SSM is now just marriage, get over it.
The DN is starting to sound like Donald Trump.
@4word thinker;News Flash- LGBT couples can and DO have children -
in the same manner as opposite sex couples who are infertile.Oh the
irony!Rikitikitavi says:"Ignored in this whole
debate seems to be children."News Flash (to you too). LGBT
couples DO have children.@Christian 24-7 ;Does anyone
remember that LGBT people are being tortured to death around the world (By
CHRISTIANS) while people here take swipes at each over this minor issue?@4Freedom;Please provide a single reference to your holy
books that says: "Thou shalt treat LGBT sinners differently than you treat
stright sinners". Just one. I CAN show you where your own god told you to:
"Treat (ALL) others as you would have them treat you."@Triple-I;Your begging us to: "leave me alone" is pretty
hypocritical given your enormous effort to violate OUR rights.@FDRfan;You can't force your god onto others; that IS the
basic tenet of religious freedom.@Confused;Please give
us date/time when you CHOSE to be heterosexual. Unless you are going to CHOOSE
to abstain from an intimate relationship, you have NO BUSINESS at all asking
anyone else to do so.
Brendan Eich was not fired - or forced to resign - for "supporting
traditional marriage." He gave an impressive donation to an
organization that was trying to deny equal rights to same-sex couples. Had he
been supporting traditional marriage he would have donated money to a campaign
to make divorce harder, or to a non-profit that provides free marital
counseling, or some other action actually supporting opposite sex married
couples. His employees - in a company known for diversity -
objected, and strongly. His customers - who saw Mozilla as a progressive company
that values diversity - objected and stopped using the service. He resigned
because, as somebody above said, he was no longer able to be an effective
leader. The claim he was persecuted for "supporting traditional
marriage" is false, because he did nothing to support any marriages. @Laura Bilington: "Or do they just treat gay couples the same way
they treat straight couples?"This would be the real problem I
@AZKID --"I once again respectfully disagree. In today's
climate, a gay person has zero chance of being fired for being gay. Zero. One
call to the media, and the person doing the firing would be out the one out on
their ear instead."Wow. Guess again.One
Utah survey: Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender
Identity in Utah. Read the report at the Williams Institute site. "In
response to a 2010 survey of LGBT people in Utah, 43% of LGB respondents and 67%
of transgender respondents reported being fired, denied a job, denied a
promotion, or having experienced other forms of discrimination at some point in
their lives. Even higher percentages of employees reported experiencing verbal
harassment at work on at least a weekly basis."Welcome to the
The danger in letting the government control marriage is the approval they give,
they can also take away. But, supposedly Obergefell acknowledges a
constitutional right to marry. But, only on the Supreme Court's
terms--which according to Obergefell are limited to 2 people per marriage.
SCOTUS does not attempt to explain or justify the limit of 2 people. It just
states that is the limit. Many have noted that Obergefell, in a sense, was just
an acknowledgement of what is popular now. I am already seeing some media now
saying that gay marriage is better than traditional marriage for the adults and
children involved. Rather than polygamy, is the next progressive advance, the
notion that traditional marriage is not only inferior to gay marriage, but
actually harmful to adults and children, such that limits should be placed on
traditional marriage? At some future date, might the argument be made that a
certain kind of marriage that is popular in Utah is not only "not good,"
but also harmful to society, and in need of regulation? Mind you, I am not
opposed to gay marriage, only to government acknowledgement that some marriages
are worthy of recognition and some are not.
@ AZKIDTermination for being gay: Poor PR move nowadays? Sure -
and thank goodness. But still legal in many places. It isn't legal
anywhere to fire someone simply for having an opinion you don't like.Brendan Eich: When you and I are so important as to be seen as the
public face of our company, then yes, the consequences of our actions may carry
a greater price than when we were anonymous work-a-day stiffs. That's the
reality and Brendan Eich isn't the first to experience it. (My first
memory is of Al Campanis, fired from the Dodgers organization after some
oblivious comments on Nightline about race.)But let's be
accurate about Eich's fate. Unlike Campanis, he wasn't fired. He
chose to resign because, in his own words, "Under the present circumstances,
I cannot be an effective leader." THIS was the issue that led to his
resignation, not his opinion on SSM. Mozilla didn't care about that. Like
the Dodgers, what Mozilla cared about was whether its CEO was an asset or a
liability to the bottom line. Like Campanis, he'd become the latter. Eich
@Confused[No the LDS church said "Even though individuals do not
choose to have such ATTRACTIONS, they do choose how to respond to
them."...]Okay, and since sexual orientation is based on who you
have attractions to, not based on actions (being a virgin doesn't mean you
aren't heterosexual or homosexual, it just means you haven't had sex)
that statement by the church says that people are born that way (since what else
would it be if it weren't a choice?).
