Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Making blanket decision on gay marriage issue is ludicrous

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 14, 2013 12:24 a.m.

    So what is it in these thousand plus laws that makes gay marriage impractical, and can't we modify them so it can be made to work? Or do you have another agenda?

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    April 14, 2013 3:04 a.m.

    Gay marriage, contrary to the letter writer's belief, is a civil right. As for making a judgment based on some hypothetical injury to the non-gay world, this is just a ruse perpetrated by a level of bigotry no longer (if it ever was) acceptable in a free, democratic society.

    The people who oppose gay marriage are free to express their opinions. No one expects them to change their views. But understand that they are living in a changing world where their opinions are becoming less and less valid. Possibly, in 20 years, we'll look back at this time in American society and wonder what the fuss was all about.

    Changing demographics and attitudes are just the way things are going. Those who refuse to adapt to a progressing world will eventually be left behind. Although there are those still around who think that slavery was a real good deal for the slaves (" . . . they got free room and board"), in a few more generations there won't be anyone around who remembers the days of Jim Crow and the racism that pervaded this nation. Young people will grow up having no contact with these old attitudes.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    April 14, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    Reminds me of the movie "Lincoln" where the president wanted to free all the slaves and make it a Constitutional amendment... many opposed it because freeing people would result in all sorts of legal questions and social challenges -- from loss of property to increased labor costs for plantation owners to ex-slaves "being different" and warranting study about if freedom would truly benefit them...

    Lincoln refused to let those issues stop him from pursuing what he saw as "right" in the basic principle of America that "All men are created equal" and deserve equal rights and benefits.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 14, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    " Most people have no idea what is contained in the 1,000 plus laws that govern traditional marriage. How can they be expected to vote intelligently on the issue?"

    So we should punish loving homosexuals for the ignorance of the lazy masses? Or are you suggesting we make all marriages void until the masses ready 1000 pages? I don't get your logic here other than to merely obstruct gay marriage.

    "These laws should be carefully thought out, researched and debated before they are signed into law."

    This seems like code for, "Lets kick the can down the road and let the next generation resolve this."

    I'm beginning to see that this issue has more in common with the civil rights movement than I originally thought. We could have eliminated racial inequality generations ago. however, people like this letter writer existed back then as they do today to instruct us to, "kick the can down the road and resolve nothing."

    People are making completely ridiculous arguments against homosexuals. If you are going to be against it then you surely must bring some good arguments to the table. If none can be found, then you must concede.

  • George New York, NY
    April 14, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    I have to wonder where exactly Blaine has been for the last 20 plus years considering everything he claims needs to be studied more closely has been not only studied but debated to death and beyond.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    Blanket decisions about marriage?

    We have done this previously in American history.

    1967.

    The Supreme court ruling that allowed Interracial marriage.

    So, the entire premise of the claim that 'blanket decisions about gay marriage' isn proven moot.

    46 years ago.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    April 14, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    I think Blaine should commit to the "Golden Rule" as we all should then those who profess it can truly become the Christians they think they are.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 14, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    Anyone else doubt that Blaine would become supportive of gay marriage if studies showed that they didnt have any negative impact on society? Yeah, me neither.

    Btw, Blaine, there are a ton of studies out there which have researched gay marriage. Google is a wonderful tool. Try it out sometime.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    'Btw, Blaine, there are a ton of studies out there which have researched gay marriage.'

    I agree.

    'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    Line:
    'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

    Prediction:

    *'Same-Sex Marriage: Who Profits?'
    - Reported by ABC News – 04/ 2008 - By Aude Lagorce, Forbes magazine.

    ’Same-sex marriage could be boon to N.Y. tourism’ – By Harriet Baskas – MSNBC – 07/07/11

    “The $142 million benefit to New York City’s economy includes spending on weddings by New York state residents who live outside the city but choose to marry here,” the report noted.”

    Reality:

    ’NYC reaches goal of 50 million tourists’ – By Samantha Gross – AP – Published bßy DSnews – 12/20/11

    'Legalizing gay marriage may improve health and reduce healthcare costs' – The UK Guardian – 02/01/13

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    April 14, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    Gay marriage is not a civil right. It's a privilege offered by the state to those who meet the qualifications. The qualifications are established with the expectation that the state will receive something of value in return for benefits offered to married couples.

    Gay couples do not meet the primary qualification, which, contrary to popular belief, is neither sexual attraction nor love. The primary qualification is "one man and one woman", for reasons which should be obvious - it's about the children. No child should be conceived with intentional indeterminate heritage, nor should any child be intentionally deprived of appropriate gender roles. All children deserve to be raised in a loving home with their own mother and father. For the state to legitimize any other ideal is to flirt with disaster of epic proportions.

