate ability to do good. We are also free
to choose. Who are we to take away that ability from others? Salvation cannot
be forced upon someone. We fought a War over that very issue.Unless
harm can be shown to a person, or society as a whole (and Mother nature has done
a pretty good job of making sure the vast, vast majority of man kind reproduces)
I say live and let live. We can preach what we believe God has commanded us to
preach, and that right has not, nor will be taken away. Our job is to persuade
men to come unto Christ, not force them.
"because we are talking about matters of deeply held individual liberty and
conscience...". Uhmm, No. We're talking equality."Advocates of same-sex marriage, gays and lesbians are seeking
normalcy." Again, no. Equality. We already have normalcy."Gays and lesbians say they want the legal right to express their loving
relationships". And again, no. We can express what we want now. Government
doesn't legally recognize expression."One side cannot
obtain its hopes and dreams without crushing others’ deeply held
beliefs." Nope. Equal rights doesn't preclude the anti-equality side
from keeping their beliefs. It may crush your bigoted actions, though."it’s likely that the high court will choose the path of least
contention. I predict it will uphold a state’s authority to define
marriage as between a man and a woman." What a surprise that the author came
to this conclusion! Shocking, I say!This op-ed is another desperate
attempt by DN to put lipstick on a pig (to make the anti-equality argument as
palatable to the public and courts as possible). Give it up, you've lost.
Furry, without God, there is no such thing as honesty. Is it Hitler's
honesty, Chairmen mau? Those of you who are so naive to put your trust in man
amaze me! It is history repeated all over again. if we just elect Obama, or
Bush, or Hillary, then it will be different this time, because surely power
enables my candidate! What ignorance and folly to behold! Go ahead, keep
putting your trust in man! I, and many others, know otherwise!
To Mike Richards, and the others using "God" and "God says" as
their argument -- which God?You realize that is the precise
arguement terrorsts used to justify flying jet filled with people into the Twin
Towers, Pentagon and target Washington D.C killing thousands don't you?God told them to...Like Furry1993 said -- who's God,
What God?America is not a Theocracy.And although I
"think" we worship the same God, As an American who actually
defends the Constitution, I will fight your corrputed interpreatation of
it and trampling of it.
@higv, and others who misunderstand democracy: Constitutional democracy is not
three wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. Without individual
rights, or respect for the individual as an equal, that's just mob rule, or
on a larger scale, fascism.Constitutional limitations on unwarranted
government intrusion into our private lives is what guarantees our freedom.
Without those limitations, we'd have no right to free speech, or to
religion, or to a reasonably fair trial before being fined or imprisoned. When
Theocracy gains power, as it did in our country's early colonial days,
people could be tortured and humiliated for minor infractions, like dancing or
swearing, and exiled, imprisoned or executed for whatever the Church elders
considered heresies, such as disrespecting the Church elders, or espousing a
different religion. Look up "Boston Martyrs," and "Flushing
Remonstrance" some time.The position against same-sex marriage
is essentially a theological one. In all the countries and states where
it's legal, no good scientific, social, or practical reason to ban it has
been demonstrated. All you're left with is pure, dogmatic belief, and
we're not a Theocracy, thank God.
@higvIf you believe in democracy you wouldn't put the rights of
other individuals in the ballot!
@higvIn a true democracy (not a mobacracy) the rights of the
minority cannot be placed on vote. Were that the case, could I please vote on
whether I think your marriage is valid?It wouldn't matter if
100% of the people in 100% of the States voted to restrict the rights of a
certain minority, if it violates the Constitution, and in this case it violates
Aritcle IV, Amendment 9 and 14. The courts have done their job admirably in
determining that.My religion, just 150 short years ago was subject
to Mob rule, being scuttled about from place to place. Do we really want to
return to that? because that is what "States Rights" would look like.Or are we "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and
Justice for ALL"? Especially for those with whom we disagree.
@realmaverik you don't seem to believe in democracy, if you did you would
support the majority of people in the majority of states who voted to keep
marriage between a man and a woman.
