Quantcast
Utah

Gay-rights advocates begin media blitz

Comments

Return To Article
  • Helpful Advice
    Feb. 3, 2009 4:00 p.m.

    Here's a hint for the gay-rights advocates: If you want LDS voters to take your proposals seriously, you need to talk to your radical brethren in California who are preparing an "Enemies List" of Mormons who donated money to help pass Proposition 8.

    Some left-wing websites have already posted threats of vandalism and harassment against members of the Church who donated.

    "Respect" is a two-way street. As long as gay-rights activists are threatening to harass Mormons for supporting what they believe, I don't feel very inclined to support your agenda. And I will make it clear to any legislators who support you that I will never vote for them.

  • Ads aren't always the truth
    Feb. 3, 2009 4:01 p.m.

    According to the tobacco industry smoking makes you sexy, makes it so you drive a nice car and have lots of pretty girlfriends.
    Just putting it on a billboard doesn't make it right.

  • Consistent
    Feb. 3, 2009 4:14 p.m.

    I am continually impressed how the LDS Church is consistent, fair, moral and family oriented in their positions, comments and counsels. In fact, the Church has shown vision in what they stand for and what they teach. In contrast, many people or organizations have not shown commitment to moral principals. Confidence in the quality of leadership in the Church is justified.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 3, 2009 4:15 p.m.

    The truth and equality Utah have a constant relationship. They never touch.
    To claim that the Church supports any of these bills is a lie. There is a big difference between not opposing and supporting.
    The fact that Equality Utah persists in claiming the Church supports its initiatives when the Church has emphatically stated it has not taken a position on any pending legislation in Utah shows that this group is willing to lie about anything to advance its cause.
    If they are lieing in such an open way, what other lies are they telling that we have not detected?

  • and the beat goes on......
    Feb. 3, 2009 4:19 p.m.

    Gay folks need to understand something.... after the prop 8 passage in California, the entire country saw the ugly face of the gay movement displayed all across the country. Now, gay supporters are seeking tolerance and open mindedness toward their cause - something they couldn't and wouldn't show themselves toward those which happened to have a different point of view toward homosexual behavior (remember the elderly woman who was knocked to ground and physically and mentally abused by the gay rights supporters). BECAUSE of their recent show of classless hypocrisies, the gay movement is NOT something anyone is ready shallow.

  • gays need to stop
    Feb. 3, 2009 4:25 p.m.

    Gays need to cool it. People in Utah don't want what you're peddling. After your stupid behavior following prop 8, people are sick of your message so please just take a time out.

  • An opportunity
    Feb. 3, 2009 4:50 p.m.

    the LDS Church "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional right of churches."

    This is a perfect opportunity for the LDS church to demonstrate that they mean what they are sincere. If they can spend 280,000 to support prop 8 and garner 20 million in member contributions to passing prop 8, it shouldn't be difficult for them in their own state of Utah to support and pass the very legislation they say they have no objections to. It won't cost them anything near 250,000...because they won't have to travel to another state. They don't even have to support the legislation, all they need to do is tell their members and mormon legislators to get out of the way and not hinder the proposed legislation. Members seem to follow the leaders on opposing gay marriage, can they follow their leaders words on this issue? That is the question...we'll soon have an answer to just how faithful their followers are.

  • The more I hear about this...
    Feb. 3, 2009 4:55 p.m.

    The less sympathetic I feel. Gays...If you really want acceptance, quit cramming your special privilege legislation down our throats. You already have the same rights as everyone else so please go about your lives and stay out of mine!

  • Good Idea
    Feb. 3, 2009 5:14 p.m.

    Martin Luther King Jr. and Caesar Chavez should have taken a time out too. Those trouble makers.

  • Democracy in Action
    Feb. 3, 2009 5:59 p.m.

    If Equality Utah wants to pay for billboards and advertising that is a completely legal and responsible forum for political discussion. I would think the LDS Church would prefer an Equality Utah ad campaign (albeit an incredibly mild one) rather than protests outside the Church Office Building being broadcast internationally on CNN.

    Utah's gays and lesbians, and their families, are not going to hide under a rock just to make social conservatives comfortable. The Common Ground bills are simple, basic protections that are not extreme, not anti-marriage, nor anti-family. To loudly proclaim that these bills open the floodgates to gay marriage (when the state constitution specifically bars it through Amendment Three) is just fear mongering and deliberate distortion. It adds nothing of value to the discussion.

    If these moderate bills about employment discrimination, housing, and visitation rights get instantly killed in committee and can't even be discussed on the floor of the legislature, then what other options do gays and lesbian have to get their message out?

    I would request that everyone read the bills, and carefully (even prayerfully) consider their implications before you automatically reject them.


  • Ned Weeks
    Feb. 3, 2009 6:03 p.m.

    Hey Helpful Advice, thanks for lumping all gays into one big monolithic group and judging all of us by the most radical fringes in the group. I'm sure you Utah LDS love it when all Mormons are judged by the acts of fringe fundamentalist polygomous Mormons. That's a fair comparison right? How would it feel if someone suggested you better get those fundamentalist in line if you want to gain the respect of the rest of America. Please.

  • drb
    Feb. 3, 2009 6:07 p.m.

    Do the three remaining bills have clauses in them that prohibit the new law from infringing on the constitutional right of churches.

    Somehow that probably didn't make the draft.

  • Hardly
    Feb. 3, 2009 6:07 p.m.

    I would hardly put MLK in the same category as gay rights activists. He promoted peace, not bigotry and hatred. He actually had a leg to stand on. No rights are being denied gays, no matter how much some scream to the contrary. Blacks were enslaved, and hardly anyone had the guts to treat them with the dignity they deserved. No one I know in UT, or in any mormon community, desires harm on gay and lesbians. HUGE difference.

  • @ Good Idea
    Feb. 3, 2009 6:07 p.m.

    Here's another hint:

    Stop comparing gay activism to the civil rights movement. It's offensive to anyone who has ever read a history book.

  • Ned Weeks
    Feb. 3, 2009 6:09 p.m.

    To John Pack Lambert, Please show me where Equality Utah has ever said that the LDS Church supports the bills in the Common Ground Initiative. The lie is that the LDS Church is not anti-gay because it does not oppose basic legal protections for gays. The LDS Church's statement was nothing more than a crass PR move to take the heat off its efforts in CA.

  • A thought
    Feb. 3, 2009 7:00 p.m.

    Show me a recovering african-american and you are allowed to lump the civil rights movement of the past with the homosexual movement of today. There are thousands of recovering homosexuals who have changed lifestyles. I know of no recovering african-americans.

  • Re: Good Idea
    Feb. 3, 2009 7:11 p.m.

    Bad idea: highjack the African-American civil rights movement. Gay is not the new black.

  • Re: Ned Weeks
    Feb. 3, 2009 7:18 p.m.

    I figured it would only take a few comments until a gay activist regurgitated the "lie" attack.

    Ned, where are the non-radical gay activists?

    If they exist, I haven't seen them step forward to condemn the vandalism and terrorism.

    If they have, they are few and far between and we're not talking about a "radical fringe" at all.

  • tolerant?
    Feb. 3, 2009 7:19 p.m.

    why am I always being asked to be tolerant?

    Maybe the gays should be "tolerant" of my views as well.

  • My 2 cents
    Feb. 3, 2009 7:41 p.m.

    Gays are more than welcome to share their opinions on the public square. But if they start to skew statements to present something that was not the intended meaning...I think that defeats the purpose.

    Comparing "fringe" Mormons and "fringe" gay-rights activists is not completely accurate. The FLDS Church has a membership 1/52nd the size of the mainstream LDS Church with no connections between the two. My experience in California last year leads me to believe the "fringe" gay ratio to the mainstream is more like 1 in 4 or 5. Also, these "fringe" gay activists were actively involved in the all parts of the campaign. FLDS are excomunicated from the LDS Church. Once again, quite different.

    Also, the gay-rights movement is completely unique from the Civil Rights Movement and should not be compared. Remember the Little Rock 9? They had to be protected by the military to enter school! One had acid poured on her face!! Gays can vote, sit on any bus seat, use any restroom, enter any resteraunt, use any drinking fountain. You could never convince me that homosexuals today are treated in a way anywhere close to how blacks were treated.

  • Call a spade a spade
    Feb. 3, 2009 7:41 p.m.

    We need to stop supporting the homosexual community's hijacking of the English Language. You are not gay, you are homosexual. You have a deviant life style. So please stop referring to yourselves as gay. Also will the sponsers of this bill please tell me which hospital has denied you any visitation? Can you tell me which employer has fired you because you are homosexual? Please...it might make me more sympathetic to your cause. And then lets get the ACLU involved to clear up these "unjust actions". I don't go around a profess my sexual orientation to everyone. So please quit cramming your lifestyle down everyones throat it is going to backfire on you.

  • Used to be tolerant
    Feb. 3, 2009 8:08 p.m.

    I used to be tolerant of the gay community. I have friends that are gay. The problem now is that some (not all of course) in the gay community are becoming guilty of political terrorism. Members of the LDS Church were accused of being un-american for expressing their opinion and exercising their right to vote. If you ask me, those that are singling out Prop 8 supporters doing everything they can to destroy their businesses and lively hood as well as threatening them with violence and fear are the ones guilty of being un-american. I had no problem with gay people have rights but the crybaby-pity attitude makes me sick. They are hurting their cause and the more time goes on the more I wish they would go away.

  • @Used to be tolerant
    Feb. 3, 2009 8:43 p.m.

    Political terrorism? Really? Tolerance? First of all I am not something to be tolerated I am a human worthy of basic dignity and respect. Did you bother reading any of the recent threads including this one and seen the way some of those that appose gay rights speak about gay people? Did your marriage get ripped apart with prop 8? Do you live in constant fear of people beating or killing you simply because of whom you are (yes this has and does happen)? Do you live in fear of losing your job if your tolerant boss finds out or your apartment when that wonderful Christian landlord finds out youre a sinner? Terrorism? really?

  • Re: 8:43 p.m.
    Feb. 3, 2009 9:00 p.m.

    I'd be happy to answer those questions. In fact, I'll lump them into two groups. The answer to questions in the first category is Yes. The answer to the questions in the second category is No.

    1) Political terrorism? Really? Tolerance? Did you bother reading any of the recent threads including this one and seen the way some of those that appose gay rights speak about gay people? Terrorism? really?

    2) Did your marriage get ripped apart with prop 8? Do you live in constant fear of people beating or killing you simply because of whom you are (yes this has and does happen)? Do you live in fear of losing your job if your tolerant boss finds out or your apartment when that wonderful Christian landlord finds out youre a sinner?

