Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: DOMA ruling

Comments

Return To Article
  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 2, 2013 12:30 a.m.

    "Such unions are not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable results, such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

    Ruling by the Supreme Court of Georgia upholding the law against interracial marriage.

  • LeftBehind SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    July 2, 2013 12:47 a.m.

    Many opponents of same-sex marriage say that their opposition isn't to homosexuals per se. They say that they are defending the God-Given institution of marriage, which they say God defines as being between a man and a woman.

    Forget for a moment that we don't live in a theocracy. Forget for a moment that an increasing number of churches, temples and synagogues support gay marriage.

    If marriage is a God-Given institution, isn't it logical to assume that only people who believe in God should be allowed to marry? A greater percentage of Americans don't believe in God than are homosexual. If people are concerned about preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage as a God-given institution, why is no one talking about prohibiting agnostics, atheists, Satan worshipers, Buddhists, et al from marrying?

    So if you are truly concerned about defending marriage as a God-given institution, what legal remedies will you support to prohibit people who don't believe in God from marrying?

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    July 2, 2013 2:07 a.m.

    Everything in this letter may be true. But this is "divinely inspired" system at work. Amazing how it cuts both ways, sometimes in the same week.

  • Kent Buckner West Valley City, UT
    July 2, 2013 6:00 a.m.

    Extremely well said. Amen.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    July 2, 2013 6:08 a.m.

    What? Pretty interesting from an group of activists bought and paid for by the Heritage Foundation and Koch Brothers, don't you think? Hopefully, gays will treat marriage with more respect than heterosexual have and by what has happened so far, they have. In 10 years you'll have wondered what all the fuss was about.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    "Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court upset our government's balance of powers last week..."

    And right out of the gate, with the first sentence, Ms. Hallen reveals her total ignorance of how a constitutional republic works.

    The process of Judicial Review _is_ the "balance of power." It hold legislation and executive action accountable to the constitution.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    It must be really difficult for people who know more than anyone else, that their opinions are always more valid, that they're always the smartest person in the room....

    In response to the letter I can only say: Thank Gosh for the Supreme Court. Liberty and Justice FOR ALL!!!

  • Sal Provo, UT
    July 2, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    35 states prohibit gay marriages. The will of the people was completely ignored in this unfortunate ruling. Great letter, Cynthia.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    July 2, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    We need a system where lower judges can remove higher judges if the judges do not uphold the Constitution in their rulings. There was no constitutional justification for taking this case since the litigants had agreed with the lower court ruling against Prop 8. The five Supreme Court justices ruling in this case should be removed for not upholding the Constitution.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    Sal, you're arguing in favor of mob rule - might makes right - three wolves and a goat voting on what to have for lunch.

    Bad idea.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    It would appear the author sleep walked through the last twenty years if she thinks she has presented any arguments that have not been tried and failed a thousand times before. After circling around through the same old arguments for so long it stops becoming a meaningful discussion and becomes a time to move forward.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    But according to the gun debate people, making something illegal wont stop truly committed people from getting what they desire. If homosexuals desire to be together, what will making marriage illegal for them accomplish?

    It's so interesting to see some people demand the government stay out of their lives on one hand and then demand the government intervene on another.

    Where's the consistency?

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    Hmm. Cynthia is very upset about the Court upsetting the balance of power in government. And the Supreme Court she is criticizing is actually a conservative court, on average. Based on their political leanings, the nine justices actually favor conservative political views. So what are you complaining about, Cynthia? Do we need to have all nine of them be ultra-wacko-conservative?

    But I suppose you do have cause for concern. With current Republican policies, which are unlikely to change anytime soon, there will be a Democrat in the White House for a long time, which will eventually skew the court leftward.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    If you don't want to choose to turn gay and subsequently get married, you should probably do that while you still have the chance to choose.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    How do you think Joseph Smith felt about Missouri asserting its "states rights" with the Extermination order that expelled Mormons from the state and took their property? Somehow I don't think the letter writer would support "States rights" in all cases, only when its a "morality" that they agree with.

  • wendell provo, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    Sal,
    First off, I want to let you know that I respect your right to believe anything you want.
    With that said, you wrote,
    "The will of the people was completely ignored in this unfortunate ruling"

    Since you seem to believe that the will of the people should determine whether or not each state will allow marriage equality, I assume you enthusiastically support those states wherein the people have voted in favor of it?