To Mike Richards, and the others using "God" and "God says" as
their argument -- which God? Before you can sustain an argument using
"God" or "Heavenly Father" as your authority, there has to be
agreement about which God's authority is being invoked and which conception
of God you are espousing. The God reverenced by LDS? Catholics? Evangelical
Protestants? Other Protestants? Quakers? And so on. And those are only some of
the Christian denominations. Add to that several iterations of Judaism. And then
there are the non-Christian faiths. Each one of these has a God who
"says" something different from other Gods on just about every subject
(including some being perfectly willing to marry same-sex couples). So tell us
-- which God are you invoking and why should those who believe in a different
concept of God accept your description of who God is and what "God says"
when they believe differently from what you preach. Feel free to preach all you
want -- just be honest and label what you say as your personal belief and not
based on fact accepted by all.
@MikeRichards 9:23 a.m. June 22, 2014There is a big difference
between religious dogma (like the positions taken on same-sex marriage) and a
physical, demonstrable law like the law of gravity. Attempting to tie the
together is not an appropriate argument to make.Denying same sex
couples the right to marry and adopt does not work to "protect
children." In fact it works a detriment to children in families whether
the parents are a same-sex couple. Allowing the marriage and adoption of the
child by the non-biologic parent would strengthen the family, stabilize the
family, and in the process strengthen and stabilize society. In fact,
Utah's Amendment 3 (and other similar laws) works to weaken family and
destabilize society.While it is totally your right, and the right of
all religious bodies, to attempt to preach and persuade on this issue (and
others), it is not appropriate to attempt to impose religious positions on a
@MikeRichards 9:23 a.m. June 22, 2014Who has the right to define
family and marriage? Churches for the records, rites and ordinances pertinent
to the church and religion. Civil authority, subject to the protections of the
US Constitution, for secular records, relationships and laws.Teaching a child "correct principles" does not necessarily mean
teaching a child religion. It means teaching the child to be honest and
honorable in his/her dealings with others. In other words, how to be a good
citizen and member of society. It is not necessary to be religious to live a
good, honest, honorable life.Religious instruction is available both
in mortality and in the post-mortal life. The child will have plenty of
opportunity to learn.Your comment about "God making a mistake
when assigning gender" once again shows that you do not know the difference
between same-sex attraction and transgerderism. A man who is gay knows very
well that he is a man and does not think that he was put into a body of the
wrong hender. He just knows that he is a man who is sexually and affectionally
attracted to men instead of women.
@Stormwalker 2:09 a.m. June 22, 2014You speak of establishing a
reciprocity system for marriage laws among the various states. Such a system
already exits. it's called the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV,
Section 1) of the US Constitution, which provides that full faith and credit
(recognition) will give given by each state to the "public acts, records and
judicial proceedings" of every other state. In other words, a marriage
(which is a public act) and the record of the marriage in one state must be
recognized in all states, and a couple married in one state is married in every
other state. That's about as reciprocal as it is possible to get.
It would be shocking to see this article on any news source but the DN or
Fox.As I keep saying, the issue is that major religions,
particularly catholic and lds, have marriage and procreation at the center of
their doctrines.--- These religions are so anxious to keep their own Gay
members and children of members from leaving the church in order to marry that
they have lost sight of what Jesus would do.The only arguments
against marriage equality:1-- "It would cause my religion major
problems, because parents will expect the church to marry all their children,
including the Gay ones"2-- "It puts my nose out of joint to
have to accommodate these people, whom I was taught to look down on, in my part
of the bus, and to have them act equal to me.Jesus Christ, as a
Living God, understands that the time has come for this equality. Churches which
do not find a way to it will continue to lose young members.
@Arizona1:"I hope the justices are as committed to the idea of
federalism as the author seems to suggest..."The situation
facing SCOTUS is: If it rules that states can define marriage (federalism),
there will be several states that allows SSM and several that won't which
will create problems where we have such a mobile society. With this thorny
situation federalism might disappear.@Mike702:"The gist of
that (Amendment 14) is that states can stop same-sex couples from marrying, if
they have a rational reason.No. The amendment says that States can
not deny equal protection of State laws.
I wish we could round up all the folks against marriage equality, science, and
want to live in some gun filled theocracy and send them to an island. There,
they could live their lives the way they want. Then, the rest of us could
finally move this country toward in a democratic way, the way the founding
@10cc The right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution the right to marry
someone of the same gender isn't. Laws on woman's suffrage, against
segregation were made by the legislature, roe vs wade and judges overturning
the will of the people are based on things not found in constitution. Equal
protection never did or will give people of same gender right to marry. Why are
they just now finding that out a century and a half after amendment was passed?
