But LDS officials say the California court's ruling is 'welcome'
what a pointless article! Does anyone think gay activists would have been happy
with the decision issued by the CA court?
Mueller called it a "hollow victory. From now on, there's an asterisk next to
their marriages."Actually, there already was.
Utah LGBTsyou deserve better than living in the HATE STATE
What a joke. How does CA now deal with 18,000 people in a special class? They
will be the guinea pigs.
Yea you could move to Alabama, Mississippi, or Arkansas and those States will
accept all gays with open arms right?Don't be so short sighted.
We already have marriage equality. Anyone of the age of consent can get
married. There is no marriage discrimination. Those wanting to change the
definition of marriage, if successful, will further societys decay.
Maybe they should go find their own country to rule and corrupt as they see fit
... it would only be a matter of time before God destroyed it like Sodom and
OK so bigotry has won again, but don't believe for one second that the fight is
over for equality in the state of Utah. Once upon a time the same haters would
have voted for a ban on inter-racial unions but look where we are today. It will
take time but I am positive that love will win in the end. My husband and I will
join hundreds tonight in SLC at the state capitol 6:30 to show our support for
our wonderful gay brothers and sisters.
To: Anonymous | 1:03 p.m. May 26, 2009:You discount the role of romantic
love and affection or physical attraction in contributing to a meaningful (not
sham) marriage. Are you comfortable with cultures that practice arranged
marriages? Would you be happy in a marriage to a spouse whom your parents
picked out for you, with no choice in the matter? That is the position you put
the state in when you have the government preclude certain marriages (i.e.
same-sex) based on love. Obviously a gay man and a lesbian can now legally
marry each other, but what would be the point? They could each have
extramarital affairs with people they truly were attracted to, but that
undermines the whole idea of marriage.
The people have voted, now shut up or leave. Those that support gay marriage are
parasites looking for ways to bend societies values.
Abe Lincoln used to ask a question:If you called a dogs tail a leg,
how many legs would a dog have.When people said "five" Abe would
reply; "No, callign a tail a leg does not make it one."Calling a
same sex relationship a marriage doesn't make it one either.
America is the greatest country in the world. Proven again by the majority.
Dear Scarlet,I just love the way gays and gay supporters always try
to claim that if you disagree with them it's either because you hate them or
you're afraid of them. They clearly just can't handle honest disagreement.And, BTW, Marriage is NOT a right. It is a privilege. That's why you
have to get a license.
Have a good time exercising your "Constitutional Rights". I'll be exercising
mine on the other side of the fence our wonderful non-gay brothers and sisters.
I agree with Scarlet. The fight is indeed not over. Bigotry may reign supreme
now, but slaves, women, minorities, and our ancestors that fought in the
American Revolution all fought for their rights, and won. Gays will
fight to the end for their rights--and with the help of fellow Americans who
believe in equality for all, we will achieve equal rights for all when it comes
to marrying according to the dictates of their own conscience.
Now there's a headline we'll keep seeing!
I am so sad that you just referred to Abe Lincoln.... Do you know anything about
his opposition to discrimination??? I am so sad to see that those that claim to,
"judge not that ye be not judged", are so openly judging. I know my creator and
I will answer to him when my time comes. I will stand proud that I treated all
people as equals! You don't have to agree with all that people believe but you
do need to respect the right for each of us to make our own decisions, the same
way you want others to respect you. Maybe when something you believe in is in
jeopardy, you will understand and hope for others to respect you and your
opinions. Until then, equality for all~
No matter what you call a couple of the same sex it can never be a marriage. For
a marriage is only a marriage after the female gives berth to a child sired in a
natural way. The is the rules of husbandry set fore by the genetic engineree of
the human race. Set yourselves seperate form yur parents and cleave to your
spouse, going forth to mulitply.
Oh for heaven's sake, the voters voted!! The majority decided! And they did it
in CALIFORNIA!! What in the world good does it do to protest, at this late
date, at the UTAH state Capitol?? Go to CALIFORNIA and protest!Y'all are just mad because you didn't get your way, and now you're throwing a
temper tantrum like a two-year-old.Fine, go exercize your
Constitutional right to protest, but remember that the voters were exercizing
their Constitutional rights as well.Don'tcha just HATE it when the
other guys (you know, the people you don't agree with) have rights, too?
This really has been an issue that has really good marketing on one side. This
is not an issue of equality, it is an issue of CONTROL.Just the fact
that one justice voted against the majority vote of the people with no basis for
an argument is further evidence of that. This country is based upon
freedom, not control. Were it not so, we may just be supporting King Washington
XXIV.May we be blessed with continued FREEDOM in America.
They can slow the progress of civil rights, but they can't stop it. California
will eventually follow the pioneering states that have moved ahead. Same-sex
marriage is not a threat to my marriage. It's a shame that some feel threatened
31 for 31. Still batting 100%
@1:29Yeah the same majority who thought SLAVERY was swellYeah
the same majority who defined Blacks as 3/5ths of humanYeah the same
majority who denied women the vote, or their being able to divorce, have custody
of their children or own property.Yeah the same majority that put Japanese
Americans in Concentration Camps and stole ALL their property.
gays = disappointedasvolcanos = warm
To say that the gay marriage issue is an issue that should be a social issue
first and religious second is a bit ludicrous. Marriage was originally a
religious institution that was later adopted as a legal institution by various
governments. For government to go in and try to change the definition of
marriage and try to force religions to accept a mandate over a religious belief
is a violation of the separation of church and state. Hmm, last I checked
that's what the prop 8 opponents are accusing the churches of. Looks to me like
they're try to protect their right to worship as they choose.
It's not a civil right that is at issue. Or at least not as you define it. It
is about the separatiom of church and state. If gay marriage is legal the next
step is that religions can't speak out against homosexual acts. Don't believe
me? That's exactly what happened in northern Europe. (Sweden or Denmark if I
remember right.) It progressed in exactly that way and now a preacher can be
arrested for saying on his pulpit that homosexuality is a sin. Can you honestly
say that the GHLT community won't take that step if they win this one? If you
don't think they will then you are purely delusional.
If we are so bigoted, why do you try so hard to seek our acceptance? Make up
your own thing, don't call it marriage. You have all the same rights already. I
don't understand why you continue to seek acceptance.
Gays have always had the right to marry like anyone else, just do it right,
marry someone of the opposite sex! There is no "Right" to be won here, nobody is
preventing them from marrying, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they
want too, just like anyone else! What is the cotton picking problem? Get married
to someone of the opposite sex who is also "Gay" and have an "Open"
relationship, it's pretty simple! Just deal with the consequence of adultery
like most other indiscriminant people will, that's all, you are all going to the
same place anyway, what's the difference?
Boy, have you really twisted that one around. In none of those cases you
described was it the majority that believed what you claim. It was a very
powerful, well funded minority, which last I checked more accurately desribes
the gay community.
yep, the same majority who later overturned all of those things. stop whining.
if you truly beleived you were right, you would be convincing the people to vote
in your favor, not a few judges. that is the american way. the courts might have
banned slavery, but they did it with public support. see amendment to the
constitution. and you should try reading the constitution from time to time. it
did not count blacks as 3/5 of a person, it counted slaves as such because they
were still considered property. and that's a stupid thing to bring up for your
argument because that provision was added o that the slave states would not have
a majority in congress and stop the passage of an amendment to ban it altogether
later. you really should brush up on your history before using it as an
It is a great day for democracy.
Is this really about relationships or is this about changing a definition. I am
confused as to what the Gay/Lesbian side wants at this point. I believe I
understand what the supporters of Prop 8 want but I am confused about the other
side. If what is wanted are equal rights, then a civil union with those rights
satisfies the argument. I don't believe that anyone would oppose this. Leave the
definition of marriage alone and focus on what is really wanted, legal rights.
Now, if this is not what we are talking about then the problem will continue. Is
there any room for compromise at this point?
this ruling was insane. Why enforce prop 8 which prohibits gay marriage and then
turn around and allow for it for those that slid under the fence before the law
was changed? It's like outlawing all new prostitution but allowing those
currently practicing to just keep on doing it. No wonder California is going out
It saddens me to see those of us who lost a fair election and judicial review to
continue to indulge in the hate and anger that we ascribe to those who dissagree
with us.Let's move beyond these emotions.
