Quantcast
U.S. & World

NAACP backs same-sex marriage announcement declares the practice a 'civil right'

Comments

Return To Article
  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 19, 2012 11:00 p.m.

    thank you

  • Forrest Natchitoches, LA
    May 20, 2012 6:22 a.m.

    Infants have rights. They deserve a mother and a father, and a nurturing environment. Marriages replenish the earth. It's a relationship which integrates the genders and strengthens our society. Take away the discriminating effects under the law, and tax codes, sure; but to call same gender relationships a marriage is no service to our families or communities.

  • Alex H. Provo, UT
    May 20, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    The other message of this article is that the NAACP no longer represents the views of the community they were created to defend. Now their sole purpose is to be another liberal activist group.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 9:50 a.m.

    One more step toward the abyss.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 20, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    From a Chinese cookie:

    Rationalization does not change wrong to right. Accountability will be sweet and sour.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    When people deny equal civil rights to others, and then rationalize such bigotry by invoking the moral authority of Fortune Cookies, you can rest assured their morality is questionable!

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 20, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    @ Forrest: If you truly believe that children have a right to a mother and a father, than by all means work to get recognition of that right - but understand the full consequences of doing so. Understand that all children born to single women will have to be taken and placed in foster care. Understand that when a coupe with children gets divorced, the children will be taken and placed in foster care. Understand that when a spouse dies, the children will be taken from the surviving spouse and placed in foster care.

    You also need to understand that marriage has nothing to do with child bearing. If you wish to permanently connect marriage and child bearing, there will need to be laws mandating fertility tests before marriage or a limited time after marriage to bear children before the couple is forced to divorce. Couples that are beyond child bearing age or who do not wish to have children will not be allowed to marry. Once the children are raised, the couple will have to divorce. There will also need to be laws mandating a minimum number of children per married couple.

    Without these follow throughs, your comments mean nothing.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:36 a.m.

    Last I checked, the words "liberal" and "liberty" we're from the same root.

    As a lifelong Republican, I find it puzzling that fanatics have hijacked the Grand Ol' Party and defending liberty has been abandoned!

    What has become of the party of Lincoln? I have not left the party, it has left me!

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    Call me crazy, but shouldn't the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people be focused on, I don't know, issues that will help the advancement of Colored people? If I were an African American I might just be a little annoyed by the fact that they are focusing on this issue, especially since most blacks have been against gay marriage. I agree with the poster above who stated how they are now just another liberal activist group. They look to be just another group that will blindly follow Obama into the abyss. How sad.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:55 a.m.

    The NAACP wants to us to avoid codifying “discrimination or hatred into the law." A noble goal. But with all due respect, being against same-sex marriage does not necessarily make one discriminatory nor hateful. There are legitimate reservations by reasonable people as to the appropriateness of same-sex marriage. Certainly, there are those on both sides who are discriminatory and/or hateful, but those characteristics are not at all a prerequisite to opposition to gay marriage.

    Also, speaking respectfully, I submit that discrimination against African Americans or any other groups, including Mormons, is not the same as the reservations that currently exist about same-sex marriage. The constitution does not necessarily always protect people based on behaviors, but does protect based on race, creed, and religion.

    As a matter of truth, the constitution has no problem discriminating on basis of behavior, such as with civil and criminal law for example.
    .

  • jttheawesome Scranton, PA
    May 20, 2012 12:35 p.m.

    "A believer should certainly obey the authorities and those who have rule over us. A Christian should be the most law-abiding citizen in the land. But when the laws of a state conflict with God’s revealed will, then the Christian has no choice but to obey the command of God. This was the experience of Peter and John when the authorities attempted to silence them in their witness for Christ, '… Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard' (Acts 4:19–20). The believer is to obey the Word of God today rather than the word of man. That should be our attitude as children of God."

    J Vernon McGee, "Thru the Bible"

    Are we, today's generation of Christ-followers, ready to "obey the Word of God today rather than the word of man?" Are we ready to stand, as a united church of Christ, against government imposed and/or court-ordered statutes which clearly violate the word of God?

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 1:14 p.m.

    RE: "A Scientist"

    Being a "scientist" and, presumably familiar with logic, please tell me where your boundaries of the definition of "civil rights" extend. Do they encompass the "civil rights" of one who wishes to marry more than one partner? For example, one man and several women; one woman and several men? Please enlighten those of us who believe that expanding the definition of marriage beyond one man-one woman would bring a flood of discrimination complaints (and lawsuits) from those who want several spouses.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    May 20, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    Southern Utah is abound with men who have several spouses. Things seem to be without mayhem, Mike.

  • Hawkyo SYRACUSE, UT
    May 20, 2012 1:56 p.m.