@ Mike Richards"Contrary to a previous post, there is no
"anti-establishment" clause. "Wrong."The
'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one
religion over another....No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called,
or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state
nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs
of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa." -- EVERSON v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)It's really
pretty straightforward. The state MUST remain religious neutral. It cannot use
the majority religion to deny equal protection to ANY of its citizens and when
it does the constitutional remedy is the courts.
so on the eve of their defeat the uncompromising oppressors for the past two
decades want the soon to be liberated oppressed to compromise and wait until the
oppressors are ready to let them go free?
In the SSM debate let's not let the best be the enemy of the good. I think
the traditional dad-mom-kids-heterosexual home is the best environment in which
to raise children. I say that because that is what I have experienced. But
there is a lot of ruin in traditional marriages.Are the kids in a
ruined hetero marriage better off that those in a committed same sex one? I
believe SSM marriages can be good for children. I don't know, but I think
such arrangements can be good. We have many solid citizens saying so. So
let's not have the best be the enemy of the good.Everyone needs
a family, including gays and lesbians. Life is intolerable without a family.
That's why so many want SSM, because they are being denied families in
states like Utah.Also, the limbo some SSM's are in due to the
Utah appeal is cruelty personified.Let's try to be kind to each
What kind of negotiation are we talking about, exactly?When even
civil unions options were killed in legislation. Also, what is
wrong with making someone want "normalcy." We are saying what... that
un-normalcy is the best and only option?
From Amendment XIV: 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.The gist of that is that states can stop same-sex couples from
marrying, if they have a rational reason.States that have failed to
come up with a rational reason, so far: Oregon ... California ... Idaho ... Utah
... New Mexico ... Oklahoma ... Texas ... Arkansas ... Iowa ... Wisconsin ...
Michigan ... Ohio ... Kentucky ... Tennessee ... Virginia ... Pennsylvania ...
New Jersey ...States that have succeeded in presenting a rational
reason, so far: .
Mike Richards You said; Who has the "right" to define family? Who has
the "right" to define marriage? And I agree with you!!! You don't have the right, and neither does any religion because all of
them define it in different ways. I'm sure you know our Church's
history where marriage was defined quite differently than monogamy. Citizens of this country are entitled to their constitutional rights without
your definition of what is right or wrong. Religion has no place in our legal
system, nor should religion be used to deny citizens their rightful civil
I hope the author's right, but I don't have that kind of confidence in
the Supreme Court. I hope the justices are as committed to the idea of
federalism as the author seems to suggest, but I think that all too often these
days even the Supreme Court lets personal and public opinions override the
principles of federalism.
An assertion was made that "When gay people can legally marry, their
families are strengthened and protected. Their children are better off. Society
is better off". Conservative traditionalists couldn't
disagree more with that assertion!. Children are better off and society is
better off within the structure of a man-woman marriage and naturally born
children who are nurtured within the traditional marriage structure. Too many
gay relationships end up in separation and any children adopted into those
circumstances must suffer the consequences. Children growing up in gay homes
notice that their family structure is different from the majority of families
and this raises serious questions and doubts for them. Children adopted into gay
households most often don't share in the same-sex attraction which again
causes them to have doubts about that lifestyle and results in confusion for
Please do tell us were the compermise was in amendment 3. Funny how all of a
sudden those that are against same sex marriage want got compermise when they
are on the losing end.
I applaud this well thought out editorial. I have asserted in my own terms the
idea that "Moral and religious views don't abide by U.S. Supreme Court
decisions". The gay community doesn't like the idea that many millions
of Americans will never accept their definition of morality or the counterfeit
"marriage structures" they participate in. That said, we will need to
find some post SCOTUS decision pathways to compromise with our gay and straight
citizens. I personally favor some type of a state recognized "same-sex
partnership" which includes equality in typical benefits (taxation,
inheritance, etc) but which also recognizes a legal definition difference
between a same-sex partnership and a man-woman marriage. However, it is an
illusion to believe that the two sides will ever totally come together in terms
of moral and religious views on this subject. We will need to find ways to
simply disagree agreeably as the old cliché says.