Since you so kindly offered gays to marry opposite sex partners...ya mean like
the 14yo daughters you don't rape and call it some creepy old trolls third wife
in TX?Mormons you can believe like any other Christians...use the
BIBLE as your ONLY holy text.
Mormon owned businesses on the yes on prop 8 donor lists and maps.....wouldn't
want to be YOU
To: CougarKeith | 3:28 p.m. May 26, 2009:See my previous comment at 1:23
p.m. 5/26.To advocate marriage to someone you do not love for the sake of
obtaining the legal benefits of marriage, and then to advocate adultery for the
sake of love is simply absurd. It is contrary to the whole reason marriage as a
social institution was created in the first place. Would you advocate such a
plan for straights? Say, would you marry an ugly rich woman for her money, but
sneak out on Friday nights with the poor babe you really want?
i support the decision made today. god defined marriage between a man, and
woman. we as humans have no right to try and supercede god, and redefine
marriage, just to fit our lifestyle. God created us, we need to follow his
words, because in this broken world, nothing will give us true love other than
worshipping a good, holy, and just God.
why allow any gay marriage? | 5:27 p.m. May 26, The United States
Constitution does not allow for the passage of ex-post facto laws. This means a
law cannot be retroactive in nature. It can only have its effect on persons
after passage not before. Had the California Supreme Court declared the 18,000
same sex marriages performed before passage of Prop 8, null and void., the U.S.
Supreme Court would have quickly overturned their decision. The CA justices
allowing those couples to be still be married, upheld the U.S. Constitution.
They had no other choice.
I was so happy to hear that the courts upheld the decision to prohibit gay
marriage. It is good that the government should support the ruling of the
people. As far as anyone not agreeing with allowing gay marriage
being a bigot, give it a rest. Please stop with the hatred towards those that
have as strong of feelings against gay marriage as you do for it. Let's all
just try to get along, please.
California does have judges who have common sense in intrepreting the law and
will of the people. I worry about gays spreading AIDS and making it legal for
them to marry would just sanction deviancy.
Why are you railing on Utah for what happened in California? You seem to have a
very illogial sense about cause and effect. Tearing down Utah does not build up
California nor the gay cause. Threating Utahns only makes them more opposed to
anything you might have to say. You should get out of the motorized chair more
often and look around you. There are many good people on both sides of this
issue. Don't be childish just because you don't get your own way. It is
unbecoming of you. Keep writing the books and supporting the organizations.
thats the way to go the word out that I think that you want to do.
Ex-Post Facto | 8:49 p.m. May 26, 2009why allow any gay marriage? | 5:27
p.m. May 26,"The United States Constitution does not allow for the
passage of ex-post facto laws. This means a law cannot be retroactive in nature.
It can only have its effect on persons after passage not before. Had the
California Supreme Court declared the 18,000 same sex marriages performed before
passage of Prop 8, null and void., the U.S. Supreme Court would have quickly
overturned their decision."So the Courts can overturn the vote of
the majority (Prop. 22) which defined marriage as being between one man and one
woman and allow gays to marry the same sex and when the people vote to amend
their Constitution because the voters on the Court violated the rights of the
majority of Californians the Court can then say that the amendment can't be
applied retroactively.That's really good to know since the 13th
amendment outlawing slavery applied to every slave that came before it was
passed and freed them but according to you that would have violated the
constitution. Is that it retarded voter/future congressman
Finally, a court rules for the citizens. They were scared of losing their cushy
jobs...otherwise they would have ruled the other way. Californication is such a joke anymore. It's just a mess. The sodomites
won't stop, though. They will try to push their evil on Utah and other states
as fast as they can. Take courage and hold strong, Utah! You will be a beacon
Cats,"I just love the way gays and gay supporters always try to
claim that if you disagree with them it's either because you hate them or you're
afraid of them. They clearly just can't handle honest disagreement."That's obvious. They either win at the ballot and get their way or they try to
win in the courts and get their way. Anyone who disagrees hates them or is
afraid of them. It couldn't be possible that they are themselves bigots and
tyrants who think that they are always right and that everyone must agree with
them."And, BTW, Marriage is NOT a right. It is a privilege. That's
why you have to get a license."The word privilege isn't correct
anymore than saying that being a U.S. Senator is a privilege and not a right
even though technically marriage and serving in the Senate fall into the same
legal category.Serving in the Senate is also a civil right which
everyone has equal opportunity to benefit from and no one is discriminated
against based on sex, race, orientation, religion or any other factor yet it's
restricted and has requirements.
Being Gay is a life style and can be terminated at will therefore no law is
needed to sanctify or bless it. What Gay's as well as other non conforming
masses seek are financial gains and not really a right. These alternative
lifestyles have the same rights and privileges allowed to any other citizens
conforming to the laws. Our country was and is established under the doctrine of
Christianity that teaches right and wrong and how humanity should treat each
other. Not accepting gays does not violate their choices and they are not
persecuted because of their choices. Their own guilt is persecuting themselves
as it should, Gay is not acceptable as a marriage defined by law, it is
homosexual as defined. They do not deserve the rights of family and are not fit
as parents or propagating the species. Marriage is the recognition of
propagating the species and they do not fit in with this concept. You can call
being gay many things but a marriage it is not, even with a law it is no
marriage. And I don't think the Supreme court would sanctify a gay union of
homosexuals as a marriage.
I just realized that I am really sick of these gay people not understanding what
no means. It's kind of like a 5 year old who won't take no for an answer. I say
lets boycott everything "gay". No more watching gay actors, no more allowing
newspapers that support this behavior into our homes. No means no.
It's not about Hate! Get over it.
Marriage should be between a man and a woman.
That sounds like a threat from one who wants love and acceptance from all. What
if we decided to threaten anyone who is gay or supported them? That would be
considered a hate crime. Why do you think you are above the law?
The devil is offended too
If gays want to get married so bad, why don't they just go to the states that
already allow it and get'er done already?Personally I believe
allowing them to be married is mocking God, but what about a CIVIL union which
would give them the CIVIL libertys they keep railing about?
I find it interesting that gay people speak of how their 'rights' are being
denied. It is the reality of democratic ideals that the majority rules. The
majority, at this time, does not favor gay marriage. While I support gay
peoples 'right' to continue to petition the gov't for change, they need to be
more respectful of the decissions made that don't 'go their way'. They attack
the majority, call us bigots, etc... They accuse us of violating their rights,
yet it's okay for them to violate our right to voice our disapproval. They
complain of two standards within marriage, yet allow two standards for their
judgement of others. Hypocritical if you ask me. I see the gay lifestyle as a
choice. People choose that for themselves. I don't agree with that choice and
feel it's my 'right' to voice my opinions against it, just as I voice my opinion
against other issues I don't agree with. We call that freedom of speech. I
also support their right to choose that lifestyle, just don't force me to choose
it! If gay marriage becomes legal, I'll be in the minority. So be it.
I should have the right to marry poultry or anything I want. I demand equal
rights! Don't be a bigot. Don't hate. Give me my rights! Love is beautiful.
God will not be mocked. The gay mafia would be better spent preparing for
Yea!!! What a great day in America.
I'm glad they upheld P8. Overturning it would've rendered the state constitution
pointless. This particular legal challenge was bad law.
Don't be fooled. when they say all they want is to be married. First come
marriage, next is to force the State to teach their sinful behavior(Romans
1:24-29) to our children in the public school. yes, their books are already
finding their way in the public school library.Remember they are
waiting for the old to die so they can get their way. What a surprise when they
found out Miss California is not old.
1. Slavery was an issue of real equality and civil rights - Slaves suffered real
abuses until those laws were changed.2. Women's rights was a real issue of
civil rights. Woman suffered real abuses until those laws were changed.These things needed a change in legislation so that segment of our population
could be treated as humans, these were true issues of Human Civil Rights.NOBODY IS ABUSING GAYS based on this "marriage" issue. It is not the same.
