Ouch!The ultra-Cons are going to go ballistic with this news.Pull up a chair, pop some corn, and let the show begin....
@LDS LiberalHere's how it works. When the courts overthrow a law the
ultra Cons hate, then the judges are strict constructionists. When they use the
exact same logic to toss out a law the ultra Cons like, then they are
"legislating from the bench."
I have two dogs. Why does the federal government discriminate against my dogs?
I should be able to claim them as dependents. The definition of
"dependent" in the federal regulations is unconstitutional. I pay for
my dogs' food, shelter, education, and entertainment. Why should a family
with children get tax benefits by claiming their children as dependents and I
don't get those same benefits? There is no difference between their
children and my dogs. We both take care of them and love them and consider them
part of our family. What is with this ban on dog dependents?
Here's how it works. Now that the slippery slope is out in the open, what
possible reasoning can be used to EVER block polygamy? There will soon be no
principle to invoke to block anyone from marrying anyone else of age, because
that would be discrimination. Congratulations court system. You've done it
Some will say that laws against polygamy are already on the books. Well,
that's what many states are trying to do with marriage protection laws
limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But supporters of gay marriage
claim that infringes on the rights of same sex partners who love each other to
be married to each other. The same argument can be applied to laws limiting
marriage to a single partnership of 2. In the same way, it infringes on the
rights of groups to inter-marry. I see this as a dangerous precedence and the
occurrence of stable homes and marriages will suffer as a result. Of course
there are lasting relationships of all kinds and many heterosexual relationships
fail. But society WILL take a hit when marriage is no longer protected as a
sacred union between a man and a woman. That's all I'm saying.
Everyone knows this is headed to the US Supreme Court. So just be patient....it
isn't settled yet.
Actually, I think opponents of same-sex marriage will be pleased with this
ruling. Take note of the grounds for which the court ruled. According to the judges' ruling, DOMA is unconstitutional because it
interferes with the rights of states to define marriage. This would suggest
support for the 30+ states that have defined marriage as between "one man
and one woman" in their state constitutions. Additionally, it would suggest
support for the voters of California to pass laws like Proposition 8, as they
have the right to define marriage in their state.
And, of course, the ultra-Libs never go ballistic over anything. I mean, not
counting Prop 8 in CA, of course. Because here's how it works.
When the courts overthrow a law the ultra Libs hate, then the judges are....
Well, you get the idea.
I say leave it up to each individual state. Let the people vote and then
respect their decision. The problem is, the gay community is unwilling to
@Cinci Man"Here's how it works. Now that the slippery slope
is out in the open, what possible reasoning can be used to EVER block polygamy?
There will soon be no principle to invoke to block anyone from marrying anyone
else of age, because that would be discrimination. Congratulations court system.
You've done it again!Polygamist compounds should relocate to
states that allow same sex marriage then let the lawsuits begin.
@anne26why should they gay community "accept" second class status?
I am sorry that they do not want to go to the back of the bus sit down and
shut-up but I don't blame them they should not have too.
The courts haven't destroyed the sanctity of marriage... We have... Look at
our divorce rate! If we want a marriage that is pure, wholesome and eternal in
the sight of God, we can have it. The courts can't take that away from us!
Why is this a big deal?It really sounds like a money issue to me.
Are we afraid we won't collect as many tax dollars from people living
John20000, your argument assumes that humans and dogs are equal which isn't
a valid comparison. I know you are trying to be clever and aren't serious
but with your line of reasoning, we should also allow dogs to vote.I'm not sure why everyone gets so bent out of shape with gays trying to
get married. Especially in this state, it has become some religious duty to deny
equal rights for gays just because the bible condemns homosexual practices.
I'm sorry, but the world won't come to an end just because 2 guys or 2
gals get married.I agree with commentors that polygamy should be
legal as well as long as they are consenting adults. It is hypocritical to deny
one and allow the other. The hypocrisy can go either way. Anyone who knows about
utah history would know that Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilfred Woodruff
wanted rights to pracite marriage in their own way so it's ironic that we
are now leading the charge against equal marriage rights.
If we open the legal marital union between gay lovers we MUST as a matter of
congruence open up marital union to polygamists.... Anything short of that will
be discrimination.... Polygamists should be able to file joint tax returns too
shouldn't they? Supposing that any of the wives have jobs..... Any argument
to the contrary simply shows ignorance that will never be overthrown so please
argue my point carefully.
So, let's get the balance of powers right. The legislative branch, led by
Congress (the House and the Senate), make the laws. They did that with DOMA,
passing it as law in 1996. The executive branch, led by the President of the
United States, enforces the laws passed by Congress. Then the judicial branch,
headed by the Supreme Court of the United States, interprets the laws and
decides their constitutionality. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws or
enforce them, and neither Congress nor the President should interpret them.This law is going to the Supreme Court to be judged of its
constitutionality. However, it currently stands as law, and the President is
sworn under oath to enforce it! He is failing in that duty. His refusal to
defend the law is a violation of his oath to uphold the constitution.Likewise, he refuses to enforce it because he deems it unconstitutional.
Therefore, he is overreaching his power into the judicial branch. He must
enforce it until they pass judgment.Either way, Obama has broken his
oath of office. He should know his place! If he truly understood and loved the
constitution, he would enforce DOMA.