  • Free adds?
    Feb. 3, 2009 10:09 p.m.

    I hope they don't spend any money on all their adds, after all it' un-american to spend money on something you believe in.

  • twisted
    Feb. 3, 2009 10:13 p.m.

    I won't support a group who threatens voters with physical violence if their agenda is opposed. Gay and Lesbian community you have thumbed you noses at the law far to many times. The "tolerance" you want is not what you are willing to offer. You are hypocrites.

  • @used to be tolerant
    Feb. 3, 2009 10:26 p.m.

    I agree - I believe that there is political terrorism going on with the publishing of the donors and the way the homosexual community acted out after the vote.

    No, my marriage was not torn apart - we won remember.

    Do I live in fear of beatings - Yes, now that those names and address have been published I think that there are most likely many who live in fear now.

    No, I did not lose my job - but I have heard of many who have!

    The homosexual community asks for tolerance - I think if they want tolerance then they should be tolerant of us and of our beliefs.... then maybe we will be more willing to listen to what you have to say.

  • BOy-in-BOYCOTT
    Feb. 4, 2009 12:21 a.m.

    @@used to be tollerant

    Puh leeeeeze "political terrorism???"
    Blaming LGBTs for the public record of donors to CA initiatives, which has been CA law for decades...you all knew that was the law, and the donors on No on prop 8 are EQUALLY public. Unlike your side we didn't send out extortion letters demanding $10,000.00 (a felony with 4 yr prison sentence)to YOUR donors, and we never felt the need to keep OUR donations secret. We are PROUD of what we gave.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 1:55 a.m.

    Same slop, different day.

    It is not intolerant for gays to demand equal treatment under the law. They are exercising tolerance for us, they aren't seeking to take away anything from us straight, married folk.

    The problem is too many of us LDS have improperly framed the argument. This is not a spiritual issue, it is a civil one. I live in CA and during the time frame when the GLBT community was allowed to marry, my wife and I loved each other unconditionally, went to Church every Sunday, went to the Temple once a month, and had FHE most Mondays. When Prop 8 passed, we still loved each other unconditionally, etc... yet others had to fend off would-be marriage nullifications and, sadly, many succumbed to the horrible showing of moral opprobrium by our own saints, among others.

    Gay marriage is on the horizon and, as a nation, we will soon see the benefits of affording everyone the same fundamental rights, regardless of our own perspective on their actions. It is sad to see so many saints fall prey to hatred and anger with respect to their brothers and sisters.

  • viking
    Feb. 4, 2009 2:23 a.m.

    Saints have free agency. If the Church recommends voting for a matter that relates to morals, I am not required to vote for it. I have the right to choose eternal life or eternal damnation. I choose eternal life. As a Californian I contributed a substantial amount to Yes on 8 and I am happy I did and I am glad I voted Yes.

  • @Stalwart Sentinel 1:55 a.m.
    Feb. 4, 2009 5:35 a.m.

    Well said.

  • Remember Noah
    Feb. 4, 2009 5:44 a.m.

    God lost patience with corrupt people in Noah's time as He did in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. Make's me wonder how much patience He will have with these GLBT folks today.

  • Can I clear 1 thing up
    Feb. 4, 2009 6:13 a.m.

    I've seen written many times 'I don't go around flaunting my sexual orientation.' Guess what, if you are straight and married and talk about your husband or wife, you are displaying your sexual orientation.

    After working with a homosexual co-worker, and having him talk about his partner, it made me realize how my talking about my wife was just as much wearing my sexual orientation on my sleeve as his talking about when he came out of the closet.

    Now, I will grant that protests and rallies in the GLBT community do qualify as 'flaunting their sexual orientation.' But, the vast majority in the GLBT community are not 'flaunting' - they're living their lives.

  • A reminder
    Feb. 4, 2009 6:57 a.m.

    Um... to those with short selective memories, envelopes with "white powder" were mailed to a number of mormon sites including the LA and SLC temples the week of the "outrage" over Prop 8. This is domestic terrorism, regardless of whether the powder was harmless. It was not a harmless prank, its intent is to spread fear and threaten people. Church houses and properties were vandalized.

    Even after such events, the LDS church has consistently stated its support to those with differing political viewpoints regarding legal alterations that don't impinge upon redefining traditional marriage.

    Gays need to appeal to the membership of the church, and try to demonstrate some good will--perhaps by refraining from attacking the church every chance they get (especially here on these sorts of sites)--if they wish to be successful in convincing the citizens of Utah that they have no hidden agendae...

  • respect and equality
    Feb. 4, 2009 7:14 a.m.

    Gays want equality with other Americans period. I am a heterosexual married man and when what you are is supported by society's norms you don't have to flaunt it because it is the norm. People of priviledge are not conscious of how they have priviledge. I support equal rights under the constitution of this great land. Equality of rights is something we all should support. That is the basic arguement if you throw out the fear and hate-mongering. Society will continue to move forward as we go about creating a more just society that works for all.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 7:19 a.m.

    Yes domestic terrorism is the epitome of tolerance, isn't it?

  • Cats
    Feb. 4, 2009 7:24 a.m.

    To the GLBT community: Please, by all means, go ahead and take out ads and put up billboards. It spreads a lot of money around the economy of the State. Since I own a billboard site, I would love it. If you think it's going change anyone's mind, you're living in space.

    But, hey, keep it up. I could use the money.

  • fed up
    Feb. 4, 2009 7:32 a.m.

    There is no reason why society should embrace or give its stamp of approval to deviant sexual behavior. Sex and sexual attraction have an obvious biological purpose. Men and women have complementary parts for a reason. "Same-sex attraction" is an obvious dysfunction. The fact that, a couple of decades ago, the American Psychological Association took it off the list in a purely political move, does not change the facts. But we're all now supposed to go along in this "Emperor's New Clothes" world and pretend this obvious dysfunction is just lovely. And that doesn't even deal with the morality of it, which is still important to some of us.

    There is nothing "gay" about homosexuality. The homosexuals are threatening Mormons in California, and now are trying to play "Gotcha" with the Church here in Utah. Enough.

  • Roles Reversed
    Feb. 4, 2009 7:50 a.m.

    Those who oppose homosexual rights are human, worthy of basic dignity and respect.

    Has your homosexual boss fired you when he found out you contributed to Prop 8?

    Did your homosexual landlord evict you when he found out you are opposed to homosexual rights?

    Do you live in fear because your name, phone number and address is posted on a website because you contributed $100 to Prop 8?

    Yes this has and does happen.

    Don't sit there and act like the victim. Typically you have more money than we married folk with children. You travel more, you eat out more, you go to more movies, you have more parties, you buy more clothes, you have nicer cars, you are free to come and go as you please.

    You can live anywhere.

    You can go see your sick partner in the hospital.

    You can receive death benefits as a beneficiary.

    You can sue for wrongful termination.

    You can sue a landlord.

    Give me a break with this oppression bologna. You have every right straight people have. Why should you have special rights because of the fact you chose to have sex with another person of the same sex?

  • Svoboda
    Feb. 4, 2009 8:14 a.m.

    The GLBT community has taken over the comments on the SL Tribune website. Every article, no matter how remotely related to the LDS Church, is another opportunity for vicious verbal attacks, lies, slander, and other things, which in a strictly legal sense qualify as terrorism with overt and covert threats against all those who oppose the GLBT demands.

    One of the biggest posters even admitted last week, that he doesn't live in Utah, but yet, he is privy to a multitude of secret policies within the LDS Church to control retail within Utah and squash the GLBT community.

    What rubbish.

    When I chided some of the posters for the nastiness of their comments one replied, "Well, we'll grow up when you start treating us like adults." I guess he flunked logic in school. You get treated like an adult when you act like one.

  • An observation
    Feb. 4, 2009 8:15 a.m.

    Just a thought. If we keep encouraging men with men, women with women, and abortion...after three decades there won't be many democrats left.
    Why, they'll have to import more democrats from other countries.
    Wait...never mind.

  • Disappointed
    Feb. 4, 2009 8:22 a.m.

    I am so disappointed with so many of you who claim to be of my faith. Where are the attempts to mend wounds? Where are the attempts to treat all people with the dignity they deserve? Let's stop the childish "I'll stop when they stop" attitude I am seeing here.

    Honestly, have you ever been in a situation similar to what a homosexual goes through? While I am not gay, I was labeled one in jr. high school, and it stuck with me through high school. I was harrassed and mistreated for so long. I know what it is like, and I would take the mistreatment I got for being a mormon over the way homosexuals are treated any day.

  • Back up
    Feb. 4, 2009 8:35 a.m.

    I think before Gay Rights organizations start asking for the support of the LDS church here in Utah, they should consider an apology for their behavior first and foremost. To demand, and unabashadely expect the church to support them after the way they were treated is beyond reasonable. The Gay Rights organizations, NOT the LDS church, has quite a bit of PR work to do.

  • alex
    Feb. 4, 2009 9:02 a.m.

    It bothers me when gays compare their movement to the actions of Martin Luther King. Being gay is an action not a skin color.

    I guess it stems from their belief that they are born that way. I think that if the gay movement it to be crushed, we have to crush the idea that they have no control over their actions. Its a choice.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 4, 2009 9:30 a.m.

    Dear "Democracy in Action":

    Actually, something additional I wish the Des News had included is the information that, yes, the "Common Ground" campaign DOES intend to phase out Amendment three, which protects marriage. One of the bills in the package clearly states that it nullifies "the second part of Amendment 3" -- which says homosexuals cannot be granted the legal equivalent of marriage -- because that part of it happens to be inconvenient to them. Utahans need to know this isn't about health care -- it's about slowly getting rid of the marriage amendment.

  • JD
    Feb. 4, 2009 9:39 a.m.

    Sadly, as the argument goes on from both sides, today hundreds of young gay teenagers will contemplate suicide -- and some will succeed. The petty comments from both sides of this argument deny the basic fact that due to the way our society treats gay individuals, many grow up with such a severe sense of self loathing that taking their own life seems the only acceptable solution. Until we begin to treat all people with respect, our society will continue to suffer the consequences of the lost potential, lost productivity and lost spirits that our ignorance and intolerance encourage. We are all one people. We live in one nation. We are all children of God. Can we please start acting like it?

  • tired
    Feb. 4, 2009 9:59 a.m.