@Stormwalker ,The Cornell Law website is not the Constitution. If
you think otherwise, look at all the university websites that told us that
citizens outside of a militia could not own firearms. The Supreme Court set
them straight and the Constitution was interpreted just as it reads.Congress cannot legislate doctrine to an established religion. IF Congress
were to establish a religion, it could not legislate doctrines for that
religion. Secular humanism is a religion to many. Under the 1st Amendment,
Congress cannot legislate secular humanism "doctrine" without violating
the 1st Amendment. It does not mention the necessity of a religion with God at
its center. It only speaks of "an establishment of religion". @Wraith,The burden is on you. Deity has already spoken on
the subject. God told the world that marriage is between a man and a woman and
that sex outside of marriage is forbidden. You will need to justify your idea
that same-sex marriage is at least as good for children as traditional marriage.
If it is not at least as good, your argument fails.
" I predict it will uphold a state’s authority to define marriage as
between a man and a woman."- I predict that the author of this
article is right!
SSM advocates are arguing the same way that the Southern states argued for
slavery. The southern pride, and to a lesser extent northern pride, prevented
them from recognizing the evil of slavery, until one Abraham Lincoln moved in
God's direction to emancipate the evil! State's rights in this
instance would not trump that which is evil. Federal laws to the contrary, SSM
is wrong and those who favor it will find themselves not only on the wrong side
of history, but on the wrong side with God!
@The Wraith:"Mike could you please provide us with a detailed list of
the harm same sex marriage causes in society."I'll give it
a try... it will open the door for all other conceivable combinations of
marriages such as polygamy, polyandry, siblings, father/daughter, mother/son,
cousins, children. The net effect being, marriage would totally disappear from
society. Anybody could 'marry' anybody or anything. So, why marry at
all?And if only SSM were approved, of all the possible combinations,
the courts would have introduced discrimination against almost all of
man/womankind who desired other than the standard or SS marriage. I don't
think the courts wanna be caught in that net.If the courts rule in
favor of SSM it will be interesting to see how they arrive at that decision.
The courts can't use federal law because there is not (since DOMA ruling).
They can't use the 14 Amendment's equal protection because that clause
applies to State law and State law says anyone can marry provided they marry
someone of the opposite sex, who is not married, of legal age, not closely
I missed that part were those that were against same sex marriage wanted to
compermise. That word did not exist in their lexicon investigative team —
consisting of two homicide detectives from the Salt Lake Police Department, two
homicide detectives from the West Valley Police Department, a detective from the
Unified Police Department, and three prosecutors from the district
attorney's offi until they realized the tide had turned against them and
same sex marriage became virtually assured.
@Mike RichardsCornell Law website: "This clause not only forbids
the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits
government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also
prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or
non-religion over religion."I'm not sure where you get your
interpretation. Congress cannot start a religion, Congress cannot prefer one
religion over another. Under the Constitution Mormons, Southern Baptist,
Catholics, Wiccans, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists all have the same
standing. No group gets preference. No group is more, or less, right. When looking at some of the statements on these pages, part of the intent is
to keep any group from taking over and trying to establish theocracy instead of
the rule of law in a constitutional republic. As to the quote above,
I can find quotes exactly like that from leaders of any monotheistic religion or
denomination. In fact there is currently a Civil War going on in Iraq because
members of one sect don't "dance" to the right "divine
music." Their belief, and actions, are based on feelings. Just like yours.
That "minority of states" you wish to dismiss as somehow insignificant,
now is home to 44% of the U.S. Population. That's a large minority.One of the reasons the religious battle to ban marriage equality is
losing is that as more and more of us work in technical fields requiring logical
thought, we've learned to think for ourselves. You say
marriage is only for procreation, but we see all sorts of examples where it
isn't. You say it's a religious tradition, but we have instant access
to historical facts, and can see that's not true. You say children will be
hurt by allowing gays or lesbians to marry each other, but we see families that
already have children, and their parents are forced to be legal strangers to
each other and their children by your marriage bans.You can't
prove to us falseness is true, much less eternal truth, just because you insist
it's so. We can see where truth, and justice, and logical common sense,
Mike could you please provide us with a detailed list of the harm same sex
marriage causes in society. I have now asked for such a list several times and
yet no list has ever been provided. Please remember that same sex marriage has
been legal in some nations for over a decade so any harm you list must be backed
up by evidence of said harm in one of those nations. If it feels like I keep
repeating myself with this request it's because I am. I have asked for such
a list in many past threads and yet not a single list has ever been provided.