    You can talk about insurance and what not, but marriage itself is not a right, otherwise a guy could sue a girl who said no, or a girl who was never asked could sue for emotional damages, and do we real ly want to let lawyers take us down that route?

  • Civil Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 3:34 p.m.

    I think it is about time to sue Mother Nature. After all, she doesn't let same-sex couples create children. She's been discriminating longer than anyone!

  • I'll call it Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2012 3:40 p.m.

    Two types of people on this earth:

    Producer vs Consumer
    Fixer vs Finder
    Giver vs Taker
    Charitable vs Selfish

    The list goes on... I'll support marriage between a man and a woman.

    We wish all well...

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 20, 2012 4:26 p.m.

    @ very concerned: "The constitution does not necessarily always protect people based on behaviors, but does protect based on race, creed, and religion."

    Religion is a behavior - and very clearly even more changeable than homosexuality.

    "As a matter of truth, the constitution has no problem discriminating on basis of behavior, such as with civil and criminal law for example."

    Prohibiting a behavior because it causes a harm is not discrimination. Same-sex marriage causes no harm and therefore there is no reason to prohibit it.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    May 20, 2012 5:43 p.m.

    Mayhem Mike,

    Enlighten you? Too often the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 20, 2012 8:15 p.m.

    @ Hawkyo: Freedom of religion is a right - that doesn't give us the right to sue someone for not leaving their old religion to join our new one.

    Marriage is a right - forcing someone to marry against their will is not.

    @ Civil: Yep - and all those infertile people need to sue, too. And people who color their hair should sue for being born with the wrong color hair - and bald men can sue for being bald, short people for being short, tall people for being tall, people who don't like the shape of their nose can sue over that - the list just goes on and on!

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2012 9:12 a.m.

    RE: A Scientist

    Thanks for the non-reply to my comment. Tough one to answer, eh?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 21, 2012 12:06 p.m.

    @very concerned;

    Homosexuality isn't a "behavior", it is an orientation.

    Religion is a behavior. And yes, we are VERY concerned about this behavior and the negative it is having on our society. You seem pretty content having YOUR behavior Constitutionally Protected (the word is: Hypocrisy).

    Just to point out, marriage is also a "behavior".

    @Billy Bob;

    There are black gays, just like there are gays in EVERY race.

    @jttheawesome;

    We aren't a theocracy, yet. Woudl you enjoy being under the thumb of a Muslim theocracy? What makes you so certain the rest of us want to be under the thumb of Christianity? I certainly don't.

    @MAYHEM MIKE;

    When the government provides benefits (civil benefits) for a behavior, then those benefits should be available to ALL citizens, not just the "special", heterosexual ones.

  • Forrest Natchitoches, LA
    May 21, 2012 9:34 p.m.

    Kalindra,a child's right to be born in a home with a mother and a father is not a right we can establish with some lawsuit. Litigation and government don't establish this right, it is a God given right, like life and liberty. Our society is coming up short on protecting these rights. Marriage has everything to do with providing for the needs of children, but it is not exclusively for the children. Marriages are best when a mother and father are giving their lives for their children and each other. You can't force people to be virtuous, or to think of others as they think of themselves, but that unselfishness is exactly what makes successful marriages. Great is the peace of children born to such relationships. Not to a union born of contractual obligations, but to one born of covenant opportunities associated with the challenge of living with and serving someone of an entirely different gender than your own. Our families and communities greatly benefit from people willing to lose themselves in such traditional marriage relationships.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2012 2:56 p.m.

    @Billy Bob
    "but shouldn't the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people be focused on, I don't know, issues that will help the advancement of Colored people?"

    There are gay black people. Besides, allowing people to vote to ban gay marriage is a lot like letting people vote on interracial marriage, or other civil rights type things. The NAACP has a long history of opposing the idea of civil rights being put to a vote so it is only natural for them to oppose it in other situations too since the concept of putting rights to a vote is a constitutional position.

    @very concerned
    "There are legitimate reservations by reasonable people as to the appropriateness of same-sex marriage"

    Notify the prop 8 legal defense team, they're still looking for one of those.

    @Hawkyo
    "but marriage itself is not a right,"

    So it'd be perfectly fine for the gov't to ban interracial marriage, interstate marriage, LDS people from marrying, Hispanics from marrying, people named Tim from marrying...?

    @Counter Intelligence
    Incidentally, more states currently allow people to marry first cousins than allow people to marry someone of the same gender.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    May 23, 2012 5:03 p.m.

    @atl134

    "So it'd be perfectly fine for the gov't to ban interracial marriage, interstate marriage, LDS people from marrying, Hispanics from marrying, people named Tim from marrying...? "

    It would not be fine because the government does not have that authority since the power is given to the states. powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the People. see the 10th amendment