Quantcast
Faith

Religious, political leaders sound off on same-sex marriage before court hearing

Comments

Return To Article
  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 19, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    The article prominently mentions Mr. Richard Land’s opinion against same sex marriage. As is is his right to have as his personal opinion. What calls my attention is his request below: “Land urged the justices to keep Proposition 8 within California's borders and not allow their ruling to impact the constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in more than 30 other states.”
    Before the SCOTUS hears the case, Mr. Land knows how the highest court is going to rule. This indicates to me that Mr. Landon knows that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
    How long has he known this?
    If he thought that, why he waited all this time?
    Why he persisted in a legal and socio-political war attempting to prevent citizens of their constitutional rights?
    I find Mr. Land disingenuous and hypocritical. Characteristics that I find repulsive in a man claiming to be a Christian.

    I know there are serious and honest children of God who are against SSM. I dare to say that Mr. Land is not one of them.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    So the "ship has sailed" on the issue of homosexual marriage has it? After all, if a consensus of scientists can determine the cause and outcome of global "climate change" in the coming decades, surely a political consensus is all that required to radically redefine the mere foundation of human society. And all for the better, surely.

    And, with more and more people arriving at the "correct" decision that marriage should no longer be defined as a marriage of the sexes (note the use of the plural, meaning the two opposite sexes) surely it will only be a matter of time before God himself figures it out.

    Nevertheless, until that happens, I'm sticking with the concept of marriage that has worked so well for so long, regardless of whatever political "consensus" there eventually may be.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 19, 2013 5:47 p.m.

    IMHO the issue of marriage definition can't really be left up to the individual states for long. It affects too many issues that frequently cross state borders -- property, inheritance, legal powers, and so on -- and interstate issues are the domain of the Federal government, not the states.

  • Ophelia Bountiful, UT
    March 19, 2013 7:04 p.m.

    It's interesting to note that the recent ABC/Washington Post poll (a reputable, accurate polling source) found 58% of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage. Even more impressive is the fact that a whopping 81% of Americans under 30 favor same-sex marriage. Thank goodness for the youth!

  • JD Tractor Iowa City, IA
    March 19, 2013 8:39 p.m.

    Religions shouldn't be forced to go against their conscience and marriage is a religious ceremony. If the argument is for "financial benefits" for marriage partners then this isn't really about "love" or marriage, it's all about money. Leave marriage alone and focus on those issues.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    March 20, 2013 6:02 a.m.

    The Supreme Court should be concerned with the continued thriving of our Western Civilization. Marriage has reflected the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 20, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    So JD Tractor, marriage is a religious ceremony? Try getting married without a government issued license..and marriages performed in a home by a judge aren't valid. Marriage is a secular contract sometimes performed and or sanctioned by a religion.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    March 20, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    "Deeply divided" - not really - as others posting here have noted - under 30 years old - the majority favors allowing same sex marriage and for those of us over 30 (sometimes those of us well over 30) our views have changed as well. Same sex marriage is simply an issue of "equal" - nothing more and nothing less between consenting adults. No one is forcing anyone whose beliefs are different to use their Church, Synagogue, Mosque or other religious building to support Same Sex marriage. The paradigm has shifted for the better; I believe.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 20, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    @Brentbot --

    "In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived."

    People keep saying this, but it simply isn't true. In fact, both the ancient Romans and the ancient Greeks encouraged homosexual relations -- and their civilizations each survived for roughly 1000 years. That's a lot longer than we've been around!

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 20, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    The problem I see with keeping each state in control of marriage is the Full Faith and Credit clause in the constitution: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

    This is one of the reasons DOMA is unconstitutional. Why would a heterosexual couple who marry in Massachusetts and move to Utah still be married and not a homosexual couple? What gives Utah the right to treat these citizens differently? Isn't that also a constitutional right - equal treatment under the law (14th amendment)?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    March 20, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    It is truly an awesome development to see citizens actually start talking about the importance of States' Rights. It is a harbinger of eventually getting back to the idea of Individual rights, as enshrined in our constitution. Those who are insecure about that possibility need to step back and realize that America is about taking the best ideas and watching them grow or diminish on their own merits rather than using compulsion to achieve certain ends. The ends do not justify the means. If California wants to legalize gay marraige, abortion on demand, free birth control, free love, free drugs, violence, bigotry, or failed educational ideas, let them do so. Citizens will eventually realize the damage done, particularly if another state is succeeding with something else, and make changes. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of States' Rights! If they don't, the one size fits all mentality will only cause more grief, pain, and unhappiness.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 20, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    @ Bandersen:

    You wrote:
    "Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of States' Rights! If they don't, the one size fits all mentality will only cause more grief, pain, and unhappiness"

    I ask: To who?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 20, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    bandersen
    Can you address the two constitutuional problems with having each state decide the marriage of same sex couples, ie, The Full Faith and Credit Clause and the 14th amendment?

    Where do you stand of these two intrinsic parts of our divine constitution?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 20, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    The Articles of Conferation with strong states' rights was supplanted by the Constitution and a stronger central govt.

    The question of States' rights and civil rights was further clarified with the civil war.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    March 20, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    @BrentBot – “The Supreme Court should be concerned with the continued thriving of our Western Civilization.”

    Not when they are decided cases. Their only concern at that time should be what is and is not constitutional.

    Have we not learned that lesson from Roe v Wade that judicial activism (whether from liberals or conservatives) is never the answer? If you want your ideas (ideals and morals) to prevail, you need to win in the marketplace of ideas. Otherwise, to quote Lincoln, you should “emigrate to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty… where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

    We (the people) are either a self-governing democratic Republic, or we are living under a dictatorship of the “black–robed nine.”

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    March 20, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    Thanks for letting me respond: I don't necessarily agree with what happened after the Civil War. The Articles of Confederation was dropped in favor of the Constitution, mostly because of the lack of a strong central government. I'm absolutely certain, however, that our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves over the power of the central government today, or for the last 100 years for that matter. Whatever they were or weren't, they were for Liberty, something as foreign to most of our citizenry as soil on the planet mars! The 14th amendment needs to be rescinded. However, since it is still law, I support it. Also, the conflict occurs if and when unjust laws are passed by the federal government that conflict with the 'unalienable' and individual rights embedded in our constitution. Compelling me to recognize abortion, pornography, or child abuse (anything evil) as a legal right infringes on my life and liberty. Empowering the states and individuals to stand up for truth (and their own ideas of truth) will allow our country to work the way the founders envisioned. I would hardly call 'gay marraige' our most pressing national issue.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    March 20, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    Unfortunately for some, God represents a sizable majority in the eternal scheme of things. God understands YOLO better than anyone, which is the reason why his opinion on Gay marraige is so important. He doesn't condone or believe in alternate versions of His plan, no matter how much we strive to convince Him otherwise. He is God!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 20, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    To "Baccus0902" the Proposition 8 is completely constitutional. The 10th ammendment says that if it isn't mentioned in the US constitution it is up to the states or people to decide. The people decided and ammended the California Constitution to define marriage.

