What impact has there been to traditional marriage since gay marriage was first
allowed in the US since 2004?Answer? Nothing.As such, I
see no negative consequence that does not involve speculation and heresay to
deny tax -paying Americans the over 1,100+ legal rights and protections of
marriage.Utah is once again, on the wrong side of history...'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE -
NY Times - 05/18/09'...the couples had prepared for a medical
emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney
documents.' And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive,
Power of attorney and emergency contact information... Janice
Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.
They were together for 18 years.
For a case to even get to the supreme court, there has to be a long-drawn out
vetting process. As such, I don't think Prop 8 and DOMA have any legal
standing to defend their case from. As exampled by...’Prop 8
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De
Groote – Deseret News – 02/07/12 ‘"Proposition
8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and
human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in
its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.
Victor Hugo once said, "Human meditation has no limits. At its own risk and
peril, it analyzes and digs deep into its own bedazzlement. "That is exactly the problem here. Rather than listening to thousands of years
of history which prove that marriage is an essential institution for a strong
society, the left-wing has sought to bedazzle itself with its own theories.
These poppycockish theories are decidedly anti-marriage, and are decidedly
wrong.But that is what the left wants: the destruction of marriage
and family. Then, the population will have no one to turn to but the government,
which in turn gives the left more power.Hopefully, the Supreme Court
will follow the Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew that in order for the
country they established to be strong, its people must have strong marriages.
The Court must uphold their wishes.
What factual impact to your live has there been since x9 states now allow gay
marriage? Feel free to give dates, times, names and sources that
other can verify please. What CONSEQUENCE is there to denying
Americans gay marriage? I have already given one example, but here is another
reported on, by our own Deseret news.... Title:
'Gay Ca. veteran sues over denial of benefits’ – By Jessica
Gresko – AP – Published by Dsnews – 02/01/12
‘The lawsuit announced in Washington involves a 12-year veteran of the
Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the Army she married Maggie
Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later, Tracey Cooper-Harris was
diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received disability benefits
through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result. But her application
for additional money and benefits that married veterans are entitled to was
denied.’ – article
Pagan,the space shuttle Challenger was brought down by the standardization
of deviancy. You would do the same thing to our society?
@j sYour definition of traditional marriage has only existed in this
country and you own church less then 150 years and still does not exist in other
parts of the world. Say what you like about those evil ""liberals"
but at least they do not have to lie to try to make their point. @lostThat was a stretch even for you lost.
@Pagan:"Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying
partner, Lisa Pond."So, has is it that she was kept from the
bedside? You never said. Perhaps the problem has nothing to do with marriage.
@Pagan:"What factual impact to your live has there been since x9
states now allow gay marriage?"It's too early to see much
impact. But wait a few years when others want to follow suit with other
marriage arrangements such as father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister,
sister/brother/sister, brother/sister/brother, grandfather/sub-teen
granddaughter, groups of people marrying each other... all so they can get
bedside visitation privileges, social security benefits, etc... you get the
picture.To avoid all the many marriage aberrations that can (and
will) be conjured, marriage should be limited to exactly one combination --- man
I have never understood how allowing gay marriage has any impact on heterosexual
marriage.To those who say the liberals want to destroy marriage and
the family, I say for myself, a happily married (29 years) heterosexual with
children, that marriage is a great good for society and for the individual. I
do not want to take this away from anyone. It is such a great good that I want
my gay and lesbian friends, who are living in long-term stable relationships, to
be able to marry the one they love. This would harm no one, and would grant
these fine people the equal rights that they deserve.There are no
legitimate grounds to deny these people their equal rights.
Anyone who is against gay marriage, and other marriages for that matter, are
more afraid of their own feelings than they are of any outcomes that might be
brought about by allowing gay marriage.
I am also amazed at and can't understand peoples logic and thinking (or
lack thereof).1) If marriage is good why is preventing marriage also
good?2) If we relied on 1000 years of marriage history we would find for
the most part, marriage's have been a way to consolidate power, increase
wealth, provide comfort, a means of survival and to provide labor for the family
endeavor. 3)It's not deviant to teach polygamy? denying
the right to marry is an unfruitful course for any state to take.
What seems to be the "bedrock of society" is people making legally
binding commitments to each other. There is no doubt a whole host of things we
could do to strengthen those bonds (and heterosexuals have needed no help
weakening the institution for decades now) and it seems to me this may be
one.So arguing against same-sex marriage strikes me as
counter-intuitive. So will someone please explain to me how gay marriage weakens
the institution of marriage, let alone destroys anyone else's marriage?
I'll wait... right here... just let me know......... waiting.
I love the name of these campaigns - "Defense of Marriage", "Protect
Marriage", etc...These are laughable. No one is trying to keep straights
from marrying or limiting their existing rights to do so. My 32 year temple
marriage isn't harmed by gays getting married. If same-sex marriage comes
to Utah, will that invalidate my temple sealing somehow?There is no
objective reason for 2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry. I don't see anything wrong with polygamy for consenting adults. Our
ancestors sure didn't either.Why are so many people so set on
"..letting their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights
and liberties of others.." (D&C 134:4)?
@Tyler Dan and othersGay marriage does not affect heterosexual
marriages personally other than making them less meaningful, and devalues
marriage in general.It affects society at large and society's
acceptance, toleration and even embracing of deviant and abnormal behaviors.Perhaps all you supporting gay marriage you should tell us how the above
statement is good for society, and that wanting gay marriage is not a selfish
Kirkam: Your decision to support same-sex marriage is affected by same-sex
marriage just as all are. Why, because you fail to see the eternal perspective
and not the current day one. Marriage is defined by our Heavenly Father as
between man and woman. Your favor of such is in direct violation of that. You
really need to look at the eternal perspective for all of our Heavenly
Father's children and not your own selfish perspective.