    The fact is that the views of the American people regarding marriage equality have shifted greatly in recent years and all indications are that they will continue to do so. I feel very confident that one day, before too much longer, I will be allowed to marry the man I love. I'm glad we can count on your support.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 2, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    Cynthia, your beliefs are clouding your judgment and reasoning. First, the SC ruling simply affirmed that the Federal government has no business regulating a social contract the Constitution is silent on and should be left up to the People (i.e., States).

    And how is allowing gays to marry promoting a “permissive” lifestyle? If anything, it is providing an avenue for gays to conform to the norms of society making it easier to call out the sort of lifestyle many in the gay community have indulged in the past (which in many ways is exactly what we would expect from people who have been systematically rejected and marginalized).

    I know you’re scared Cynthia, but your marriage is not threatened and extending the benefits of society to those born different than you will make family values stronger.

    @Sal – “35 states prohibit gay marriages. The will of the people was completely ignored in this unfortunate ruling. Great letter, Cynthia.”

    Sal, please explain how the SC ruling strikes down the laws in 35 states?

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    July 2, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    @LeftBehind:
    "... what legal remedies will you support to prohibit people who don't believe in God from marrying?"

    You got it backwards, leftbehind. It's not that you have to believe in God to marry. It's that God (actually, Nature's God) designed marriage for one man and one women. For sure, She didn't design it for two (or more) of the same sex. That's just plain silly.

    @Tyler D:
    "I know you're scared Cynthia, but your marriage is not threatened and extending the benefits of society to those born different than you will make family values stronger."

    There is little of no threat to individual's marriage. The threat is to the institution of marriage. If the line is not drawn at one man and one woman, it will not be drawn at all. Any combination of marriage will eventually result. Perhaps even groups will marry... so they can reap Federal benefits of marriage.

    As to 'born different'... Almost everyone has some 'differences.' With some concentrated effort, the differences can be ameliorated.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    So apparently there are still people so ignorant and uninformed that they think gays should just "ameliorate" themselves into being straight.

    Knowledge is power. Myopic denial of facts is just silly. Thanks for the laughs!

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 2, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    @wrz – “If the line is not drawn at one man and one woman, it will not be drawn at all.”

    Your response is entirely fear based and simply has no basis in reality. Our entire legal system is based on drawing lines (e.g., OK to drive 65mph but not 105mph). We do it all the time. The fact that the line gets moved on occasion because our moral sensibilities evolve is something to be celebrated, not feared. If this didn’t happen, we would still be stoning people for “witchcraft” and worshipping other gods, not to mention children talking back to their parents.

    @wrz – “As to 'born different'... Almost everyone has some 'differences.' With some concentrated effort, the differences can be ameliorated.”

    You are aware that the largest “reparative therapy” clinic in the country recently shut down citing their virtually 100% failure rate. And they even issued an apology for their past efforts.

    And why do you even care about “ameliorating” any non-criminal differences? What’s next… “ameliorating” those with blue eyes or who are left handed. Your “concentrated effort” sounds like what goes on in North Korea.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 2, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    Wrz would have fit in well under Stalin or Hitler. Anyone look, sound, or think different? Lets just place them into "reeducation" camps.

    Is this really what the right wing wants to do to America? Thomas Jefferson is just rolling in his grave.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    July 2, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    "...permissive lifestyles and promiscuous intimacies...."
    "...denigrating chastity, deflowering fidelity and derailing the DNA-bonded possibilities for nurtured posterity...."

    First, what the heck are "DNA-bonded possibilities for nurtured posterity...?" Are you suggesting that biological parents are better nurturers than adoptive parents? I know many adoptive parents who would argue with you. Further, most of the Utah GLBT parents I know ARE biological parents. They were pressured by their bishops to get married so god would make them straight! After years of struggle, they did a favor to their spouses, families, and society by being honest about who they were.

    Second, you have fallen prey to the myth that all gays and lesbians are permissive, promiscuous, unchaste, and unfaithful. Are you aware that even without the bonding aid of marriage, lesbians have a lower incidence of STDs than hetero couples? I'd wager that they're more faithful, as well. Your objections tend to apply to men as opposed to women, a fact you would probably acknowledge if you thought about it a bit more. I also know many decades-long committed male couples.