There is a problem, but the Gays have defined it very badly, and are not clear
themselves about exactly what is real in this issue and what isnt.Gays are
not being treated inhumanely by not allowing them the priviledge of their CIVIL
UNIONS to be sanctioned as MARRIAGE. What needs to be adjusted to accomodate
these folks is the laws regarding Civil Unions.
I just don't get how the gay marriage supporters continue to throw out
references to womens rights and slavery as if that somehow automatically makes
them right and the majority wrong. Is it really that simple that if i want
something and i'm in the minority i just lable people haters and bring up
slavery and i should get my way???btw, do you gay marriage
supporters also support polygamy? how about underage girls marrying older men?
the list could go on and by your logic anything should go because "it won't
affect my marriage" right?
I can't believe we have come to this. What is wrong with our society? What's
next? Can I make it legal to marry my sibling? How about the 8-year neighbor
kid? Or how about my horse? Marriage is not a right. It's a privileged.
And I am proud to say that I am against gay marriage. It isn't like we are the
only church who are against gay marriage. We are the ones who have the guts to
stand up and say it. Gay marriage is wrong. Just as gay people have the right
to say that they think gay marriage is ok we have the right to say that it is
not. This is a good victory!
We all have an equal right to marry. The right to marry someone of the opposite
sex is available to everyone.
This is not about hate or inequality or civil rights. I would defend, with my
life, the civil rights and freedoms of any American. However, "marriage" is and
should always be - between a man and a woman.
I'm a heterosexual Mormon. Many who oppose gay marriage are railing against the
claim that they are bigoted just because of their opposition. I agree that just
being opposed to gay marriage does not necessarily make one a bigot. However,
there does seem to be a lot of bigotry on the side of those who oppose gay
marriage. Take the following example from Victory | 1:25 p.m. May 26, 2009 "The people have voted, now shut up or leave. Those that support gay
marriage are parasites looking for ways to bend societies values."Certainly this is what many in support of gay marriage are reacting to when
they claim bigotry on the other side. For my brothers in the GLBT community,
lets refrain from reacting to this type of communication with a similar level of
vitriol. Lets stick to the issues and be kind and professional while doing it.
When those who are apathetic to your cause see hate spewing from some opposing
gay marriage, and they see your levelheaded approach, theyll understand your
situation much better. Dont be angered by those who express such anger and
intolerance. Use it to your advantage.
@Why | 3:22 p.m. May 26, 2009"If we are so bigoted, why do you try
so hard to seek our acceptance?"I don't want your acceptance, per
se. I want equality under the law. Equality means:1.
The punishment for a Christian beating up a gay because he is gay is the same as
for a gay beating up a Christian for being Christian. FYI, they're not the
same.2. A Christian employer cannot fire an employee for being gay just as
a gay employer cannot fire an employee for being Christian. The former is
legal, the latter is not.3. Homosexuals can marry their same-sex partners
as heterosexuals can marry their opposite-sex partners.So I don't
want your acceptance. We can agree to hate each other. I do need to you to
recognize these disparities in civil rights.
Everybody has the same marriage rights. I'm straight but I can't marry a man
even if I wanted to.(I can't believe I just said that!)I gay man could still
marry a woman just like I can and will.
You choose this lifestyle and laws aren't up to speed. I just want to say that
you feel 'special' for joining and supporting a 'cause' it's just part of your
egocentric need to belong and feel liberal...i'm sure the laws will crash soon
and you'll get your ways, and society will start to crash as the institution God
gave will be attacked. I don't understand why you have targeted mormons just
because they believe what they do. Stop attacking them and worry about yourself
California should have never allowed Gay marriages while it was still being
appealed. They rushed to open the doors because they knew it wouldn't stand so
they had to do it "underhandedly." Shame. They have messed up for many years to
Those trying to turn this into a Human rights or civil rights issue can not be
taken seriously at all. This isn't about creating something equal, especially
when you are deal with a minority group that isn't functioning normal. They say
it's about LOVE... well I love my kids, brother, dog and cat... should I be
allowed to marry them? They say they are born this way, which there is no REAL
scientific proof of this other than it still becomes a CHOICE of action. If you
want to be gay, I'm happy for you and wish you all the best. You know the
consequences of those actions and it is what sets you apart from a heterosexual
couple. Marriage is NOT a right. It never has been a "RIGHT". It is a god
given privilege that was not merely thought up by man. Marriage is a bond
between god and couple, a civil union is a bond between state and couple. If
gays want to be recognized by state, than a civil union is what they should
seek. But I feel this has more to do with insulting religion and morals.
That is supposed to say "A gay man"
Congrats to the Cal courts. They got this one right!
At least in California gays and lesbians have some legal protections via civil
unions (but no federal protections).Here in Utah, I have to wonder
if this is really about "Marriage". When the LDS Church promoted, and the Utah
Legislature pushed through Amendment Three, which prohibits ANY recognition of a
gay and lesbian relationship, they knew this would impact gays and lesbians as
individuals, let alone those in relationships. Utah's hate crimes
bill was defeated for eight years simply because the draft text mentioned gay
and lesbian individuals. It passed the moment gays and lesbians were excluded
(despite being one of the most targeted demographic groups for hate crimes).The Common Ground bills attempted to bridge a few of the legal problems
facing gays and lesbian Utahn's, but were instantly scuttled by the legislature,
and the LDS Church went strangely silent. So is this really about
"marriage", or is this part of a broader more insidious campaign to force gays
and lesbians out of public sight?
If Marriage is a privilege, and not a right, why should only straight couples be
allowed that privilege?
Very tolerant and non-hateful of you. Seems as if you are guilty of the very
traits you accuse others of. And your threat to mormon-owned stores? Shades of
Hitler's Germany and Jewish-owned stores. What is it you plan to do, exactly, O
Marriage is not a right, it's a social institution. There's nothing natural
about it. In fact it's defined to be (at least among the heterosexuals) quite
the opposite. It is the suppression of biological urges for the fostering of a
condition in which children may safely be introduced into society. This is why
it has endured since recorded history, because it places a societal
responsibility upon the couple to care and provide for any genetic offspring the
pairing may create. All other perks and exceptions to this initial
socio-biological contract are extensions and only exist if the core stays sound.
By making marriage about sexual preference and sexual relations, one further
corrupts society. It is interesting that in some island societies
like Bali, where homosexuality is almost ritually accepted if not promoted, they
maintain the sanctity of marriage as strictly heterosexual by only granting
tribal rights to those who enter into heterosexual marriage and contribute
children. Essentially one "grows up" by putting off sexuality of any form (which
isnt condemned other than its perception of immaturity) and accepting the
ultimate parental responsibility--not by persisting in a lie, as our society
seems wont to do.
Grandpa Bill, I think what this comes down to is that we have been asked over
and over to be accepting and to adjust our moral code of something that is
simply wrong. But now that isn't enough and they want more, and again we are
being asked to sacrifice the bond and meaning, what is considered to be a
sacred, between man and women and god.I think enough is enough. I
think the very fibers of our society failed to grow and were actually weakened
by the first acceptance of homosexuality as just a way of life. The day we
start to throw our sacred bonds at the fire of indecency is a sure sign of how
weak minded we have become all at the sake of saving our image in the wake of
moral standards. GLB&T knew the consequences of their actions, if
they didn't want to accept those than they shouldn't have made that decision.
Blacks and Jews never had a choice and thus comparing this to the civil and
human rights of those times is insulting and pure mockery of the innocent lives
that were taken.
So, I've seen the signs ("How can 'love' be wrong", etc), and have heard many of
the arguments from the LGBT community (it's only fair, right, etc). So, let's
say I agree with you. What harm does it do, eh? You love each other. What the
heck. And, you're being denied some kind of 'right', after all. Your loving each
other and living together, no matter what it is called, is certainly not going
to hurt anyone else, or jeopardize anyone else's marriage. All right, then. Fair
enough. You have convinced me. We'll call it 'marriage', and give you a piece of
paper issued by the state. But, what if I really, really love more
than one other woman? And they love me? Is it really hurting anyone else if I
marry them both? How can our love be wrong? So, I'll support you if you support
the FLDS 'right' to have more than one wife. Or, is that wrong? And if so, why?