    While I understand the hurt that has risen over these past months on both sides of the debate, it is important to note that in this state, it will be unlikely that any 'common ground' initiative will be supported. I do not believe that being 'gay' is only a choice. Having friends who struggle with same gender attraction, I see them work each day to overcome their specific trial, and while some may never marry they take peace that they are following what they know to be right. I am sure there are many in the GLBT community who would dissagree with this thinking. It is how it is. However, in todays economy, I think better time would be spent focusing on programs that will benefit all citizens, and not pouring money into something that is so obviously wrong. Civil liberties are enjoyed, and to compare this movement to historical ones in the past (African Americans, women) is simply insulting. You have the right to voice your opinion, isn't that evidence enough?

  • Religious can't help you...
    Feb. 4, 2009 10:03 a.m.

    Homosexuals don't understand that people who believe in the God of the Old or New Testaments can not support them. To do so would invite upon them the same condemnation and eventual destruction that awaits homosexuals. While some sudo-religious people may join your cause, such a stance can only be possible by a rejection of their most fundamental beliefs. The only references to homosexuality in scripture utterly condemn the practice to the very death of those who indulge in that abominable sin. Homosexuals have the free will to reject the commandments of God and persecute the people of God, but they will only find frustration in seeking the approval of God or His people. So, good luck with that.

  • Svoboda
    Feb. 4, 2009 10:12 a.m.

    To JD: How we treat gays? I don't treat them any differently than anyone else. Most of the people I associate with do the same. What is the basis for your assertion about suicides among gays? A study or report?

    As far as respect, I can respect others in many ways. I work with a gay and our sexual preferences are not discussed. We are friends and I esteem his work ethic. However, if confronted with his sexual orientation, I will not say that everything is okey dokey, when it is not. I can not respect his decision to be gay. So, his private sexual life remains private, just as mine does. What more would you expect?

    Also, I don't think he has angst because of what others think. He is a little tougher than that.

    Secondly, if as you state and many gays have a low self-esteem, don't assume that it is always because of how others treat them. Consider an alternative suggestion that it is often due to their conflicted decision to accept that an unnatural life style.

  • Can't even discuss it
    Feb. 4, 2009 10:13 a.m.

    Have you noticed that gays will never debate the issue, but immediately move to ad hominem attacks, which consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. Hence, accusing people of hatred, referencing the black movement or polygamy.

  • Re: JD
    Feb. 4, 2009 10:47 a.m.

    Sadly, homosexual teens, straight teens, and adults of any sexual orientation contemplate suicide - and some will succeed. It is horrifically sad and we should reach out to anyone who is a danger to themselves. I wish we could prevent every suicide.

    That being said, I disagree that society is to blame for a "severe self-loathing" of gays and that, if this problem exists, it leads to suicide.

    Homosexuals frequently play the "civil rights" card and try to hijack the African-American civil rights movement. If being homosexual is as inherent as being black, why were there not higher suicide rates among those who were treated far, far worse than anything the homosexual community has ever experienced?

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 11:37 a.m.

    @Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:19 a.m. Feb. 4, 2009

    You say "(y)es domestic terrorism is the epitome of tolerance, isn't it?"

    Only to the point that labeling an entire group based on the actions of the lowest common denominator (who most likely aren't gay) is accurate. nice try though.

    @ can't even discuss it

    let's discuss. En arguendo, I'll stay away from 'appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument' so long as you don't base your argument off those beliefs. facts only. sound fair?

    we'll start with the indisputable fact that the SCOTUS recognizes marriage as a fundamental right, a guarantee to all citizens of the US, combined with Due Process for states under the 14th Amendment.

  • To Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 12:37 p.m.

    Unfortunately, there are those LDS (among others) who are hatful to gays and lesbians... something that had NEVER been approved of, or supported, by our leaders. HOWEVER, there are also those, like yourself, who claim to sustain the leaders of the church yet turn against the very words that come out of their mouths. A prophet of God has said that gay marriage is something that we MUST fight and that it WILL hurt our nation and has the potential to take away our rights to practice our religion as we see fit in the future. I think it is sad that you can not see this and that you profess to follow the prophet when you openly go against his counsel.

    The parable of the 10 virgins comes to mind here.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 12:49 p.m.

    You've got to be kidding me...Did you miss Baker v. Nelson, the case where the SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of gay marriage bans? Nice try, though.

    You really think those that feel passionately enough about the issue to send white powder in envelopes, vandalize private property, along with beating, threatening, and harassing Yes on 8 contributors and supporters aren't gay? Just a bunch of straight folks that are so outraged that they've turned to domestic terrorism. Give me a break. I'll glady label the entire group as domestic terrorists until one of them stands up to condemn the actions of the "lowest common denominator." Until they do, they lowest common denominator is, in fact, the common denominator.

  • mark
    Feb. 4, 2009 1:02 p.m.

    Domestic Terrorism, that's RICH coming from Mormons.
    You run boy's ranches and West Jordon Academies which Kidnap gay teens in the night, torture them tying wool blankets around their bodies, force them to run laps in the freezing night temperatures in their underwear or nude.
    mormon gulag is what these hideous CAMPS are called by gay survivors who spent 3 months to 2 years against their will housed with JUNKIES, and no outside observers, no medical personel, kept from contacting their parents for 4 weeks, and the websites of these HOLES instruct parents to IGNORE any complaints of abuse.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 4, 2009 1:09 p.m.

    Why don't you publish your GAY-BASHING pamphlet here, that you PROUDLY printed for DECADES, to Young Men?

  • mark
    Feb. 4, 2009 1:13 p.m.

    Buttars is the SADISTIC MONSTER who ran your gulags.

  • bb
    Feb. 4, 2009 1:31 p.m.

    radicalism in any sub culture, religion, or organization makes me sick. grouping all gays into that catagory isn't a fair assumption.

    also, marriage is more than a "christian" ideal, it's also a legal matter, a legal standing. and it's not like there trying to take away your birthday, they just want equal-marriage rights.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 2:09 p.m.

    @ To Stalwart Sentinel | 12:37

    your dilemma is resolved: the Prophet has told us we must support Prop 8 spiritually (which I do) but can oppose it civilly (which I also do). Regarding your statement that "(a) prophet of God has said that gay marriage is something that we MUST fight and that it WILL hurt our nation" is taken as true but for some of us, the greater danger manifests itself when individuals propose to usurp civil liberties from others in order to pursue their religious agenda. Allowing others to live as they see fit while you live a life filled with the Gospel will engender understanding, compassion, and soften hearts, rather than harden them.

    @ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 12:49

    please read the post carefully. I said marriage was a fundamental right. then I juxtaposed it with the 14th amendment.

    Let me quote the entire SCOTUS opinion of Baker v Nelson: "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."

    It is a state issue but marriage is a fundamental right. Hence, the 14th amendment secures the right equaling gay marriage. pick your poison: due process, privileges or immunities, or equal protection

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 2:21 p.m.

    @Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 12:49 p.m

    follow up...

    I think it very plausible that those sending the white powder could be kids pulling a prank, albeit a very offensive and illegitimate one. kids call in bomb threats, etc... all the time. you think disinterested fence-sitters aren't going to try to get their money's worth out of us who are involved in the fray?

    To be sure, some are gay rights activists and most would be best advised to stop; however, there is a clear danger in sweeping all the peaceful rallies and protests into one lump sum with the few extreme outliers. Sorry but that last paragraph demonstrates your penchant to illicitly skew the scenario.

  • RE: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    Rationalizations,

    rationalizations,

    rationalizations,

    When you go before the bar of God and He asks why you didn't fight for the his side, that he will accept your rationalizations?

    You can sputter all excuses you want, but the final analysis it's your actions that determine whose side you are on.

    Since the beginning of time Mariiage has always reserved only vetween a man and a women,

    anything else is Mocking God, playing house, taking what is not yours, fraud both spiritual and temporal.

    You can not say you love the institution of Marriage Spiritually, then cast your pearls before swine.

    The rights you try to say exist simply do not exist because some man wearing a robe in california says so.

    But then again, anyone can rationalize.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 3:56 p.m.

    So now you're arguing gay marriage bans are unconstitutional? Or you're arguing the 14th amendment somehow supersedes Baker v. Nelson and essentially makes it moot?

    Let me be very clear, Baker v. Nelson is the precedent for the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. Arguing over whether marriage is or isn't a "right" misses the point because even so, all rights have restrictions. Gay marriage bans are constitutional.

    Maybe the white powder was sent by kids? Yes and I suppose the vandalism to private property, and the beatings, threats, and harassment of Yes on 8 contributors and supporters was done by kids dressed as adults too. Come on, this is becoming almost comical how you're excusing the behavior.

    You keep talking about "all the peaceful rallies" and how these folks are the "lowest common denominator" in a much larger group. Where are the peaceful rallies? Where's the outrage from the gay community at the domestic terrorism? The best you can come up with is "most would be best advised to stop"? I find the "lowest common denominator" and "few extreme outliers" argument more and more laughable with each new excuse.

  • mark
    Feb. 4, 2009 4:13 p.m.

    For marriage being so firmly Bible-based and since the "beginning of time"....show ONE passage where a rabbi performed a wedding ceremoney in the BIBLE.
    You can find plenty of wives who failed to bear children dumped for a second wife, or polygamy. You can find King David who's love for Jonathan SURPASSED his love for women. You can find Ruth and Naiomi saying whether thou goest I go also.You can find St John define himself in Revelations as the discipler Jesus LOVED.
    But NOT ONE marriage service. Marriage was a private FINANCIAL agreement of a brides father providing the groom a dowery...service OVER.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 4:25 p.m.

    So let's take your argument to its logical extreme: "Allowing others to live as they see fit while you live a life filled with the Gospel will engender understanding, compassion, and soften hearts, rather than harden them."

    So if someone wants an incestuous relationship we should sit back and let them enjoy and the world will be a better place as a result? If someone wants to marry his dog, no worries, to each his own. Someone takes pleasure in getting high... great, because by allowing him to do so I've engendered "understanding, compassion," and "softened hearts."

    Sounds like one myopic sentinel to me.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    @ RE: Stalwart Sentinel | 3:02 p.m

    Absolutely, unequivocally zero rationalization here. Does your righteous indignation trump the authority of all Bishops in CA who give Temple recommends to LDS member voting no on Prop 8?

    I fight for my Father's side in every aspect of the way I live my personal life. I do so with respect and the awareness that imposing said Gospel on others is in defiance of His plan. It seems almost petty to have to explain that to you.

    I simply follow the admonitions of Christ. I do my best to "(r)ender unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods

    Ever pay taxes and tithing using the same paycheck? Drive the speed limit on your way to Church? I realize those are simple examples but I hope they satisfy your understanding re: civil marriage.