@AZKID wrote, "I work at a company which is openly and aggressively pro gay
"marriage".Wow.They're going to fire you if
you marry someone of the opposite sex? They're taking deductions from your
pay to donate to LGBT causes? They put quotes around the word marriage when
they refer to straight couples?Or do they just treat gay couples the
same way they treat straight couples?
@ Karen R.I once again respectfully disagree. In today's
climate, a gay person has zero chance of being fired for being gay. Zero. One
call to the media, and the person doing the firing would be out the one out on
their ear instead.Today's environment has people getting fired
for simply speaking their conscience on this issue. Just ask ousted Mozilla CEO
@ AZKIDI'm not sure what you mean by "aggressively pro-gay
marriage," but the implication is that your disagreement could get you
fired. If it did, all of the legal protection you would need to fight this
injustice is already in place. It's against the law to discriminate on the
basis of religion. You would just have to prove that this was the intent behind
your termination (assuming you hadn't been creating a hostile atmosphere
with your obvious disdain for some people's "marriages").Meanwhile, in more localities than not, it's still legal to be fired
simply for being gay. So while you're out there in your Roe v. Wade kind
of way fighting for protections you already have, make sure you demand the same
protections for gay people too, okay? This will actually do more for your cause
than what you're proposing. Equality protects us all.
Karen R.I couldn't disagree with you more. I work at a company
which is openly and aggressively pro gay "marriage" and I fear for my
job if I so much as voice my opinion as to how this has played out. I need
legal protection for my freedom of speech, and I see the Roe v. Wade path as
much better outcome for me personally.
@ Confused"Please site ONE study that says [sexual orientation]
is not chosen."Google "biology and sexual orientation,"
then choose the Wikipedia link. It provides a good summary of the current state
of research and provides links to studies.Also, from a pamphlet
offered at apa.org (American Psychological Association):"There
is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual
develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation." Note that it says "develops," not "chooses." It continues:"Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal,
developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings
have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is
determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and
nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of
choice about their sexual orientation."I repeat: "[M]ost
people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual
orientation."So now I ask you: Please cite one study that
supports your (implied) contention that most of us DO choose our sexual
@Confused --"No you did not use their language..."Sure I did.In my post of 9:23 AM I directly quoted the Mormons and
Gays website.Yet again -- LGBTs **do not choose to have such
attractions.**"they never said people were born that way, only
that they have inherent tendencies"Why do you keep harping on
birth? Your church says LGBTs do not choose to have such attractions. They can
choose their action, but not their attraction. It doesn't *matter* whether
their LGBTness starts at conception or at birth or at two minutes after birth --
there is no choice involved."how we choose to do with those
feelings is what the LDS church is talking about."I've
already said that, Confused. As the church says -- LGBTs do NOT choose their
attraction. They can only choose their action.Just exactly like
interracial marriage.People can not choose their own race. But they
*can* choose who to marry."I asked which study proves people are
that way,"I assume you mean "proves people are BORN that
way".And again -- the exact moment at which LGBTness begins is
irrelevant. The essential point is that IT IS NOT A CHOICE.
Contrariusester,No you did not use their language... You said they
said that people are "Born That Way", the quote I gave, is the EXACT
words they used and YES they never said people were born that way, only that
they have inherent tendencies... BIG BIG difference.Do you
understand the concept between what "Feelings" and being "born that
way" is?Everyone has feelings of one sort or another that they
must figure out. like I said, some have feelings about addictions, how we choose
to do with those feelings is what the LDS church is talking about."People can't choose their race -- but they can choose who to
marry" That is true, even for Gays... BUT that had NOTHING to do with my
original post. I asked which study proves people are that way, and like a true
liberal, you try to spin off topic to confuse others.... NOT me...And yet there is NO proof as I have said... people are born gay... Thank you
for confirming it by not sited a source.