    To rule against Proposition 8 would be unconstitutional.

  • sergio Phoenix, AZ
    March 20, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    Religion is politics, and politics is money; therefore, figure out where the money is and come down on that side of the issue because it will be the winner: every time.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    March 20, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    This is not a complex question. Same-gender marriage is wrong for a number of reasons (including, but not limited to religious reasons, social reasons, and biological reasons, all of which are supported by historical reasons). Over time, the value of traditional marriage has been assaulted on at least two fronts: legal (nationally based apparently on the 14th Amendment which has to do with the rights of former slaves, not sexual practices) and educational (the pressures in the public schools to accept same-gender marriage are intense, and students are even bullied into accepting it against their views).

    The propaganda war is now constituting a third front. "If," the propaganda says, "the majority accepts same-gender marriage, then the courts ought to; and now we can prove that the majority accepts it." An unstated reality is that public-opinion polls have often clashed with the voting booth on this issue. Why? Because (as pollsters have said) people feel intimidated by the pro-gay pollsters to say what they believe the pollsters want to hear, but they vote their consciences.

    By all means, let us retain sight of the original premise: same-gender marriage is wrong.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    March 20, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    According to the Gallup Poll referenced in the article 73% of adults between 18 and 29 favor same sex marriage with only 29% opposing it. I saw much the same thing happen during the Civil Rights Era. The Times They Are A Changing.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    March 20, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    If this was an issue of equality of rights as some have put it, then why the fuss over the term "marriage." California already has a legal term called domestic partnerships, which in the state law is equivalent to the term marriage. Domestic partnerships in California receive all the state benefits that married people do.

    With all the benefits of marriage, the social argument was reduced to: "calling it a domestic partnership instead of a marriage is a significant difference that is discriminatory." Prop 8 passed in liberal California simple because that argument failed. The majority didn't buy it. They didn't buy that calling a union of two men or two women a domestic partnership was discriminatory, especially when the union retained all the same benefits as marriage.

    Prop 8 doesn't ban domestic partnerships nor does it take away the state rights and benefits of domestic partnerships, which are equal to those of marriage. With a twist of words though, opponents say "Prop 8 bans same-sex marriage." Technically, it is not a lie.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    March 20, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    We get it, we get it.

    There is no way we can constitutionally disallow marriage between Adam and Steve.

    There is also no way that we can actually explain to you why marriage was only meant for Adam and Eve.

    All I can say is until two men(or two women)can have a baby together "naturally", I'm going to stick with the institution that has raised this planet's children for more than 3000 years.

    All civil rights, EXCEPT MARRIAGE, should be granted to gay partners and we should sign that anti-discrimination bill in the workplace immediately.

    Without a hateful bone in my body, I declare that marriage is for man and woman.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 20, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    John 20000

    Did you read the California Supreme Court decision re gay marriage? If you had or if you had read the ruling on Prop 8, you would understand that separate is NOT equal. It is not just the benefits, but the distinction of a child to have their parents married - not civil unionized. It is the thought that you want to keep the word "marriage" for your unions and not share it because you feel it is the better of the two options, right?

    Because of the 14th amendment (and it has been used for a number of rulings besides those for ex-slaves), we must treat each citizen of the United States equally under the law. We are not allowed to put ourselves above other citizens because of our beliefs or our history. We MUST show cause if we are to deny another citizen the dignity, benefits, and privileges that we take for granted as a right. This has NOT been done by any of those on the anti-gay marriage side.

    If you were arguing in front of the SCOTUS, what would your legal, reasonable, and constitutional argument be?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 20, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    USAlover

    Because we live in the US, you are allowed to believe whatever you feel good about. But it is not always advisable to press your beliefs into law, especially if you cannot tell us why we need to treat you differently than gays, other than say that you are sticking with what has worked. Please rest assured that gays do not want you or any other marriage to change.

    What they are looking for is the same marriage that we grant to those who are too old to have children or those who cannot or do not want children. You must agree that we allow all these people to marry legally here in Utah. That is the marriage that they are looking for.

    It just happens to be the same legal marriage that couples who want and do create children are allowed to have.

    Marriage has never had "will have children" as one of the prerequisites for a couple to legally bind themselves together in marriage. Why would we change the rules because the couple is gay?

    Are you saying that all marriages that do not result in natural children should not be called "marriage?"

  • Mom Johnson West Jordan, UT
    March 20, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    My dad taught me about sex using electricity as an example. He was very clever. He showed me that there were female and male plugs and outlets. When the male plug went into the female outlet electricity was created! Pure and simple. Electricity was born. Not only that, but good things were developed afterwards.....i.e. the washing machine, lights, air conditioning. Good things that helped society.
    Good luck trying to put two male and two female plugs together. It creates absolutely nothing. And nothing good comes of it.

    It seems to me that the LGBT community should take some electrical classes :)

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 20, 2013 4:45 p.m.

    It is ironic that a Church whose early history includes the practice of polygamy is now defending "traditional" marriage.

    re:John2000
    A study conducted by UCLA found that domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage. They found domestic partners often had trouble participating in their spouses' healthcare plans.

    Finally,
    "And someone made the comment that this is not about equality. Well yes it is about equality. And why in the world would we not allow those equal rights for individuals who truly were committed to on another in life to be able to show that by way of a marriage?
    You know, my daughter came out of the closet a couple of years ago. And you know what? I thought I was going to just agonize about that.

    Nothing’s different. She’s still a fabulous human being...I hope she will not feel like a second-class citizen involved in something called a ‘domestic partnership’ — which frankly sounds like a Merry Maids franchise to me."
    (Washington State Representative MAUREEN WALSH, Republican, on why she voted to legalize marriage equality in her state.)

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 20, 2013 7:02 p.m.

    @uslove
    Honest and unhateful people do not continue to perpetuate lies that have been pointed out to them before (in this case the history of marriage), sorry.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    March 20, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    Spring Street,

    What is the lie? Marriage has been almost entirely isolated to men and women throughout recorded history. Are there exceptions? Sure, but few and rare. The weight of history is on heterosexual marriage.

  • Chachi Charlottesville, VA
    March 20, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    Why is it that politicians who oppose gay marriage can't articulate why in anything but tautological terms. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," they say. Yes, but WHY do you believe that? The answer is usually, "Because that's what I believe."

    There are much better answers available, but most Republican politicians seem to not know them. If they can't offer an intelligible articulation of their views, it's probably because they don't actually believe what they say. I expect them to soon experience a politically convenient "conversion" a la Obama, Clinton, Portman, etc.

  • Chachi Charlottesville, VA
    March 20, 2013 9:39 p.m.

    P.S. Here are some examples of better reasons to oppose gay marriage:

    1) Marriage is heterosexual because it's designed to encourage the formation of families, which maximizes the chances of successfully rearing the society's next generation.