And if you do support it, you should be marching in support of the LDS church,
which had it's rights taken away by the federal government.
Pitted against each other while THEY loot our country's Treasury. I respect the
feelings of BOTH sides. I do not want my child told man on man sex is "ok". As
far as my neighbors being married, regardless of sex or orientation that is
fine. But instructing kids that sodomy is "ok" is wrong!!!
The California Supreme Court did the right thing in upholding the vote of the
people. Homosexuals cannot disagree with that principle. They live in the United
States where the vote of the people means something. Had the shoe been on the
other foot, while I may not have liked the outcome, I would have supported it.
Like the Presidential election, I do not like the fact that Obama won the vote,
but the people -- although highly misinformed -- spoke through the voting
process. That's the way this democracy works. Of all the states that have a gay
marriage law, none were implemented through a vote of the people. Interestingly,
of the 30 or so states that have denied gay marriage, all outcomes were a result
of the vote of the people.
The courts (in CA) decision was NOT pro or anti gay. It turned on whether the
change to the constitution was legal. Ansewer, yes it was based on past cases.
Now to the 18,000, whether or not I agree with you. The laws of the land at the
time allowed the marriages...so they are legal. Remove the emotion, bigotry on
both sides, and ask yourself what is the purpose of marriage? It is not for the
benefit of the people being married, but rather for the perpetuation of the
species and nurturing of the young. Sorry gays, you don't fit the cost/benefit
It was within society's interest to protect marriage between races. As children
result from the sexual union, there needs to be a place to foster their loving
union... The genetic contributors to the child both take responsibility and have
access to society. That's fair and just. It is illogical to compare
a homosexual union to a multiracial one. It simply doesn't have the same weight
upon the future of society nor any lasting biological implications. Marriage has never been merely about who has sex with whom. The
gay community however doesn't get this. They come at it as an emotional issue,
and make no effort to demonstrate how their wish will make society better as a
whole. Instead their only response has been to push for more litigation and
claim greater victimization--at times even engaging in domestic terror tactics
against religious institutions in order to achieve their insatiable objective to
redefine reality such that they become a more privileged class (though they
already have more disposable income per capita than any other group of people
in this country) and to gain access to the children they didn't produce.
Shouldn't all citizens have the same rights? Why a contributing citizen
shouldn't have the right to marry the one he or she loves?If being and
living a Gay life is a sin. Shouldn't that be a problem between the sinner and
his or her God? Shouldn't society treats all its citizens in the same way a
grant all of them the same rights?Gay people vote, pay taxes, contribute
in all ways of life. Why are we depriving them of their right to join for life
with the one they love? In what way affect heterosexuals? Fear that God
will destruct society as a result of Gay marriage is only a reflection of
ignorance and supertition. I'm sure there are more than 10 heterosexuals in SLC,
The first proposition (22) in 2000 to ban same-sex marriage in California
clearly won 62%-38%. The next vote in 2008 only won 52%-48%. I don't
understand people who are for traditional marriage think that they are going to
win in the long term. The momentum is against you (this not my opinion, this is
fact).Haven't the courts decided on other civil rights issues versus
having a majority decide this? Well, I don't think it will matter on this
issue: With those against gay marriage diminishing (62% to 52% in a matter of 8
years), it will only take a few more years for those numbers to diminish even
more and become a minority which will overturn the gay marriage ban. History is
against those who are against giving freedoms to minority groups (regardless of
whether you think it is a right or privilege).
Supporters of equality: think strategically.Losing this battle sets
up the possibility of a more important one in the future, before the US Supreme
Court. Then it's not just Prop 8, it's Prop 8 and *everything else like it*.This ruling is disappointing, but it can become a case of losing the
battle in order to win the war.
Rights | 9:07 a.m.You simply don't get it do you? GLBT have the
same rights as anybody else. The problem is not about being married but about
bending the moral code that others have? And when does it all stop? Hey, I'd
like to have the rights of more vacations so that I don't have to work as much.
Should I be fighting for that? Some would like the rights to marry children,
others would like to marry their sister or brother. Some Fathers and/or Mothers
want to marry their children. WHEN DOES IT STOP? If you give privileges to one
dysfunctional society, and homosexuality is being dysfunctional if you want to
lay claim to being "born with it", you have to give it to another.And Marriage isn't just about being in LOVE. Marriage is about fostering a
family through procreation. Thus another sign of homosexuality being
dysfunctional since they don't have the means to procreate. Marriage has never been a right, it's a privilege that has been handed down
from god to Man and Woman.
And as I look upon my beloved Utah, it's Church and it's People, I am well
pleased with what I see has been wrought there.
Anonymous | 9:26 a.m. May 27, 2009 Thanks for pointing out a
disturbing trend of the sacrifice of high morals being tossed aside in place of
nothing more than what is being defined by man as acceptable image.High morals formed this great country, yet the need to define image will
destroy it. Awesome... thanks!
Equal rights? This is about recognizing and protecting homosexuality. Funny how
nobody is rallying for "equal rights" so brothers and sisters, parents and
children, and polygamists can get married.
The ammendment to the California state consitution simply states that only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized. This is interesting
because it seems to suggest that other marriages exist (ie between two men or
two women) but they are not valid in the state of California. This also
suggests that performing a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples is not illegal
even though it is not recognized by the state. Gays and lesbians have every
right to marry each other but they have no right to force the state, which is
the people in our system of government, to recognize that marriage as valid.
my uncle is . Do I want him to be happy? Yes. He is in a committed
relationship. He is a decent person. I do not him. I do not any
person.But I will continue to support the ban on marriage. I do
not want a couple suing my church for discrimination because they cannot be
married there. I believe in the tradition of man/woman marriage. I
think all of us can agree however, that it won't be long until s have their
way with this. The way things are going in this country, it won't be long. Let's just try to understand one another. Let's be kind to one another.
Both sides are accusing the other of the same thing. We Mormons
believe just as passionately in our position as s believe in theirs. Please
A rare victory for what is right! There is hope after all.
Adultery is one of the Big "Thou Shalt Not" Sins--yet Adulterers are allowed to
marry, and marry, and marry...
The gay rights issue to marry is all about getting power. It is power over
others and to promote their desire to control, indoctrinate, and force others to
be submissive to them. Don't be fool by their pretend " all we want is to be
left alone" montra. If that is what it was, this issue would be resolved by
adhearing to Civil Rights mandates in the laws right now. It is all about power
over others and destroying the rights of the masses by a few.
Thank you for making it clear that you and many like you believe yourselves to
be God and thus entitled to lord over me. Pardon me if I fail to worship you,
Exactly. For all the people saying they're all for Civil Unions, just not
Marriage--read this post, and you'll know why no one here believes or trusts
Do Gay Rights Exist?Where do rights come from?Some say from
government, others say from God. If rights come from government,
then rights are subject to the whims of those who control the levers of power.
In a democracy there are no rights without majority support. Gay rights do not
enjoy a majority; therefore, gay rights do not exist.If Thomas
Jefferson was right when he wrote: "We hold these truths to be self evident
that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights"
then rights are granted by God, and are absolute. When Gay
activists claim they have an absolute right to do that which God has absolutely
forbidden, they are making a religious argument. Absolute rights are dependant
upon the existence of God. In this scenario, "gay rights" constitutes an
obvious contradiction.The further America drifts from her moral
roots, the more expendable your rights become!
Welcome to the real world gays. The majority disagrees with your hijacking of
the term "marriage". Even if half the states in the country legalize same sex
marriage, most people will still not accept it. Get used to it.
Marriage should ALWAYS be between one man and ONE woman. It should always be
between TWO people and no others.