@Anne26Sort of like we did with slavery?That worked out
well.Letting the majority vote on an issue that does not affect them
in any way at all, but only affects whether a couple in the minority can get a
piece of paper that says "Marriage?"
You had the chance to protect traditional Marriage with the compromise of
allowing Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships -- aka, legal records at
the County Couthouse, with a Justice of the Peace.No Church, No Religion,
No God.Just a legally binding document, like a business agreement.Even the LDS Church's statements about securing legal rights for
the GLBT community could have been taken into account without the need for
redefining "Marriage".But No, the Ultra-Conservatives had to
go for broke, All-or-Nothing.No compromise.Well, Guess what...
To @Hawkeye79 and @Anne26 posts I would have to say that there will be some
messy issues that will need to be resolved if this is left up to states (Not
saying this should not be a state issue, just saying it will be messy if it
is).By moving across state lines, people could suddenly have their
marriage annulled?If someone is on a vacation and gets injured and
they are on their spouse's insurance, will they be uninsured if the other
state does not recognize the marriage?Does this have interstate
commerce ramifications? If so, can the federal government legislate this?Just asking...
I am not sure why those that oppose gay marriage think they arguing to get out
of bring polygamy into the conversation every-time. Do they think are remaking
some kind of point? Every time they bring it up those that support gay marriage
always agree polygamy between consenting adults probably should be legal. So
again what is the point, maybe to try to find something we actually agree on?
@Anne26The problem with that is, marriage is such an integral part
of society, how would 50 different laws work? If two men got married in MA, and
one got transferred at work to UT, would they still be married? One could argue
the 10th amendment, and the other could argue the full faith and credit clause.
There has to be one National Standard on something this big. Personally, I think government should get out of "marriage" and allow
"unions". Require everyone to go to the courthouse to get married by a
Judge, and then whatever religious ceremony you want can be done afterwards.
@Riverton CougarThe President is enforcing it (Federal employee same
sex couples still cannot get benefits), however, he has said he will not DEFEND
it. Enforcing and defending a law are two different things.
@Cinci ManCouple of easy solutions: 1) Define marriage as
between two people2) Those desiring plural marriage propose a reasonable
solution to the various tax and inheritance problems that would arise. Whether
it be something simple as no tax benefits beyone the initial couple, and with
every new addition to the marriage, a new "will" be presented to the
court. Bottom line, I really don't care what consenting adults
do in their own bedroom. I have my beliefs, I hold them sacred, but those are
between me and my God.
Well if Gay Marriage is legal, shouldn't every relationship be eligible for
marriage?two men, three womenone adult, one childone adult, one pet (any kind)I mean if nothing is sacred,
then shouldn't everything be acceptible? Who needs laws if, somebody is
going to feel opressed by it. I want to drive 150mph on the way home tonight.
It is not fair that only emergency vehicles and race car drivers can do so. I
am being descriminated against. Why do only outlaws have guns? That is
oppressive to me as a law abiding individual. I should be able to have as many
guns as the outlaws do!
Hi LDS Liberal,To suggest that it was the
"Ultra-Conservatives" who went for broke would be revisionist history
indeed. Please refer to California's family law at the time when
Proposition 8 was on the ballot. The state law already guaranteed equal rights
and privileges to marriages and civil unions, yet advocates of same-sex
relationships still fought against efforts to define marriage as between one man
and one woman.Why would that be?
Hi birwin,The court's ruling conspicuously did not strike down
the law's provision that prevents states from being forced to recognize
marriages performed in other states. That portion of the law is still in effect
(technically every part of the law is in effect until the Supreme Court rules on
it, but the cross-state recognition portion is not even being questioned).
Because of the inclusion of a severability clause, the removal of one portion of
the law does not invalidate the rest (which was not the case with the Affordable
Care Act).So, according to the law, a same-sex marriage performed in
one state does not have to be recognized as valid in another. They would only
have to be considered married for matters that take place in states that decide
to recognize same-sex marriages.As far as insurance goes, the paying
out of benefits falls to the insurance company, not the state. You would have
to check with an individual provider to know what their policy is.
@ Darrel,"Couple of easy solutions:1) Define marriage as
between two people"However, keep in mind that the argument from
same-sex marriage advocates has been that definitions of marriage that exist to
exclude a minority group's preferences are inappropriate and
unconstitutional. Your proposed limitation of "two people" is no less
discriminatory than the limitation of "one man and one woman."
Irony of the day – I see Mormons on the political right who
keep insisting marriage as being defined as between One man and One woman,
suddenly jumping the bandwagon with this court’s finding, and suddenly
giddy with the prospects of justifying PLURAL marriage.The LDS
Church statement remains ONE man, and ONE Woman.Since you have fought so
diligently against Gay-marriage, You must remain as vigilant and continue
to stand against PLURAL marriage as well.OrAre you just a bunch of
hypocritical dirty old men?BTW – If you want another wife, you
can have mine. I already have one wife to many.[That’s a joke!]
For folks who believe the bible and who believe same sex marriage is sinful they
will never accept that it should be made legal. I suppose the argument might be
that something that is immoral like sex between same gender folks should not
fall under anti-discrimination laws. After all, for thousands of years foks
have discriminated between right and wrong. What is different now I ask?