    2) The civil rights and sexual choices of gay people can be accommodated by civil unions; labeling it marriage sends the message that the institution is primarily about meeting the sexual needs of adults, not meeting the needs of children.

    3) Attempts to explain why gay marriage should be legal and polygamy should be illegal invariably depend on labeling polygamists with the sort of stereotyping that gets labeled "hateful bigotry" when applied to gay people——in other words, it opens the door to further expansions of the definition of marriage and dismantles the arguments against them.

    4) Demanding that we use the same term to describe two different types of unions encourages a homogenous society, not a diverse one.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 20, 2013 9:42 p.m.

    @twin
    Marriage as those that appose gay marriage want to limit it to as between a man and a women has only been a constant for little more then a 100 years in our own culture let alone across history and cultures. The argument that it must be fails both historically and scientifically.

  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2013 2:48 a.m.

    @Ophelia
    "It's interesting to note that the recent ABC/Washington Post poll (a reputable, accurate polling source) found 58% of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage. Even more impressive is the fact that a whopping 81% of Americans under 30 favor same-sex marriage."

    I just would like to say I am under 30 and I do not support Gay marriage. A lot of people my age do support it, I think, from what I have gathered by talking to them, because they think everything should be "fair".

    If that was true, I should've been a millionaire by now because i have brilliant ideas. Life is supposed to be "fair", right?

    Unfortunately, life is not fair and some things are created for specific reasons, that no President or Court or Government official can change.

    To keep my comment civil, I would like to say that the one rule of life I have learned is this: marriage is not a right--it's a privilege. It has always been that way and will continue to be that way until the end of time.

  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2013 2:53 a.m.

    @truthseeker
    Easy turbo...
    Yes that would be odd unless you had the belief that polygamy was from God and the church was only doing what God wanted it to.
    And if you had a belief in the Bible you'd find that homosexuality is preached against and condemned but that doesn't mean those who practice it should be condemned. They should loved and accepted--but not their practices.
    PS
    I'm all for bringing back Polygamy if they pass Gay Marriage--because I can love multiple women can't I? (BTW, one woman is enough for me--just making an example) ;)

  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2013 2:59 a.m.

    @springstreet

    Can you please retype your statement? I'm sorry, I really didn't know what you were saying..I'm sure it's something insightful :)

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    March 21, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    @Pianoman – “Unfortunately, life is not fair and some things are created for specific reasons”

    A pretty callous and sanctimonious statement in this context. You should write that down so you can break it out if and when you ever have a gay son or daughter.

    But I’m curious, do you actually have any arguments to make in support of your “life’s not fair so suck it up” views? So far Chachi is the only one on this thread who has even attempted to make an argument (weak as I think they were) that wasn’t a tautology.

    Pianoman – “And if you had a belief in the Bible you'd find that homosexuality is preached against and condemned…”

    You mean the book that sanctioned slavery and commanded genocide (“kill all the Amalekites…”)?

    I don’t know… maybe slavery (perhaps the easiest moral question in history) was not the only ethical teaching the Bible got wrong… just say’n.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 21, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    @ Pianoman

    It is sad to encounter such a cynical young man.

    (you) "To keep my comment civil, I would like to say that the one rule of life I have learned is this: marriage is not a right--it's a privilege.

    Most of human history marriages have been arranged by parents, usually for social and economical gain. The couples in the ceremony didn't have a choice in the matter. Please clarify for me, what part was the privilege?

    (You) "It has always been that way and will continue to be that way until the end of time."

    Again, what a sad statement. Is that really the way you see the world, humanity and the universe? Do you really feel so powerless that you blindly accept what has been, even though you may consider it wrong?

    Most of us in the world believe in change. That's why we have revolutions, political ideas, elections, religious beliefs, education.

    The universe is changing, so is our planet, so is humanity, the fact that we don't live in caves should be proof of that. That we are discussing SSM should be proof to you that change is taking place. Read history.

  • Civil Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    I believe in equal rights, and I am a supporter of civil unions, but let us be logical, rational and factual: There are differences between heterosexual and homosexual unions. No child has ever been the biological product of two males, or of two females.

    A rallying cry of those who favor marriage for gays is, "Don't be on the wrong side of history." Well, biology and history both fall on the side of the difference between gay and straight unions. Let us create laws that don't discriminate, but that also recognize those differences.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    bandersen
    Compelling me to recognize abortion, pornography, or child abuse (anything evil) as a legal right infringes on my life and liberty.
    KJK
    Does that include teaching Trinitarianism and infant baptism?

    Redshirt1701
    To "Baccus0902" the Proposition 8 is completely constitutional. The 10th ammendment says that if it isn't mentioned in the US constitution it is up to the states or people to decide.
    KJK
    Was the Loving decision outlawing miscegenation also wrongly decided and that states should be free to reenact them.

    John20000
    California already has a legal term called domestic partnerships, which in the state law is equivalent to the term marriage.
    KJK
    Having segregated drinking fountains still gave Blacks equal rights and access to water. Why is this wrong yet the "separate but equal" domestic partnership status AOK?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    KJK responding to Chachi's points

    1) Since infertile and aged couples can marry, there is no legal link between marriage and kids. Gays also form families using adoption and artificial insemination.

    2) Having segregated drinking fountains still gave Blacks equal rights and access to water. Why is this wrong yet the "separate but equal" domestic partnership AOK? Should infertile and aged couples marry since such marriages are "about meeting the sexual needs of adults, not meeting the needs of children"?

    3) So? Polygamy involving consenting adults SHOULD be legal.

    4) Huh?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 21, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    Re:Pianoman

    "Southern preachers and slave owners believed the many references in the Bible permitting and regulating slavery (well over 100 verses), in the Old/New Testaments, were clear evidence that the institution was a part of God’s social and moral order. Abolitionist preachers argued in their sermons that the verses related to slavery in the Bible were a reflection of the cultural context and times in which the Bible was written and did not reflect God’s endorsement of slavery. They argued that there were “weightier” scriptures on justice, mercy and love that superseded those on slavery. This was the position that Lincoln himself adopted.

    There are a handful of Scriptures that specifically speak of same-sex intimacy as unacceptable to God. Conservatives/traditionalists see these as reflecting God’s timeless will for human relationships. Progressives look at these same scriptures in much the same way that progressives in the nineteenth century looked at the Bible’s teaching on slavery. They believe that these verses capture the cultural understandings and practices of sexuality in biblical times, but do not reflect God’s will for gay and lesbian people."
    (Rev. Adam Hamilton)

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 21, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    Re:Pianoman

    "Southern preachers and slave owners believed the many references in the Bible permitting and regulating slavery (well over 100 verses), in both the Old and the New Testaments, were clear evidence that the institution was a part of God’s social and moral order. Abolitionist preachers argued in their sermons that the verses related to slavery in the Bible were a reflection of the cultural context and times in which the Bible was written and did not reflect God’s endorsement of slavery. They argued that there were “weightier” scriptures on justice, mercy and love that superseded those on slavery. This was the position that Lincoln himself adopted.