    It is imperative to properly frame this argument lest you stand before your Maker and fail to answer this simple question - "Did you treat all humankind justly, regardless of their actions?" I will answer in the affirmative, it seems that is still a difficult inquiry for you.

  • Re: Anonymous
    Feb. 4, 2009 4:36 p.m.

    That would be hard to do considering there isn't one.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 5:25 p.m.

    @ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 4:25 p.m

    You say "(a)rguing over whether marriage is or isn't a "right" misses the point because even so, all rights have restrictions." Finally, you are at the precipice of a sound argument! Now, since marriage is a fundamental right, and the 14th amendment assures equal protections under the law, we are able to assess what 'limits' may be imposed on said right.

    Limiting a fundamental right can only be constitutional after passing the 'Strict Scrutiny' test as applied by the SCOTUS. The interest for infringing on the right must be COMPELLING and the means must be NECESSARY. It is the most stringent test to overcome which is why courts are more readily exploring the issue and realizing there are no compelling reasons to barring same-sex marriage that cannot be adequately addressed by other means. It is unconstitutional to bar same-sex marriage.

    Re: the powder et al... I'm not condoning actions taken against our Church. I am stating not everyone is so conveniently categorized. sorry. Nonetheless, peaceful protests occur every single day of every week. You would be well advised to focus on things other than ADHD news.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 5:40 p.m.

    @ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 4:25 p.m

    all your points are generally considered illogical and outside the scope of most rational analysis.

    1 - incest - first, when dealing with a minor there is no consent so it is illegal. second, when two consenting adults engage in incest, their children are likely to have severe physical and mental difficulties. hence their actions directly, negatively affect a third party which is unacceptable (not true of same sex marriages b/c no direct offspring). tid bit - i actually think Utah allows incestuous marriages of first cousins after both parties reach an age beyond that of child bearing. i could be wrong but am pressed for time and will 'pass the buck' for you to look that one up.

    2 - marry a dog? come on, spring chicken? see above, no consent. illegal and non-binding.

    3 - 'getting high' in what regard? what substance? in their own home? then, yes that's completely fine b/c no direct, negative affect on others. driving intoxicated? clearly not okay. distributing to minors? clearly not okay. simple enough?

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 6:10 p.m.

    This is hilarious how you keep beating the "fundamental right" and "14th amendment" drum and ignoring the main issue.

    Apparently you missed the part in Baker v. Nelson that reads:

    "The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the states classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination."

    In layman's terms, once again, gay marriage bans are constitutional. It became precedent decades ago. Lower courts have consistently looked to Baker v. Nelson as precedent for their gay marriage bans since. The more you argue against it, the more you undermine any legal scholarship you lay claim to.

    You keep dodging another issue: where's the outrage from the gay community regarding the domestic terrorists? The silence is deafening. Where were the peaceful protests every single day of this week? Throw me a bone, they never come across my ADHD news but you shouldn't have any trouble documenting them since they are apparently so multitudinous.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 6:27 p.m.

    I was hoping you'd respond that way because it brings us to the real issue: you only care about laws when something adversely affects others. In other words, you believe there are "victimless crimes" that should not be prosecuted. You probably also take umbrage at seatbelt laws and suicide laws among other "victimless crimes" like using illegal drugs. You're unlikely to get far in playing the "victimless crime" card.

    Homosexuals consistently regurgitate this argument: "it doesn't hurt anyone" is the common refrain. Here's one reason homosexual marriage doesn't fit within your "victimless crime" worldview: it undermines traditional marriage which is the foundation of society. It affects everyone. Apparently millions of Americans are "illogical" and the argument is "outside the scope of rational analysis." If only we had a stalwart sentinel to guide us.

    Tid bit - Have fun studying the finer points of Utah's incest laws. I couldn't be less interested.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 4, 2009 7:22 p.m.

    @ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 6:10 p.m 1/2

    you may find the conversation hilarious but i find it alarming that your 'main issue' resides in a single case from Minnesota in the early '70s. good luck with that sticking around.

    On the other hand, i prefer to base my argument on the principles espoused and protected by the Constitution and the growing realization among the legal community, and others, that gay marriage is a fundamental right and a ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. If you can't see that writing on the wall, you'll just have to remain 'shocked' every time a court declares a ban as such. don't worry, we'll see Utah follow suit in our lifetime.

  • QueerSaint
    Feb. 4, 2009 7:26 p.m.

    Being gay is not a choice - but choice of religion is. Interesting to read how the once "persecuted" have now become the persecuters. Replace the word samesex couple with LDS couple or gay with LDS and you may understand? This debate about equal rights for gays and lesbians, and the LDS Church role in the passage of Prop 8 in CA show that the line between church and state has been crossed. Imposing religous beliefs on others to prevent equal rights for all citizens, is something seen in theocracies like Iran. To see this happening in CA and Utah is a huge dissapointment. Equality in Utah is as utopic as mormonism or religious freedom in Iran. Equal rights for all citizens - gay or straight - do not take away any of your rights. Only your right to choose to impose your religious beliefs on others. Want to protect marriage? Banning divorce and adultery would be more logical, than denying
    equal rights to gays and lesbians. What's next? Courts of love - followed by stonings on Temple Square. As if the rocks in Utah were not red enough? Selfrightenousness is a heinous sin in the eyes of God.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 4, 2009 7:38 p.m.

    How does same sex marriage "undermine traditional marriage"? Jeff Reynolds spouts this off as if it is a given, and all the LDS drones follow along. What support can you show for that claim? Same sex marriage does NOTHING to heterosexual marriage, not in the abstract nor in the specific!

  • mark
    Feb. 5, 2009 12:16 a.m.

    Those who chastise gays/lesbians over any MLK comparrisons. MLKs inner circle included a gay Quaker Baynard Rustin who organized the Poor People's March on Washington. Baynard stayed out of the limelight so his being gay wouldn't distract from the Racial Civil Rights issues. Coretta King was a champion of equal Rights for gays and lesbians.
    The Feminist Movement also had lesbians who selflessly put aside some of their Rights to fight for Sexual Equality.
    You can't seperate these various Human Rights Movements from LGBT Equality, because many of us were members of other Movements too.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 5, 2009 7:25 a.m.

    For someone so intent on lecturing others regarding fundamental rights and strict scrutiny, I thought you'd be more interested in case law. Guess not. That "single case from Minnesota in the early '70s" became precedent for the constitutionality of gay marriage bans when the SCOTUS upheld it. "Good luck with that sticking around"? Right, I forgot how cases just evaporate after a while. But since that hasn't happened yet in lower court cases like Hernandez v Robles, Burns v. Burns, Lewis v. Harris, Conaway v. Deane, etc. that have looked to that "single case" from "the early '70s" for precedent in upholding their gay marriage bans, I guess Baker v. Nelson has a little "staying power." (Shocking, isn't it?)

    But what was I thinking? Somehow I still fail to see that your argument is, in spite of all of this, based "on the principles espoused and protected by the Constitution." Is your sympathetic attitude for the domestic terrorists' tactics rooted in this same disregard for the rule of law? "Alarming" indeed is an understatement.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 5, 2009 12:38 p.m.

    @ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:25 a.m

    sigh, first, for someone so intent on focusing on case law, i would expect you to actually address the strict scrutiny argument (but i understand why you don't - you can't, no worries though).

    Second, SCOTUS never upheld the case. They dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. We already established that.

    Third, bad law doesn't evaporate. It is eventually overturned. Keycite or Shepardize the case. Baker has negative history. Hernandez is overrruled. I couldn't find any legal reference to Burns. Lewis and Conaway both cited the case in the dissent! Ask a local law professor whether citing a case w/ that history would be prudent. Actually, i'll save you some time: the answer is no. sorry for you.

    i think the problem is you are trying to look in the rearview mirror to see where you're driving. true, you may be able to determine what road you're on after you pass landmarks but you are not percipient to the direction the road is going. rights for same sex couples will soon reach your doorstep, dont worry.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 5, 2009 12:53 p.m.

    @ Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:25 a.m

    Re; domestic terrorism

    you can bash what you deem 'disregard for the rule of law' but given your understanding of baker, et al, your ignorance of the law is clearly more dangerous.

    i do not sympathize w/ any act of terrorism. but neither do i esteem the word 'terrorism' lightly. i am merely stating:

    one - not all the acts were acts of terrorism (ie protesting outside a store). sorry, your inability to properly perceive and willingness to lump all things you deem negative into the jumbled mess of 'terrorism' is invalid.

    two - there were far more peaceful engagements based on opposing prop 8 than the few that turned violent. i can spoon feed this information to you if you want? that makes those few bad apples the lowest common denominator of the opposition to prop 8. understand?

    third - the acts of sending envelopes w/ white powder are deplorable and have no place in this forum. gays and straights have decried it as such. i know your spidey senses want to make things easy for you by assuming it was a certain group but you cant pass judgment.

    sorry for you.

  • RE: SS
    Feb. 5, 2009 2:55 p.m.

    Baker v. Nelson was not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It was dismissed "for want of substantial federal question." 409 U.S. 810 (1972) This amounts to a decision on the merits and established the case as controlling precedent. While Baker has been "questioned" it has never been overruled meaning it is still the controlling precedent.

    That's why the decision to allow same-sex marriage have been based on STATE constitutional interpretation because the US Supreme Court has already ruled that the Federal Constitution does not grant individuals the right to marry an individual of the same gender. It's also why same-sex marriage advocates file these claims in state rather than federal court.

  • @Alex
    Feb. 5, 2009 5:19 p.m.

    Let me Clarify my comments earlier in regards to Martin Luther King Jr. and Caesar Chavez. The civil rights movement faceed extreme opposition no question. These men were hard working and determined to not give up on something they believed in. Something that directly affected thier lives and thier rights to equality. They did not give up and neither should gay rights activists. I agree that one should not be militant in their persuit of equality. This may be why we celebrate a national holiday for MLK and not for Malcom X. I am not gay. I don't believe that homosexuality is natural or right. However I do see that the rights of a group is restricted in comparison to another. This is not right. Many will disagree but that's what makes the debate so heated. I would however like to see some evidence or a study that indicates that allowing same sex marrage would have a negative impact on society. This is one thing that I have yet to hear anything on though I am new to this debate. If anyone knows where I could find this please post.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 5, 2009 6:48 p.m.

    @ RE: SS | 2:55

    You're just wasting my time now.

    Dismissing a claim for want of a federal question means the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over the matter! With no jurisdiction, the SCOTUS will NEVER issue a decision w/out jurisdiction lest it be considered an 'advisory opinion' which the SCOTUS is precluded from doing.