Marriage: 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of
a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; Tried
looking up gay marriage or gay union, they don't exists in the Webster
dictionary.I'm sure the definition would go something like:
legal union of a man and a man or a woman to a woman for life.My
question is why change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman?
Why would we change the definition of a horse to include all four legged animals
with tails? To add clarity to society we need to call things what
they are. Marriage is between a man and a woman. When a man chooses to be with a
man or a woman chooses to be with a woman it should be called what it is and
allow them many of the same rights and benefits. But not force religions to have
to change their belief.
This is just another battle in the on-going war of humanism vs faith.
Humanist's want a society where traditional marriage is dissolved which
happens when gays are allowed to marry. Humanist's want a God-less society
or atheistic society. Humanist's want a society free of ANY patriotic
sentiment toward a country. Humanist's want a society without morals.
Basically humanism and liberalism are twins and both lead to the complete and
total destruction of any society. The bottom line - children need a proper
nurturing environment based on healthy Father-Mother relationships. Gay
marriages destroy that environment. There is more to raising a child than love -
you also need healthy teaching and nurturing. Homosexuality is ab-normal no
matter how the politically correct nonsense plays out. A little boy - for
example - has no chance of developing healthy relationships with girls when the
only example he sees in his home growing up is his two male care givers kissing
, hugging, etc.... Again - homosexual behavior is ab-normal and children have
the right to be raised in a normal environment.
@CI While I certainly disagree with those that would tell you to go the
the back of the bus and sit down, I would remind you others challenging your
claims and offering counter points of view is not the same as trying to silence
you. I do have a couple of problems with your reasoning. Assuming you are
correct about only 20% of gay couples choosing to get married, my question is
does it really matter what percentage decide to do so? If it is something that
gay people should be able to access it really does not matter if 1% or 100%
decide to do so, not all straight people are required to get married just
because they can. Secondly this is the second thread you have made claims that
only 20% get married and that divorce rates are 167% higher then their straight
contour parts and this is the second time I have asked to sight your source
since I have never seen any evidence to support this claim.
Ultimately it is going to come down to a supreme court ruling that says states
can not create laws that expressly grant rights to one group while denying those
same rights to another - based on any criteria. Its not going to be
a gay rights issue, nor any specific minorty group/class issue, but a general
ruling that states can not discriminate benefits/rights. No protected nor
privilaged groups. We are even starting to see this same argument used in
affirmative action challenges.Maybe not this year, or the next, but
eventually the Supreme Court will have to rule on this broader issue.
This is another illustration for the need to push for and support a federal
Constitutional amendment fixing the definition of marriage as between a man and
George,It isn't second class. Gays aren't prevented from
using the same restrooms, drinking fountains, schools, etc. Gays aren't
considered a less moral citizen, a less lawful citizen, or anything
"less" than anyone else. We're talking about state-recognition of
two people's choices. They are still free to live by those choices. I am
not invading homes, forcing people apart, or doing anything involving the
private practices of two individuals. I simply refuse to believe or state
endorsement for... OR politically publish any document that gives recognition
to behavior that I believe is wrong.That may upset you. I'm not
going out of my way to intentionally upset you or anyone else. I believe that
gay persons and everyone else should not be denied hospital visitation rights,
and whatever other rights are basic to civil, human, and decent existence. But
where sexuality has been established for thousands of years AT VERY LEAST as a
morally debatable issue, then a state not prohibiting the exercise of such an
act is infringing no freedom whatsoever. Marry all you want, but
state-recognition can factually be distinguishable from social recognition.
@John20000Your dogs will never pay a cent in taxes. Kids presumably will
eventually.@Cinciman"Now that the slippery slope is out in
the open, what possible reasoning can be used to EVER block polygamy?"Slippery slopes are logical fallacies. You're using an argument
used by people who were against interracial marriage seeing as they pretty much
considered black people to be sub-human.@Anne26"The
problem is, the gay community is unwilling to accept that."If
someone thinks a law or statute is unconstitutional (regardless of whether or
not it actually is) then why are you surprised they aren't willing to
accept something they believe is unconstitutional? Conservatives look at handgun
bans and say that's a violation of rights, I look at it and say the second
amendment has the word militia in it. I think those bans are constitutional, but
since conservatives think they are unconstitutional I can see why they refuse to
accept it.@Coug420"we should also allow dogs to
vote."My goodness, politicians would be lobbying heavily for the
votes of crazy cat ladies and their 70 cats.
@UtahBlueDevil"Ultimately it is going to come down to a supreme
court ruling that says states can not create laws that expressly grant rights to
one group while denying those same rights to another - based on any criteria.
Its not going to be a gay rights issue, nor any specific minorty
group/class issue, but a general ruling that states can not discriminate
benefits/rights. No protected nor privilaged groups. We are even starting to see
this same argument used in affirmative action challenges."The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(10th Amendment)The government might have a problem if they did what
@Counter IntelligenceI'll tell you the same thing I tell straight
people, if you don't want same-sex marriage don't get one. Just
because you don't want one is no reason to stop other people from getting
them. @byu rugbySlippery slope logical fallacy. Same argument
used by those who opposed interracial marriage seeing as a lot of those people
considered black people to be sub-human."I should be able to
have as many guns as the outlaws do!"I don't think anything
is stopping you from that. The US is #1 by far with regards to guns:person ratio
(Yemen is 2nd). @A Voice of ReasonBeing a gay couple without
marriage benefits costs them approximately 200,000 dollars worth of said
benefits over their lifetimes. There absolutely is a 2nd class status. And yes,
saying they have to have civil unions instead of marriages is no different than
saying they have to use the other water fountain instead of this one.