    There are a handful of Scriptures that specifically speak of same-sex intimacy as unacceptable to God. Conservatives see these as reflecting God’s timeless will for human relationships. Progressives see these same scriptures in much the same way that nineteenth century progressives looked at the Bible’s teaching on slavery. They believe that these verses capture the cultural understandings and practices of sexuality in biblical times, but do not reflect God’s will for gay and lesbian people."
    (Rev. Adam Hamilton)

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    March 22, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    The GOP may not embrace marriage equality anytime soon … but sooner or later they’ll have to come to grips with the fact that vilifying Gay Americans is no longer a vote-getter for them. Back in 2009 a CBS News survey found that while only 18% of Americans over the age of 65 supported marriage equality for Gay couples, 41% of American under the age of 45 supported it. That was FOUR YEARS AGO, and the generational shift in attitudes among young people toward their Gay friends and family members is accelerating.

    30 years ago most Americans were not aware of any Gay friends, family members, or co-workers. Today most Americans ARE aware, and they have become dramatically more accepting and supportive of the Gay people and Gay couples in their lives. And social networking sites like Facebook have made the proverbial "closet" virtually obsolete. The Republican Party ignores this growing acceptance at their own peril. Jobs and the economy are important, yes ... but your friends and family members are PERSONAL.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    March 22, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    I agree with Jeff that it's not a complex question. What two consenting adults do that doesn't affect me directly (not in some abstract, "slippery slope" way) is none of my business. As an extension of that, if two adults want to get married and apply for a marriage license, it's none of my business. See? Simple.

    Oh, and "but it's been this way for 200 years" is never an effective argument against change. When I hear the opposition using that, I smile from ear to ear, because it's a sure sign they're running on fumes. Out of ammo. Dead in the water. Pick a cliche.

    By all means, let us retain sight of the original premise: who I marry is my business, and who you marry is yours. Who complete strangers marry is none of my concern.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    March 22, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    To Lane:

    The phrase "separate but equal" has been used as a slogan for this type of argument for a long time. I understand why it is so powerful given its history. However, a critical analysis of its use associated with Prop 8 leaves the phrase hollow and empty. Gender separates humans into two categories male and female. Gender is not a superficial attribute of being human like the tint of one's peachish-brownish skin. I have no problem with gender-specified "separate but equal" public bathrooms. There are definable gender-specific needs. There are women health issues that men don't have. There are men health issues that women don't have. By writing this, I don't mean to imply that we can discriminate in some prejudice way against a certain gender. Of course, we wouldn't want to do that. That stated, "separate but equal" is a good standard for gender-related rights and benefits.

    So, the only question left is whether a sexual relationship is gender-related. The answer is clearly yes. Therefore, laws can be "separate but equal" depending on which genders are involved (male-female, male-male, female-female).

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 22, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    @John20000 --

    "By writing this, I don't mean to imply that we can discriminate in some prejudice way against a certain gender."

    Currently, a woman is allowed to marry a man. But a man is NOT allowed to marry a man. That's gender discrimination.

    A man is just as able to love and commit to another man as a woman is. And since infertile people are allowed to marry, we know that the ability to procreate is NOT a valid exclusionary criterion for marriage. Therefore, there is no legally justifiable difference between a man and a woman in this context.

    The group Coloradans for Freedom -- a **conservative** group that supported the Civil Union Act just passed in Colorado -- published an official statement saying that "the Civil Union Act provides equality in treatment between any two adult individuals committed to each other and their government. Additionally, supporters for Coloradans for Freedom note that the bill promotes the conservative ideals of individual freedom, personal liberty, and sound public policy."

    More and more conservatives are beginning to understand that SUPPORTING gay marriage is the right thing to do.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    March 22, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    I remember how dividing Prop 8 was in Southern California in the wards I attended. I remember President Hinkley on video telling us how to vote on this proposition. There was no discussion on the merits or demerits on this issue, Only this is the way you vote. Period. Follow the Prophet and support the Bretheren.

    We attend Church to become better people. I look at Church like a hospital in getting our souls healed. I heard of a fellow who had trouble with Alcohol. A Police Officer was able to get him to an A.A. Meeting. We are our Brother's Keepers, That was a turning point. This fellow was looking for something. The word is he was baptized into the LDS Church. Those sins of his former life we washed away, or so I am told. He passed away this week. People who knew him said he was a good man. The world knows him as Harry Reems. If there is a Golf Course on the other side of the Veil I hope we can play around...

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 22, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    @ John2000

    It seems that you are running out of reasonable arguments to support your ideas. Therefore, you are making a political and social issue a matter of semantics.

    The problem with that approach is that you forget that you are playing with the social status, economic stability, family structure and the achievement of happiness of a significant segment of the population.

    Leave the tactics of the pharisees behind and embrace the pragmatism of Jesus.

    I'm sure he would tell you a parable in which you would be forced to think of yourself as one affected by your rethoric. He would ask, what would you do if you love somebody but were not allowed to marry that person. He would invite your detractors to put themselves in your place.

    I am not Jesus, but I think a little bit of empathy can go a long way on our search for understanding.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    March 22, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    Marriage is not a government institution; government took it over to make money on marriage licenses. Marriage is a covenant between one man, one woman, and God. That is what the Bible says.

    If government gets out of "marriage" and offers "civil unions" to all, we have no issue of "separate but equal". "Marriage" then returns to where it belongs - in church. No LGBT people are suing for the "right" to be baptized into the LDS Church, are they?

    This amazingly simple and fair solution will not happen while the extremes on both sides are more concerned with winning the argument instead of doing what is best for all. This is a fundamental problem in our country and will not be solved until people stop demanding everyone else to belive what they do and find a way for society to work for everyone.

    I may disagree with my gay friends' lifestyle, but I do not find them "disagreeable" as human beings. They are God's children too......

  • LibraryMom Provo, UT
    March 22, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    The problem with the word "marriage" is that it has both legal and religious meaning.

    It looks to me like the religious meaning came first, so my proposal would be to reserve "marriage" for religious rites and find another word for the legal status.

    I would be in favor of giving gay couples the same relationship rights enjoyed by married couples ─ just without using the label "marriage". If for the sake of fairness, that means getting states completely out of the "marriage" business, that's OK with me. States could still maintain a formalized relationship registry and issue licenses to enroll. I've lived in countries where everyone is required to go through a civil ceremony, and then those who choose can have a religious ceremony as well (but a religious ceremony alone has no legal significance). It would be somewhat less convenient to arrange 2 events, but convenience isn't the most important issue.

    If the insistence is on using the same word for both religious and legal statuses, then perhaps the agenda isn't really equality, but rather imposing legal pressures on religious institutions to make them conform their doctrines to changing social mores. I would oppose that agenda.

