Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Equal responsibility

Comments

Return To Article
  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 2, 2013 12:26 a.m.

    I know of a lot of heterosexuals who care very little for the responsibility of marriage. That doesn't mean we deny them the option to get married

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    July 2, 2013 1:59 a.m.

    "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." – T. Jefferson - carved into he wall of the Jefferson Memorial

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    July 2, 2013 2:02 a.m.

    Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
    -T. Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 7:02 a.m.

    I most definitely do _not_ want a government that feels obligated to uphold the myriad irrational and cruel "laws" of the Christian Bible.

    I am in fact deeply grateful that so few Americans actually attempt to comply with what the Christian Bible demands of them.

    What is good about the Bible is not unique to the Bible, but what is unique to the Bible is not good.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    In my opinion, it is really, really, arrogant to assume that every U.S. citizen should adhere to your Holy Bible. This is a large diverse nation and people would do themselves a favor to realize that.

    Self-righteous, egocentric attitudes are flaunted way too often in this state....hence, My Moniker.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 2, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    Equal treatment. It's already a part of the Constitution. The fact that you don't believe in equal treatment indicates that you don't believe in the Constitution.

    Oh, and btw, we are NOT a "Christian" nation. We are a nation of many religions, the Christian version being only one of them.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 2, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    You want judges to abide by the Constitution AND the Bible? You do realize it is it possible to do both. Both used to allow slavery. Our Constitution has changed. the parts of the Bible that allow slavery are still there. Also if judges were to rule according to the Bible, women could not get a divorce unless they had a sexually unfaithful husband. in other words women could be stuck with extremely violent husbands.

    Is this what you want? Might I suggest that we have judges that rule according to the Golden Rule, common sense, the Constitution and the law, in that order.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    July 2, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    In pitting states against the federal government the Supreme Court majority has made a mess of the gay-rights issue. Their unfortunate ruling stating the states have the right to define marriage but gay couples have the right to equal protection will only bring greater divisiveness to the nation.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Still not a theocracy but thanks.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    Edward, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. If the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution, it cannot privilege the teachings of the Bible over those of any other religion. That would be, well, unconstitutional. Ever heard of the Establishment Clause?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    Have you read some of the stuff in that there bible? Not just the happy bits, but the old testament stuff. Slavery, slaughter your enemy stuff. There's a lot in there that we need to keep our nation away from.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 2, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    There are institutions that are much more important than the "feeling" that some people have that because they can't have what they want, even though that "thing" has never been part of "marriage", that they have to tell us that the whole world is wrong and that they alone are right.

    Marriage is not a "law" passed by government. It is not an edict passed down from the bench. It is an eternal principle given to us by our creator, a principle that is immutable no matter how many people refuse to live it and no matter how many abuse it.

    We are responsible to our Creator, not to our peers, not to black-robed justices who think that they just walked down from Olympus. We are responsible to either accept eternal law or to reject that law. There are blessing from being obedient and there are serious consequences for rebellion against eternal laws.

    Responsibility and "blessings" cannot be separated. If we want the "blessings" from a just and merciful creator, we accept his eternal laws without complaint and without modification.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    July 2, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    I dot to tell ya about my little bog. His hole objective in life is to be loved. He is so happy to see me home when I walk in the door, I just love him. He knows that for him to get loved he can't chew up stuff that is mine and he knows what is his stuff he doesn't use the house for his bathroom. I'm taken a lesion from this little dog And my objective is the same. Simply to be loved. I assume that's the way, in a world that has lost the way. The Way, is that important that religions use it for there God.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 2, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    @mike richards
    "Marriage is not a "law" passed by government?" so prop 9 and doma were what exactly? I am sorry but this argument fails right out of the gate.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 2, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    prop 8 sorry.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    July 2, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    Actually, Sal, a careful reading of Kennedy's ruling is that the states can expand marriage and the federal government must then honor it. He left open the possibility of ruling on the merits of restricting marriage if that restriction deprives a group of their constitutional rights. Reading his DOMA decision that was based on 5th Amendment protections of Equal Liberty, had the proponents of Prop 8 been granted standing, it is likely Prop 8 would have been ruled unconstitutional on the same grounds.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 2, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    “The justices and leaders of our country place their hand on the Holy Bible when sworn into office, but do not hold up the Christian values therein.”