@Confused --"the LDS church said "Even though individuals do
not choose to have such ATTRACTIONS, they do choose how to respond to
them."..."Yup.They don't choose the
attraction -- the orientation.They can choose whether or not to have
sex, just as you can."If you are going to quote the LDS use
their language..."I used their exact words -- but thanks for
your concern."addiction to alcohol"You're
equating sexual orientation with a disease. Again, you are contradicting your
own church.Quoting directly from mormonsandgays: "Attraction to
those of the same sex, however, should not be viewed as a disease or
illness.""You comparison to Racial Marriage is off topic and
has no bearing on what I posted....."People can't choose
their race -- but they can choose who to marry. Similarly, people
can't choose their orientation -- but they also can choose who to marry.
The two situations are exactly analogous.I hope this
helps you out of your current confusion."So please site a source
that says gays are born "gay"..."Your own church
acknowledges that people don't choose to be gay. Again: they can choose
their action, but not their orientation.
"Religious people have been mocked, abused, slandered, discriminated
against, murdered, martyred, and on and on, many times through the ages."Hmm . . I would think you could at least admit they historically give as
good as they get."Suppose I ask a Baptist cake baker to bake me
a cake with a picture of an LDS temple on it and he refuses on religious
grounds. Can I get $135K out of him for emotional damage?"Yes .
. if he's been decorating cakes with LDS temples for everyone else, but
won't for you because you're LDS. If it's a service he
doesn't normally provide, you're out of luck. Come on, man . . you
have to have known this."I would be pleasantly surprised if the
victims of intolerance end up showing tolerance to those who continue to view
them as perverts or misguided sinners."Because, of course
telling someone they're a pervert and a misguided sinner is the key to
nurturing a healthy respect for each other. Just like you'll be OK with
someone considering you a sheep living in a fantasy world, right? I'm not
sure you quite get what "tolerance" really means.
I'd like to see Schaerr's "Twelve Hand Grenades" in detail.
Is there a transcript of his remarks available somewhere?I've
taken a very close look at other arguments expressing concern about
"religious freedom" lately, including arguments made by legal expert
Elder Dallin H. Oaks. And upon examination, the foundations of their arguments
fall apart completely.People who oppose same-sex marriage have the
First Amendment right to express their opposition. Other people also have the
First Amendment right to criticise the foundations of that opposition.
That's not "violating religious freedom", that's freedom of
expression for all. If someone says that their religious freedom is being
violated, and if upon examination it's not their "religious
freedom" but rather their PRIVILEGE that is being "violated", then
we have every right to call them out on it. The only REAL threat to religious
freedom comes from those right-wing theocrats that want America to be "a
Christian nation", but only for their preferred flavour of Christianity, of
course. THAT is the ONLY serious threat to REAL religious freedom today in the
United States of America.
Contrariusiest,No the LDS church said "Even though individuals
do not choose to have such ATTRACTIONS, they do choose how to respond to
them."...If you are going to quote the LDS use their
language...This coincides with research that says Gays have
Genetic/DNA markers that they have a pre-disposition for these same sex
attractions... Problem is "Everyone has pre-disposition marker for
something".Mine happens to be "addiction to alcohol" do
to may family heritage... That does not mean I was "born" an
Alcoholic.Second, You comparison to Racial Marriage is off topic and
has no bearing on what I posted..... comparing inter-racial marriage to
gays being "born that way" is a bit weird for me to understand.Notice you never sited a actual source saying they are born that way.... So
please site a source that says gays are born "gay"... Now please
remember.... Gay marriage is a different issue than if they are born gay or not.
@Meckofahess,Yours is the very attitude/outlook that I can agree with. As
a supporter of Gay marriage, I feel that you are free to disagree with me about
that concept, as I do with you. I strongly believe that people should be free
to practice whatever religious tradition they choose. Where I have the problem
is with the religious thinking that by baking that cake they are violating their
religion.I suppose that it is all academic anyway, since I cannot imagine
there will ever be many Gay couples beating down the doors of uber-religious
bakers in Utah, attempting to get some sweets for their marriage celebration.