  • LibraryMom Provo, UT
    March 22, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    Interesting historical factoid:
    Prior to the Civil War, people would say "The United States ARE ... (a free nation, whatever)". After the Civil War, they started saying "The United States IS ..." and that's when the power of the central government started to grow.

    The problem isn't the 14th Amendment itself. If read textually, it's fine. The problem comes in with what's called "substantive due process", which happens when a court decides that what the actual language says isn't enough so additional rights have to be implied. Depending on the court, that can come to mean anything they darn well please.

    The Left saw the potential a long time ago and for 5 decades has been working to enact Progressive policies through litigation rather than legislation. It looks like the Right is finally getting ahead of the curve, and maybe a court that favors text-based constitutional analysis will roll back the tide somewhat. IMO, that would be the best possible outcome of this case.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 22, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    @Chachi;

    Here's why you're wrong.

    1) Marriage between same sex couples creates the same familial relationship for them that it creates for you. Gays also have children and if it helps you "successfully" raise the next gen, it'll help gays too.

    2) Separate is not equal; what about the needs of the children of gay couples, they don't matter?

    3) Sorry, but polygamy has been one of the valid definitions of marriage for thousands of years (and in some cultures, marriage also included gay couples anyway).

    4) Demanding that we use a different term to describe two different types couples is saying "my union is better than your union, so there".

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 22, 2013 5:29 p.m.

    @Pianoman;

    Did you have to "earn" your marriage license? The fact that you haven't earned a Million yet is not a fairness issue; it's an issue about how smart you've been at making money. The Consititution says you can't restrict the "privileges" of citizens.

    @Civil;

    No child has ever been born of a sterile male and female couple either (without external aid). Should we ban their unions too? Why not call the same sort of union the same word for all people involved in joining together into a family unit?

    @BYU Track Star;

    I don't believe in your "prophet" or your church. I shouldn't be required to live by your churches rules. You're the one who believes, YOU should be the one to abide by their rules; they don't apply to anybody else (The First Amendment guarantees this).

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 22, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    @RedWings & LibraryMom;

    And if MY church performs MY marriage for me, do I still get to use the word since it was done in a religious context? Or do you still oppose my using the word for my marriage to my partner?

    You realize, I hope, that there are many religions who believe that GLBT marriages are okay.

    (DN, your word counter isn't working properly.)

  • LibraryMom Provo, UT
    March 22, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    @dwayne

    FWIW, I am the daughter of a gay man, whom I love. But as someone who cares deeply about the rights of believers of any faith; I still think "marriage" should be the domain of churches, not governments.

    What I said was that I'm willing to have the government NOT recognize "marriages" at all if recognizing only some forms would be unfair. I'd rather see nobody with a government-recognized "marriage" than give the government the power to define marriage. Again, the religious meaning came first, and it was co-opted by governments. The purpose of the First Amendment was to keep government out of religion, so let's do that.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    March 22, 2013 6:27 p.m.

    Same gender marriage or relationships are an abomination in the eyes of God. It all comes down to control of thought and action. God-fearing people and those living their lives following the teachings of Jesus Christ know what is acceptable to God. This type of belief or behavior is not acceptable and never will be acceptable to God. There will be consequences to those who choose to live their lives with same-sex partners - their choices and actions cannot be justified.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    March 22, 2013 9:06 p.m.

    States have regulated marriage in many instances and homosexuals are not the only groups of people not allowed to marry who they want. Some states have not allowed people to marry multiple partners, polygamy or 2 men and 3 women. Most states don't allow the marriage of first cousins. No states allow the marriage of siblings or a father to marry his daughter. Some states have even stopped the marriage of those with certain diseases. If marriage is only about sexual love and that cannot be regulated by the state, all above instances should be allowed to go forward.

    The reason governments regulate and care about marriage is the propagation of its society. The idea of not allowing sterile individuals to get married is unreasonable because most couples don't know they are sterile until several years after they are married. And the cost to the state would be too great to test every couple. On the reverse, all you sterility example commenters, would you allow a sterile brother and sister to get married because they love each other and they are consenting adults?

    It is in the best interest of the society to protect traditional marriage.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 22, 2013 9:16 p.m.

    @suzyk#1 --

    "Same gender marriage or relationships are an abomination in the eyes of God."

    There are plenty of Christians who disagree with you. Whose version of Christianity should win?

    @LibraryMom --

    If the term "marriage" were removed from government purview altogether -- which would actually be a massive undertaking, given the many millions of civil marriage ceremonies that have been performed in this country over the years, and would practically speaking be completely impossible especially given that the same term is used in multiple countries -- but, if in some imaginary world the term WAS reserved solely for church use, would you be content when non-discriminating churches like, say, the Unitarians still went ahead and gave gay couples church marriages? Or would you try to prevent the Unitarians (or whatever church) from doing so?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    John20000
    I have no problem with gender-specified "separate but equal" public bathrooms. There are definable gender-specific needs.
    KJK
    The problem is that having separate bathrooms makes objective sense for safety. There is no objective sense for denying equal rights. In law, there is a principle called “similarly situated”. It means that if there is no real difference between 2 parties, then there is no justification for treating them differently. What is the justification for allowing a 60 y/o man and woman to marry, but not 2 60 y/o women? Neither group can produce kids biologically related to both partners. Their lives are identical ( similarly situated). There is no objective justification for the discrimination.

    Mick
    The idea of not allowing sterile individuals to get married is unreasonable because most couples don't know they are sterile until several years after they are married.
    KJK
    How about disallowing women over 55 from marrying and all individuals who have been sterilized. Any couple not producing kids within 5 years of marrying would have their marriage annulled. Why give them the benefits of marriage if they aren't fulfilling their purpose.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 22, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    Religious leaders can have a say on matters at this level when I can vote for, or against, them.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    March 22, 2013 10:43 p.m.

    KJK-

    We can put a lot of stipulations on marriage. We can make a lot of rules. None of them will be "fair" to all minorities of society.

    Once again, it is best to protect traditional marriage to preserve society. Marriage is between one man and one women is easy to follow and protects all of society. After all it is this couple that give birth to humans who may possibly be homosexual or heterosexual. Rights can be given. Definition of words should not be changed.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 22, 2013 10:41 p.m.

    @Mick --

    "States have regulated marriage in many instances and homosexuals are not the only groups of people not allowed to marry who they want. Some states have not allowed people to marry multiple partners, polygamy or 2 men and 3 women."

    You seem to be misunderstanding the situation here.

    NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners, NOBODY is allowed to commit incest. Therefore, nobody is being discriminated against -- these things are illegal for **everyone**.

    In contrast, women are allowed to marry men -- but men are not allowed to marry men. In other words, some people ALREADY have a right to marry a man, while other people are denied that same right to marry a man simply because of their gender. That's a clear instance of gender discrimination. One gender is being denied a right that the other gender already has, with no concrete practical reason to deny them that right (and no, infertility is not a legally justifiable reason).