Your comments on adultry crack me up!!! LDS have some of the highest divorce
rates in the nation and I'm willing to bet the adultry rate is pretty high
too.Careful that you don't look in the mirror and see something you
don't like.As for the rest of you that show signs of Archie
Bunkierism....bigitry is NOT one of the attributes of Christ. If you can find
it in your bible or BofM, then I will eat my words, but I guarantee...it's not
there. If you show ANY signs of bigotry...then you my little friends...are
fighting the cause of your "other" brother Satan!!!So be sure to
look closely in that mirror...see if the reflection is one of love and
acceptance or one of bigotry and hate.By there actions...yea shall
A divine purpose of a man and woman is to propogate the species. Adam and Eve,
not Steve -
Your bigotry and intolerance is your own... stop blaming God.
I find it hilarious that you edited out Jefferson's declaration that "all men
are created equal" and that the inalienable rights he alluded to are "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But then highlighting those portions
would only hurt your argument.Ultimately, the question of marriage
access is directly linked to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even if you
go to Locke's social contract which Jefferson was referring to, you'll see that
instead of "pursuit of happiness," Locke called on the government to protect
property. Considering marriage's history as a property transaction, it seems
that Locke would have recognized marriage as a fundamental right to be protected
by government. And as far as claiming the absolute right to do what
God has forbidden, you're wrong. What I'm doing is a much larger threat to your
perception of reality. I'm claiming that God has created, empowered, and called
on me to be a gay activist. Stick that in your sacrament cup and sip it.
Their is much hate on both sides of this issue, Proposition 8 supporters cant
figure out why the Gay community is upset being discriminated against, and the
Gay community cant figure out why Propostion 8 supporters are upset by their
Discriminitory comments, Seems to me Both Sides are doing the same thing...
Discrimination Grow up People the sooner you learn to work together, the sooner
you will realize what it means to truly "Love one Another.."
Someday there will be equality for all. It just takes time. I'm sure it's
heartbreaking for gays to watch the discrimination continue, but they must take
heart. There are many straight individuals -- including myself -- who have had
a change of heart and conscience. It's only a matter of time until the dictates
of their own conscience will finally win. Eventually gays will be seen as
fellow human beings.
CA and IA both have ERAs in their constitution which was the reasoning behind
their State courts ruling in favor of gay marriage. I am so glad the LDS Church
also successfully supported the defeated measure of the national ERA of the
1970s. Had that passed than all States today would have been forced by our
Federal courts system to accept gay marriage as equal to traditional marriage.
"The United States Constitution does not allow for the passage of ex-post facto
laws. This means a law cannot be retroactive in nature. It can only have its
effect on persons after passage not before. Had the California Supreme Court
declared the 18,000 same sex marriages performed before passage of Prop 8, null
and void., the U.S. Supreme Court would have quickly overturned their decision.
The CA justices allowing those couples to be still be married, upheld the U.S.
Constitution. They had no other choice."The SCOUS certainly had no
trouble supporting the Edmunds Tucker Act, which was a completely ex-post facto
law. It not only banned future crimes, but past ones as well, and they went
after those who had participated with a vengeance, whether there was evidence or
california voters will make gay marriage legal in 2010 ... you guys will not be
able to stop it ... better get yourselves a battle you can win..
if all these anti-SSM posters had to leave their god out of the argument, they
wouldn't have any argument at all.The only reason SSM is a religion
issue is because the religious insist on pushing their old books onto everyone,
and they learned "right" and "wrong" from fairy tales.an intelligent
person can make logical arguments without referencing magical beings and
"LDS have some of the highest divorce rates in the nation"LDS
non-temple marriages have a 24% divorce rate. The national average is 25%.
Non-denominational Evangelicals, Jews, Baptists, Pentacostals, Born-again
Christians, Methodists, mainline Protestants, and non-Christians in general, all
have a higher divorce rate than LDS non-temple marriages, per the Barna Research
Group and the Associated Press, in separate studies that back each other up. LDS
temple marriages, however, have a 6% divorce rate, the lowest of any group in
the nation by more than 12%. Do your research and stop spreading
lies to further your own agenda, please.
Gays are already considered fellow human beings. Nobody is the victim in this.
The victim is the sacredness of marriage and the moral fibers that surround it.
From the beginning of time, marriage has been a man to a women. Marriage
between a man and a man or a women to a women serves ZERO purpose to mankind or
the growth of the human race. This is not about divorce rates, its
not about hate or discrimination. It's about the purpose it provides to mankind
and the human race. There are moral standards that are at risk here all for the
sake of what? What this boils down to is, how valuable is your moral standard.
Are you really willing to toss it aside to allow a dysfunctional choice the
ability to provide no purpose to the human race? This should not be about
feeling sorry for a gay friend or family member because they can't be married.
They made that choice. Are you willing to sell the moral meaning and character
of marriage all for the sake of pity? NEVER should your core morals be given up
for the sake of charity.
People across this country know the real Gay Movement and its true purpose.
Gays hate and distain anyone who disagrees with them. But, they use
Judeo-Christian beliefs to smear anyone who does not agree with gay marriage.
The voters in California used the Constitution and legal means to express their
belief in marriage. But, again, it is Gays who scream that their rights have
been taken. It was the rights of the people that were used and the vote is the
will of the people; not a few selfish anti- democratic few.
There's a reason that actual minorities, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc., voted
against Prop 8 in record numbers - and that reason is that they find this whole
"civil rights" declaration to be deeply offensive to the actual civil rights
discrimination that they suffered in the past. They were slaves, they were put
in concentration camps in their own country just because of the color of their
skin, and they were forced to segregate themselves from society on all levels.
That is NOT the same thing as not being able to change the provisions for
getting a marriage license. When you apply for one, nobody asks your
sexual orientation, because their is already equal protection under the law. Any
male that is of age, of sound mental capacity, and is not directly related to
his prospective partner, is able to marry any woman that is of age, of sound
mental capacity, and is not directly related to her prospective partner. Those
are the rules you must follow in order to get married. If your partnership
doesn't fall under the proper rules, you can't get married, simple as that. It
is not discriminatory, as it doesn't single anybody out.
So you believe that God will have a change of heart? Mocking God by using His
love for mankind is a devious way of lying about real love and commandments from
the Lord. Your heart has changed but is it harder or softer to listen to the
Lord, his servants, and his word through scriptures? Rationalizing was the way
the Jewish leadership used to crucifiy the Savior.
Why do you want to be Married? The other things are Civil Rights issues, but why
do you want to be married? That is seeking acceptance.
For your arguments sake we'll take God and religion out of the picture. We'll go
with evolution. A group of people that can't procreate. Ya that will really work
out in a "survival of the fittest" situation. And you think my belief in God is
silly. Good one
I'll make you a deal: I'll leave my religious and moral beliefs out of the
voting booth if you leave out your experiences, circumstances, beliefs and
influences, too. It's only fair, it's the same thing. If I can't vote on
anything according to my deeply held beliefs, then neither can you. You don't
get to vote according to your belief that gays are being persecuted, and that
there is intolerance and bigotry on the other side, and you can't actually pick
a side to vote for, because that's using your beliefs to influence your
decision. You only get to vote neutrally down the middle. If that's not an
option, then you can't cast a vote on that issue at all.Sound
fair?Yeah, I didn't think so.
@re: Kevin | 12:27 p.m. May 27, 2009Fair question. Answer: The
same reason anyone else wants to get married. To have a family and for that
family to have the same legal rights and protections granted by the government
to opposite-gender marriages. I don't expect all people to accept
that family unit necessarily. However, I do expect my government to accept it.
Why? Because if government is going to be in the marriage business, and
grant rights to people based on their marital status, it must be fair to
homosexuals, for whom opposite-gender marriage would neither be beneficial nor
I'll do as you say and leave out my "experiences, circumstances, beliefs and
influences". I have no problem with that.because I don't think the
concept of everyone being treated equally has anything to do with my
"experiences, circumstances, beliefs and influences". It's just basic common
sense.now, when you use common sense instead of fairy tales and old
books, you let me know.