@Confused --"Please site ONE study that says SSM is not
chosen"Please site just one study that says interracial marriage
is not chosen. (In case you didn't notice, "SSM" means
"same-sex marriage.")"But that does not mean they are
"born that way"."Even the LDS church acknowledges that
homosexuality is not a choice.From the mormonsandgays website:
"individuals do not choose to have such attractions"
Karen R.No, the SSM debate is every bit like those about skin color and
interracial marriage. Sexual orientation and skin color aren't chosen. Please site ONE study that says SSM is not chosen, please just one
scientific study that supports your comment...There is NONE... there
are studies that says people may have a Genetic Disposition to SSM... But that
does not mean they are "born that way".People have a genetic
disposition to being addicted.... That does not make them born to be drug
addicts or Alcoholics....I believe that if a person is any type of
committed relationship they should have the same rights a married couple
(Traditional) including getting the "Married" tax disadvantage.
Regarding the view that states that want to get out of the marriage business are
misguided, I disagree. Both the Reynolds decision and Obergefell, at their core
are about government telling its citizens how they can and cannot form family
relationships. While control over marriage was taken by government centuries
ago, it does not make it right or the best way to shape a free and peaceful
society. How about government enforcing a right to form family relationships
any way mature adults want to? Perhaps it would be best if government had no
place dictating the terms of our family relationships so long as their is no
abuse of spouses or children. States getting out of the marriage business by
not issuing marriage licenses to anyone might be a good first step. Maybe
families just want to be left alone by government to pursue their own happiness
the way they want to.
Yet another hysterical article in the Deseret News that has no basis in fact.
But I guess facts just get in the way if you already think you know all the
@From Ted's Head:You said: "I would be pleasantly surprised
if the victims of intolerance (i.e the gay community) end up showing tolerance
to those who continue to view them as perverts or misguided sinners. Pardon me
if I suspect that isn't going to be what the future holds".You know, I can understand your point of view. I don't believe we should
characterize other sinners in unkind terms. We can leave judgement up to God.
However, you seem to suggest that people of conservatives faith who believe what
the bible says and what God teaches should accept or embrace sin. If
that is what you are suggesting, in my mind that is intolerant and misguided.Moreover, what do you say to gay citizens who characterize religious
folks as bigots, hypocrites and "misguiding sinners"?We can
do better, but it will require real effort and real tolerance!
" If supporters of traditional marriage retreat, are intimidated into
silence and give up trying to find the right words to defend their beliefs, then
the court's gay marriage decision will become a disaster for religious
liberty, Dushku said."Interesting!, So, if those who are against
Same Sex Marriage "fail" to articulate their ideas in a coherent manner,
that means that LGBT people are violating their religious liberty. Am I reading
this wrong?If your mind suffers from such paranoia that you are
always preparing for war or being victimized. Chances are that you are going to
be reading attacks and insults where there is none.I have full
confidence that the cool head and common sense of the vast majority of citizens
of this country will prevail.
This group of individuals quoted in the article are completely misguided in
their legal analysis. If I said what I really thought, the DN censor would not
let it through so I'll just stop there.
I am unalterably opposed to the concept and practice of same gender marriage
from rational and religious based orientations. That said, I do not now believe
that it is productive to express my disagreement with same-sex unions by
refusing to bake a wedding cake.I can respectfully bake a cake for any couple
but the act of doing so in my view does not represent my support or condoning of
same-sex marriage. In my view, I retain and maintain my religious belief in and
support for traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but I also show
civility and charity to others with whom I disagree.I certainly do
not want others to discriminate against me in employment or anything else based
upon my support of traditional marriage. We may need new laws to protect
employment rights and such for conservatives who express their views in support
of moral and religious tenets including traditional marriage. But let us not
discriminate against others who disagree with our beliefs. I
believe it is possible to respect the legal and constitutional rights of
conservatives and the LGBT community if everyone works together.