    Edward – be careful what you wish for. If you think the Constitution and the Bible are fully compatible, you might be in for a shock when justices who would put the Bible before the Constitution would exonerate a husband for stoning his non-virgin bride, or parents who kill their children for talking back.

    And if you’re looking for Americans who did put the Bible before our founding documents, look no further than the pious slave owners of the antebellum South. As a southern preacher famously said prior to the civil war, “what is sanctioned in the Old Testament and affirmed in the New cannot be a sin.”

    @Owen – great quote!

    As Kennedy once said when hosting a White Dinner for Nobel Laureates, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 2, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    "Responsibility and 'blessings' cannot be separated. If we want the 'blessings' from a just and merciful creator, we accept his eternal laws without complaint and without modification."

    What about the thousands of gay and lesbian men and women who have prayed for countless of hours to help ease the pain and change their ways? They seek the blessings that you feel they don't deserve. The answers do not come in the way they expect. To most, the answer they finally get is "Do what you must do. Choose love." How can choosing love be wrong? One aspect of the gospel that I am sure you firmly believe is the atonement. Well, guess what, the atonement works for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters just as much as it works for you. Let Jesus be their judge. I'm sure he'll do a much better job.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 2, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    Gotta laugh at leftist government worshipers, who try to think that our morals came from the vapors of thin air, or a rock, or tree, or the light of a moonbeam. Of course I would try and conjure or fabricate the same theory if I selfishly wanted to live a careless lifestyle, thinking there were no consequences, because a tolerant God lets this kind of idiocy go on...for a time.
    For decades, gays have had the same rights as everyone else, when it comes to marriage. Yes gays and even non-gays have chosen to not use traditional marriage rights, thats their choice! Now we have created special rights for gays, and redefined marriage, imposing new rules and restrictions on society. Imposing new beliefs on society, even if its contrary to your own personal convictions. We have extracted from the courts rulings that cloud and complicate other marriage arguments and issues. All this to appease a growing segment of society that "feels" like things aren't fair! This ruling doesn't exactly demonstrate hard defined right or wrong, it just creates a feel good appeasement. One vote the other way, and we would be having an entirely different conversation!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    Replace the word Bible with Quran and tell me if you'd feel the same way...

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    @HaHaHaHa
    "Now we have created special rights for gays"

    No we haven't. Gays and even non-gays can choose to use same-sex marriage, that's their choice. What? It's a choice you have no use for? Well it didn't stop you from using that argument for gays and non-gays having opposite-sex marriage.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 2, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    Marriage is simply a word. Marriage is a word that is used to describing the bonding of two people or two objects together. The nature of marriage can be likened to that of glue.

    Different people and groups may add different addition attributes to the definition so long as they do not insist on everyone else using their additions. The concept of freedom of religion means that anyone and everyone can choose to believe in the additions or not.

    God or even the natural world itself did not make such additions and conditions for the purpose of creating babies. The conditions for procreation don’t require any additional meanings for their purpose.

    Men in their quest to garner and control the wealth of the world put special rules on others as a means of control. Such is the case of the word marriage which is used to bring joy to the believers and punish the non-believers.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 2, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    @hahahaha
    I am far more concerned by people that rely on a mystical belief to define their morality for them then those that act morally based on compassion and reason.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 2, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    @ Edward: From your letter, "The courts and leaders are to hold up the Constitution and not to change it or redefine it according their political views. We need men and women who honor the U.S. Constitution and the Holy Bible back in office if we intend to have a free country."

    Do you not realize that your first sentence makes your second sentence invalid?

    Article 6 of the US Constitution states, "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

    SOME elected officials have chosen to place their hands on the Christian Bible when they have been sworn in - others have used the Koran or law books, some have even just raised their hand and not used a book at all. And the Constitution does not require one to be used.

    I always find it interesting when those who scream so loudly about the Constitution understand it so poorly and think it is necessary to violate it in order to uphold it.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 2, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    "...because a tolerant God lets this kind of idiocy go on...".

    Agency can be messy...however, all things considered, I'd rather have agency...

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 2, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    To "RanchHand" but before the ruling they had equal treatment. Straight men could not marry a man, a stright woman could not marry a woman. There was equality. Now, thanks to the ruling we now have inequality.