    Please abandon stereotypes, and admit that GLBTs are human and deserving of rights, just like you.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    July 2, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    Cynthia, your description of gays and lesbians gives voice to the embedded animus of our culture towards GLBTs. Most people, even when bolstered by their religion, would be less enthusiastic about demonstrating it.

    Cultural/societal animus is one of the requirements for giving a minority "heightened scrutiny" under the law, meaning that we must ensure there is legislation in place protecting them. Utah desperately needs statewide anti-discrimination laws for GLBT people. In fact, we need a law for the entire U.S. precisely because there are states and locales, like Utah, that will never protect gays voluntarily.

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

    "Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court upset our government's balance of powers last week when they cast down the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996."

    Uh... if the court didn't have the right to strike down unconstitutional laws, there'd be no balance of power.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Letter: "They promote the illusion that human beings can ignore the... consequences of permissive lifestyles and promiscuous intimacies, whether heterosexual, homosexual or transexual... [T]hey deceive individuals and couples by denigrating chastity, deflowering fidelity..."

    Your logic escapes me. Far from ignoring the consequences of promiscuity, gay marriage is a response to and a means to reduce it. Marriage, with the legal and financial benefits entailed, incentivizes stable, faithful, monogamous relationships-- for straights and gays alike. If you are genuinely concerned about reining in the "promiscuous intimacies" in the LGBT community and reducing the various consequences (e.g. STDs), then you should support gay marriage. On the other hand, if you want to create a climate that drives gays to dangerous liaisons and infidelity, make sure that you stigmatize them as second class citizens and deny them access to civil benefits and privileges others have.

    As to denigrating chastity, marriage is the ticket that lets straights do unchaste things legally. The game is rigged. As it stands now, gays can't access that ticket and therefore must show restraint for a lifetime, not just a few years. That's just cruel. Gay marriage respects chastity by making it realistically achievable.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 2, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    In Scalia we trust...

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    Cynthia, the defenders of DOMA had no constitutional argument. There is nothing in the Constitution about biblical or historical morality. Even originalist Scalia pointed out that the 14th Amendment stipulates that citizens cannot be denied equal protection under the law and states cannot deny those protections. Scalia is the one who had a political agenda as he had to come up with some convoluted argument for something he found personally offensive and immoral, instead of sticking to what the Constitution says. Kennedy, in regard to Prop 8, pointed out that there are 40,000 children in California who are not in legally recognized families and do not have the protections federal and state governments provide.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    July 2, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    Cynthia, I'm afraid you'll just have to hold your nose and watch as Utah gays and lesbians soon receive the same rights and responsibilities that you have.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 2, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    ...and the will of the people voted for Al Gore.

    We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.
    With 3 independent and separate branches of Government.

    Get over it.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 2, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    The battle against non-believers by the religious forces of the world is a very good example to the conditions that made the concept of America such a desirable goal. Fleeing from a world of religious persecution the fear of government enforcement of a particular religion gave birth to the idea of freedom of religion.

    Although the founders probably didn’t have in mind the freedom of religion for individuals, that’s the way the people wanted it. So for a couple of hundred years, the battle over the minds of men has waged back and forth, with the religious forces mainly winning. Using their claim to religious freedom they have taken the religious freedom from others with public prayers, words on our money, highway crosses and other advertising in the public square.

    Most of the words in this battle speak of morality, sanctity, historical and made up consequences, when the real issue is economic. Since the non-believers seldom share their wealth with churches, the religious forces have used the government to impose penalties on the benefits going to non-believers.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 2, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    @DN; please indicate why this comment was rejected.

    Cynthia;

    I find your particular version of "family values" abhorrent and bigoted. Equality is part of the American heritage; just because you don't like that LGBT citizens are going to be treated equally by the government you throw a tantrum.

    Guess what, the SCOTUS did exactly what they're supposed to do, they ruled on the constitutionality of a law. They found it to be unconstitutional.