@Hordak: "It looks like most of the people on here identify with the group
that wants to put traditional marriage advocates in the racist camp instead of
the anti-abortion camp, which is sad, but not surprising." If
the shoe fits… This is happening because people are actually listening to
what is being said. If you want to "defend traditional
marriage" then end no-fault divorce, require extensive premarital counseling
and waiting times before getting a marriage license, require extensive marital
counseling before divorce, criminalize adultery and criminalize out of wedlock
births . Also, work to extend and support policies that help families –
better options on daycare for working mothers, better wages for single income
families, healthcare at a reasonable cost, and so on. But that is
not what is happening. The entire "defend traditional marriage" movement
is about blocking a group of people from having the same marital benefits that
you have. The movement is not "defending traditional marriage," it is
blocking a group of citizens from having civil rights. And their
rhetoric mirrors the anti-interracial marriage crowd from 50 years ago.
""Obergefell has opened a religious freedom can of worms," Maybe, just maybe that can of worms needed opening. Remember folks that
despite all your "we are a Christian nation" and the Founding Fathers
believed in God we are in fact a secular society who gives strong accommodations
to religions and religious beliefs. The Bible says so is not a
legal argument. In fact it's the very reason the opposition to SSM
marriage came up with such ridiculous arguments. Yet from the beginning the
treatment of Gay citizens has been based on the Bible and continues to fuel
religious opposition such as this article. Therefore "opening
up this can of worms" is exactly the right thing to do.
In New York City the taxi commission tightly regulates the number of cabs that
can operate by regulating the permits – or medallions – that are in
circulation. That means when new medallions become available, or a company goes
out of business and gets medallions will be resold, competition is fierce and
bidding is very high. If states only allowed a certain number of
couples to be married at anyone time, and thus tightly regulated the number of
marriage licenses that were permitted to be sold each year, then game marriage
would be a threat to traditional marriage. But that isn't how
it works, of course. If people were
@KingsCourt: Thanks for your comment. Actually, anti-LGBT "Christians"
are still free to verbally attack and demonize gay people. That's
guaranteed by the First Amendment. And as far as actions go, sadly, in most
jurisdictions of the US, there are no anti-discrimination provisions that
specifically protect gay people.The "only" thing this ruling
changed is overturning government bans on gay marriage. This only affects
government agencies. Churches, businesses and individuals are unaffected.
"Religious" individuals who object to same-sex marriage and who are
engaged in secular businesses that provide goods and services for weddings may,
however, come in conflict with public accommodations laws if they discriminate
and if those laws cover LGBT. (Again, most don't.) The First
Amendment, of course, doesn't immunize anyone against any consequences of
their speech. One's employer, for example, has a right to expect employees
to support company policy. Government agencies have a duty to serve the entire
public. No one has a right to keep a job if they refuse to do that job the way
their employer wants, or publicly disparage their employer or gainsay its
policy. That's not persecution, just common sense.
Sadly, the discussion of same sex marriage has degenerated into a religious
conflict. Whose rights are superior? The rights of the religiously fundamental
who view same sex marriage as some sort of sin akin to murder and worthy of
societal taboo? Or the rights of the religiously liberal (and non religious)
who don't have a problem with same sex marriage at all.For a
very long time, the religiously conservative have held sway in the arguments
regarding many social issues: slavery, woman's rights, family planning and
abortion and same sex marriage, to name a few. Most of these issues have been
"liberalized" to the dismay of fundamentalists. I don't know if
same sex marriage is the last of the shibboleths to fall, but the organized
religious institutions who still see homosexuality as sin are in a righteous
snit over the issue. All I ask for it to live and let live. The
religiously conservative have lost the argument, and it is time for them to do
So "12 hand grenades" is how the anti-marriage crowd shows their
civility and graciousness. I would expect nothing else from a group that wants
to force people to "live in sin" without the sanctity of marriage.
Perhaps someday they will read their scriptures and really learn what God
expects of them.
What we should do is revisit Marbury vs. Madison. I cannot believe it was the
intention of the founding fathers to give such power to 5 highly partisan
humans. Nor do I believe it could be in favor with God. Are there any original
thinkers in our judicial system or have they all been brainwashed by legal
"scholars" of the law schools?
Loving v. Virginia did not overthrow religious freedom by legalizing interracial
marriage. Obergefell v Hodges won't either. Of course that won't stop
those who lost the Gay Marriage debate from making outrageous claims to the
contrary. Its not surprising that the author of the "Twelve
Hand-grenades" theory is the same lawyer who tried to convince the Supreme
Court that Gay Marriage would "lead to 900,000 abortions over the next
generation." Even Justice Scalia didn't pay any attention to that
Will they just give this up? Religious freedom isn't under attack. People
can still go to church and believe what they want and marry who they want. The
only they can't do anymore is attack and demonize homosexuals and make them
conform to specific religious values. Our country was founded as a secular
nation, not a theocracy. If this keeps up, people are going to leave religion
behind faster than they already are doing.