    Making polygamy or incest legal would involve giving the entire population new rights that nobody currently has. But making same sex marriage legal only requires eliminating a bit of unconstitutional gender discrimination.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    March 22, 2013 11:12 p.m.

    It is not illegal for a man to love a man or to live with a man. No one is going into homes and arresting those who are in these relationships. That relationship is not being discriminated against. But it is not marriage. Secularly and financially, which is what the state cares about, it doesn't benefit society and its propagation.

    How can you stop a sterile brother and sister from getting married if you make the definition about love? First cousins? They are consenting adults. Their marriage doesn't hurt you. Stay out of their bedroom.

    Marriage is more than about love and bedrooms.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    March 23, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    Ranch Hand:

    Yes, if your religious denomination performs your marriage ceremony, then it is called a marriage. I already knew that some denominations allow same-sex marriage. That was my point. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony and covenant; not a legal contract.

    Dwayne: If you "legitimately value marriage" you should understand what it is and where it comes from. You seem to be twisting yourself in knots over a word. If legal rights are what the LGBT community wants, then a civil union gives them all of that. It was already in place in CA prior to Prop 8. The extreme left wants to redefine marriage, etc in an attempt to destroy religion. Many blindly go along with it under the guise of "tolerance" and "equality". Funny how the left is tolerant of anyone who agrees with them, and attacks anyone who disagrees. This is why I am no longer a Democrat. As Ronald Reagan said, "I didn't leave my party. It left me". (BTW - I am not a Republican either)

    Marriage belongs in Church, plain and simple. Government needs to give it back.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 23, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    @Mick:

    "Rights can be given. Definition of words should not be changed."

    --- No, rights are called "rights" because they are INHERANT, they are NOT "given". You're trying to redefine that word.

    You're also going to have to prove that "traditional" marriage is better for society AND that same-sex marriage is detrimental. You can't simply state it as fact without proof.

    @RedWings;

    If one's church calls it marriage then there is no reason to disallow the term to be used in secular society as well, right? All you're doing is making a distinction between a secular and religious marriage, but if they're both called marriage, what's the difference?

    Additionally, calling one couple's union a "civil union" and another couple's union a "marriage" creates a class of unions that are separate, where one is inherantly "better" than the other.

    If a church performs a same-sex marriage I'd bet you that the "religious" right would still scream bloody murder about gays using the word. They really don't care about the religious freedom of others, it's only their own religious freedom that matters to them (same with all freedoms).

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 23, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    @Mick --

    "Marriage is more than about love and bedrooms."

    You're absolutely right, it is. Marriage is about commitment and stability. Marriage is also about legal rights and financial benefits.

    And guess what -- those legal rights and financial benefits are being denied to all the men who wish to marry other men, and other women who wish to marry other women. They are the victims of obvious and unconstitutional gender discrimination.

    "It is not illegal for a man to love a man"

    As you yourself pointed out, marriage is about much more than love. We are talking about legal rights and financial benefits that are being denied to many people simply because of their gender.

    "How can you stop a sterile brother and sister from getting married if you make the definition about love? "

    You are the one talking about "definitions" here. We are talking about legal rights being denied because of gender discrimination.

    **Nobody** has the legal right to commit incest -- therefore there is no discrimination there. But women ARE allowed to marry men, so the men who also want to marry men are being discriminated against because of their gender. It's an obvious distinction.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    March 23, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    I think the Bible said He created them male and female and they shall cleave to non other. They were also commanded to mupltiple and replenish the earth. So lets put everything into proper content. The scriptures also say in the last days men would cleave unto themselves with un natural feelings. Good will become evil and evil will become good in the eyes of the people. Just look at the recent polls about marriage, abortion is not condidered murder but a right. Talk abou the shedding of inocent blood.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    March 23, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    Ranch Hand:

    What does it matter what you call the union? There is no implied superiority of "marriage" versus "civil union"; this is a fabricated difference on the part of the gay rights extreme. Legal rights are the same under both. Government exists to protect the rights of its' citizens, and civil unions do that.

    I don't define my union with my wife by any external terminology - I define it by our love and our commitment to each other and God (who is part of that union in my religion). Words just don't matter that much. Call my "marriage" a "religious union"; I am fine with that.

    You said, "(t)hey (the right) really don't care about the religious freedom of others, it's only their own religious freedom that matters to them (same with all freedoms)."

    You can say exactly the same thing about the gay rights activists...

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 23, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    @wYo8 --

    "They were also commanded to mupltiple and replenish the earth."

    That was a loooooong time ago. These days, there's already plenty of people in the world. In fact, in non-human animals, homosexuality is sometimes seen by scientists as an adaptive response to overpopulation.

    @RedWings --

    ""Marriage" is a religious ceremony and covenant; not a legal contract."

    That will come as a big surprise to all the millions of people who have been married in civil ceremonies over the years.

    Do you really believe that all these millions of people are not married, just because they went to a Justice of the Peace rather than to a church?

    "If legal rights are what the LGBT community wants, then a civil union gives them all of that."

    Actually, no it doesn't.

    First, separate is not equal. Our country proved that back in the days of racial segregation.

    Second, civil unions are not recognized by the federal government. Marriages are. So they are not comparable.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 23, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    @RedWing;

    We're not the ones trying to deny rights or take them away from you. We're not denying you your religious freedom, your freedom to live your life, your protections from the government. You're crowd is doing all of that to us.

    You should search for the New Jersey Commission's results on their study about the problems of calling same-sex couple's unions "civil unions" rather than marriage.

    excerpt:
    "...civil unions are a failed experiment. They have shown to perpetuate unacceptable second-class legal status. "

    "By creating a separate system of rights and by injecting language and titles not understood or easily incorporated into existing real life events and transactions, the civil union law has failed to fulfill its promise of equality."

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    March 23, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    So once same sex marriage is the law of the land than I suppose those who have advocated for it will quickly take up the cause for polygamists to legally marry. The definition of marriage will change and that opens up so many possibilities. All we have to do is just keep changing the definition to accommodate other’s that feel they have been discriminated against.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 23, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    @zoar63 --

    One More Time -- Polygamy and incest are completely different issues than gay marriage.

    NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners, and NOBODY is allowed to commit incest. Therefore, nobody is being discriminated against -- these things are illegal for **everyone**.

    In contrast, women are ALREADY allowed to marry men -- but men are **not** allowed to marry men.

    In other words, one gender ALREADY has a right to marry a man, while the other gender is denied that same right to marry a man simply **because** of their gender. That's a clear instance of gender discrimination. One gender is being denied a right that the other gender **already has**.

    Making polygamy or incest legal would involve giving the entire population NEW rights that **nobody** currently has. But making same sex marriage legal only requires eliminating a bit of unconstitutional gender discrimination. No new rights are involved.