    Re: controlling precedent, I never stated Baker was overruled. Please don't put words in my mouth to make your argument fit. It has bad history, has been distinguished, and would be a weak case to cite in a legal forum. Cases like Baker should only be cited as a last resort, hence your reliance on it.

    Of course it's a state issue! And as you backtrack in your dilapidated argument, we are finally circling back to my original argument: marriage is a fundamental right and the 14th amendment (which applies to states, not feds!!!!) grants due process, privileges or immunities, and equal protection under the law. And the strict scrutiny test applies.

    Hence my earlier point, that "courts are more readily exploring the issue and realizing there are no compelling reasons to barring same-sex marriage..."

    sorry, you lose

  • RE: SS
    Feb. 6, 2009 9:57 a.m.

    How does the 14th Amendment apply if the Supreme Court says that it is not a federal question?

  • Kristofer
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:57 a.m.

    @Alex | 5:19 p.m.

    Scientific studies of the impact of gay marriage on a society would be difficult if not impossible to conduct. At best, all we can do is look to contemporaneous and historical events.

    There are many societies today that allow gay marriages. Gay marriage does not seem to be destroying these societies.

    Historically, many societies have allowed gay marriage. Probably most notable was ancient Greece from which we get our ideas about equality and liberty. In ancient Greece, same-gender relationships were encouraged in many areas of life, the military being most prominent. These same-gender relationships were given official, public recognition that included inheritance, power of attorney, estate, and other privileges and rights. In a few cases, these relationships were even called a "marriage" (γάμος), but that was because the majority of people in Greek society were heterosexual, not because there was any principled opposition to same-sex marriage. As to the "harm" same-sex marriages might cause, we can see that Greece is here today, and the "society" of the Western World is built on the principles and philosophies of those ancient Greeks! So same-sex marriage didn't harm that (our) society!

  • @ Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 6, 2009 2:05 p.m.

    "Hernandez is overrruled. I couldn't find any legal reference to Burns. Lewis and Conaway both cited the case in the dissent!"

    Hernandez is the reason gay marriage cannot be preformed in NY. Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. Lewis ruled same-sex marriage bans were constitutional in NJ. Conaway upheld state law defining marriage between one man and one woman in MD.

    There are 20 others that could be rattled off upholding the gay marriage bans. Are you really trying to argue that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?

    Your obsession with strict scrutiny and dismissal of precedent is baffling. What more needs to be addressed with strict scrutiny? Have the lower courts ignored strict scrutiny each time they've upheld bans?

    "Courts are more readily exploring the issue and realizing there are no compelling reasons to barring same-sex marriage"

    Where? MA? CT? I hardly think those two states constitute the definitive tectonic shift you seem so certain is upon us.

    "Ignorance of the law"? That's rich coming from the guy who's ignored every precedent for gay marriage bans.

  • To: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 6, 2009 2:21 p.m.

    Baker "has bad history, has been distinguished, and would be a weak case to cite in a legal forum. Cases like Baker should only be cited as a last resort, hence your reliance on it."

    How ironic, considering you've cited no cases in your favor. Your time is indeed being wasted, but that's only because you continue to argue a position that ignores precedent.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 6, 2009 4:51 p.m.

    This is great. Your arguments become less cogent with each post.

    "Not all the acts were acts of terrorism (ie protesting outside a store)" When did I say protesting outside a store was terrorism? For that matter, when did I say "all" the acts were acts of terrorism? Does the phrase "Please don't put words in my mouth to make your argument fit" sound familiar?

    I did, however, mention mailing white powder, vandalizing private property, along with beating, threatening, and harassing Yes on 8 contributors and supporters.

    You seem to have trouble responding when your arguments are challenged. I figured this would have come naturally to a legal scholar such as yourself. But I understand why you don't - you can't, no worries though. You claim the above actions are those of the "lowest common denominator " since "peaceful protests occur every single day of every week." Once again I ask, where were the peaceful protests every day this week? Yes "spoon feed" them to me. Apparently your spidey senses have access to information that is unavailable to the rest of mankind.

  • How does it benefit the majority
    Feb. 6, 2009 5:17 p.m.

    @Alex,

    "I am not gay. I don't believe that homosexuality is natural or right. However I do see that the rights of a group is restricted in comparison to another."

    That's because you believe marriage is a right but it isn't. Tomorrow the majority could abolish the legal institution of marriage which makes it by definition not a right but a construct of society. As a result all the majority is required to do is provide equal protection UNDER the law which means they have to extend marriage to homosexuals on the same terms as heterosexuals which the majority does. There is no box on a marriage application asking for sexual orientation followed by a list of whom they can marry.

    "I would however like to see some evidence or a study that indicates that allowing same sex marrage would have a negative impact on society."

    Since it's not relevant I haven't looked into its alleged impact. The majority doesn't have to support same-sex marriage if there isn't a negative impact. It merely has to have no reason to do so thus you must prove its benefit to the majority.

  • Don't support slavery but have
    Feb. 6, 2009 5:28 p.m.

    slaves is like not supporting same-sex marriage but being party to it.

    Anonymous,

    "How does same sex marriage "undermine traditional marriage"? Jeff Reynolds spouts this off as if it is a given, and all the LDS drones follow along. What support can you show for that claim?"

    Actually it does do something to marriage which is force those who want to take part in a "traditional marriage" as you like to call it to take part in a legal institution that they no longer agree with because it grants marriages to persons of the same-sex. In essence it compels people to support an act they do not agree with.

    You can disagree with this all you want but you have yet to show how the majority GRANTING legal marriage licenses to same-sex couples isn't an act of support by the majority anymore then being legally married isn't benign support for the institution. The reason people get married is because they support it. If they didn't they wouldn't get married so a person who legally marries supports the institution and if it grants same-sex marriage it means we support it as well.

  • To the narrow-minded bigot
    Feb. 6, 2009 5:42 p.m.

    QueerSaint,

    "Being gay is not a choice - but choice of religion is. Interesting to read how the once "persecuted" have now become the persecuters. Replace the word samesex couple with LDS couple or gay with LDS and you may understand?"

    If you replace the word same-sex couples with LDS and straight couples with non-LDS then you would have no discrimination.

    As it now stands the law states Non-LDS men and LDS men can marry either a LDS or a non-LDS woman or in other words a homosexual or heterosexual man can marry either a homosexual or a heterosexual woman. Both sexual orientations are treated equally under the law. Heterosexuals aren't being given special treatment because of their sexual orientation. They can no more marry a person of the same sex then a homosexual can but both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry a person of the opposite sex and there is no law allowing heterosexuals to marry one gender based on sexual orientation.

    Furthermore, there's no gender discrimination either since a man can't marry another man and women can't marry another woman.

    You will never understand because you are a bigot.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 4:29 a.m.

    @ RE: SS | 9:57 a.m.

    Sincere apologies, I have had other obligations that have not allowed me to respond. However, I hope to get through all your issues now.

    You ask "(h)ow does the 14th Amendment apply if the Supreme Court says that it is not a federal question?" 14th amendment applies to states re: due process. 5th applies to feds re: due process. come on, you should know that.




  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 5:20 a.m.

    @ @ Stalwart Sentinel | 2:05 p.m. Feb. 6, 2009

    First things first LexisNexis Shepardization cites Baker as Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs and Westlaw Keycites it as Some negative history but not overruled meaning it has not been overruled but is, as stated many times over, a last ditch effort if nothing else exists. Youre digging yourself a deep hole relying on it. sorry, its a failed argument.

    Hernandez is keycited as red flagged and No longer good for at least one point of law by westlaw. LexisNexis red signs Hernandez as Warning: Negative treatment is indicated. Sorry, again.

  • Stalwart Sentinal
    Feb. 7, 2009 5:27 a.m.

    Have the lower courts ignored strict scrutiny each time they've upheld bans?

    No, there are courts that have held same sex marriage is not a fundamental right; again, those cases have been distinguished and are narrowing in scope as the days pass. However, (repeating once again) courts today are recognizing same sex marriage as a fundamental right, which requires a test you obviously are not willing to attempt to overcome. Yours is a losing argument. Whether you like CT, MA, or CA, they are bellwether states re: the flow of case law and are nearly always at the forefront of most laws that permeate throughout the US. Sorry, just the reality of the situation. Hence, my rearview mirror analogy a few posts back.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 5:28 a.m.

    These next few may appear twice. Sorry if they do.

    Burns recognized marriage as between one man and one woman.

    First, when I said I couldnt find any legal reference to Burns it meant that Burns was not cited as referencing baker, which you claimed to be true in you previous post of Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:25 a.m. you were wrong.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 5:29 a.m.

    @To: Stalwart Sentinel | 2:21 p.m. Feb. 6, 2009

    How ironic, considering you've cited no cases in your favor.
    Do I really need to cite cases holding marriage as a fundamental right for you? Cases upholding the 14th amendment? Have you digressed that much? Please let me know if you are truly unable to find such cases. I am happy to provide them for you.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 5:39 a.m.

    I submitted a post re: peaceful protests a few days earlier. It appears either my connection failed or was filtered by moderators.

    Here is the first result of my first search for them:

    Tuesday, January 27th - Equality on Campus Day! - Students across the country will wear the same shirt to school as a way to show unity within the community.

    Friday, January 30th in Fresno, CA - To protest California Eye Institute

    Saturday, January 31st same above

    Thursday, Feb 12th Freedom to Marry Day - Sit In - Steps of your City Hall and ask for a marriage license. If you are denied a license, don't leave. Sit with your community, your allies, and friends.

    Friday, February 13th same as above

    Monday, February 16th - "Love and Equality Rally"

    Tuesday, February 17th - Marriage Lobby Day '09 - CA Capital State Building

    Monday, March 16 - Rally in Tally for LGBT Equality at Capitol

    Friday, February 13th - Every college campus in the USA and beyond leave your classes but show up to school!

    Monday, February 16th - Gather together at the Capitol to demonstrate that the LGBT community and our allies will settle for nothing less than equality.

    Tuesday, February 17th - Marriage Equality Lobby Day

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 5:59 a.m.

    Please, tell me if there are any more "challenges" you can muster. I am unaware of any I have yet to address and dispel. Additionally, I have posted the peaceful protests twice now but don't know whether such events are precluded per the moderators, etc...

    Nevertheless, in all sincerity, I feel anyone capable of posting on this site (ie you) should realistically be able search for those things on your own. Hubris is not becoming of someone who apparently lacks the ability to perform a simple google search.

    I understand your frustration, your belief structure seems to be falling to pieces as we trade posts. Like I said before, same sex marriage is a growing recognition among legal scholars and it's unfortunate you have yet to embrace the reality of the situation.