It is with great excitement that the vast majority of people from the great
state of california have spoken! They frankly don't want it there and have a
better understanding of the word tolerance, than you would ever know in a
lifetime. Keep trying though, but you know the definition for insanity is doing
something repetitive expecting a different result.
Sincerely, CALIFORNIAPs. Keep California
"Golden" . . not rainbow
Your experiences and beliefs shape your belief that there is no God. For
billions of people past and present, common sense shows them by experience that
there is a God. It is not your right to define common sense.
There are many commenting that by taking a stance on traditional marriage is
tantamount to taking away rights for the minority. Actually, just the opposite
is true.Examples of heterosexual couples losing previously protected
rights:1-In the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), the
Courts agreed that under the guise of diversity, any attempt to prohibit
instruction of grade-schoolers about gay marriage or to permit parents to opt
their children out of it must be stopped.2-Public accommodation laws are
already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to
allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are
otherwise open to the public.3-Catholic Charities in Boston have stopped
offering adoption services because the State has determined that their religious
beliefs cannot trump the redefinition of marriage, and therefore they cannot
discriminate in providing adoptions for gay couples.And so the list
goes on from university accreditation organizations to Canada's C-250 bill,
which criminalized public statements against homosexuality (punishable by up to
2 years!).It is the gay marriage proponents who are trying to take
away my rights!
neither side is going to convince the other. One side sees it about equality
and hate the other side sees it as a moral compass for society. One side sees
nothing wrong with two men or two women being together, the other side sees that
as sinful. I can predict what will happen going forward. Ultimately the
younger people will be more accepting of this behavior or lifestyle and gay
marriage will pass. If you believe in God let Him decide in the next life.
Oh, but that's taking a side, that's against the rules. You can't pick a side at
all, because every single decision is inluenced by something outside of
ourselves. You have to vote "no comment" on the issue, or not vote at all.
That's what you're telling us, isn't it? We vote your way, or we can't vote at
Re: Kevin @ 12:45First of all, I have read a lot of your posts and
they are generally very respectful. I appreciate your willingness to foster
dialogue. I hope to be equally respectful, and I honestly think the two camps
in this debate can find common ground.Here is my question. What
rights and protections has the government of California not already granted to
homosexual couples through domestic partnerships?
Nation of LAWS not of MEN. The PEOPLE have decided this. Courts are
not the Legislature for good reason.
I understand all the rights, but eventhough all of those rights can be extended
through so called Civil Unions, the gay and lesbian movement continues to insist
that they must have marriage. I don't understand that logic, why must it be
marriage?, if you have all the same rights.
Re: Religion 12:46pmThe ability to share ideas, opinions, AND beliefs is
part of what makes this nation great. Your brand of irreligious imperialism,
which seeks to disallow opinions simply because those opinions grow out of
religious belief, flies in the face of the Constitution and the principles of
freedom and democracy.As Neal Maxwell said, "If people are not
permitted to advocate, to asset, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way,
the opinions and views they hold that grow out of their religious convictions,
what manner of men and women would they be?"I happily engage you in
dialogue, allowing you to bring to the table all your opinions in their various
forms, and yet you seek to disqualify mine simply because they are religiously
based? Do you not see the terrible irony and intolerance in that?I'm
sorry, my opinions are not second-rate, merely because they are born of
religious conviction. It is you who seeks to shrink my freedom, even as you
reject the value our this nation's rich Judeo-Christian heritage.Marriage is and should be between a man and a woman.
That's a simple question to answer: evolution. ;)
There needs to be polygamy for women too.
Gay is by birth, remember genetics?? not choice.The law is the
law...if you do not like it, work to change it. Quit acting like fools with
your crazy antics. Do some solid work. Gays will never win with
their present demonstrations and lack of control in the public venue. Many of you quote the Bible. I believe man wrote the Bible to control his
fellow man..and it is working well with you.When you have a child
that turns out to be "gay" see how your heart changes. I'm told it seems to run
in families...interesting..you'll notice how "uncle charlie" tends to hold out
his pinkie and likes pastels...or aunt betty is a little on the masculine
side..but, she's just sporty..yeah, get a life and quit judging people..the
closets are full...All in all...if you don't like the way it is
...work to change it, quit acting like you've been betrayed by the law. The California decision was the right one..according to the vote.Utah has no place in California state politics.
That's a completely valid point. If gay marriage is legal than polygamy must be
legalized and must be legal for both sexes. (not that I can think of any reason
anyone would want more than one husband) And of course the next step is
legalized homosexual polygamy. Yeah, that won't be at all confusing to the
adoptive children that will have to be legally allowable. "Wait, which two of
you do I call daddy?" I can see the sitcoms now. "My Ten Dads."
I just hope that all these activists are fighting for polygamy and insest and
every other form of alternative relationship. Why do single people have to pay
higher taxes and get fewer rights? Marriage is an incentive based program. And
it is perfectly okay to believe that every child deserves a mother and a father
and create a program (marriage) to encourage this. We don't need to apologize.
This is not a religious discusion it is a social welfare discussion
such as:Common Sense? | 1:03 p.m["For billions of people past
and present, common sense shows them by experience that there is a God"]that's not common sense by any stretch of the imagination. it is simply
what you've been told, even though it flies in the face of common sense.Michaelitos | 1:29 p.m["I'm sorry, my opinions are not
second-rate, merely because they are born of religious conviction."]no - but your opinions are biased by superstition, and not of
intelligent quality (or you wouldn't believe in fairy tales).To: to
religion 12:34pm | 1:08 p.m.["You can't pick a side at all, because
every single decision is inluenced by something outside of ourselves."]not picking a side. treating everyone equally isn't a side, it's simply
common sense.and my favorite:lynn | 1:13 p.m["If
marriage were between Adam and Steve how would the divine commandment to
"multiply and replenish" be accompished?"]divine commandment?
please. and do you really think everyone would suddenly become gay?like I said - religious people aren't know for common sense or great
Why is it that when my high school team finally gets an article written in the
paper, there is only one measly picture of the game. Yet when gays protest,
there are multiple pictures of their tantrums? Where's the equality in that?
Michaelitos | 1:29 p.m. May 27, 2009...GREAT post!
Why do those who oppose marriage equality insist on comparing gay marriage with
bestiality, and/or child molestation? One refers to legally consenting ADULTS,
while the others do not. Is your faith actually so weak that you demand it be
forced upon me? It is the only valid reason I can ascertain especially since
you claim: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the
dictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them
worship how, where, or what they may. My God doesn't mind gay marriage.
If you are going to spout leviticus 20:13 how about also spouting about Kosher
laws (better watch out for swordfish) or fabric laws (heaven forbid you combine
wool and cotton.) Do you also admire Lot who managed to pretend to be drunk
enough to impregnate not one but two daughters? Your daughters need to be
concerned if you do. What do you think about Abraham's parenting style? You
really okay with a man that ties up his son and threatens to stab him as a
sacrifice? Andrea Yates thought it okay as well.
if marriage stays between two consenting adults, your argument is moot. trying
to create divorce laws for multi-person marriages is just not possible. but
it's simple for two-party marriages.so that explains why it should
just be two consenting adults. now pls explain why they need to be different
sexes (and leave your god out of it).
["Marriage and equality are just the subterfuge that the gay agenda is using
to get what they really want - and it ain't marriage. The truth is darker and
seedier than we can handle."]well, lets move your comment back
in time since it fits perfectly.Free slaves? blacks running around
free? that's just the subterfuge that the black agenda is using to get what
they really want - and it ain't freedom. The truth is seedier and darker than
we can handle. Next thing you know, they'll be wanting to have white women, and
eat in the same restaurants as you and me. why, they'll force us to let them in
our mormon church and expect to be treated just like an ordinary person!! Roger - do you have any idea how bigoted you sound?
There's too much hate, too much contention, and WAY too many misspelled words!