    Once again: **Nobody** has the legal right to commit incest. **Nobody** has the legal right to marry multiple partners. Therefore there is no discrimination. But women ARE allowed to marry men, so the men who also want to marry men are being discriminated against because of their gender. It's an obvious distinction.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    The key arguments of the anti-SSM people seem to be (1) that it threatens their own marriages by "changing the meaning of marriage." This can't be a legal consideration since it's a matter of personal perception, not fact. Further, the only thing that can threaten a marriage is the two partners within that marriage.

    And (2) that it's "just plain wrong." This, too, can't be a legal consideration since the "wrong" is arrived at through personal beliefs, not fact.

    The key argument for SSM proponents is that consenting adult gays deserve, every bit as much as straights, to formalize their loving relationship and enhance their lives via marriage. This would hurt no one (except in the perceptions--not facts--of the anti-SSM groups) and would, indeed, add more love to a society that could certainly use it.

    Even the newest Archbishop of Canterbury, who opposes same-sex marriage on theological grounds, has admitted that he's seen "stunning" relationships among gays, and he's reflecting deeply on his beliefs.

    Let's hope that love triumphs over people's rigidities and baseless insecurities. Would Jesus have wanted anything less?

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 4:54 p.m.

    I once saw a sign held by an elderly lesbian couple who were respectfully picketing in California for their right to marry. The couple had been together for many years.

    The sign said, "Life feel different when you're married." Who could disagree?

    I can't imagine that this sign would have had the same effect if it had said "Life feels different when you're civil-unioned."

    People are free to define marriage any way they want. But only to themselves. (And isn't what makes a marriage beautiful--or horrible--the way the two partners involved define it to themselves and live it? "My best friend." "My ball and chain.")

    But no one is free to impose their own definition on others. Only facts should decide whether gays are allowed the right to marry or not. And not one fact has been presented to show that they shouldn't--only personal beliefs, personal definitions, personal perceptions and personal prejudices.

    The anti-SSM groups are free to hold fast to those things. But again, only amongst themselves, not throughout our country.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    @Brent Bot,

    Your citing of Pitirim Sorokin's conclusions as an argument against homosexuality is laughable.

    Sorokin's last year at Harvard was in 1959--more than fifty years ago.

    We surely have a much better understanding now of homosexuality than we did then. Or at least many of us (to judge from the latest polls) do.

    The Bible's last word on homosexuality was thousands of years ago. The same applies to its conclusions as it does to Sorokin's.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    @ BYU Track Star

    I fail to see how Harry Reems' alcoholism and his getting free of it fits into a response to gays and same-sex marriage.

    Except, of course, for the implication that homosexuality is an affliction too, which needs to be "cured."

    Many religious people try to call homosexuality as on a par with bestiality, pederasty and, yes, alcoholism. It won't wash anymore, not for an increasing majority of Americans.

    More and more Americans are recognizing that if love exists between two consenting adults (not merely sex, but genunine love), then it can't in any way be called a dysfunction which must be cured.

    Rather, it's something--as all authentic love is--to be celebrated.

    BTW, I wish you'd given your own opinion on whether Pres. Hinckley was right or wrong to tell his followers how to vote. I'd say, according to Mormon principles, he was wrong. Because, just as Mormons do, I too believe in free agency. (You can tell that my name.)

  • Normal Guy Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 9:02 p.m.

    They can leave it up to the states if they want but I'm still more comfortable leaving it up to the bible. Marriage is between a man and a woman until God says differently.

  • Normal Guy Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 9:16 p.m.

    Equal rights? Again, only the conservatives seem to care for the rights of the unborn and children. If I was placed in a family with two dads or two moms I would sue the country that allowed it the moment I was of legal age for everything it was worth.

  • Gregorio Norco, CA
    March 23, 2013 10:40 p.m.

    Marriage is defined between one man and one woman period.Other words can be chosen for other lifestyle choices. Government sanctions marriage because history has a record of showing the great advantages of a family within a community with a mom and a dad for children.
    Our US constitution works only for a virtuous man and woman who the founders believed in the marriage covenant.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 11:03 p.m.

    Mick
    KJK, We can put a lot of stipulations on marriage. We can make a lot of rules. None of them will be "fair" to all minorities of society.
    KJK
    But why do it? D&C 134 decries laws that advance one group and harm another. We LDS had an extermination order issued on us. We were once an unpopular minority too.t happened to the Golden Rule?

    Mick
    Definition of words should not be changed.
    KJK
    The definition of “voter” changed to include Blacks and women. The definition of “priesthood holder” changed in 1978.

    RedWings
    There is no implied superiority of "marriage" versus "civil union"; this is a fabricated difference on the part of the gay rights extreme.
    KJK
    Why was Prop.8 proposed? Is “separate but equal” really equal?

    zoar63
    The definition of marriage will change and that opens up so many possibilities. All we have to do is just keep changing the definition to accommodate other’s that feel they have been discriminated against.
    KJK
    If you can enter a legal contract with one or more people, that same arrangement should be allowed to be a marriage too.

  • twspears6007 Bakersfield, CA
    March 24, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Are polls the way to report and give an unbiased opinion as to the wishes of the American people. ABC News and the Washington Post resultss are not reliable and are far away from the will of the people. Most of the latest reports are purposly reported higher in favor of sames sex marrieges to attract more support for a very flammable issue. California has had two ballot measures that supported marriege between a man and a women only both measures were prop.22 and prop. 8 both measures were struck down by Court decisions. How long is the American People going put up with a Court or Courts that overrule the will of the people. This should be the issue at the Supreme Court does the courts support the peoples will or do they support the results of polls or biased courts. Trenton Spears

  • Cookie999 Albuquerque, NM
    March 24, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    I believe God created male and female for a reason, but even if He didn't, there is still order in the universe. A playground slide is meant to be slid down, not climbed up against the laws of gravity. And yet there are children who will try to climb up that way, simply because physically and technically it can be done, although it creates disorder in the natural flow of things. Children who are correctly taught the proper use of the playground slide are going to be irritated by others who keep trying to climb up the other way, because they can see it causes disorder. People who struggle with same-sex attraction may or may not have a pre-natal hormone orientation, but even that can be changed, if they are willing to look into the possibility. Saying that so-called "homosexuals" and so-called "lesbians" cannot re-define marriage is not limiting their choice to choose disorder; there are already civil unions and domestic partnerships.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    March 24, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    @Contrarius

    "Making polygamy or incest legal would involve giving the entire population new rights that nobody currently has. But making same sex marriage legal only requires eliminating a bit of unconstitutional gender discrimination."

    But if you allow same sex marriage you have changed the traditional definition of marriage which is defined as a union between a male and a female. When that definition changes to allow same sex marriage and you refuse to include polygamists you are now discriminating against a new minority group and denying them their rights. Once you change gender definitions we can now start arguing number of partners and in a few generations after that it will be the age of the partners. Equal rights for everyone. And if you deny these rights to the new minority group you become the new pluralphobes or whatever definition the future activists will call it. Best to stay with the traditional definition and then you will not have to face this Pandora’s box you will have opened

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 24, 2013 3:26 p.m.