    That is not to say stare decisis should be fettered away, I'm simply stating that stare decisis is as much a base for rendering past holdings incorrect as it is a basis for upholding current cases dependent on prior case law. And the issue at bar clearly is moving towards upholding gay marriage as constitutionally protected. Do you disagree with that?

  • RE: SS
    Feb. 7, 2009 9:38 a.m.

    First, the 14th Amendment applies in Federal Courts because it is Federal law. The 14th Amendment is not used in State Courts because they rely on State law. There has been no Supreme Court decision that overrules Baker v. Nelson where the Court ruled that the challenger did not present a substantive federal question. That means the 14th Amendment does not apply in a challenge advocating same sex marriage until the court says otherwise.

    Unlike a denail of cert., a dismissal for want of federal question constitutes a decision on the merits and is binding on lower federal courts until instructed otherwise.

    "Until the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)

    "Dismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction". Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)

    Currently, there are no federal grounds for allowing same-sex marriage. Further support is found in DOMA, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

  • re:@used to be tolerant
    Feb. 7, 2009 11:31 a.m.

    Yes, Mormons, especially in CA. are becoming fearful of their lives thanks to Homosexual terrorists. My husband was recently asked at a job interview in CA the MOST illegal of questions before the interviewer even said hello..."What religion are you?" He could see my husband was from Utah and he was MOST unpleasant (we didn't sue but sure could have). Mormons in our early days were treated much like blacks, howbeit not as bad, but awful close with whole communities being murdered and their homes taken from them and being shoved out of them in the middle of winter. Never heard of that among the homosexual community at large. We moved to Utah to live religion in peace...homosexual friends of mine moved to San Francisco to live their lifestyle in peace. I've never and will never hurt a homosexual but I will also NEVER condone marriage among same sex unions and no one in Utah is bying the lie from the homosexual community that this is about basic rights only...that what the homosexual community said in CA. till they bought off their JUDGES who made same sex marriage legal till THE PEOPLE said NO!

  • In Quiet Desperation
    Feb. 7, 2009 1:14 p.m.

    Everyone just stop it. PLEASE!!! Just read the book, In Quiet Desperation" by Ty Mansfield sold at Deseret Book. It will soften your heart through the principles of the Gospel.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 1:33 p.m.

    following up 1/4

    Burns recognized marriage as between one man and one woman.

    First, when I said I couldnt find any legal reference to Burns it meant that Burns was not cited as referencing baker, which you claimed to be true in you previous post of Re: Stalwart Sentinel | 7:25 a.m. you were wrong.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 1:33 p.m.

    2/4

    Second, burns does not recognize marriage as between one man and one woman, it is a case re: visitation rights. Here is the holding: The Court of Appeals, Miller, J., held that: (1) ex-wife and her female companion were not married in Vermont, but instead entered into civil union which does not bestow status of civil marriage, and thus, ex-wife violated consent order prohibiting visitation with children while cohabitating with adult to whom party is not legally married when ex-wife exercised visitation while cohabiting with female companion, and (2) although there is right under constitution's due process clause to privacy of intimacy between persons legally able to consent, ex-wife waived that right, to extent it was interfered with in this proceeding, when she agreed to consent decree. Affirmed. Gay marriage was not the issue! The only mention is distinguishing civil union from marriage, which was already well known. Sorry, wrong again.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 1:34 p.m.

    here is 3/4

    Lewis ruled same-sex marriage bans were constitutional in NJ. Wrong.
    Keycite Some negative history but not overruled.
    Shepardization Caution: Possible negative treatment
    Holding The high court affirmed the intermediate appellate court's ruling that New Jersey's marriage laws did not contravene N.J. Const. art. I, para. 1's substantive due process guarantee, but reversed its ruling that the laws did not violate the equal protection guarantee. Within 180 days, the legislature had to either amend the marriage statutes or enact a statutory structure that afforded committed same-sex couples the same rights of married couples.
    IE barring same sex couples the rights of married couples violated the equal protections guarantee. Where have we heard that statement before? Hmmm.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 1:35 p.m.

    and 4/4

    Conaway upheld state law defining marriage between one man and one woman in MD.

    Keycite Some negative history but not overruled
    Shepardization Caution: Possible negative treatment

    Conaway is probably your best bet but still doesnt address same sex marriage as a fundamental right, but rather argues it based on a MD statute. As noted in the case was subject to rational review. See the rational review situation? That is because it is being tested against a statute, not as a fundamental right which requires your favorite subject to dodge: strict scrutiny.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 2:05 p.m.

    @ RE: SS | 9:38 a.m.

    re: 14th amendment "(t)he 14th Amendment is not used in State Courts because they rely on State law."

    States and municipalities have to make laws that comply w/ the 14th amendment b/c it applies to them. Do i really have to teach you about checks, balances, sovereignty? your coveted baker explores the 14th amendment in full. sorry, yet again. but....

    this is too rich! i just pulled up wikipedia's 'synopsis' of baker v nelson. is that where you are getting your info?! this is hilarious! you are citing a distinguished case by using its run down from wikipedia!!! that is surely reputable. forget the 'rearview' mirror analogy, you're driving blindfolded!

    for more kicks and giggles: when baker was decided (1971) marriage was not considered a 'fundamental right' but now is per zablocki v redhail, et al (1978). they never addressed the same thing you refuse to address. do i have to remind you what that is?



  • Anonymous
    Feb. 7, 2009 2:07 p.m.

    I live in California. I have never hear of a gay enemies list. I googled looking for a copy of the gay agenda and never found a copy. What the name of Utah's Limbaugh want a be? Has Glen been spreading lies again? I think gays realize time is on their side. There will be gay marriage.

    I'm discussed this with gays. That articulated they want equal treatment under the law. I have never had a gay try to convert me.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 2:21 p.m.

    you say "a dismissal for want of federal question constitutes a decision on the merits and is binding on lower federal courts until instructed otherwise."

    binding on lack of jurisdiction!

    you cite it yourself right below: "branded a question as unsubstantial" & "without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction."

    Are you deliberately trying to undermine your own argument?

    DOMA? this gets better and better! when you lose one argument, jump ship and get on another. well, i'm getting into your mindset (by using your precious wikipedia) and it seems all roads lead to rome - rome being fundamental rights/strict scrutiny. SCOTUS has denied cert for all DOMA challenges. why? b/c it has been a conservative court the entire time DOMA has been in place and they know the outcome if there were to address it. is that not obvious? the SCOTUS has shirked numerous tough decisions in the past and continue to do so now, any revision of the history of the SCOTUS reveals that.

    again, i reiterate the question: courts are gaining momentum in moving towards upholding gay marriage as constitutionally protected. Do you disagree with that?


  • Carl
    Feb. 7, 2009 4:56 p.m.

    I've never met a gay person I didn't like, and I've never met a Mormon that I did!

  • Taladega
    Feb. 7, 2009 5:00 p.m.

    Don't you just hate it when someone discovers you are a phony pretending to be smart by using Wikipedia?!

    Hilarious!

    Good job SS!

  • al
    Feb. 7, 2009 5:14 p.m.

    Sodomy is not even related to the civil rights movement. It's more related to bleeding hemorrhoids.
    Stop insulting Blacks and stop peddling red herrings.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 7, 2009 5:21 p.m.

    al,

    That's not bigoted hate speech at all, is it! I suppose if the monitors weren't bigoted, hateful Mormons, they would have refused your comment.

    Go figure.

  • Re; Carl
    Feb. 7, 2009 6:18 p.m.

    What? You didn't like Steve Young?

  • Savant
    Feb. 7, 2009 6:23 p.m.

    I don't know why this story is even news.

    Of course most LDS support gays having basic rights.

    And most LDS are opposed to gay marriage (as is the rest of the country). These two facts haven't changed and I doubt they ever will.

  • RE: SS
    Feb. 7, 2009 6:49 p.m.

    First, if the 14th Amendment applies, why don't homosexuals bring their claims in federal court? Answer: Because the Supreme Court has said that this is not a Federal issue so the 14th does not apply. If the 14th applied, then it would be a federal issue in federal courts. If something is in the Constitution, that makes it a federal issue and means that federal courts have the power to resolve the case. See Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, etc.

    Second, the Supreme Court said that marriage was a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). The Baker case was decided a few years after this, by a "liberal court."

    Third, no the tide is not on your side of the issue. 30 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 14 others have statutes proclaiming the same. Only 3 State Supreme Courts, in cases decided by a single vote, have held that same-sex marriage is lawful. And one of those (California) was overturned within a few months by the people.

  • I Smell a Rat
    Feb. 7, 2009 7:02 p.m.

    I find it curious that "Stalwart Sentinal" has posted so many times on this board and yet not one comment made by John Pack Lambert.

  • Re: Rat
    Feb. 7, 2009 7:30 p.m.

    You could be onto something. That or JPL is on vacation?

  • SLCSKP
    Feb. 7, 2009 8:39 p.m.

    RE: SS@6:49pm

    If you take a slightly longer view, you will likely see a different picture. As I recall, the DOMA and all those states' constitutional amendments were the result of mass hysteria whipped up over the last decade by anti-gay evangelicals, looking for red meat to motivate their base. As older voters age and the next (much more tolerant, overall) generation takes over, I think we'll see those states start to undo those straight-only marriage laws.

    I can't help wondering if the real slippery slope that the religious population fears is that gay marriage will happen in a few places, and the rest of the country will see it for what it is: no big deal. Straight couples are still getting married, and divorced, at the same rates as before. Marriage is no worse off.

    Same with allowing gay couples to adopt. It's happening in a number of states already, and we who live in those states can see what the studies have already proved: gay parents are no worse, or better, than straight parents.

    I think that's what scares the religious right: that they'll be proved wrong.

  • RE: SLCSKP
    Feb. 7, 2009 8:53 p.m.

    It may very well be that one day the people decide to define marriage differently than they do now. However, that is much different than a court mandating such a thing on the people. The judicial branch interprets the law, it doesn't make it up.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel 5:20 a.m.
    Feb. 7, 2009 9:00 p.m.

    Should've had your morning coffee before this entry.
    Your argument has now devolved into a sort of "O.K. gay marriage bans are legal, but since not everyone likes them, that's only an annoying technicality" line of reasoning. I guess that would explain why you have failed to advance a case in your favor, you thought we were arguing not about the law, just about opinion this whole time. It must be terribly frustrating for you that Baker (et al) don't comport to your worldview and that of gays rights activists, but you have yet to address the fact that gay marriage bans are legal and constitutional. Sorry.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel 5:27 a.m.
    Feb. 7, 2009 9:20 p.m.