    A straight man, who may love 3 or 4 women is not allowed the same opportunity as the gay man who can marry the person they love.

    To those of you who complain about slavery being an acceptable practice in the Bible, you obviously don't understand how slavery was carried out during those times. The slaves were often slaves for a set period of time, after which, were free again. Often they sold themselves into slavery so that they would have work and shelter. The problem with modern slavery, and slavery in the US prior to the civil war was the mistreatment of the people. That was a cultural problem that did not exist in Bible times.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    Sorry Edward, but it is not required to put your hand on the Bible. Many politicians do not, including many former presidents. There is no mention of God or the Bible anywhere in the Constitution. Lumping them together is absurd. We are a representative republic which separates church and state, forbids a religious test for holding office and has absolute freedom of religion, which would be impossible if we allowed on particular belief to dominate. We were not ever intended to be a theocracy.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 2, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    @RedShirt;

    Likewise, before the Loving vs Virginia, a black person could marry a black person and a white person could marry a white person. The SCOTUS ruled way back then that this wasn't equality.

    Please try harder; that is just way too easy to rebuff.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 2, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    If you want a Biblical America --

    Be prepared to also require:

    Public stoning's,
    Death penalties for adultery,
    and all males required to be circumcised,

    Oh and --
    Throw your sandals when you travel,
    not cutting your hair and beards,
    and no picking and eating corn on the Sabbath.

    And for Mormons --
    We should be the very 1st against this sort of "requirement".

    BTW --
    When I was sworn in,
    I used an LDS Quad,
    and Muslims use a Koran.

    Singling out and Strictly recognizing and only the "Bible" is tantamount to trampling the Constitutional rights of Religious worship.
    [something the Right is DAILY accusing us Lefties being guilty of.]

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    July 2, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    Don't really see how any straight person's life was negatively impacted. At all.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    July 2, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    You're actually trying to give us a justification for slavery? Hoo-boy, I'm beginning to understand why you thinks it's a-ok to discriminate against gays.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    July 2, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    So many on this thread are petrified of a theocracy, but think it's wonderful when a handful of individuals in black robes lay down the law contrary to the popular vote or vote in Congress.

    There is nothing in the Constitution, including 5th or 14th Amendments, that mandates SSM any more than it mandates polygamy. The Founding fathers and framers of those amendments would be the first to set the record straight on that.

    Is it ok to impose views as long as they correspond with your own?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 2, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    Off the mental cliff quote of the day --
    RedShirt arguing FOR the institution of slavery.

    12:19 p.m. July 2, 2013

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 2, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    the fact that gay people can now marry does not mean that a straight man that could not marry a straight man or a straight women that could not marry a straight women or the man that wanted to marry 3 or 4 women was being treated equally before it mean all these groups were being treated unequally. if any of the above groups want these rights they should stand up and fight for them and those that appose it will have to try and make their case based on the facts as to why they should not be allowed. If they can not give well reasoned evidence as to a compelling state/social interest being served by denying them the right to marry then the above groups should be allowed to marry just like what has happened with the gay community.

    I agree with ranchhand you are going to have to try much harder, this line of reasoning went stale a long time ago.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 2, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    SoCalChris says:

    "... but think it's wonderful when a handful of individuals in black robes lay down the law contrary to the popular vote or vote in Congress.

    There is nothing in the Constitution, including 5th or 14th Amendments, that mandates SSM..."

    ---

    Those 5 people were doing their jobs. The Constitution does provide for "equal protection", which means that if the government provides benefits to heterosexuals by virtue of having a marriage license, they have NO valid reason to deny those very same protections to homosexual couples who have a marriage license. THAT is what the 5th Amendment DOES say.

    @RedShirt;

    You believe in the bible, right? Didn't the Egyptians practice a version of slavery much like the US had? Mistreating the slaves, etc. Didn't Pharoah mandate the murder of all the firstborn male slaves in anticipation of Moses' birth? Your version of slavery in biblical times rings hollow.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 2, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    @socalchris
    what is your reasoning for claiming that the 5th and 14th amendment do not apply? please tell me it goes beyond simply, "because it does not say SSM."

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    July 2, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    Many residents of Utah may feel just fine about a theocracy--until they think about moving to another state. Should Catholics or Southern Baptists make rules for how you get to live and worship? Careful, you may not be able to call yourself a "Christian."