    Gregorio, twspears, Normal, Cookie -- I thank God that our laws and Constitution are not dictated by the views of any one particular religious group. I also thank God that this country is a constitutional democracy, and not a theocracy.

    "does the courts support the peoples will or do they support the results of polls or biased courts. "

    I also thank God that the Supreme Court does not necessarily support the people's will OR the results of polls. Its function is to support THE US CONSTITUTION.

    Finally -- think of the old saying, "if God had meant for us to fly, we'd have wings". Human civilization is meant to move forward and grow, not to stagnate in outmoded ruts of dogma. We no longer view women or other races as inferior beings, or slave-ownership as a worthy goal, or genocide as an acceptable past-time -- even though all of these things were espoused by the Bible. Our civilization has fortunately moved on since then.

    The recognition of gay people as full citizens, with the same rights as everyone else, is our society's latest step forward. Anyone who refuses to grow with the times will simply be left behind.

  • Bob in Boise Garden City, ID
    March 24, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    Gays and lesbians have always been free to marry someone of the opposite sex and in that regard they are not discrimated against. What they seek is for the institution of marriage to be re-defined. Something 30 states have refused to do. One of them, California, has refused twice. The civil union statute in California, just like in Colorado recently, was hailed as a good and positive thing when passed. Homosexual advocates then used the same statute as evidence of discrimination in their court battle to overturn it. I find that just a little hypocritical.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    March 24, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, regardless of what polls suggest the American public feels (though, as suggested previously, polls on this issue are often wrong--they were twice in California), regardless of people's feelings on the subject, homosexuality (by this I mean sexual relations between people of the same gender) is wrong. To give a sanction to homosexuality by allowing people of the same gender to marry would be approving of something that is wrong. It is wrong religiously to most Christians, Jews, and Muslims; it is wrong culturally throughout most of the world; it is wrong historically (even famously homosexual-tolerant Greece and Rome refused to redefine marriage); and it is wrong biologically.

    There is no compromise on this subject. There can be none. Homosexual relations (and by extension same-gender marriage) are wrong. No amount of rationale will change the wrongness of it. I grant that almost 50 years of careful indoctrination has done its damage, and many people seem to be shifting their views to support same-gender marriage--but if 100% of the people on earth supported it, it would still be wrong. And it would have to be abandoned before extinction.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 24, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    @twspears6007;

    Freedom in the USA, thankfully, does not depend upon the "will of the people". It is granted to EACH AND EVERY American citizen via the Constitution.

    The First Amendment, i.e. Religious Freedom grants ME the right to worship differently than YOU. If my God doesn't mind same sex marriages, then whatever your god minds applies to it's followers and is NOT binding upon those who believe differently. Thank God for the First Amendment.

    The 14th Amendment guarantees Equal Treatment Under the Law to ALL US Citizens. Civil Unions do NOT provide all the legal benefits that accrue with marriage. Again, thank God for the 14th Amendment.

    Just because you happen to be in the majority doesn't give you the right to infringe upon the rights of those in the minority. "Traditional" marriage has changed multiple times in the past (women & children were once considered chattel, multiple women for one man, etc.).

    It's time to grow up and realize that you cannot maintain a culture of bigotry and discrimination and call yourselves honest Americans. True Americans are free to live their lives as THEY see fit, not as YOU require them to do.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 3:12 a.m.

    @Redwings
    [There is no implied superiority of "marriage" versus "civil union"]

    Of course there is, otherwise there wouldn't be people who are anti gay marriage but okay with civil unions. Legal rights aren't the same thanks to DOMA.

    @zoar63
    "So once same sex marriage is the law of the land than I suppose those who have advocated for it will quickly take up the cause for polygamists to legally marry. "

    That'd be like me saying that once you're done opposing gay marriage I suppose you'd quickly take up the cause of banning interracial marriage.

  • Lightening Lad Austin , TX
    March 25, 2013 3:57 a.m.

    This is just another area where Christians can only come accross as biased against a group of people who have no more ability to become hetrosexual than I have of deciding to be right handed than left or brown eyed from blue. Marriage is a legal issue managed and licensed by the state, no one should be prevented from marrying another person if both are single and legal age. I have yet to hear a good argument showing how gay marriage can harm "traditional marriage" a bit, but that remains the reason for opposition. I know the Bible is clearly against homosexuals period, but the Bible also advocates death to adulterous women in Leviticus, while being very positive towards slavery and polygamy. Gay marriage will become law in time, would it not be better to let it happen without all the beating up on each other and divisiveness? Has the LDS Church been bad wounded for making itself the face of Prop 8, I think most folks would say yes. I don't believe we have the right to tell others how they should live based on a book written 3000 years ago, live and let live.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    March 25, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    @ Lightening Lad: Your post illustrates partly why there is such a divide between those who oppose and those who advocate same-gender marriage.

    For one thing, it is entirely possible to move from right to left-handed. It's difficult for some, but possible for everyone with two hands. It is even possible to change eye color.

    While I cannot speak to the ability of someone to change whom they are sexually attracted to, I can speak to the ability of people to subdue and even completely overcome overpowering urges. I have seen it happen many times.

    Marriage is not just a state issue; it has a very long cultural tradition that extends far beyond the United States concepts of marriage. Also, you express a willingness to place some conditions about marriage (being single and "legal age") which are just as arbitrary as you claim that restrictions based on gender are. In other words, you are dismissive of others' opinions without completely analyzing your own.

    Next: You recommend rejection of the Bible and its teachings, and you imply that the only reason someone should reject the Bible is because YOU don't believe it. Not a good reason.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 25, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    @Jeff --

    "it is entirely possible to move from right to left-handed."

    No.

    There are physical differences between the brains of lefties and righties. You can improve the use of either hand, but you can't change the underlying dominance.

    Similarly, homosexuals can change their **behavior** -- but they can't change their inherent orientation. Homosexuals, like southpaws, have proven physical brain differences compared to heterosexuals.

    "it has a very long cultural tradition that extends far beyond the United States concepts of marriage."

    Right. Like all the cultures that did -- and sometimes still do -- practice polygyny and/or polyandry. Like the ancient Roman and Greek civilizations, both of which encouraged homosexual relations. Btw, did you know that at least two Roman **emperors** married men?

    "Also, you express a willingness to place some conditions about marriage (being single and "legal age") which are just as arbitrary"

    "Legal age" restrictions refer to the ability to give informed consent. Informed consent is an essential component of all contract law. Not at all arbitrary.

    "you imply that the only reason someone should reject the Bible is because YOU don't believe it."

    Pot, kettle, anyone?

    This isn't a theocracy. There's your reason.