This debate has already played out in the courts due to the very fact that even
in states that have laws that clearly state that gay people should have the
civil rights you listed are still denied equal access. it has been proven time
and again in the courts that these separate rules for gays and straight people
ends up in an unequal application of the civil right laws which pretty well
voids your argument. The courts have ruled separate is not equal. I would also
remind you laws are not about spreading your morality they are about preventing
harm and since we now have hundreds of post by you and you have yet to prove and
social harm it pretty clearly shows the facts do not support your claim that we
should restrict access.. I am not really interested in having another protracted
conversation that covers the same ground over and over again, do you actually
have any new material because your old material is really left wanting. I will
not be responding to anymore of the same old arguments it is a tiresome waste of
@Anne26;Would you just simply accept discrimination against you for
no valid reason other than people find you "icky"? Why should we? We ARE American Citizens. Citizens rights shouldn't be put to a
vote.@RivertonCougar;Please get your facts straight;
Obama IS enforcing the law, he's just not defending it.@CI';Then don't. But please stop trying to force others
to live the way you want to.@Hawkeye79;Sorry, but even
though CA's CU law gave most of the rights of marriage, not all of them
were available. For instance, they still don't get federal recognition or
benefits.@Jeff;You would be okay changing the
Constitution to revoke certain parts of the Constitution? Equal treatment for
all citizens, reciprocity, etc.? What happens when your own rights are put up
to an amendment as the next step? What then? Will you still be happy about it?
A voice of ReasonSalt Lake City, UTGays aren't prevented
from using the same restrooms, drinking fountains, schools, etc. Gays
aren't considered a less moral citizen, a less lawful citizen, or anything
"less" than anyone else. ============= NOT
true—Mormon Church Supports Salt Lake By Aaron Falk and
Scott Taylor, Deseret NewsNov. 11 2009 Summary Salt
Lake City to offer housing and employment protections for gays and lesbians
— an action supported by the Mormon church.Salt Lake City
Council, passed a pair of nondiscrimination ordinances that would bar landlords
and employers from discriminating based on sexuality — a protection NOT
currently afforded under state or federal laws.In a rare public
appearance before local lawmakers, a representative from The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints read a supporting statement at a public hearing
before the Salt Lake City Council regarding the ordinances proposed by Mayor
Ralph Becker."The church supports this ordinance because it is
fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of
marriage" You and the Republican led Utah State
Legislature did not support it.You supported Prop 8, but
convienently ignored this one all the time.
Gar marriage should be legal. Polygamy should be legal. What's the
problem? We live in a free country ... or so we're told.
Civil rights shouldn't not be subject to popular vote, and government has
no business protecting the "Sanctity" of anything. Churches? Sure,
churches should not be forced by the government to recognize the
“sacred” joining of a couple in marriage if they don’t want
to, for whatever reason. And I believe the 1st Amendment is on their side, just
like the 1st Amendment bar your church from requiring that I obey your religious
institutions definition of the “sanctity of marriage” however said
religious institution wants to define it. I don’t even have a problem
with Polygamy, as long as its consenting adults making that decision, why should
that be anyone’s business? The issue with modern day Polygamy is that
it’s usually not a true “choice”, but rather a combination of
religious coercion and threat of punishment if (usually the young bride) refuses
to go through with it.
Of course the provisions discriminate! That's the whole point! Society
has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage because it is
society's foundation and is necessary to create and raise the next
generation. To promote it, alternatives must be discouraged by denying
something to them. Laws treat people unequally all the time, taxes
and fees being prime examples.
@CI round and round we go in never ending circles I am
guessing you will not be shocked to find out none of your "articles" or
your reference to the National registry of sweden, what the few references they
do make they all pretty much state that same thing the states that do allow gay
marriage do not keep separate numbers for gay and straight couples, they are
all lumped into one. Just for future reference articles that do not provide
information on what they are using to support their claims not really credible
source anyway. I would suggest you may want to keep that claim in your
back pocket until you can find actual evidence to support it. Again
read my last comment separate is not equal and ""traditional
marriage" is not all that traditional when you look at it through the lens
of history it is a rather modern construct and therefore hardly set in stone.
if you can actually get through my rather awkwardly worded post you
will see that I was trying to state that most posters that support gay marriage
are not opposed to polygamy among consenting adults and therefore a poor counter
There are two views of the constitution:Liberals believe in
something called a "Living Constitution". Nobody knows for sure what
such a constitution actually means because a living constitution means what some
judge says it means; and that is final, until another judge changes it. A living
constitution is really no constitution at all.Conservatives believe
in a written constitution. You know what that constitution is because you can
read it for yourself. It is stable and reliable.The constitution
does not ban discrimination. If it did it would ban freedom.The difference
between freedom and a dictatorship comes down to one thing: Who makes the
decisions.It is impossible to make any decision that effects
anothers life without discriminating. When I eat at McDonald's I am
discriminating against Denny's. When I buy a Ford I am discriminating
against GM and Chrysler and Toyota...If we need to change the
constitution we can do that with an amendment.I sure wish that
Federal Judges respected the written constitution and freedom.