Suppose I ask a Baptist cake baker to bake me a cake with a picture of an LDS
temple on it and he refuses on religious grounds. Can I get $135K out of him for
emotional damage? From the perspective of somebody who grew up in the Soviet
Union - American government comes out as hypocritical - on one hands it says it
believes in liberty and private property to the point of sending military force
to fight for it all over the world, on the other hand it dictates to its own
private businesses who they should hire and who they are obligated to serve. You
can be certain that Putin's propaganda machine does not fail to notice
that, and now you will have a difficult time convincing a Russian boy that the
American democracy is the way to go - so he votes for Putin.
There exists a beautiful opportunity for those who oppose gay marriage to learn
compassion and tolerance for those who have a differing viewpoint.
Society's values continue to change and handwringing or wishing for bygone
days won't undo what has been done. Accepting the changes as fact
doesn't mean one can't be of the opinion that gay marriage is an
abomination before God. For now we still have the freedom to publicly state as
much. Do I expect that continuing to voice unpopular, "bigoted" beliefs
will result in unfavorable consequences? Absolutely. Would it be easier to
colorize my facebook profile pic and jump on the "equality" bandwagon?
Certainly it would. But I'm not looking for easy or popular. I would be
pleasantly surprised if the victims of intolerance (i.e the gay community) end
up showing tolerance to those who continue to view them as perverts or misguided
sinners. Pardon me if I suspect that isn't going to be what the future
Hutterite,This is not a new phenomenon. Religious ideology has been
attacked countless times through the ages. This very issue of acceptance and
embracing of homosexual relationships as normal is not new--it is just new to
this particular society. We have limited but clear descriptions of how some of
those instances ended up in the past. Also, religious people have
been mocked, abused, slandered, discriminated against, murdered, martyred, and
on and on, many times through the ages. It has been and is happening again--at
least some of it. We are now seeing the very behaviors that the left
decried--intolerance, etc. Where are those loud voices now? It is
fascinating yet disgusting that so many people slam religion the way do in the
name of freedom while seeking to remove the freedom that was founded on clear
religious principles. People will one day see that the "obstacles" they
are hacking away are nothing more than their own precious liberties.
Pat Condell, an atheist in the U.K. even recognizes how the criminalization of
"hate speech" is not only unconstitutional, but that the generations of
liberal college students today... the generation that actually believes that
words can be criminalized... will govern us in 30 years. They will be deciding
what is lawful and what is criminal.There are already gay judges.
But the young generation today that has let moral relativism embitter and seduce
their feelings into hatred... this generation will eventually be the judges in
our courts. Any time a religious person is in question, for anything, I fear
that we will see things so awful that we've yet to see in the history of
mankind.That's a pretty gloomy and depressing picture. If you
disagree with me, rather than tell me how wrong I am. Please show me instead. I
beg you, please show me through your actions for the rest of our lives, that I
am wrong. I sorely hope I don't need to fear that judges will criminalize
me even believing something. You have your state-recognized stamp of approval.
Now leave me alone.
Religion is finally having to begin relinquishing it's privileged spot at
the table, which it has enjoyed for thousands of years. It's not going to
go willingly, but it's going to have to go.
It looks like most of the people on here identify with the group that wants to
put traditional marriage advocates in the racist camp instead of the
anti-abortion camp, which is sad, but not surprising. I've been called
much worse for expressing my views and that was long before the Supreme Court
ruling. A big difference between racial segregation and marriage segregation is
that race has nothing to do with the birth and rearing of children, whereas
marriage and abortion are so intertwined with the family, that there will always
be opposition to both, no matter what the courts say. It has nothing to do with
intolerance, just the belief that every child deserves to be raised by a mom and
dad. That's not to say there won't be divorce, children born to
single parents, etc. but it's one thing to live with exceptions and another
to elevate them. I learned very different things from my mom and my dad, and I
don't believe it's simply because they're two different people.