'You really need to look at the eternal perspective for all of our Heavenly
Father's children and not your own selfish perspective.' - Bill in
Nebraska Funny. Considering the will of the Heavenly
father 'just happens' to support the marriage you are in?
Bill, you are advocating that we LDS should let our religious opinions prompt us
to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. (D&C 134:4). Baptism
is also defined by our Father in Heaven. Should we try to pass a law outlawing
sprinkling?The Taliban believe in mixing religion and politics.
D&C 134 forbids it.Satan likewise advocated forcing people to
live a certain way.I'm not saying that gay marriage something
LDS should partake of, but thou mayest choose for thy self for it is given unto
thee, but remember that I forbid it...IOW God allows us to sin, but as grants us
the fruits of our choices.
@the truth – “all you supporting gay marriage you should tell us how
the above statement is good for society, and that wanting gay marriage is not a
selfish desire.”Regarding “selfish desire” can we
stop pretending that what we all do in the privacy of our intimate relations is
not at its core a basic, “selfish” desire? Or are you suggesting
that some do “it” only for procreation… no doubt while angels
are singing above their bed.And I have no problem
“accepting” and “tolerating” people who seem to have
been a part of every society on Earth since recorded history. If their desires
and behavior (that I admit are… well, sort of yucky) are truly deviant and
abnormal, why does God keep making them? Seems Christian to accept people who
are different than I am, as long as they are not causing harm to others.@ Bill in Nebraska – “Marriage is defined by our Heavenly
Father as between man and woman.”We must have been out that
night… what channel was the announcement on? Can we YouTube it?
Why would I be surprised if the pro-gay marriage community produced an argument
about off-spring, rather than about "benefits and rights?" It's
because the only off-spring gays have is from another party. There have been
many studies about father/mother/child relationships as opposed to even
single-parent families (called "broken families" for many years).Giving a person rights of visitation for illness, executing trusts after
death, and having medical leave to "take care of an ill prtner" are all
worthy "rights" that all should enjoy. But they are not
"marriage." Marriage is between a man and a woman and involves the
potential of off-spring.I'm all for equal benefits as most
often quoted, but don't call it marriage because it isn't. It never
has been and only in a deviant society will it ever become such.Just
because a few justices on the liberal 9th Circuit Court believe something
doesn't make it true. They have been over-turned before (pledge of
allegiance to the flag for example).
Both Liberials and Conservatives miss the point. Once we redefine marrage to
include marriage other than between one man and one women, where do you draw the
line? Does not by the same rational argument point towards a man loving two or
three women (or more) do they not by the redefing marriage include these? What
about a mother marraying a son, a womoen marring two men....where does this end?
I can hear the argument coming "well that's differant" Can not
these relationship have love and commitment? If you believe other wise than you
are not being intellectaully honest. Let contracts between people be drawn such
as a gay relationship that allows similar benefits as married couple has, fine.
But to redefine marriage, the consquences are many....unintended consquenses.
If they allow gay marriage, my wife and I will get a divorce since our
traditional marriage will be meaningless, right?
John Chairty Spring"Hopefully, the Supreme Court will follow the
Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew that in order for the country they
established to be strong, its people must have strong marriages." I'm
curious. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned? Please help me find
marriage in the Constitution, I can't. "These poppycockish
theories are decidedly anti-marriage..." I'm not sure these theories
are anti-marriage. They are pro gay marriage. Nobody has ever said heterosexual
people cannot get married or anybody else for that matter. That would be
anti-marriage. Why Would I?"Marriage is between a man and
a woman and involves the potential of off-spring." So if an elderly couple
get "married" but there is no chance of off spring, is it not a legal
marriage? What about a young couple who cannot concieve a child? Not a legal
marriage?History Nut Yes your marriage would be meaningless.
Just like my grandparents' 65 year marriage and my parents' 40 year
marriage. So will Kim Kardashian's marriage. Wait a minute...I
will note that Mike Richards is suspiciously silent on this matter.
John Swallow, If you want to preserve and protect traditional
marriage, then do something about. Denying one group isn't going to achieve
You know what the number 1 cause of divorce is? MARRIAGE!
Why would I?: Marriage is between a man and a woman and involves the potential
of off-spring.KJK: Then I guess that recent marriage between 2
senior citizens in my ward really isn't a marriage since there is no
realistic potential for offspring. After my last kid was born 25 years ago, I
got an operation to make sure that I couldn't have kids. If I ever got
remarried, there isn't a realistic chance for me either of having kids.
Should I be allowed to remarry?
The Defense of Marriage Act preserves an essential building block of our
society. If it is decided that marriage doesn't actually mean what it has
for centuries--a contract between one man and one woman, then there will be
nothing to prevent the term from meaning a contract between any number of
variables. For example, if the term could be 'changed' to include a
contract between two women, what's to say about the four people that have
tenderly shared their lives, children and beds together for decades. Are they
not also 'married' then? And don't forget about the woman who has
lived 10 faithful years with the most intelligent canine companion--each looking
after the other with unworldly affection and care. She demands that her
relationship is 'marriage'. Hmmmm...a kind of 'Pandora's
box' huh?We must protect the DOMA because it supports the function
and continuance of our society. We simply cannot base our contracts on
'alternative sexual orientations'.
These comments illustrate reasons why government of all types should cease its
regulation of marriage. Let government focus on civil liberties and let social
groups define marriage however they want.
@joseywales Marriage isn't a cause of divorce, but it is a necessary
condition for divorce to occur, since divorce is the cessation of marriage.