I don't have a problem with polygamy, either. If consenting adults want to
all be together, who am I to tell them how to live their lives? Now if they
start marrying their 14 year old daughters off, then I have a huge problem.
Thinkin\' ManRexburg, IDOf course the provisions discriminate!
That's the whole point! Society has a vested interest in promoting
traditional marriage because it is society's foundation and is necessary to
create and raise the next generation. =============== I'm in my 50'sMy wife is in her late 40'sWe can no
longer have children.Using your lame reasoning that marriage is only
about sex and having children means MY marriage of 28 years is now null and
void, Adoptive Parents can't be married, and Abraham and Sarah
could not been considered married for 100 years either -- so please stop using
it! It's just plain stupid, full of holes, and does not hold in
the court of common sense.And if propogation of the species is your
only defining factor of marriage, almost 50% of America's children
are born out-of-wedlock.So once again, Your point is moot.Marriage is defined by L-O-V-E, not S-E-X or having K-I-D-S.Why is that so hard to define?
atl134,But that's exactly the problem with people arguing
against me. I DO NOT support denying such benefits. Calling it second class
because I won't accept it as moral- is one thing. I still disagree with
that and can support that opinion with rational arguments. But to argue that TO
ME and on the grounds that 'because of said benefits' is
unwarranted.George,SCOTUS did rule, but on heterosexual
marriage.I have hardly touched on the "2nd class citizen"
point. I very often talk about my voting rights, state recognition not being a
right, and the equal protection clause. I may not seem to have new
"material" to you, but that does not negate my claims nor the VALUE in
discussing them, debating them, or even restating them. Do you suppose you and
everyone supporting gay marriage feel exempt from ever having argued
redundantly? Whatever you think of my commentary, I made a point to show you
respect; such a calloused response doesn't seem appropriate.Thinkin\' Man,I posted an interesting point about that on
another article, titled "Most important religious freedom case".
@A Voice of ReasonOkay, I'm glad you support equal protections. I
believe that would leave the one source of disagreement with your position being
the idea that "separate but equal is inherently unequal". Unless of
course you supported civil unions for all couples gay or straight and just get
marriage out of the gov't. Then obviously that argument wouldn't apply
either. Personally, I support gay marriage or the get it out of the gov't
and give everyone civil unions thing (I'm partial to this latter one
because if we make our marriage rules similar to Europe then that means the LDS
church can get rid of the 1 year waiting period on civil marriages before temple
sealings in this nation and that'll make things more comfortable for
non-member family members of converts).
@ Ranch: If marriage is redefined by the courts, as it was by the California
Supreme Court and later the 9th Circuit in the case over Prop 8, then the only
recourse is to amend the constitution (as we Californians did with urr state
constitution)You ask a hypothetical, rhetorical question about
whether or not I would amend the Constitution to take away a right granted by
that Constitution. You imply by your question that you want me to accept the
premise that same-gender marriage is a right guaranteed by either the California
State or US Constitutions. I do not accept that premise, which makes your
question moot.I think amending any constitution is something that
should be generally avoided unless it becomes necessary. I think it is too bad
that we should have to amend our Constitution for something that should be so
basic that the Founding Fathers never even considered it a possibility (nor, by
the way, did the framers of the 14th Amendment). It is too bad, but it is
Federal Way, WAThere are two views of the constitution:Liberals believe in something called a "Living Constitution". A living
constitution is really no constitution at all.Conservatives believe
in a written constitution. You know what that constitution is because you can
read it for yourself. It is stable and reliable.=============== Then PLEASE explain why it is always the Conservatives who are the one’s
Constantly trying to change, and Amend it?Prohibition, Flag burning,
Balanced Budget,Repeal the Natural Born Citizen clause, Repeal
the 16th and 17th Amendments, Banning Abortion, Allow Prayers in
Schools,BTW - name the last time a Liberal called for a
Constitutional Amendment? [I think it was the Equal Rights Amendment back
in 1972].As for “Living” Constitution and leaving it
alone – I think you have it all backwards my friend.And if you
want to save the Constitution, leave it alone and stop Trampling it, or
get enough votes to pass normal legislation with a 2/3 majority in Congress --
per the Constitution.
Darrel, I agree with you. The government should stay out of marriage. The
government should allow genetically unrelated consenting adults a
"union" issued in the court house and performed at the moment of
request, with the documents to prove no genitic link. Then the couple, group,
whatever, can have whatever cerimony they wish and all are the same under the
Open Minded Mormon,Does being "open minded" mean that you
can substitute church teachings when it is convenient for you, does it simply
mean that you are open to other possibilities besides the truthfulness of the
LDS Church, or does it mean that you just don't have to be 'all that
devout'?It is no secret that I have questioned why people say
"I'm Mormon" and preach doctrines contrary to the church. However,
I'm not pretending to be the 'better Mormon', nor do I even
nearly feel that way. But facts are facts and you have not given as much credit
to the person you criticized as you ought to have.Calling something
"lame & just plain stupid" isn't just irrational, I would argue
that it is deplorable. If you read the proclamation on the family, and the
statements given about how marriage and procreation are inseparably connected- I
would ask if you feel that way about the leadership of the church also?