    @Sal;

    The Constitution does not grant the "will of the people" to remove/deny equal rights to a minority of citizens in this country. The Constitution says that we treat the various groups of citizens equally. The SCOTUS ruled correctly.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 2, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    They promote the illusion that human beings can ignore the moral, social, historical, physical, and biological consequences of permissive lifestyles and promiscuous intimacies, whether heterosexual, homosexual or transexual. "

    =======

    Newsflash Cynthia and all --

    I don't think those living "permissive or promiscuous" lifestyles are the ones seeking the right to get "married" and be legally and lawfully wedded and committed to a single individual for an entire lifetime... whether heterosexual, homosexual or transexual.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 2, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    hear is were I have a problem with the letter writers reasoning, if there were such dire "consequences for permissive behaviors." then why is it that those that supported prop 8 and doma failed time and again to show any evidence of such consequences in the many courts of law that these two cases worked their way through? when the supports of these two laws failed to provide proof of a compelling state/social interest being served by denying gay people the right to marry the courts ruled as they should and had too. Failing to make your case in a court of law does not make the decision wrong.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 2, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    I find it so incredibly ironic,
    that so many "Mormons" today are up in arms about the legal definition of Marriage,
    when the only reason we even have required civil marriage licenses today,
    was due to the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887,
    and it was intended to aid in the prosecution of polygamy.

    [sort of like gun registration, the Government could then keep tabs on who was married to who and how many.]

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 2, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    oops, here not hear,I really do know the difference. Sorry

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 2, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    Wow! I ALMOST agree with ldsliberal. (Well with his counterexample, which he/she thinks is ironic) The government shouldn't be licensing, defining or sanctioning marriages at all. Never should have, never should again.

    It is not the government's business who is married and who is not, any more than it is the governments business who is sleeping with whom. We don't have sex police and we shouldn't have marriage police either.

    When the government decided to insert itself into the family unit with benefits and restrictions, it should have created its own family unit government name and left "marriage" to the churches' discretion where it originated and where it belongs.

    If marriage licensing really was instituted to catch polygamists, it is all the more an egregious overreach.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 2, 2013 6:50 p.m.

    Repubs, stop complaining! You won the gun thing and we won the marriage thing. If you want to trade then fine. But stop acting like the cards are all stacked against you. You folks win some too. It's just... You pick the wrong battles. And we are winning the hearts of the majority of Americans. Just look at how unpopular the Cruz-Ryan led GOP is!

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    Cynthia, you offend me! As a gay person I find it arrogant just how far some people go with this issue I am a moral person! Being gay does not make me immoral! My beleifs in God are as important as yours and who are you to tell me who I am? We are not Dogs! We are people and how dare you treat us otherwise. My intimate life is none of your business.
    It is so offensive! You do not own God! You do not get to decide who we are because I deserve better than what you dish out! We don't deserve this!Judge not lest ye be judged.
    My beliefs in God go deep and I know my life is important. You have no idea what you do! It is wrong! What it does is wrong! I have experienced some very difficult things. I never would have guessed how viscous Mormons can be! Sit down and seriously take a look because a lot of those horrible things you say about gay people are simply not true! I can't imagine degrading another person like some of you do! It is wrong

  • jazzbird Brigham City, UT
    July 4, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    Every child is entitled to grow up in a home with a mother and father perspective. Throughout the history of the world, divorce and homosexuality have frustrated that ideal - but the ideal remains in tact. While divorce, homosexuality, and even warfare are topics that are real, they are and never will be the ideal. Someone who is gay, someone who is in a wheelchair, and those who are tried in their faith by many temptations and troubles around them, are all in this mortal world together. God knows us, and he knows HIs doctrine - independent of any political or majority vote.

    Of course there are people who disagree with me - I agree to disagree with you - because this is a question about what I have come to know God has spoken, not government. Try as you might, you can never take that away from me. Marriage has been, is, and always will be defined as man and woman - as long as God is in charge. Hopefully we go a step beyond that - do everything we can to stay together - our children deserve it! As men begin to unite with men, time will tell the consequences of social experiments.

  • Most Truthful and Patriotic Layton, UT
    July 5, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    On the day after the Fourth of July, I am heartened to see that even on the Deseret News, there are reasonable people standing up for the rights of the individual.

    If Miss Hallen believes we should go back to a pure states' rights system (and the "originalist" version of the Constitution), then she shall quickly lose her right to vote, but she can marry a slaveowner.