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 2, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    To "RanchHand" that was not equal because all men were not treated equally. There is no limit on race or religion when it comes to a man marrying a woman. That is the traditional definition of marriage. If you redefine marriage to be a man and a man or 2 women, then who is to say that 5 people with any mix of genders can't be married together.

    The question that your ilk has yet to answer is how do you define marriage now?

    To "SoCalChris" it's worse than that. Many of the people that are petrified of a theocracy also claim to believe in the Bible, which states that there will be a time when the whole earth is governed by a theocracy.

    To "QuercusQate" it isn't that it is ok to discriminate, but that people should be left the choice to discriminate or not. You discriminate everyday, maybe not against people but against different companies or businesses.

    To "LDS Liberal" where did I say I was for slavery? I just said that slavery as practiced in the Bible was not like Slavery in the 1800's. All I know is that liberalism/progressivism will make us slaves.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 2, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    There are many instances in our society where "equal protection" isn't implemented. It often has nothing to do with race, gender confusion or age. Why does being gay, qualify one for such special "protection"? As stated so many times before, they have had the same rights as all citizens for decades! And please don't give us that second grade theory, that now we imposed the new laws on society, you can choose to participate in gay marriage or not. It's the typical leftist excuse, by casing an argument by trying to compare apples to bananas!

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 2, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    @Scoundrel – “I find it odd that the people who are so against Muslims (the "9/11 Mosque", Sharia Law fearmongering, etc...) seem to be the same people argue for upholding the Bible and forcing everyone to live Biblical Law.”

    I too find it ironic that people who don’t know what ironic means often behave in ways that are… wait for it… ironic. And as someone who fears (for good historical reasons) both of the scenarios you mention, thanks for pointing this out.

    But please don’t confuse this rational fear with being “against Muslims” are anyone else. What I am against is bad ideas – ideas like being ruled by men (why is it never women?) who claim to know the mind of God, or those who want to impose their “divinely inspired” view of morality on everyone else, or those who have been so deranged by the bad ideas found in their sacred books that they believe flying planes into buildings in the most moral thing they can do (and will be rewarded in “paradise” for it).

    And I trust any rational human being should and will be against these bad ideas too…

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    July 2, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    @Kent C. DeForrest:
    "If the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution, it cannot privilege the teachings of the Bible over those of any other religion."

    Get ready to have the teachings of the Koran privileged in years to come as we move away from the teachings of the Christian Bible. Then, get ready for Shariah Law.

    Remember, the government, including the Supreme court, cannot disparage any religion that finds its way into our country.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 2, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    @RedShirt;

    My "ilk" are perfectly aware, as you are not, that marriage has never, ever been defined solely as "one-man/one-woman". Given that history provides numerous examples of same-gender couples marrying, your "historical" version of "traditional marriage" is a re-written piece of nonsense.

    You're just going to have to do better than that buddy.

    (I think this is my last post)

  • George New York, NY
    July 2, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    @hahahahaha

    So how exactly is it apples to bananas? simply stating your belief that they are not the same is not really a very compelling argument.

    As far as there being many instances of unequal protections in our society, I hardly think that makes a good case for not allowing gay people to have rights but rather to fight harder to ensure others have equal protections as well.

  • George New York, NY
    July 2, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    @MrBean

    how does that reasoning work exactly? If the government cannot show privilege to one religion over others then why would the Koran become privileged? It is only if we accept your claims that one religion, in this case Christianity, takes precedence over all others that would lead us to the the possibility of the Koran ever having a privileged position.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    July 2, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    @HaHaHaHa

    Gays haven't, in America, ever been allowed to marry the person they love. Would you like to keep it that way, so they'll marry your son or daughter instead of one of their own to whom they're actually attracted?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 2, 2013 4:18 p.m.

    Even a cursory reading of the Constitution shows that "marriage" has nothing to do with the
    Federal Government. NOTHING in the Constitution allows the Federal Government to tell the States or the People what "marriage" means or who can marry whom.

    That point was ignored by the Court. That point was ignored by the FEDERAL judge in California who declared that California had erred by not letting him and his friends have same-sex marriage. That point is still being ignored by those who claim that the FEDERAL government has "standing" in any of this.