It's one thing to question leaders, even members. But considering their
views completely unintelligent simply for aligning with doctrine- that's
incredible.All the anti-LDS hate on here is truly very sad.
Talk about unconstitutional how about an unelected three judge panel of the
First Circuit Court of Appeals overturning, without clear Constitutional basis,
an act of a duly elected Congress defending one of the foundational institutions
of our civilization!The "equality argument" for same sex
marriage is a red herring. Homosexuals already have the same right to get
married as anybody else i.e. they can marry one consenting person of the
opposite sex of the appropriate age, who is not too closely related to them!
They are entitled to this but not t have the rules changed to fit their fancy,
much less to change the definition of marriage. Finally "same sex marriage
" is not real marria.
marriage is between 1 man 1 woman...not 1 man and 1 man, 1 woman and 1 woman,
not 1 man and multiple wives. our Heavenly Father is perfect, man is not but
when we follow Heavenly Father's plan we learn-grow-succeed. marriage is
sacred. the world says marriage is not sacred. I say marriage is sacred and to
atl134,I'm sorry, I didn't see that you replied. Bear in
mind I can't reply after this. But I want to thank you for your respectful
reply.---I didn't understand this sentence:
"Unless of course... marriage out of the gov't."I can
support SOME kind of civil union to allow for protecting gay couples from
circumstances such as nuptial agreement disputes, tax benefits, and especially
more sensitive issues like hospital visitation. My concern with unions is that
some desire to force religions, restrict speech, and thus I don't favor
them. I could support a constitutionally protected civil union, SO LONG as
certain religious rights were equally protected as well.I'm not
anti-gay at all. I do believing in a virtue-ethic style of government placing
'value' on something (as Michael Sandel illustrated at TED (it's
on youtube)). I don't think it's wrong for government to encourage
something. Encouraging and restricting are different. I'm not trying to
restrict anything gay, just establish/place certain value on what the telos of
marriage is. I wish we had more room here to talk. I'd like to further
discuss this point.
This is OK. We should be able to find some way to let gay people marry without
having to include the right to marry llamas or houseplants.
RE: airnautYou got your facts wrong. Prohibition was
lead by the "progressives" the name of the liberals used in i the
20's and 30'sAnd Prayar in schools should be local issue
not a federal one. schools are NOT federal instituions, but local
institutions,But what is so wrong about trying to change the
constitution? There is a mechanism built in for changing the constitution. Would
it be preferable if conservative used the courts like the liberals? ---RE: LDS LIberalYou need to brush up on LDS
polygamy, polygamy is NOT a plural marriage,Each marriage is a
singular entitly of one man and one women, and has nothing to do with any other
women, though they may have a choice whether to allow it. ---My guess is the supreme court will over turn this decision,
since the law does not disallow civil unions for gays.Instead of
fighting over this why do not the gays stop "marriage" from federal
recognition?The answer to this shows thier true agenda.
VOR @5:24 p.m. May 31, 2012-I rarely agree with your positions, especially
on the gay marriage topic, but I gave you a "like" for the gracious tone
of your post. (And anyone who listens to TED talks can't be all bad.) We
need more thoughtful, respectful discussion here and less venom (even if, as
procuradorfiscal sometimes shows, venom can be clever and smart).While I'm handing out pats on the back, cheers to atl134, Kalindra, and
Ranch for ceaselessly waging the good fight in an articulate, intelligent, and
civil manner (and for generally good spelling and punctuation).I
respect the DesNews moderation for keeping the flames and trolls under control,
but the 200 word, 4 comment limit is chafing. Any chance of bumping it to 6
comments? Or accepting HTML coding?
How can all of this law and battle over the Gay Marriage "rights" trump
GOD? He is the creator of the law in the first place! To override, or overrule
is an act of "man." Our Constitution is based on the Judeo-Christian
model. I shutter to think the repercussions of such a "law."
It seems a bit odd that you would care about someone else's private life
that much. It's none of your business. As for the religious
argument, I'm not a member of your church. I don't believe in your
god. Your rules do not apply to me. I have no desire to have
children so your 'think of the children' reasoning also doesn't
apply to me. Plenty of heterosexual parents divorce. Society seems to carry
on.You are free to marry the consenting adult whoever you want. I
don't care. Why do you?
"A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act
unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples..."These gay couples who marry... they got it wrong. If they want the
benefits accorded married people, all they need do is marry someone who
qualifies them... that would someone of the opposite sex. It's that
simple.They way we're going, before you know it a person could
marry their horse just to claim the benefits accorded marrieds.
The LDS church has made it clear (in press releases and in their support of SLC
policies) that they support rights of LGBT people - those that truly matter,
such as visitation etc. Too many social conservatives cannot get past the LGBT
perceptions though. They think that protecting rights somehow ruins the sanctity
of marriage, when all it does is provide a needed legal framework. We need to
get people past that.What the LDS Church does not want is to have
these rights and protections labeled as marriage. Living the LGBT lifestyle is a
serious sin according to our moral code, and we cannot support marrying these
folks in our churches or temples - any laws that seek to force that upon us
should be met with resistance. On the other hand, laws and rulings that simply
protect decent people are no threat, and we should support them. The slippery
slope arguments are pretty thin - I think the line is pretty clear in what we
should and should not support.