One would think that the anti equality side is more than willing to say it will
cause harm but have no actual information to back that statement up. One might
be brought to conclude that in nations where same sex marriage has been legal
for many years no harm has been experienced.
@Hutterite:"How well will it work when someone married in one state is
treated differently when in another?"How would it work if a
doctor, CPA, or other professional licensed to conduct business in one state,
moved to another and his/her practice had to be terminated due state licensing
laws?You say, well, just get a license in the new state. But, what
if they can't qualify in the new state? Their profession is toast.@Wonder""...what would happen if a (same-sex) couple moved
from Massachusetts to Utah? Would they be married or not?"They
would not be married in Utah and thus would not be eligible for any Utah
benefits accorded married folks. They would, however, be eligible for all
federal benefits accorded married folks... per SCOTUS ruling on DOMA.@Tiago:"Why? Does the constitution also allow a state to prohibit
these marriages?"Here's some more who can't marry to
add to your list after 'couple of the same gender.'-
Polygamists (one man, several women)- Polyandrists (one woman, several
men)- First cousins- Siblings (Brother/sister)-
Father/daughter- Mother/son- Child/child- Child/adult-
Let's look at a quote by Gerald N. Lund:"Those who do not
believe in a God who watches over His children and cares for them will openly
scoff at such a notion. That is all right. As a popular saying notes,
'Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not
hear the music'. Those who believe that God lives and is a loving Heavenly
Father hear a music that others do not."Many of us
"hear" the music. We KNOW why we are on earth. We KNOW that children
are "an heritage of the Lord". We KNOW that we must teach those
children correct principles and not try to influence them to abandon love of or
faith in God.-----The Constitution states: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof;" Contrary to a previous post, there is no
"anti-establishment" clause. "An establishment of religion"
refers to an already existing religion. If Congress "established" a
religion, including a humanistic religion, it would be powerless to write
doctrine for that religion.
@Mike RichardsHere is a list off the top of my head of
"non-traditional" families the majority of Utah voters might think are
not legitimate, not optimal, or won't teach correct principles. Some of
these make me worry too, but all of them are legally able to marry except the
last one. Why? Does the constitution also allow a state to prohibit these
marriages?- Parents not married in the temple- Parents who are
atheists or have beliefs different than the dominant local religion-
Parents without basic education- Parents with physical disabilities that
prevent reproduction, taking care of children, or employment.- Parents who
abuse children- Parent who are in prison- Parents who don't
believe in western medicine- Couples that are not faithful to each
other- Couples with a huge age disparity between partners- Couple
from different ethnic or cultural background- Couple of the same gender
@Mike RichardsYou seem confused. We live in a Constitutional
Republic, not a theocracy. We live under laws, not religious leaders claiming
"god said..."We have a specific Amendment that says
government is not allowed to set up or endorse a state religion, which means
that religious teaching cannot be mandated by government because a religious
leader proclaims "god said..." We have elected leaders who pass laws,
and a court system that ensures the laws are Constitutional. Iraq
is a situation where the religious want to enforce their teachings, and justify
their extreme violence because they believe "god said." I
understand that you believe your religious teachings are the same as scientific
principles, like gravity. Sadly, they are not. Gravity can be proven with
independent and replicatable testing. Religion is based on "feelings."
While you are welcome to have your feelings and teach them to your
children in your home, the Constitution says you cannot force others live
according to your feelings. Besides, Mormons are 2% of the US
population. In the theocracy you envision, do you think your religion would be
allowed to exist?
I get what the writer is saying - since neither side can compromise the only
possible "compromise" is through Federalism. Message received.The question of what is best for children in the SSM debate weighs heavily on
me. I confess I don't know for sure. I think I'll leave that
question to those better informed that I.
I think you're wrong, Drew Clark. Under your scenario, what would happen
if a couple moved from Massachusetts to Utah? Would they be married or not?
