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.
The other message of this article is that the NAACP no longer represents the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.
One more step toward the abyss.
From a Chinese cookie:Rationalization does not change wrong to
right. Accountability will be sweet and sour.
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!
@ 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.
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!
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.
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
"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?
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
Southern Utah is abound with men who have several spouses. Things seem to be
without mayhem, Mike.
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?
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
Two types of people on this earth:Producer vs ConsumerFixer vs
FinderGiver vs TakerCharitable vs SelfishThe list goes
on... I'll support marriage between a man and a woman.We wish
@ 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.
Mayhem Mike,Enlighten you? Too often the light shineth in darkness
and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
@ 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!
RE: A ScientistThanks for the non-reply to my comment. Tough one to
@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.
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.
@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 IntelligenceIncidentally,
more states currently allow people to marry first cousins than allow people to
marry someone of the same gender.
@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