Look, I'm straight and I'm a Mormon. As such, I believe it against the
teachings of Christ to engage in contentious debate or to hate our neighbors,
regardless of what they do. I also believe that the practice of homosexuality
is morally wrong and abominable in the sight of God, the same as fornication or
adultery. Is it possible for the two beliefs to reconcile? Of course! Read
the Book of Mormon and learn of the feelings of the early Nephites toward their
brethren the Lamanites. They desired to reclaim them from their wicked ways and
only fought them inasmuch as it was necessary to defend themselves and their
families from slavery or death. If you call yourself a Christian, you must love
your neighbor and avoid contention. You must not embrace the sin, but you must
love the sinner. Your judgments must be in accordance with the commandments
which, to our belief, condemn the practice of homosexuality, fornication, and
adultery. But above all, love your neighbor for he or she is your brother or
sister and a child of God.
you sound just like southern whites in the 1950's and 60' that didn't want
blacks to vote. They are americans and will be given the same rights as other
americans in time.
re: Reality Wow, thats awful. I call troll on you. And PS: I may
be against gay marriage but firmly believe every time someone says Adam and
Steve an angel punches a puppy.
I read an interesting article yesterday about France & their solution to this
polarizing issue. People have really strong feeling on this issue because of
the word 'marriage', which currently has legal and religious connotations.
France has removed the legal connotation - they now only issue 'civil union'
licenses, which are given to both gays and straights. Then people can take this
license and have a civil union ceremony, or if they choose, go to a church of
their choice for a marriage ceremony. This seems to be a workable solution
to me. For those who oppose gay marriage, they can determine for
themselves what other churches do (including gays) to be invalid, thereby
preserving their religious beliefs for the term 'marriage' - for gays, they can
find a church that will marry them or just have a civil union, with the same
legal protections as any other licensed couple. Perhaps this would remove the
discrimination charges, yet preserve people's concepts of what marriage is for
You take for granted that God does not exist, and base all your arguments on
this premise. But you can't know that God doesn't exist; that's just your
belief. Therefore your opinions are equally biased by superstition.
Re: ex post facto! I am so pleased to learn that when the U.S. Congress passed
the Edmunds-Tucker Act that outlawed plural marriage, all those who were already
in a plural marriage could continue to practice it in peace. . .
NOT!!!!!!!!!The truth is that a marital practice that is repugnant
to society can be outlawed (polygamy and slavery), and the laws can be enforced
upon those who were already practicing it. The California justices used this
sanction to get a big boot in the door in line with their own personal agenda.
Dear Dallas and all other well intentioned bigots.You just don't get it.
If you don't approve of a life style that is different to yours, that is O.K.,
it's your right. You have all the right in the world to disagree. That is not
the issue, you have the right to your opinion. But democracy doesn't give the
right to a majority to deprive of the benefits they enjoy to a minority.We
may disagree with gay life style, we can say is a sin, we can say is degrading,
etc. etc. but that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But, democracy
and freedom of expression cannot be justification for the oppression of a
minority. Gays pay taxes and vote as any other citizen. People here have been
mentioning children.. Well!! Thank gays, single people, couples without children
that are helping to pay for the schooling of your children.Freedom of
religion is O.K. too, no Gay marriage should be than in LDS buildings. But don't
deny the courthouse that is secular and for all citizens.
@re - anao at 2:07pm | 3:09 p.mI wasnt aware that marriage was
created to provide for easy divorce. Since marriage is just to prepare for
divorce why dont we ask wedding couples to provide divorce lawyers as well as
witnesses at a wedding. I dont know about you but after I learned
to divide by 2 I learned to divide by 3 even 4. My math skills might not extend
past my ten fingers but I think division by other fractions other than 1/2 IS
This is not about "gay marriage." It is about equal protection under the law.The California Supreme Court's ruling only said that California voters
had a right to amend their constitution and that the initiative did not violate
the rights of gays under STATE laws. In doing so the majority opinion took great
pains to try and limit the decision's impact.Now it is rightly being
challenged in FEDERAL court under the equal protection clause of the US
CONSTITUTION. The fact that the State Supremem Court honored the validity of the
18,000 LEGAL same sex marriages already perfomed will make it very difficult for
the US Supreme Court to deny equal protection.
It is very arrogant to think you have the final say in what common sense is.
What is sad is that I could say to you, "let's agree to disagree", but you
believe you are the final authority and do not want to allow me the right to an
opinion I've thought long and hard to form.
I am saddened that at this day and age, gays still cannot obtain the basic
rights as everyone else. For those against gay marriage, how does gay marriage
negatively affect your daily life? I hope we can continue to progress as a
nation and I know that one day, gay marriage will be allowed in every state.
This is considered a "moral wrong" under religion. Why should religion be
involved at all? I think that this should be up to the individual. Employers
cannot discriminate against sexual orientation, why can the state government? It
shouldn't be the government's decision who I am allowed to marry. Black, white,
gay, straight, who cares? Does this effect others? No. Your life will go on if
two people of the same sex get married. Is your marriage so unstable that it
will make it mean any less? If so, you have bigger problems.
Very funny. Your wit is astounding. You should be on tv.
Don't all polygamist have special sex beds? I have never heard of gays having
sex beds? I read all about it once on the polygamist compound.
Anger from the liberal crybabies. Confidence from the right. Life is good.
A win for fundamental values and goodness!
Ive heard about gays cross dressing as nuns once. I guess if I've heard it ONCE
like youve heard it ONCE then by your logic all gays dress up as nuns.
Just wondering, did the Des News do any piece focusing solely on the feelings of
the other side over their victory? I find the focus on the "historically
disadvantaged" homosexuals a little annoying, considering everything ...
You said:"Maybe when something you believe in is in jeopardy, you
will understand and hope for others to respect you and your opinions." Something I believe in IS in jeopardy: marriage between one man and one
woman. I feel just as passionately about my side of the argument as you do
yours. I do "hope for others to respect [my] opinons." I'm hoping you
will respect mine right now. I respect your opinion. Let's be clear:
"respect" does not equal "agreement" or "endorsement". And in the USA, when
parties disagree about law, we hold elections to determine the law of the land.
This issue will come up on the ballot again, and we'll see what the majority
votes for. What I can assure you is that if Prop 8 would have failed, you
wouldn't have seen the behavior from Prop 8 supporters that we have all
witnessed from the LGBT community.
re: - Roger | 1:49 p.m | 3:21 p.m. May 27, 2009 Yes, I know how
bigoted I sound. Merely disagreeing with you makes me a bigot - I get it!
["Yes, I know how bigoted I sound. Merely disagreeing with you makes me a
bigot - I get it!"]it's not that you disagree. it's that you
are a paranoid scitzophrenic and are throwing out bizarre conspiracy theories
against a minority.or do you actually believe the crazy things you
"Something I believe in IS in jeopardy: marriage between one man and one
woman."Do you mean that when we have gay marriage, all marriages
between opposite sexes will cease? I stand all amazed! I did not know that was
happening in Massachusetts where they have had gay marriage for 5 years now.Ask you fellow members in Boston if their lives have changed or if they
now have different beliefs. I think you might be surprised by the answer. The
sky did not fall and temple marriages in the Boston temple are continuing.
["Something I believe in IS in jeopardy: marriage between one man and one
woman."]the funniest part of your statement is that you can HAVE
the word "marriage". What's going to happen is the gov't will simply change it
to "civil union" and that's what everyone will get. If you want to get
"married" then first you have to have a civil union, after which if you want to
go to your church and have a little marriage ceremony, which won't have any
legal standing, then go right ahead.and those people that have civil
unions (everyone) will still be able to say "yes, we're married". So while you
have your little religious ceremony, after all that, and you say "we're married"
then the two women right next to you will be able to say the same thing...can't wait to see the look on your face...so sure - keep the
word "marriage". It's just a word anyway. soon it won't even matter.
......very very very much~lily allens
What is often overlooked is that gay divorces are highly discouraged by this
decision. Maureen O'Connor, head of the Gay and Lesbian Liberation Front,
stated: "Sadly, the 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples will not have the
chance to remarry if divorced. But the bright news is that these couples will
have to work harder to make their relationships work, and future studies will
show that gay and lesbian marriage works even better than heterosexual marriage.