Actually, as far as "gay marriage" goes, I don't see that it's
interfering, as long as it's understood to be a reference to the
civil/secular meaning only and not to be applied to any private religious or
spiritual ceremonies and beliefs. Then it takes only what the civil law can do.
And as some have brought up polygamy (or maybe referring to multiple spouses of
any gender as well, I don't know), making those legal as well would allow
legal recording and oversight to be sure that situations like the one occurring
with FLDS and other such groups did not occur. Sometimes legal is good....
Darrel: "Couple of easy solutions: 1) Define marriage as between two
people..."An easier solution... define marriage as between one
man and one woman.And an even easier solution is to define marriage
as between a man, woman, pet, children, your vehicle, fuzzy-wuzzy, your
computer, your TV, etc., separately or all at the same time.@UtahBlueDevil: "Ultimately it is going to come down to a supreme court
ruling that says states can not create laws that expressly grant rights to one
group while denying those same rights to another - based on any
criteria."Defining marriage as between one man and one woman
does not discriminate against homosexuals. They can marry just like anyone else
so long as they chose someone of the opposite sex. DOMA says nothing about
love, devotion, companionship, sexual activity, etc.@atl134:"Your dogs will never pay a cent in taxes. Kids presumably will
eventually."What has the payment of taxes to do with
marriage?"Conservatives look at handgun bans and say that's
a violation of rights, I look at it and say the second amendment has the word
militia in it."Militias are always a possibility which is the
purpose of the Amendment.
Middle of the Road:Man's law can trump God's law because
we are a secular nation, and I do not believe in your God. You do not have the
right to tell me how to worship. The first amendment makes that quite clear.
This will not sit well with the electorate. Politically, this could not come in
worse timing for the Obama administration. This will be one more reason why the
evangelicals, Catholics, and many other faith-based groups will be running to
the polls on election day to get rid of the stench of the Obama administration.
It is also another reason why it is necessary to get a constitutional amendment
to define marriage as between one man and one woman only. Only then can we take
this issue out of the hands of liberal judges.
Can anyone in this forum tell me that a man marrying a woman is the same as a
man marrying a man? In other words: a woman and a man are exactly the same? I
think the answer is obvious. Society is best served and continued through
heterosexual marriage which provides children. That is the bottom line.
From my perspective we talk a lot about definations (in this case marriage.) I
have seen some laws that have pages of definations.I am prohibited
from doing certain things based on that I do not meet the full and complete
defination. I think of the ability to write perscriptions because I am not a
Doctor as defined. I might have even studied medicine for years, I may even only
lack a few hours of formal study, but still I do not qualify as a Doctor. I can
be called something else that I do qualify for, perhaps a druggist.Historical precedent is important in a lot of things, I think marriage is one
of those words, just as is Doctor etc.I don't have any problems
for those in a civil union to get the same benefits as others however.I do have a question for my own knowledge. When a marriage breaks up we call
it a divorce. In a same-sex union is there a "divorce" and are there
provisions that one pay "support" to the other like you have in some
divorces? Are the courts involved in these civil union divorces?
wrz: "These gay couples who marry... they got it wrong. If they want the
benefits accorded married people, all they need do is marry someone who
qualifies them... that would someone of the opposite sex. It's that
simple."The couples who brought the suit WERE legally married to
someone who qualified (in their state). They sued because they were denied
federal benefits provided to other legally married couples in their state.As to those who argue that gays are not discriminated against because
they are completely and equally free to marry... someone of the opposite sex:
You wholly discount the role of love in marriage. Do you deny that emotional
attraction contributes to marital stability and happiness? This notion that one
has equal access to marriage because one can marry someone for whom there is no
attraction is at best flippant and shallow, but actually fraudulent and cruel.
Those are the true counterfeit marriages, not loving same sex ones. It's a
throwback to the days of arranged marriages, where women were treated as chattel
and married off by the parents to strangers in exchange for property or to
secure political alliances. Now that's traditional family values.
wrz: "Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not
discriminate against homosexuals. They can marry just like anyone else so long
as they chose someone of the opposite sex. DOMA says nothing about love,
devotion, companionship, sexual activity, etc."See my previous
post. What you are suggesting is that the State is in the arranged marriage
business, selecting whom one can marry and denying personal choice to the
participants in the martter. DOMA may be silent about love, but western
tradition for the last few centuries has not been. Romantic love is a
significant part of human pair bonding. Would you be comfortable living in a
world that only let you marry someone that you had no affection for?wrz: "What has the payment of taxes to do with marriage?"As long as a Form 1040 has a check box for "Married filing separately"
or "Married filing jointly" with separate tax tables for each, payment
of taxes has everything to do with marriage.
All this talk about "Gay Marriage is no different than polygamy" begs a
new question --- If a man marries a woman, and another and
another....And they are all bound legally and lawfully, Aren't
then those Sister wives "Married" to each other - legally and
lawfully?Isn't that in essence a "Gay Marriage"?,
regardless if there is no sexual contact between wives?or going even
further, even if there was such -- would that no longer be considered a
sin, since the Law of Chastity is no sexual relations, except for with your
husband of wife, to whom you are legally and lawfuly wedded?This
could open up a can of worms no-one will be happy with....