    It's about the children, not the desires of people who are sexually attracted to and/or love each other.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 15, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    Sorry Pops, if it's "all about the children", then infertile couples should not be allowed to marry. Older couples, beyond their child bearing years should not be allowed to marry. Men with vasectomies and women with hysterectomies should not be allowed to marry.

    Besides:

    U.S. Constitution
    Article 4 - Section 2
    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all PRIVILEGES and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    Amendment 14
    ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of ... the equal protection of the laws.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 15, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    @pops

    Once again as many have pointed out on this thread just because you-choose to ignore the volumes of research in this area does not make it go away. The research could not be more clear that children do not suffer any ill effects from being raised in a same sex homes.

  • Liberal Today Murray, UT
    April 15, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    Pagen-

    If all you want is profits and tourism, we shouldn't waste our time with same-sex marriage. Lots of states are doing that. We should go for something unique. Not gambling. Nevada does that right next door.

    How 'bout legalized prostitution? That would be unique on this continent. Let the tourists and money flow in!

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    April 15, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    It is impossible to discuss this issue with gay-marriage supporters because they want every benefit that comes with marriage regardless of whether or not it is applicable to a gay marriage. They know that gay people cannot have children together, so they subvert the conversation to gay people who adopt or have children from outside the relationships outside of the gay union.

    They are not looking for fairness. That's just their smokescreen. They simply want their version of morality endorsed by the government. They want the government to end its currently neutral stance on the morality of gay unions and gay intimacy and instead adopt the stance that gay unions are morally good and intimacy between gays is morally right. It is a blatant attack on any who disagree with their moral views.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 15, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    @RAB --

    It is impossible to discuss this issue with infertile-marriage supporters because they want every benefit that comes with marriage regardless of whether or not it is applicable to an infertile marriage. They know that infertile people cannot have children together, so they subvert the conversation to infertile people who adopt or have children from outside the relationships outside of the infertile union.

    They are not looking for fairness. That's just their smokescreen. They simply want their version of morality endorsed by the government. They want the government to end its currently neutral stance on the morality of infertile unions and infertile intimacy and instead adopt the stance that infertile unions are morally good and intimacy between infertile is morally right. It is a blatant attack on any who disagree with their moral views.

    ----------

    Does this help you to understand just how groundless your position truly is?

    I don't believe that Republicans are morally good or morally right. Nonetheless, I support their legal right to marry and enjoy the same rights and privileges that I do. Legal rights and privileges are for EVERYONE -- not just for people we happen to like or agree with.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 15, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    @RAB

    I find it interesting that you claim you cannot have a discussion on this issue. I have seen you on many threads making simar arguments and others refuting your claims. May I suggest it may not be that you cannot have a discussion on the issue but rather that you do not get to.deine the peramators of the discussion or declare them worthless simply because you fail to sway anyone with your arguments.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    April 15, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    @amazon doc
    Cough cough. There is no end to this smoke. I must have missed this great movement to support infertile marriage. Your response proves my point that subverting the argument is the name of the game.

    If a person’s goal was to plant a beautiful garden, but a few of his seeds unfortunately fell on rocks, he has unintentionally wasted some of his seeds. Now, if your argument is that reforms should be made to assure that no seeds ever fall on rocks, you have a sensible argument. Unfortunately, your argument is that, because a few of the seeds fell on rocks, the man should purposely dump lots of seeds on every rock.

    Does this help you to understand? Of course not. Like I said. I'm wasting my time.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    April 15, 2013 4:14 p.m.

    @Tolstoy
    Sorry, I must have missed the comments that refuted something I said.

    Laws can be adjusted to assure applicable rights without changing what marriage is. Thus, the denied rights and privileges argument falls flat with respect to demanding gay marriage.

    Gays can be allowed to marry without government permission or reward. Thus, the denied right to marry who they love argument falls flat with respect to demanding legalized gay marriage.

    The only thing that can only be attained through legalized gay marriage is the official stamp of government approval of the morality that endorses gay intimacy and gay marriage.

    It may surprise you, but our government represents religious people too--not just people who agree with you. Just because you approve of gay intimacy and you believe gay unions are exactly like marriage, does not mean that the beliefs of millions of Americans should be marginalized and everyone in our country should be forced and obligated to approve of gay intimacy and marriage.

    The government MUST take a neutral stance on such a controversial issue. That is not what you are advocating.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 15, 2013 8:51 p.m.

    @RAB;

    It may surprise you, but our government represents GLBT people too--not just people who agree with you. Just because you disapprove of gay intimacy and you believe gay unions are not exactly like marriage, does not mean that the LIVES of millions of Americans should be marginalized and GLBT Americans in our country should be forced and obligated to have your approval of gay intimacy and marriage before they can marry.