    The Constitution is very specific. If something has not been explicitly delegated to the Federal Government, that "something" is to be left to the States or to the People. The 10th Amendment is still part of the Constitution, even if the definition of "marriage" is not.

    The people of California actually believed that the Constitution protected them against federal judges who usurped their authority. They CHOSE, as a State, to modify their Constitution, defining "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman. That was their right, under the Constitution.

    Yet, those who do not believe in the Constitution tell us otherwise.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 2, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    To "RanchHand" I never said that it was between one man and one woman. I said that marriage was between a man and a woman. If you want to get technical, there were times that you had one man engaged in multiple marriages at the same time. The basis has been the same, you have a man and a women who enter into a marriage contract or ordinance or rite.

    The interesting little fact about civilizations that have endorsed homosexual relationships. They all seem to die in moral decay and tyranical governments. You would think that if it was such an enlightened principal that it would exist in all cultures as an acceptable practice. Don't you find it odd that, for example, in the Roman empire you had the acceptance of homosexuality during their downfall? The Romans didn't accept it until the Greeks were in collapse.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 2, 2013 4:40 p.m.

    @Mike Richards --

    "Even a cursory reading of the Constitution shows that "marriage" has nothing to do with the Federal Government."

    From the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS case:

    "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. 

"

    Just substitute the concept of sexual orientation for "race" in the above quote, and it'll fit the current issue perfectly.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 2, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    @Scoundrel – “And, Tyler D, I stand by my use of the word ironic.”

    I was agreeing with you… sorry if my comment came across as sarcastic or… ahem… ironic.

    I was simply making the further point (as a non-believer) that all religions scare me because of their tendency towards totalitarianism. But I’m also scared of a knee jerk liberalism that believes we should tolerate everything, even the intolerant (how’s that for a logical paradox?). And in today’s world, Islam appears to be the most intolerant and theocratic religion around… just ask Europe.

    My personal hero on this issue is Jefferson and as far as I’m concerned that “wall of separation” cannot be high enough.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 2, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    Many LGBT Americans in California thought that the Constitution protected their liberty and right to equal treatment under the law. Guess what, that is actually how it turned out in the end.

    We are a Constitutional Republic and the majority does not get to tell minorities what they may or may not be able to do. Nor does it get to tell them whom they may marry.

    You don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't have one. It really IS that easy.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 2, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    @Ranch
    Here, UT

    @Mike Richards;

    You don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't have one. It really IS that easy.
    4:48 p.m. July 2, 2013

    ========

    Agreed.

    I don't believe in "R" rated movies - so I don't see them.
    I don't believe in smoking, dinking and gambling - so I don't do them.
    I don't believe in abortion [except in rape, incest, life/health of the woman, and viability of the fetus] - so I don't have one.
    ...and I don't force other to do likewise.

    THAT is freedom.

    Mike insists on a FORCED righteousness on everyone and a total theocratic authoritative America.
    The biggest enemies of the U.S. Constitution and the Pre-Mortal Christ that I can think of.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 2, 2013 5:01 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "civilizations that have endorsed homosexual relationships. They all seem to die in moral decay and tyranical governments."

    Actually, both the ancient Greek and ancient Roman civilizations survived for roughly 1000 years -- each -- all the while encouraging homosexual relations.

    Their eventual declines had NOTHING to do with homosexuality. In fact, the decline and fall of the Roman empire didn't happen until AFTER homosexual marriages were officially outlawed, in 300 AD, due to encroaching Christian influences.

    Homosexual unions have been honored at times throughout history. Even the Assyrians had blessings for same-sex unions written into their religious texts, and they were also recognized in Mesopotamia.

    You keep trying to rewrite history, Red, but the facts just don't support your claims.

    Keep trying, Red.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 2, 2013 5:15 p.m.

    Perhaps your copy of the Constitution is different from mine. Article I, Section 8 lists the duties of the Federal Government. Article III, Section 2 limits the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The 10th Amendment states:

    "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."

    The Court had no standing in either of the two major cases. The justices of the Supreme Court, who know better, counted on the ignorance of the citizens who have a contract with the government, a contract that limites the GOVERNMENT from infringing on the soverign rights of the States and of the people.

    The State of California obeyed ITS Constitution and used the rules set out in ITS Constitution to modify ITS Constitution. The Federal Government had no standing no matter what the supporters of gay-"marriage" may say. The STATES and the PEOPLE decide all issues concerning marriage. The people of California obeyed the law.