John20000: "I have two dogs. Why does the federal government discriminate
against my dogs?"Hook up with your dogs and the discrimination
will end. That's where this whole thing will eventually end up@Cinci Man: "There will soon be no principle to invoke to block anyone
from marrying anyone else of age..."Why stop at a certain age?
Children have rights too... and should not be subject to discrimination.@George: "Why should they gay community 'accept' second
class status? I am sorry that they do not want to go to the back of the bus sit
down and shut-up but I don't blame them they should not have too."Why should people who love their pets or their underage neighbor have to
go to the back of the bus, sit down and shut up?
@Schwa: "Now if they start marrying their 14 year old daughters off, then I
have a huge problem."In which case you're discriminating
against 14 year old daughters. Some countries permit and even encourage early
age marriages. This country used to at one time in our history and it
didn't seem to reach the huge problem stage.@airnautI think you're missing the point. A 'living Constitution' means
it's not static and can mean whatever the courts want it to mean without
changing the document. The amendment process leaves the original document intact
and makes the changes needed not by a judge's order but by the people
through their representatives (i.e., Congress).@Hutterite: "We
should be able to find some way to let gay people marry without having to
include the right to marry llamas or houseplants."In which case
you&'re right back into the discrimination arena. I happen to be fond
of my houseplant.
wrzThese gay couples, If they want the benefits accorded married people,
all they need do is marry someone who qualifies them... that would someone of
the opposite sex. It's that simple.wrzThey can marry just
like anyone else so long as they chose someone of the opposite sex. wrzChildren have rights too... and should not be subject to
discrimination.---------------- You are wrong, and on so
many levels.Here is what the LDS leaders have instructed us;Pres. Hinckley declared that heterosexual "marriage should not be
viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations
or practices"Church leaders have warned that encouraging Gay
members to pretend to have heterosexual feelings in order to qualify for
marriage, generally leads to frustration, discouragement, and divorce. It
shatters the lives of not only themselves, but those around them. They speak
against those who enter into marriage under false pretense. Finally,
children do not have the same rights as adults.Children do not have the
right to smoke, drink, drive, vote, serve in the Military, buy firearms, or any
other Constitutional right. So your entire rant is utterly moot.
@ Riverton Cougar: The Oath of Office states, "I do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United
States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States."One of the President's
duties is to "take care that the laws shall be faithfully
executed,...."Obama has been advised that DOMA is
unconstitutional. He has a conflict between defending the Constitution and
executing the laws. He has been advised that the way to handle this is to
enforce DOMA - which he does - while not wasting taxpayer time and money to
defend it - which he isn't.There is a difference between
defending and enforcing.Obama has not broken his Oath of Office.
@LDS Liberal"I see Mormons on the political right who keep
insisting marriage as being defined as between One man and One woman, suddenly
jumping the bandwagon with this court’s finding, and suddenly giddy with
the prospects of justifying PLURAL marriage."Now body is giddy
with the idea of legalizing polygamy. What they are trying to say is that if
you change the definition of marriage to include same sex unions then the other
variables can also be changed such as the number of partners or even the age of
the partners. No matter what changes you make there will still be a minority
that will feel their rights are being denied. Keeping the definition of marriage
as between one man and one woman is the only way to avoid opening
@ Lagomorph: It is in the best interest of the state to regulate sexuality, and
definitions of certain sexual acts and preferences is necessary to that
regulation. Many of the arguments in favor of same-gender marriage require a
redefinition of marriage that is far too open-ended. Other arguments favor a
shift in the definition to include "all consenting adults," which is too
open-ended but also shows the very tendency to draw a line that the rest of us
want to do, hence making that argument hypocritical.Marriage has
always been about procreation (a redefinition would favor marriage's being
about sexual attraction, which is not a good foundation for marriage anyway).
It is in the interest of government to foster marriage in such a way that the
procreation gives as much ability to the parents as possible to not only
procreate, but to nurture children in as close to an ideal as possible.Same-gender marriage accomplishes none of the necessary goals of government
intervention into marriage. It is rightly discouraged by any government.
Jeff: "Marriage has always been about procreation... Same-gender marriage
accomplishes none of the necessary goals of government intervention into
marriage. It is rightly discouraged by any government."Marriage
is a poorly designed and inefficient policy tool to encourage procreation. It
affords benefits to married couples who do not procreate and does not prohibit
procreation by unmarried couples. Not a great way to incentivize the desired
outcome.I agree that ONE social policy goal (and probably the
primary one) of marriage is to facilitate "nurtur[ing] children in as close
to an ideal as possible." However, that is not the ONLY goal. Marriage is
a broad institution and has room to contain (like Emerson) multitudes. Case in
point, Utah law makes the INABILITY to bear children a mandatory precondition
for first cousin marriages-- hardly a means to encourage procreation. Nor does
marriage law (as practiced) approach fostering "as close to an ideal as
possible." If two parents are optimal for children, marriage law allows for
suboptimal families through divorce. Children of gay parents are also denied
the ideal familial situation. As with first cousins, gay marriage accomplishes
a legitimate government goal of promoting social stability and individual