What if a Utah couple traveled to Massachusetts and got married and then
returned home. Would they be married? What would happen if a legally married
same sex couple was on vacation in Utah and one of the spouses was critically
injured. Would the hospital treat the spouse as next of kin or would they
require the injured spouses' parents or other next of kin to give consent
to treatment. In addition to these complications of having different laws all
over the United States, the more important thing to think about is why you think
it is acceptable that some citizens of our country are treated differently from
other citizens. Don't bother with the slippery slope arguments about
people marrying dogs, cats, trees, and kids. Dogs, cats, trees, and kids cannot
enter into contracts.
The more obvious it becomes that gay marriage will become legal, the more shrill
and desperate these opinion pieces will become. And does anybody at the DN
catch the deep irony of hoping for "compromise" after cheerleading
It seems opponents of marriage equality are scrambling. In state after state
judges are striking down their SSM bans. Even Governor Herbert has belatedly
suggested civil unions as a solution. It is a little late for that as Amendment
3 also banned those. A state has a right to "define" marriage, but
limiting it in the way they do is more than defining. It is legislating. And
Drew did not mention another problem. SSMs in states where it is legal, are
invalidated when the couple move to a state which does not recognize it. What is
your "compromise" there?
@ Mike Richards "States have the right to protect children. " I
absolutely agree, and the needs of children are even more important than the
needs of marital partners.@ gmlewis "How do we know that
America in the 80's wouldn't have come around [on Jim Crow] on their
own?" We don't know, but the history is what it is - the Federal
government took action when the states did not.
If you had ever traveled or lived in the south Marxist, you would have your
answer. I have done both and I have no doubt that Jim Crow would be alive and
well in the south today.
@Marxist - You used Jim Crow laws as an example, and stated that they would
still be in force if the federal government had not intervened.I
don't think anyone knows for sure how public attitudes can change. Slavery
was rampant for over a century in Brazil, but in the 19th Century people
demanded it to be abolished. They didn't need a civil war. The legislature
just voted it in.How do we know that America in the 80's
wouldn't have come around on their own?
Who has the "right" to define family? Who has the "right" to
define marriage? Who has the right to decide whether changing those definitions
will harm children who are raised in non-traditional "families"?Some people are suggesting that they have the right to redefine family
and marriage. They assert that no harm is being done. Are they sure? What
happens to society when a child is not taught correct principles? What happens
to society when that child is not taught about his Father in Heaven or of
absolute laws? What happens to society when a child is told that God makes
mistakes when He assigns gender?Would people be correct if they said
that gravity is not an absolute law pertaining to us as we live on earth? Would
they tell a child that 2% of the population could jump off a cliff and not be
harmed when gravity pulled them to their destruction at the foot of that
cliff?States have the right to protect children. Utah is looking
out for the welfare of children by upholding the absolute definition of
"Those who believe that a child deserves a mother and a father and that it
would be wrong for the government to impose gay marriage..."Is
anyone being forced into same-sex marriages? No? Then no one is
being imposed upon.
The flagrant hypocrisy by conservatives on the marriage issue is best
illustrated by example:-What if a state, lets say Massachusetts,
decided to outlaw private ownership of guns, by both a popular vote of the
electorate and by legislation. Conservatives would be eagerly awaiting the
trump card of the Supreme Court to restore the right to bear arms over the top
of state sovereignty.-If the Supreme Court indicated marriage is a
state issue, period, and some Californians decided to put another Proposition
about marriage on the state ballot today, conservatives would be screaming and
wailing, because they know if Prop 8 were on the ballot again, it would probably
not pass, and a new Proposition affirming gay marriage would almost certainly
win.Conservatives have suddenly become champions of democracy, when
there are innumerable instances in the past where they emphasized that we have a
Republic, where the mob rule of democracy should be resisted.
Not so. This is about equality before the law. Gays are asking for the same
rights that are enjoyed by all other citizens. States like Utah are asking to be
allowed to continue to discriminate. Gays can demonstrate that they have
suffered harm at the hands of the state. Nobody, and nothing suffers harm if
I've started to save opinion pieces and articles like this that predict a
SCOTUS ruling against equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. I save them
because, in my view, they are so quickly going to be proven wrong and I want to
be able to compare the reality with the wishful thinking that still existed in
some quarters, even at this late date.Unlike public opinion on the
abortion issue, which has remained remarkably stable over the last few decades,
public opinion on this issue has shifted dramatically in the last decade. More
and more people, even religious people, just don't see a problem with
embracing the full humanity of gay people and according the relationships of
neighbors, family members and friends, equal dignity and respect.