I don't get it. Religious institutions have always been able to pick and
choose who they will or will not marry -- Catholics won't remarry divorced
people, Jews won't marry a divorced person to a Cohen, many denominations
don't accept interfaith marriage, most clergy require some sense of faith.
Why are marriages of gays any different?Are you trying to say that a
Catholic baker can refuse to make a wedding cake for a divorced person
remarrying? That a religious person can refuse to sell flowers for a wedding
involving a religious sect whose schism from their own they don't accept?
(Remember, not so many years ago people cited Divine provenance as the reason
for shunning interracial marriages.)When you are a religious
institution you get to follow your conscience. When you have a business
license, part of your contract with the government is that you will provide
public accommodation to all comers.
"freedom grenades"...Slippery slope arguments in the same
tone that followed Loving v Virginia.In two years it will be 50
years since Loving v Virginia.The freedom grenade pieces launched by
enterprising lawyers after Loving v Virginia never came to fruition.Some southern states left unenforceable laws on the books to spite the SCOTUS
decision. Life moved on...C'est la vie.
I'd like to say something positive about Mr. Schaerr. If the state of Utah
wants to spend more money on outside counsel to support traditional marriage,
please rehire Mr. Schaerr. As a supporter of the legalization of same-sex
marriage, I am pleased with the results that he has achieved so far.
Isn't Gene Schaerr the lawyer who presented a terribly flimsy and
ill-reasoned case to the Court, causing Utah to lose its ban against same-sex
marriage? Isn't he the same lawyer who then went on to do the same thing
for Nevada and Idaho with exactly the same argument, having learned nothing in
the interim?He had no idea how to pursue a case about marriage.
What makes anyone think he's any more of an authority on the legal basis of
religious liberty? The only thing he's an authority on is how to get
worried conservative politicians to open their checkbooks for his services. Don't bite again.As for his "dozen grenades," I
don't get it. Other than public accommodations laws (where those even
cover LGBT, because most don't), and not even that since they're not
modified in any way by marriage, what is he counting? You want to sequester
your kids away from the world? That hasn't changed, you still have to
enroll them in your church's parochial school and turn off the TV. Churches and religion are unaffected. His whole list is
Easy for you to say, PeskyWabbit. Tell that to the people getting sued tens and
even hundreds of thousands of dollars for maintaining their religious beliefs.
Many people don't realize the negative ramifications of the
Supreme Court's decision. Frank Fourth, I believe we will see that it is
the people crying for same sex "marriage," who insist that nothing is
wrong, who are really the ones who are crying wolf. One day the stark
realization of the grave aftermath of this decision will be apparent and
regrettable. Just because your life goes on as normal right now does not mean
everything (or anything) was right about this decision. We can
ignore and even reject God's laws but there are associated consequences for
doing so that are inescapable, both for individuals and nations.
Marriage equality has now launched "religious freedom grenades" in this
“war” on religious freedom. With that nuanced introduction, I just
read the Church’s amicus brief in Obergfell, and the threats seem less
like grenades and more like self-planted land mines. Dushku, who authored the
brief, failed to mention anywhere in his brief the cases of Loving v. Virginia
and Reynolds v. U.S. He also wrote that "we cannot renounce scriptural
beliefs", yet fails to point out that on the doctrines of polygamy and bans
on interracial marriage, the Church has previously done just that. He speaks of
the unassailable virtue of traditional, monogamous marriage across millennia,
yet fails to ever acknowledge that the Church once taught and practiced polygamy
as the only marriage worthy of heaven, and that it is still canonized doctrine
in D&C 132. He argues that these decisions about marriage should be made by
state and local democratic institutions, yet he fails to disclose that the
Church lobbied for federal legislation to define marriage as between a man and a
woman. If you want to convince us of your arguments, you must first treat us as
@LDSAZAbortion clinics were the ones getting bombed, and providers
assassinated like Dr. Tiller. What even comes remotely close to that has been
done to pro-lifers?
LDSAZ writes, "I remember lawsuits, protests, angry pro-abortionists, and
vigorous religious debate over the issue. It had to run an ugly course and many
were seriously harmed over it all. Some were forced to quit their
professions."The angry and violent protests were the
"prolife" bunch with their doctored photos of suspiciously developed
fetuses. Lawsuits, yes--when public hospitals refused to let legal procedures
be performed there, yes, there were lawsuits. And they were successful. "Some were forced to quit"? Or "were assessed heavy
penalties"? Name two.