  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    July 5, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    Dear jazzbird
    Jesus never said one word about homosexuality. Not one word.

    Two of the most devoted Christians I know, were in the first group of same-sex marriages conducted on Monday (July 1st) in Orange County, California.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    July 5, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    @nonceleb:
    "Even originalist Scalia pointed out that the 14th Amendment stipulates that citizens cannot be denied equal protection under the law and states cannot deny those protections."

    Equal protection?? Equal protection?? Protection against what? Not being able to marry whom you love? I love my dog. Where's my equal protection? Some adults are physically attracted to and love children (pedophilia). Where's there protection.? Some men love more than one women (polygamy). Where's there protection? Some people love close relatives including sibs, sons, & daughters. Where's there protection? Huh?

    Give us a break, nonceleb. The line on protecting marriage has to be drawn somewhere. And that somewhere is one man and one women. Nothing else makes sense. If the justices think otherwise, they are biased and there is something wrong with their sense of justice.

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    July 5, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    @atl134
    "Uh... if the court didn't have the right to strike down unconstitutional laws, there'd be no balance of power."

    Where in the Constitution justices are supposed to interpret, do you find anything about marriage? You don't. And, besides, the Constitution states that federal powers not specifically spelled out is reserved to the states or the people.

    If the court's justices are looking for the mind and will of the writers of the Constitution, I think all they need do is determine the prevalence of same sex marriage in their day. I think the number is zero, nil, nada.

    @Lagomorph:
    "As it stands now, gays can't access that ticket and therefore must show restraint for a lifetime, not just a few years."

    Are you kidding us? Gays have all the access to intimacy sans marriage they wish and engage just as much or more than heteros.

    ---------

    Re: Equal protection under the US Constitution:

    All people have the right to marry with but two stipulations... there be but one partner at a time and that partner must be of the opposite sex. This applies to all people equally. There's your equal protection.

  • jazzbird Brigham City, UT
    July 5, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    Dear Reasonable Person,

    The Bible is a wonderful and true book, but unfortunately has been interpreted thousands of different ways. Hence, the many different churches. As for whether or not there is doctrine on homosexuality (man with man, or woman with woman in sexual relationships or marriage)in the scriptures, my premise may be different in that the apostles and prophets(both ancient and modern) such as Moses and Paul represent Jesus Christ. So, yes, I believe there is very plain and plentious doctrine on homosexuality. Again, this may be another case of agreeing to disagree.

    I believe there is a prophet and 12 apostles again on the earth today, with the same authority that ancient prophets and apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ had. Why wouldn't the same church exist on the earth today, that Jesus set up anciently?

    Independent of government actions, we are one nation under God, indivisible. He is in charge, ultimately. My premise is my beliefs and doctrinal study of the word of God. I believe that He will guide this nation as long as we let him.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 5, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "Where's my equal protection?"

    Thanks for giving me another opportunity to educate people about the difference between gay marriage and other types of relationships. I appreciate it. :-)

    There is a universally recognized legal principle often referred to as the "harm principle". Roughly, this means that actions which cause harm to others, or which significantly increase the risk of harm to others, are wrong. Harm is a valid legal reason for limiting freedoms.

    Our Federal and State legal systems have acknowledged -- many times over -- that they have a strong interest in keeping acts like pedophilia, incest, and polygamy illegal, because of this "harm principle".

    The Federal and State courts have recognized in multiple court decisions that the state does NOT have an interest in banning homosexuality. The courts recognize the distinctions between these acts, even if you don't.

    Here's one very brief example. "Lawrence" is the SCOTUS decision that overturned sodomy bans.

    -- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming polygamy bans: "the holding in Lawrence is actually quite narrow.....In fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM PROTECTION conduct that causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.'"

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 5, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    @Miss Piggie --

    "Where in the Constitution justices are supposed to interpret, do you find anything about marriage?"

    From Loving v. Virginia:

    "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). "

    "all they need do is determine the prevalence of same sex marriage in their day. I think the number is zero, nil, nada."

    You could apply this same argument to interracial marriage -- none at that time -- or to blacks serving in public office -- none at that time.

    Should we therefore conclude that racial equality is unconstitutional?