    Ah yes, the rearview mirror analogy. It's so odd, I could've sworn I remember hearing something about stare decisis. Must've just been my imagination because it's not something you seem terribly familiar with either.

    How intriguing...some courts have used strict scrutiny, others have not. What was that about marriage being a fundamental right? So let me see, marriage isn't a fundamental right but it's becoming one, is that it? Pray tell.

    CT and MA are now judicial bellwethers? Now you've fully undermined your credibility. I'll give you an opportunity to revise your statement lest others think you actually meant that.

  • Stalwart Sentinel 5:29 a.m.
    Feb. 7, 2009 9:46 p.m.

    You seem surprised that you would be expected to cite cases in your favor. I thought that would be old hat for someone so well versed and respected in the legal system. I didn't realize your argument had reached such a level of desperation that you would resort to asking me to provide cases for you to cite in your favor.

    Before doing so, you should consider that you have still failed to refute that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Perhaps that would be a good place to start before you resume beating the 14th amendment and strict scrutiny horses to death.

  • Stalwart Sentinel 5:39 a.m.
    Feb. 7, 2009 10:02 p.m.

    You once again fail to make your case, another sad pattern in the history of Stalwart Sentinel. Shall I ask one more time, where were the peaceful protests every day this week? Or would you care to revise your earlier statement that "peaceful protests occur every single day of every week." (See 5:25 p.m. Feb. 4, 2009. I'm sure it's difficult for you to keep your positions straight so I thought I'd help remind you of them.) You would be well advised to focus on the news (any news, ADHD or otherwise) before you continue to undermine your dilapidated argument regarding the domestic terrorists being the "lowest common denominator." Which do you prefer "sorry" or "you lose"?

  • Ed Clinch
    Feb. 7, 2009 10:02 p.m.

    I see this going as the next Constitutional Amendment. Whether it defines traditional marriage or not as Mitt Romney has suggested as presidential candidate, I think a fair ruling would be for an adult to claim any other adult legally as a co-dependent, but not "married".

    Civil union if you like, I think a man or woman should be able to claim another adult: father, sibling, child, same sex partner, even intimate friend (non-family) who claims both state and federal tax breaks, exemptions, privileges, etc. that all legally married couple are now entitled to per state and our nation.

    The crux of the issue is moral and economic, and I think such a law would provide closure for all sides.

    Marriage is defined excusively as a union as a man and a woman; anything else is subject to large and beneficial economic rewards.

  • Stalwart Sentinel 5:59 a.m.
    Feb. 7, 2009 10:14 p.m.

    "Please, tell me if there are any more 'challenges' you can muster."

    You seem to be under the impression that you've refuted any of the challenges. Should I simplify them for you or do you prefer the broken record approach of pontificating on how unjust the law is because gay marriage bans are constitutional?

    As to your final question, I think another poster at 6:49 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009 sufficiently addressed your claim.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 7, 2009 10:24 p.m.

    I can't understand why a state like Utah that has such gorgeous scenery would allow billboards to block the beautiful vistas that abound there. City councils can eliminate billboards. That's what our city did in my state and it is wonderful. Billboards are ugly, no matter what they are advertising.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 10:26 p.m.

    In regards to your four part series on Feb. 7 at 1:33, 1:33, 1:34 and 1:35 you once again fail to acknowledge (or perhaps realize) that these cases prevent gay marriage, yes legally. I know that you would love to find some way to dismiss them, but please do yourself a favor a make peace with the fact that those are in fact the law.

    As an aside, it appears that my 9:46 and 10:02 p.m. posts did not include the Re: at the beginning, which is likely to cause some confusion. Those posts are addressed to Stalwart Sentinel's posts from those times, not from Stalwart Sentinel.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 7, 2009 10:42 p.m.

    Apparently the 10:14 p.m. didn't include the Re: before Stalwart Sentinel either. It to is directed to Stalwart Sentinel, not from him.

  • QueerSaint
    Feb. 8, 2009 12:01 a.m.

    "I can't understand why a state like Utah that has such gorgeous scenery would allow billboards to block the beautiful vistas that abound there"

    Gorgeous scenery along I15??? You have obviously never been on I15 in depression valley. The "scenery" all marred by architural disasters called "Temples". Jehova & Elohim - oh my mistake ... Mormon Inc. are building a multi billion shopping mall on sacred ground though, to block the worst "scenery". All led by a profit who lead the Values Institute, while his accomplices put electrodes on the genitals of young men attending BYU, while showing them porn in an attempt to cure homosexuality. Quite a scenery!

    Why posting an official statement from the LDS Church on 2 billboards is so upsetting to disobidient LDS members beats me. They dont follow the profit at all! The LDS Church loves their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. They want to give them equal protection under the law. Only mrSS Gay(le) Ruzika and the Sutherland Institute fighting against what the LDS Church CLAIM they stand for is not questioned. Lying for the Lord is an artform for the those given the second endowment. Still enjoying the gorgeus scenery?

  • Vince
    Feb. 8, 2009 3:36 p.m.

    To Ads aren't always the truth | 4:01 p.m. Feb. 3, 2009

    We need to look at the content of the ads --- not ads in general ---

    to say that 'ads aren't always the truth' is a very broad statement and to use the example of cigarrette smoking is only using an anti-example.

    We need to examine why, if for any reason, the ads are not telling the truth.

    Else, could we say the same about the Church ads? "Families: It's about time"

    I, for one, say, let LDS families be what they may.

    But let gay families be gay families.

    Enough of the "we are better because we are nuclear families"

  • Vince
    Feb. 8, 2009 3:44 p.m.


    I'm not so sure that extending further rights to gays would essentially demean or infringe on "the integrity of the constitutional right of churches"

    I believe that when Reynolds says that the Church's statement was mis-construed there is nothing to be mis-construed about.

    If it were so, has the Church, for example, lost its constitutional right in Canada, Massachusetts, or Connecticut?

    I believe there are deep-seated phobias when it comes to letting gays have their say ---

    Inevitably, someone will say I'm off the mark and I'm misquoting facts ---

    Show me.

  • Vince
    Feb. 8, 2009 3:55 p.m.


    Re: And most LDS are opposed to gay marriage (as is the rest of the country).

    With the first comment, I agree completely ---

    With the second comment, I disagree completely --- focusing in California, specifically ---

    Going from the history of Prop 22 to Prop 8, I'm not so sure you can say that that will ever change --- society's views are changing.

  • Vince
    Feb. 8, 2009 4:03 p.m.

    RE: SS | 6:49 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

    You also have to agree that civil rights take time ---

    If you will cite the 14th Amendment, for example, how long did it take to fully implement the 14th Amendment, for example? Methinks about 100 years. From the end of the Civil War to Jim Crow laws, to separate but equal statues, to ending "separate but equal."

    And were the courts specially swift to end "separate but equal?"

    The court was divided.

    The only reason why it went to a unanimous vote was because several Supreme Court Judges were swayed to forego their personal biases and opinions so that the court would make a historical mark of unity for such a historical landmark decision.

  • Vince
    Feb. 8, 2009 4:09 p.m.

    To al | 5:14 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

    Comment was: "Sodomy is not even related to the civil rights movement. It's more related to bleeding hemorrhoids."

    How little people know.

    I will forego the way the comment was written and say that the only reason why such a notion as gay rights and why we pursue equal protection under the law is because not that gay rights are apart and different than universal rights --- true --- they shouldn't be --- but to lack the term of "gay rights" prevents homophobes from discriminating against gays.

    Gay rights are no different than universal human rights ---

  • Vince
    Feb. 8, 2009 4:18 p.m.

    Re: Re: JD | 10:47 a.m. Feb. 4, 2009

    You wrote: "If being homosexual is as inherent as being black, why were there not higher suicide rates among those who were treated far, far worse than anything the homosexual community has ever experienced?"

    I believe that sometimes it takes having a similar frame by which to understand why some gays attempt suicide or undergo depression.

    If you have no close friends who are gay and who have gone through this ordeal, there must not be a point of view by which you can frame this ---

    Depression --- and many times --- suicide attempts are caused by self-loathing because people ask themselves ---

    * why am I this way?
    * What's wrong with me?
    * why can't I change?
    * If it's wrong, why can't I be cured?

    And these thoughts are persistent and go on as long as there is a conflict with theology versus personal identity ---

  • Vince
    Feb. 8, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    RE: Stalwart Sentinel | 3:02 p.m. Feb. 4, 2009

    You wrote: "Since the beginning of time Mariiage has always reserved only vetween a man and a women,"

    Before I comment on that --- just a few words on your four spelling errors --- sorry, I can't stand misspellings --- I believe you meant to say,

    "Since the beginning of time, Marriage has always reserved only between a man and a woman,"

    Now, as to the historical accuracy of that statement, it is wrong ---

    If you define "beginning of time" as being Biblical time, we'll start there ---

    1. The patriarchs of the Old Testament had multiple wives as did King David and Salomon.

    That alone shows that marriage has not always been between one man and one woman.

    but I will continue,

    2. Many Old Testament prophets and other Biblical figures also practiced having concubines --- less than a wife, but still legal --- again, debunking your view of one man and one woman kind of marriage.

    3. The practice of polygamy itself existed in the Church from 1830 to 1890 --- and even after that, the Church did not formally excommunicate members from practicing it until fourteen years later.

  • Vince
    Feb. 8, 2009 4:32 p.m.

    Further,

    Many religious sects, outside of the United Statesboth in history and in the present, still practice polygamy --- and they call it marriage.

    Just be careful when you say, "Since the beginning of time, marriage has always been between one man and one woman."

  • Re: Vince 4:18 p.m.
    Feb. 8, 2009 6:15 p.m.

    "Sometimes it takes having a similar frame by which to understand why some gays attempt suicide or undergo depression. If you have no close friends who are gay and who have gone through this ordeal, there must not be a point of view by which you can frame this"

    What on earth are you trying to say Vince? You have to have "close friends" who are gay to understand why gays commit suicide? The tragedy of a close friend's suicide may shed light on their particular circumstance, but it is absurd to suggest you would gain some special insight into the root cause of suicide for an entire demographic based on the heartbreaking experience of one individual.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 9, 2009 11:51 a.m.

    @RE: SS | 6:49 p.m.

    Looks like you were working out your Wikipedia muscles over the weekend, eh?

    First - If the 14th applied, then it would be a federal issue....

    Truth: the 14th amendment applies. All your cases cite it and consider it. Difference being, as stated over and over again: they didnt view marriage as it is defined or understood legally today. They even cited Blacks law dictionary which defined marriage as between a man and wife then. Now, Blacks cites marriage existing between two parties and (t)he essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law.