We also are encouraged by a ruling that adultery cannot be punished by the
state, so gay and lesbian couples can have open relationships with no fear of
If past studies of homosexual families are any indication, it seems that future
studies will show whatever their biased authors want them to. Unfortunately, it
seems that very few objective comparisons of homosexual and heterosexual
families have been made; objectivity is made even more difficult by the
selective participation of gay families.
@gay divorceWhat the would lead you to believe prop 8 had ANYTHING
to do with adultry?....which in case you haven't noticed isn't illegal and
hasn't been an issue since before the 1960's.
@Re: Gay divorcePAST studies of homosexual familiesFirst by
your chosing to call gays/lesbians homosexuals, I know what your bias is. Not
even willing to respect enough to call us what we call OURSELVES.Secod I'm all pins and needles to see these "STUDIES" of LGBT families you
CLAIM exist, cuz unless they are from Europe there aren't American studies of
OUR families...yet.So show me your studies, and give links to your
sources.....which you folks who just make up garbage can NEVER provide.put
up or shut up
What's the big deal?Simply this. No proof, just supposition and
conjecture, exists to prove Gay is genetic. If not genetic, then it is
behavioral. If behavioral it can be learned or unlearned. If it can be learned,
gay pedophile scout masters can influence. So can gay parents. However, if proof ever comes that Gay is genetic and never behavioral, then
the argument changes.Until then gay does not equal skin color. Gay
should receive no special protection under the law. Physically harming someone
regardless of the justification except immediate self preservation should be
prosecuted.Gays should have all civil rights as any other American
citizen... they now have the right to marry the woman of their choice just like
any other man. And if not marriage they should have the right to make contracts
of endowment.By the way... welcome to the slippery slope. If there
is found a 'GAY GENE" then what are you going to say about a bestiality gene, or
a pedophile gene?In the meantime, gays, you CAN decide who you're
attracted to and not attracted to. You aren't turned on by your father... that
is a choice.
Let me see if I can adequately capture some of the principles behind the
pro-homosexual marriage movement:1. "We are desperate for others to
validate our lifestyle choice, and calling our relationship 'marriage' seems
like a good way to achieve that."2. "Defining a 'family' as a unit
designed to provide for raising and nurturing children--and providing a
community with the populace necessary to survive--is too restrictive. The
definition needs to be expanded to validate hedonism as well."3. "We
realize that our rationale for and the justifications of our behavior are shaky,
so don't take it personally when we accuse _everyone_ who disagrees with us as
being hateful."3b. "We expect that everyone will give into our
demands if we sound angry and victimized enough, independent of our shaky
principles or lack of principles altogether."4. "We realize that a
large number of homosexuals in the liberal country The Netherlands commit
suicide, but since we're in Utah, we'll blame the LDS Church. It helps enhance
our public perception as victims."Lack of space prevents me from
continuing, but I think I've captured the fundamental principles.
The Rock | 1:27 p.m. May 26, 2009 Yes, Rockwe know
your line, is that everything you can add to the issue?Fine.Abraham Lincoln said a tail is a tail not a leg, etc.Ahem,
He said that in the 1860s, when polygamy was allowed in a certain territory.Question for you, Rock, what was that called exactly?Not
marriage?When we look at the history of polygamy, is that marriage
or not - or is it something else?Now that Proposition 8 has been
upheld as being defined as between "one man and one woman." Can we
therefore, revisit history and call polygamous marriages something other
marriages?Please, I wait your reply.
People don't lose when they fail to win one race.People lose when
they fail to keep on.
Some of you don't know your own arguments. Either that or you fail to accept
them?You keep saying, "being gay is a choice"You are so
eager to quote the Proclamation to the World, Romans, Levititus, take your pick,
you love those quotes.And yet.... The Church has said,"ELDER OAKS: Thats where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not
have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations,
including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific
questions whether nature or nurture those are things the Church doesnt have a
position on."When we turn to the professionals, they quote the same.
I have quoted numerous articles, quotes, statements by the APA, for example,
all stating in fact, that "there is no conclusive data as to why gays are
gay"Are we saying that in the course of making a decision we are
going against,1. What the Church says it does not have a position
on --- specifically, gay being a choice2. The professionals --- with some
studies going back as much as thirty years, and growing
Being Gay is not a choiceTo some of you who fail to grasp the
meaning of what it means to be gay.Some of you have gay sons and
daughters, gay neighbors, gay friends, etc.Many of them are good,
honest people, you know them because they know they are your friends and
relatives.Some of them have never lied to you about important
issues.Why do you think they would lie to you about this one issue,
particularly about one that affects the way they identify themselves?There is nothing for gay people to gain from saying "I am gay" to their
friends and family except a sense of self-realization once they finally come out
of the closet and affirm who they are.Quite the contrary, many of
them have much to lose.Why would they risk saying that they are gay
and inevitably face a life that is altogether different from what the "normal"
is?You seriously think that they would think, "well, I know it is a
choice. I woke up one morning, and I decided to be gay" and that they would
risk alienating friends and family?
Unpersuaded | 8:31 a.m. May 30, 2009 Sorry, on every point your
voice, tone, and content does not represent the sentiment of LGBT.#1
It is not "lifestyle." It is inherent rights to the rights that heterosexuals
have.If people that live together "in sin" do so, yet, they are
allowed to do so under the law.The one legislation in question
targets the LGBT community as a community which, acording to the majority view,
cannot live committed loving relationships just as heterosexuals can.#2 Family, in any sociology textbook, is not defined as a mother and a father
who never get divorced, and have children. Yet, this is the very market which
"preservation of traditional marriage" is trying to sell.#3 The
actions to take rights from people who do not personally affect you is
loving?#4 I have seen people on both sides express anger and
victimization on both sides. Yet, after all is over, only one side had their
rights to marry taken away. The other wide still has the right to marry.
Let me cut to the chase: Yeah, I have an opinion about the whole LGBT agenda. It
wasn't forged in a Sunday School class, either.It was derived from
first-hand experiences with homosexuals. In short, for every homosexual in my
personal circle of acquaintances (family, friends, roommates, etc.),
pornography, grooming, and--in a few cases--public exposure/indecency--have been
a part of their life story. Thus, my personal experiences persuade me to believe
that LGBT isn't about love and family. Instead, it appears to be more about sex
and hedonism.I understand if anyone wants to assume I'm just making
it up, blowing things out of proportion, making a broad generalization, etc. I
understand if someone's reaction is, "We/they aren't all like that." That's
okay...I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion.Like everyone else,
my personal observations and experiences mean more to me than the rhetoric of
others. Maybe my opinions will change when I start seeing more evidence that
LGBT is based on more than indulgence.Fine: it's not a "choice".
Birth defects aren't a choice, but that doesn't make them good. Right?
"You keep saying, 'being gay is a choice'."You're right. We do keep
saying that. And yes, some of us have opinions that aren't dictated by the
leadership of the LDS Church.Personally, I'll quit mentioning
it--not because I'm giving up the opinion, but because it doesn't matter.
Whether or not it's a choice has no bearing on whether or not it's in the best
interest of society.We can either agree it's good (not likely to
happen) or bad (not likely to happen) or indifferent (not likely to happen), or
we can just continue waging battles at the polls, in the courts, in the press,
in online forums :-), etc. I'm okay with that. I'm not going to throw any
parties or lose any sleep over it, one way or the other.
"#3 The actions to take rights from people who do not personally affect you is
loving?"My actions are not driven by love any moreso than they are
motivated by hate. I disagree with the premise of LGBT / hedonism / indulgence /
addiction / whatever.Are you suggesting that "Well, gee...what can
it hurt?" is a compelling argument?From a historical perspective,
are successful, long-lasting societies built on a foundation of homosexuality? I
say "no". Hence, my attitudes and actions. No hate required. Please do continue
accusing me of hate, though, if it helps you feel like more of a victim.
What do you people think this willachieve? Suppose they passed gay"marriage" everywhere, in exactlythe form you wanted it. Do youthink the whole world is now going toview you as "normal"? Guess
again.Don't like that? Think it's 'homophobic',whatever THAT
is? Sorry, but that's the waythe world is.