Let's stop crying wolf.
"If supporters of traditional marriage retreat, are intimidated into silence
and give up trying to find the right words to defend their beliefs, then the
court's gay marriage decision will become a disaster for religious
liberty."First of all, the obvious. You are referring to
"supporters of discrimination against a same sex couple", not
"supporters of traditional marriage". Virtually 100% of all Americans
support traditional marriage.I'm not sure what "the right
words" would consist of. Mr. Schearr is no legal newbie, and he was unable
to come up with any solid reason to oppose gay marriage. "My religion says
so" doesn't come across as "the right words". Few people
criticize the Mormons for not drinking coffee because this particular
prohibition doesn't affect anyone except themselves. And Mormon-owned
businesses serve coffee. But if you cater to weddings outside of your church,
there are no "right words" to explain why you will cater a wedding
reception at X church if the couple is straight but not at X Church if the
couple is gay.
Karen R. conveniently forgets all the doctors who refused to perform abortions
because of religious beliefs. I remember lawsuits, protests, angry
pro-abortionists, and vigorous religious debate over the issue. It had to run
an ugly course and many were seriously harmed over it all. Some were forced to
quit their professions. Some were taken to court and assessed heavy penalties.
Perhaps some of those will comment here.
"If society equates support for marriage between a man and a woman
culturally and legally with racism, religious liberty as a practical matter
would be severely restricted, Dushku said."Is the Westboro
Baptist Church restricted in its' religious rights? After all, isn't
that what this is worrying about? That people will see other churches that
oppose same-sex marriage in a similar light to how most people see the most
extreme (at least visibly among churches popularly known) anti-gay church today?
Schaerr's arguments against SSM and for "traditional marriage" were
some of the most hysterical and unfounded arguments that anyone had ever heard.
Even supporters saw the major flaws in his many times twisted arguments. It was
a major reason that he lost that case.But Utah paid him handsomely
with tax payer funds. That was again something that was sad.Freedom
of religion will be the next big flaw in his arguments. The real issue is will
American citizens, many of which are younger and more educated tolerate the
bigotries of the past? Likely not, but religions will still be able to say and
do what they want. They will however be under the microscope as there were when
civil rights became the law of the land. The fight now is against
the imposition of someone's religious beliefs into our secular society.
Businesses need to follow the law. Discrimination is becoming a very big deal
in our country. Even the bigotry against our duly elected President in this
state is sickening.
Conservatives have created a cottage industry based on shakey prognostications.
Iraqis were supposed to greet their American liberators with bunches
of flowers, Obamacare was going to send American healthcare into a predicted
"death spiral", and Obama was going to institute a national ban on
firearms.I'm confident that we will be able to work out the
wedding flowers and pizza dilemma with a minimum of restrictions on religious
If I understand what he is saying, its that the world is coming to an end, and
its the Supreme Courts fault. Yawn.
No-no's are no-no's because they lead us away from the celestial
kingdom; that only place in the hereafter where there can be found eternal
marriage, eternal procreation, eternal families, and the building of God's
celestial family that enjoys everything that God has to give his children. Some
do not want that eventual outcome and society has to regularly accommodate those
legitimate desires to not want all of His blessings.
"How did society get to a place where pro-lifers could still have careers
and be open and express their views without becoming outcasts?"Were they ever outcasts? I think this is an overstatement. And the
comparison is a mistaken one. Virtually no one believes fetuses should be
aborted as a means of mere birth control. Virtually everyone wants to limit the
use of the procedure. Where we differ is on approach.No, the SSM
debate is every bit like those about skin color and interracial marriage.
Sexual orientation and skin color aren't chosen. Neither are inherently
harmful. What HAS caused harm are the beliefs and superstitions about them
arising from our lack of understanding of their origins. But just
like with skin color, the more we understand and become familiar with all things
homosexual, and the more that time proves our fears aren't going to be
realized, the fear and hysteria will subside. And they'll eventually be
replaced with the acknowledgement that we were wrong for ever discriminating
against them in the first place.