    Read your own cases.

    Things, they are a changing! Its a guaranteed failure to use yesterdays knowledge for todays issues.

    Second, marriage was fundamental long before loving (see skinner v state of Oklahoma (1942), but using old dictionary definition (see above). Now, it is fundamental using new understanding of the word marriage. Finally understand?

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 9, 2009 12:10 p.m.

    Third, see SLCSKP | 8:39 p.m. adequate?

    @ I Smell a Rat | 7:02 p.m

    Im somewhat new around here but doesnt Mr Lambert further the exact opposite I espouse?

    @Re: Stalwart Sentinel 5:20 a.m. | 9:00 p.m.

    First, I dont drink coffee.

    Second, your interpretation of my post belies your ability to comprehend anything correctly, which helps me understand how you are such a mess now. Parsimonious terms: Baker is crumbling, everyone knows it but you. Cases like Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health are gaining momentum. LexNex: Citing Refs. With Analysis Available. Keycite: Case has some history all positive. Im sorry I figured you could manage your own case search. I vested too much in your own capabilities. Apparently not on Wikipedia?

    It must be terribly frustrating

    Not really, the way I see it: youre stance is mortally wounded vermin and, while you kick and scream, the cat is free to stay and play with its victim or leave. Either way, youre dead soon enough. Its only a matter of time.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 9, 2009 12:19 p.m.

    @ Re: Stalwart Sentinel 5:27 a.m. | 9:20 p.m

    the rearview mirror analogy. It's so odd, I could've sworn I remember hearing something about stare decisis

    Ah yes, the inability to appreciate a sentence in its entirety. I referred to your incapacity to both look in the rearview and watch the road in front. Youre all rearview.

    Marriage fundamental right issue see above post. Marriage has always been a fundamental right but, as many other fundamental rights which I make an effort not to invoke re: gay marriage b/c those rights are not at issue, it sometimes takes a while for the right to come to full fruition. IE people like you are slow to catch on.

    CT and MA are now judicial bellwethers?

    Yes, so is CA. why all the religious zealotry to combat these few states if that were not true?

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 9, 2009 2:05 p.m.

    @re Stalwart Sentinel 5:29 a.m., 5:39 & 5:59
    you should consider that you have still failed to refute that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Perhaps that would be a good place to start before you resume beating the 14th amendment and strict scrutiny horses to death.
    Uhm, the 14th Amendment is the place to start. That is what makes gay marriage bans unconstitutional. It has been throughout this entire conversation. It works in my favor, which is why you continue to sidestep the issue every instance it is mentioned.
    Your inability to conceptualize an entire sentence, let alone a paragraph is unnerving. where were the peaceful protests every day this week? the list I provided clearly stated at the beginning that it was comprised of my first result of my first internet search, which took me a whole 0.000027694 seconds according to google. In other words, that was the tip of the iceberg re: the numerous and various peaceful protests that do occur every single day of every single week. Are you that dense to not understand such a simple concept? Im being sincere here.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 9, 2009 2:09 p.m.

    @re Stalwart Sentinel 5:59

    Re: the 4 part series are you satisfied w/ tertiary simplifications of issues? I quote the holdings of the cases, and you still want them to mean something they do not. I understand your reality is crumbling, but maintain some dignity!

    Finally, As to your final question, I think another poster at 6:49 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009 sufficiently addressed your claim.

    the inability for some to read something in its entirety never fails. Please see the response to that below it (among others) posted by SLCSKP | 8:39 p.m

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 9, 2009 2:17 p.m.

    @ vince

    My apologies for past, present, and future grammatical errors; I tend to be more lackadaisical in my postings on the desnews.

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 9, 2009 2:35 p.m.

    "You once again fail to make your case, another sad pattern in the history of Stalwart Sentinel."

    you make me smile. your way of life is under direct attack and being inundated by the growing number of individuals who dispell your backward thinking. all this is occuring within the pages of the conservative newspaper for one of the more conservative states of the union, a stronghold, a mecca of shortshighted values, a bulwark for villifying the 'other side',

    and you propose to deem my lot as 'sad'

    see, now that's irony!!!

  • RE: SS
    Feb. 9, 2009 3:26 p.m.

    Please cite a federal case that declares that same sex marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel 12:10 p.
    Feb. 9, 2009 4:53 p.m.

    "Baker is crumbling, everyone knows it but you."

    I find it very revealing that you, once again, dismiss the state gay marriage bans that have relied on Baker and that continue to strengthen Baker to make your opinion appear meritorious. Everyone indeed knows you and other gay-rights activists hope Baker is crumbling, but that conclusion is simply is not supported by the evidence.

    "not on Wikipedia?"

    I suppose you would need to speculate wildly over the source of my information, given that you seem unwilling, or more likely, incapable of dealing squarely with the constitutionality of gay marriage. If you fail to rebut my apparently "Wikipedia"-based arguments, I would hate to see you try to make your case in a courtroom.

    "Its only a matter of time."

    How very like Gavin Newsome's "Mission Accomplished" moment. In case you fail to see the irony, just as you fail to see so many other things, I believe there's a website called Google that can help you learn more about how clairvoyant your hero was in his moment of triumph.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel 12:19 p.
    Feb. 9, 2009 5:22 p.m.

    See my above comment regarding the rearview hypothesis.

    "Marriage has always been a fundamental right...people like you are slow to catch on."

    I suppose the framers of the Constitution were slow to catch on also. What were we thinking?

    "why all the religious zealotry to combat these few states?"

    It's become painfully obvious that precedent is an impossible concept for you to grasp, but I'll try once more time in this context. Here we go.

    Courts look to previous rulings from other judges to help guide their decisions. Some judges are bad. These judges engage in what's called "judicial activism," which means they try to create new laws, instead of simply interpreting laws. Judges are supposed to interpret laws. If an activist judge creates a precedent, for, say, gay marriage, other courts might look to the activist judge for guidance. That would not be good. In other words, judicial activism is bad. Some of these bad judges live in places like CA, MA, and CT. I know that's what you dearly hope will happen, but judicial activism is really is bad. Should I bring it down to the preschool level for you?

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel 2:05 p.m
    Feb. 9, 2009 5:53 p.m.

    "The 14th Amendment is the place to start. That is what makes gay marriage bans unconstitutional...It works in my favor."

    And yet gay marriage bans remain, even after Baker and the multitude of lower court rulings.

    I rest my case.

    Regarding the "peaceful protests" that occur "every single day of every single week," I've noticed an interesting pattern. You make a nonsensical claim. Your claim is challenged. You fail to address the challenge, so you restate your claim.

    So the pattern continues with your claim that domestic terrorists are really just the "lowest common denominator" because your spidey senses can detect the "peaceful protests" that occur "every single day of every single week." I thought I was going easy on you by asking for all the peaceful protests just this week. Im sorry I figured you could manage such a simple task.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel 2:09 p.m.
    Feb. 9, 2009 6:27 p.m.

    "are you satisfied w/ tertiary simplifications of issues?"

    I know this is overly-simplistic for some, but a few of us actually do care for the rule of law. Gay marriage bans are, in fact, legal because they are, in fact, constitutional. It doesn't get much simpler than that, as much as you appear to enjoy the Rube Goldberg approach.

    SLCSKP 8:39 p.m. appears to share your enthusiasm for the glorious future day of gay marriage. My reaction to the conspiracy theory can be found at the end of my 5:22 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009 post.

  • Re: Stalwart Sentinel 2:17 p.m
    Feb. 9, 2009 6:29 p.m.

    "I tend to be more lackadaisical in my postings on the desnews."

    Indeed.

  • My 2 cents
    Feb. 11, 2009 11:45 p.m.

    8:15 a.m. Feb. 4, 2009,

    Ok, lets not stereo type here. I am a proud Democrat and still voted for Prop 8. Obama and Biden are Democrats and still support traditional marriage. 2/3rds of the Californian ellectorate is Democrat, yet the majority still voted for prop 8. Just because the left wing of the party supports gay marriage and abortion doesn't mean that all of us do.

    Remember all the Regan Democrats in the 70's that left the Dems in droves because they let the left-wing radicals take over the party? We are the reason the Republicans have had so much power over the last few decades. Now that the Repubs have abandaned mainstream values and have alowed the right-wing extremists to take over the party, we are flocking back to the Democratcs.

    Do you see a pattern? Maybe we conservative Democrats should just form our own party. Many Latin American and European countries have a conservative Democratic Party, why can't the U.S.??

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 17, 2009 7:57 p.m.

    Re: your "Wikipedia"-based arguments

    First, they're not apparently Wikipedia based, they are Wikipedia based. I read the site's synopsis.

    Second, your Wiki arguments are based off incorrect data, are overly inclusive, and pejoratively unencumbered by rationale. You just fail to acknowledge that.

    re: "case in a courtroom"

    I have not asked much of you, only to address one issue and do a little research. You have refused to do both. I would "love" to see you try to make your case in a courtroom, especially the part when you completely fail to address the other side's position.

    Re: "Its only a matter of time."

    It is, sorry. While I dont waste time watching Mission Impossible, you have now moved from basing your topical discussions off of Wikipedia to basing it off of fictional television. Good show, great regression. Maybe you should watch Desperate Housewives for some new talking points?






  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Feb. 17, 2009 8:02 p.m.

    Re: Stalwart Sentinel 2:05 p.m | 5:53 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009

    "The 14th Amendment & And yet gay marriage bans remain, even after Baker and the multitude of lower court rulings.

    They all sidestepped the real issue (the one you wont argue) which is not present in any of the holdings in any of your cases. I have retrieved them for you to read in earlier posts. Remember?

    I've noticed an interesting pattern. You fail to address the points that render your argument a dying cause.

  • sheesh
    June 17, 2009 10:08 a.m.

    i think everyone here needs to calm down because i think everyone is wrong on both sides. the ones supporting prop 8 are wrong because they are trying to mix religion with politics, and not everyone is the same religion, and not everyone holds the same religious beliefs. The ones against prop 8 are wrong because the unnessecary violent reponse to prop 8 was out of control and rubbed too many people the wrong way. I think everyone just needs to step back and reassess why you believe what you believe and why you think it is nessecary to make people different than you believe what you do, even though they do not want to. I don't believe in the Christian god; i'm not christian, yet people push that down EVERYONE's throat by mixing religion with politcs [again]. I think we should grant gays the right to marry and pass legislation protecting those who choose to live a gay lifestyle. It's not deviant, and it's none of your business if u dont support it. the only way it should matter to u is if u plan to sleep with that person. wake up, people. please.