    "All people have the right to marry with but two stipulations..."

    Racists used to use that very same argument: "everyone has equal rights to marry. Everyone can marry someone of their own race."

    That argument didn't fool SCOTUS when it was tried in Loving v. Virginia -- and it doesn't fool them now, either.

  • jazzbird Brigham City, UT
    July 5, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    Dear Leftbehind:

    One nation, under God.

    Those who believe in God, and are Christian - vary in their interpretation of God's word. Now add to that every other faith (or no faith) to the mix. This demands that we allow freedom of religion/speech. Many Christians (including me) are trying very hard to share their beliefs in order to help those who are vacillating. Politics, liberals, and much of the media are sharing their side of the issue, but not enough of us.

    I not only believe that marriage between a man and woman is God-given, but that children deserve a mother and a father perspective in the home. I believe homosexuality is a real tendency, but blocks the opportunity to have children naturally, and it is extrememly difficult to tell whether or not it provides all that a mother/father in the home can. I have learned that when people/governments disregard counsel of God, whether they believe in Him or not, there are adverse consequences. That is why I still raise my voice, even though government will eventually be forced to allow everyone to do whatever they want. Laws and perimiters are good - and prevent chaos.

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    July 5, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    Contrarius
    "From Loving v. Virginia"

    Case law decisions and laws are often wrong. I think you could cite a few laws that were wrong and were overturned. Care to list some?

    "There is a universally recognized legal principle often referred to as the 'harm principle.'

    Well then, lets outlaw hetro marriages since domestic violence often occurs there. Not only physical but mental as well.

    Isn't it about time you ceased posting your nonsense take on marriage?

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 5, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    @Miss Piggie --

    "Case law decisions and laws are often wrong."

    Loving v. Virginia, and the other cases cited in that quote, were all Supreme Court cases.

    They do indeed know both the law AND the Constitution.

    me: "There is a universally recognized legal principle often referred to as the 'harm principle.'

    you: "Well then, lets outlaw hetro marriages"

    Aside from other important considerations (like the many good things monogamous marriage does for society), it's very difficult -- as well as disruptive -- to outlaw rights which have already been established in law (like marriage).

    If something is harmful, it needs to be outlawed BEFORE it becomes legal -- like polygamy and incest.

    @jazzbird --

    "children deserve a mother and a father perspective in the home."

    I appreciate your calm and rational approach to this discussion. :-)

    Nonetheless, your belief about children and parents is actually irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

    1. gay couples are already raising kids with or without gay marriage.

    2. gay couples aren't stealing kids from stable straight homes.

    3. experts widely agree that kids grow up just fine with gay parents.

    4. we don't invalidate straight marriages based on their success or failure at raising kids.

  • jazzbird Brigham City, UT
    July 6, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    Dear Contrarius,

    I agree with 1,2, and 4. Rather than have an argument over which experts are agreeing that kids grow up just fine, I would just share a few thoughts... You and I could not exist unless there was a union between a man and a woman (hopefully married) - I do believe that marriage and children go hand in hand. This is a tough reality for those who seek to define marriage otherwise. Married people must consider what their actions will do for children.

    As for the issue of marriage... If gay people want to get together, then they will. I simply want to see the word marriage preserved between a man and a woman. It is the only way to bring God's children to this earth. Ultimately, many people will despise my premise, because it is based from my belief in God, and His word. That is all I have left, despite government and/or popular vote. The divorce rate between married heterosexual couples is another issue that we need to work out. It is much too high, and children are suffering from that issue as well.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 6, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    @jazzbird --

    "Rather than have an argument over which experts are agreeing..."

    The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, AND the National Association of Social Workers all **support** gay marriage.

    From the AAP's position statement: "There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents".

    "because it is based from my belief in God, and His word."

    Remember, though, that many religious people SUPPORT gay marriage. They don't believe that God's word is in conflict with equal rights for gay people.

    "The divorce rate between married heterosexual couples is another issue that we need to work out. "

    IMHO people who are truly concerned about children should:

    1. SUPPORT gay marriage -- because it increases the number of stable homes for kids to grow up in.

    and

    2. concentrate on encouraging straight marriages, instead of worrying about what gay people do.

    Divorce will affect a LOT more kids than gay marriage ever will.