The public debate over same sex marriage has been going on for twenty years and
the author of this editorial still doesn't understand what same sex couples
want.He wrote: "Gays and lesbians say they want the legal right
to express their loving relationships through government recognition of their
unions." That's not only inaccurate, it's almost incoherent.
Gay and lesbian couples are asking for the same legal rights and
responsibilities afforded heteroexual couples through the legal act of marriage.
Nothing more nothing less.The moral question is comparable to
divorce not abortion. Catholicism teaches that divorce is wrong and opposes
remarriage; yet Catholics successfully live in a nation in which divorce and
remarraige are readily available legal options. Same sex marriage is
comparable. Some churches already perform and recognize same sex marriages,
other do not. It will take time but people will adapt. At this
point, it's feasible the Supreme Court may not take Utah's case. The
court generally rules when lower courts disagree with one another. Thus far,
that's not happening.
How well will it work when someone married in one state is treated differently
when in another? This sounds like a right that accrues to people, portable as
they are, and not to states.
Scientific advancements have kept abortion an issue. If we had no way of
keeping a fetus alive before it reached term, anti-abortionists would be in the
same position as SSM opponents: You either have a fundamental right or you do
not. How do you argue that SS couples are equal only sometimes, i.e., in this
shop, but not that one? Where SS couples will not have the right to
be treated equally is in churches, temples, etc. No one is suggesting that the
law intrudes there. If they are, they're mistaken.The
federalism question is already well-established - laws must not be
unconstitutional - so I don't see a hook on which to hang your hat there.
And the issue would not be in the hands of the Judiciary if states had not
gotten carried away by religious fervor and put to a vote the rights of
others.IMO, the argument against SSM is a poor advertisement for
religion at a time when religion is already losing adherents. So you proceed at
your own risk. Or are you suggesting a "hostile takeover" under the
leadership of General Bobby Jindal?
The problem with this argument is that a gay couple moving from a "free"
state to another state who does not recognize their marriage, loses their
previous status due to animus. Their children are placed in limbo. They are
seated in the back of the legal bus yet again. And it throws out the current
notion that being married in one state makes you married in another.Given that same sex marriage is legal in 19 states, and is recognized by the
federal government for virtually all benefits, rights and responsibilities, how
can you ever have "federalism" (whatever that means to people these
days) regarding same sex marriage. How do you ever square that circle? Would
anyone approve of the state of Washington refusing to recognize Utah marriages
if they were sealed in a temple? Don't think so.
Perhaps marriage laws could be changed to a reciprocity system, like that used
for professional licenses. Each state would have its own marriage
laws, and the marriage would only be recognized within that state. Some states
might enter into reciprocity agreements, where they mutually recognize
marriages, but it would not be required. A couple married in one state and
moving to - or even traveling through - another state would have to determine if
there was marriage reciprocity in place. If so, they could apply for a temporary
or permanent license in the new state. If there isn't reciprocity the
couple would not be legally married until they established residency and applied
for a license in the new state. Until they married on the new state
they would be considered legal strangers who may be cohabiting but have no
rights or protections - like same-sex couples in Utah now. Seems
like a reasonable solution under the circumstances. I, for one, would be happy
to lobby hard to keep Ohio from recognizing any marriage that had ever been
performed in Utah. I am sure citizens of other states would join that effort.
"This social, moral and political dilemma appears to be a classic lose-lose
scenario."Why?When gay people can legally marry,
their families are strengthened and protected. Their children are better off.
Society is better off.Straight families are not changed or
diminished. Children born to married men and women continue to receive the same
legal rights and protections they currently enjoy.Sounds like a
win-win. Who loses?
"State-by-state disputes will be messy. But conflicts about fundamental
values are best reconciled through politics, and through the mediating
institution of federalism."To make this assertion stick Mr Clark
must demonstrate that the states are more enlightened than they were during the
Jim Crow era (without Federal intervention Jim Crow would be alive and well).
I don't think the writer can make the case. For example,
regardless of how one feels about Obamacare, he must be dismayed by the southern
states' refusal to participate, being perfectly willing to see large
portions of their populations do without local hospitals. Federalism at its