    It may also surprise you that we have a Constitution that gives GLBT Americans the right to expect to be treated equally by our government to the way it treats heterosexual couples. It may also surprise you to discover that your religious views are not the only views on the subject.

  • George New York, NY
    April 15, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    @RAB

    so you have missed the last 20 years of this conversation, including the many threads you commented on?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    RAB,

    Please read the 14th amendment to the constitution and then tell me how you can continue to want to treat other American citizens differently than those with whom you agree with. Please mention why simularily situated couples (those who cannot have children), ie, infertile couples, older couples, gay couples, should be treated differently. To me, that goes against what we stand for as Americans.

    Just above the entrance to the US Supreme Court it reads, "Equal Justice Under Law." Does that mean treating all with whom you approve of as equal? Or does it mean that ALL are equal under the law.

    I have no problem with states not wanting to perform gay marriages. I will have a problem if, when DOMA is reversed, having that state not recognize a gay marriage that has occurred in another state (Full Faith and Credit Clause).

    I am waiting for your reply.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    April 16, 2013 7:09 p.m.

    @Ranchhand, Myer, etc.

    Like you, I WANT the government to fully represent GLBT people. Unlike you, I also want the government to equally represent other people. My whole point is that NOONE's moral views should be adopted by our government. Not mine. Not yours. Yet, all I see are endless accusations of wanting to deny rights to people and only wanting my morality supported. All lies.

    Did I say I didn't want GLTB people to bond together and call it marriage? Did I say I didn't want applicable benefits assured to GLTB people? Did I say I disapprove of gay intimacy? Answer: No! No!, and...wait for it...NO! Frankly, I couldn't care less what GLTB people do.

    I just don't want my government telling me I HAVE TO APPROVE OF those things. According to you people, anyone who fails to proclaim their wholehearted approval of gay intimacy is "marginalizing the LIVES of GLBT people". You Are Wrong.

    I want GLBT couples to be treated equally to heterosexual couples. You however, also want the government to endorse GLBT moral views and condemn ALL opposing moral views--all under the umbrella of gay marriage. No Thanks.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 16, 2013 8:40 p.m.

    @RAB --

    "I just don't want my government telling me I HAVE TO APPROVE OF those things."

    Well, then, you can relax! Because making something legal doesn't mean that you approve of it. Taa Daa!

    Making alcohol legal doesn't mean that you approve of alcohol drinking.

    Making membership in the Republican Party legal doesn't mean that I approve of Republicans.

    See how easy that is? Legality isn't the same thing as approval!

    Legality is only a recognition that people **have the legal right** to do something, whether you happen to approve of that specific thing or not.

    And guess what? According to our US Constitution, every single citizen -- within the limits of Federal and state laws -- has the right to equal protection under those laws. That includes citizens we adore, citizens we tolerate, AND citizens we just can't stand. EVERYONE gets equal protection, whether we "approve" of them or not. That means freedom from discrimination for **everyone**.

    It doesn't matter whether you approve of gay marriages, and nobody is forcing you to approve of them. The **only** thing you are being forced to do is to recognize the power of the US Constitution.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 17, 2013 6:04 a.m.

    @RAB;

    Nobody wants your "approval". When marriage is a legal right for GLBT couples, guess what? You won't have to approve of it.

    Separate but equal isn't equal; creating a new name for the same relationship inherently makes one of them "lesser" than the other.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    April 17, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    RAB--I salute your efforts to jump into this fray and be the one lone voice of sanity and morality. Sadly, as George Bernard Shaw once said: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

    These on this comment board who are castigating you and your views--while screaming for TOLERANCE and DEMANDING ACCEPTANCE for their views--just want to wrestle in the mud. They like it.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 17, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    @Yorkshire (perhaps named after the Yorkshire pig?) --

    "while screaming for TOLERANCE and DEMANDING ACCEPTANCE for their views"

    Errr...no.

    Nobody really cares much whether RAB, or anybody else, "accepts" gay marriages. What we care about is adherence to the US Constitution.

    The Constitution guarantees equal protection. That means freedom from discrimination. And freedom from discrimination means allowing people of the same sex to marry each other.

    Nobody needs to like it or to "accept" it or to think of it as moral. They only need to recognize the power of the US Constitution under which we **all** live.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    Give me a break! This comes down to religion and it isn't right for one group of people to impose their beliefs on others! Period! So Mormons don't believe it is right. We do! many of us have a belief that God is perfectly fine with it. Who gets the right of freedom of religion? Do people ever look at it that way? It is to the point of being ridiculous! How long do we have to put up with people's insults about us? I don't have to live as the evil person others think I am! I have been with my partner for 15 years! It works for us and we should have the same legal rights as anyone! People can do as they please, I am sick of it and I am sick of these so called good people here! They are nasty and rude and arrogant! The people here are far from being nice and pleasant like they want others to think of them!