    No Constitutional amendment has nullified Amendment 10. It was not a matter for the Federal Governmen regardless the political opinion of those who ruled otherwise.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 2, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    @mike Richards
    Even with a cursory reading it is plain to see that the states do not have the right to vote away or legislate away indivduals constitution rights. the 5th and 14th amendments forbid the actions take.n by calf and doma. The federally protected rights of the constitution are not up for vote plain and simple.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 2, 2013 5:25 p.m.

    QQ

    Let's just get a little ridicules, but still accurately make the point. And no, this is not one of the examples I referred to earlier. Suppose I and a few million of my friends, decided it was unfair, not "equal treatment under the law" for people of all income classes (the rich) to be excluded from social welfare programs. You know those freebie, handout, giveaway programs of the 47% that mrobama glamorizes, and all leftists love, because it abdicates them from making any real sacrifice or effort in the war on poverty. Anyway, me and my friends sue the government, to get them to allow us to participate in welfare, and we win the fight for welfare justice. It's no longer welfare as we know it traditionally, but me and my friends imposed the change on society. Maybe I'll smooth things over by telling the traditional welfare persons that even though I've ruined the name and tradition of their program, they still have the choice to participate, even if their not rich. It's available to everybody now, we're all "equal". It's apple to bananas to say I'm offering the same as traditionalists!

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    July 2, 2013 7:38 p.m.

    Contrarius , Loving v Virginia correctly followed the 14th Amendment. There's virtually no legal difference between a black person and a white one. That's what the 14th Amendment is all about. Thankfully the law still recognizes differences based on gender. You can't freely substitute race and gender. Separate restrooms for blacks and whites are unconstitutional. Separate restrooms, locker rooms, sports teams for men and women are not.

    Not yet anyway. Who knows what SCOTUS may decide in the future. That's the problem. There is no danger of a theocracy based on the Judeo-Christian values we were founded upon. Those are the values that gave us freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the Equal Protection Clause. There is a very real danger though of a sort of secular PC tyranny posed by a handful of individuals substituting their own sense of superior enlightenment for what's in the Constitution.

    Spring Street, a gay person has never been denied the right to marry. SSM proponents are demanding that the definition be changed. That's up to the people, not the courts.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:55 p.m.

    @SoCalChris
    "but think it's wonderful when a handful of individuals in black robes lay down the law contrary to the popular vote or vote in Congress. "

    Not always, only if I believe the law is unconstitutional do I think it's a good thing for it to be struck down regardless of popularity.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    July 3, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    I have to confess, I'm a little confused by what the letter writer is try to say exactly.

    What does equal rights and equal responsibility have to do with the U.S. being a "Christian Nation?"

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 3, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    @SoCalChris --

    "Loving v Virginia correctly followed the 14th Amendment. "

    So did the overthrow of DOMA's section 3. :-)

    "There's virtually no legal difference between a black person and a white one."

    There's also virtually no legal difference between a man and a woman. Gender discrimination is already illegal.

    "Separate restrooms, locker rooms, sports teams for men and women... "

    Restrooms are a matter of public safety and right to privacy.

    Sports are a matter of differing physical strength, speed, and so on. In sports where these characteristics don't matter, like equestrian sports, there is NO gender separation.

    Age discrimination is also illegal. Nonetheless, older people are still legally disallowed from various activities when physical limitations would create risks.

    Sometimes physical characteristics like age or gender matter -- and sometimes they don't.

    Physical characteristics make NO difference to love or commitment.

    Lawrence v. Texas overturned sodomy laws because those laws "furthers no legitimate state interest". Similarly, there is no "legitimate state interest" in denying homosexuals the right to same-sex marriage. That's why DOMA section 3 was overturned.

    That's also why gay marriages will eventually become legal countrywide. There is no "legitimate state interest" in continuing to prevent them.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    July 3, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    @SoCalChris: "...a gay person has never been denied the right to marry. SSM proponents are demanding that the definition be changed."

    How would you like it if the law mandated that you could only marry a gay man, even though the only people you'd ever fallen in love with were women?

    I don't understand the argument by straight people that gay people have always had the "right" to marry a straight person. Do you want us marrying you or your adult children??