Quantcast
Utah

A day later, same-sex marriage advocates make a 5-year prediction

Comments

Return To Article
  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 8:20 p.m.

    Marriage is about creating a situation where the form is of child bearing. This does not require each couple to have the potential in reality, just to have that outward form. Man/woman as the standard is the way we create that form.

    As marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman it fulfills its purpose of creating a stable environment to raise children. We allow marriages to dissolve for many reasons, but that does not mean we should allow things that cannot ever be marriages.

    The other troubling result of Kennedy's ruling is that it will fuel refusals to grant any rights to those who disagree with things other than man/woman marriage. By presenting them as bigots it will justify denying them 1st amendment rights to chose how to speak, and specifically chose not to lend their speech in support of ceremonies that they object to.

  • Tumbleweed Centerville, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:29 a.m.

    16,000 people die each year from AIDS in the US. Most young men having sex with men (MSM). The media barely even covers this.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 7:03 a.m.

    I doubt that we'll get gay marriage in all 50 states within 5 years, but it WILL come. Maybe 10 years.

    I look forward to that day.

    @John --

    Once again, you continue to ignore the fact that gay couples can raise children just as easily as any other infertile couples can.

    Hundreds of thousands of children are ALREADY being raised by gay couples, with or without marriage. Denying gay marriage to these couples won't change that. But allowing gay marriage will HELP those kids, by encouraging stable families.

    Gay marriage HELPS children.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    June 28, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    Advocates for same-sex marriage predicted Thursday that in five years, "we will bring marriage equality to all 50 of our states."

    I predict we will see a more serious secession movement than ever before. The Federal Government is becoming more tyrannical than the King of England ever was.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    @Tumbleweed --

    "16,000 people die each year from AIDS in the US. Most young men having sex with men (MSM). The media barely even covers this."

    If you are concerned about HIV, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages STABLE, MONOGAMOUS relationships -- which decrease the transmission of STDs.

    @John --

    "Marriage is about creating a situation where the form is of child bearing. This does not require each couple to have the potential in reality, just to have that outward form."

    Marriage isn't about "form", John -- marriage is indeed about REALITY.

    And the REALITY is that gay couples can raise children just as easily as any other infertile couples.

    Another reality is that gay couples are ALREADY raising hundreds of thousands of children -- with or without marriage. Denying gays the right to marry wouldn't change that. So the issue of childrearing is a red herring.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    @John Pack

    The history of marriage shows that marriage used to be for raising of children, but not for the idealistic reasons we apply to it. Marriages were arranged for political/family reasons, and children were born as labor to help the financial goals of the family. It's just been the past few hundred years that marriages were for the romantic reasons of the couple. Today, marriages are for companionship and not for rearing children. And, marriage seems to be going out of style as more and more couples live together without marriage.

    Concerning gay marriages, I think the only solution that will work is to remove government from marriages and let government focus on civil rights through social unions. Marriage today is a social function and should be regulated by social groups, churches being just one of the social categories.

    Government = civil unions
    Social groups = marriage

    Some people advocate that all marriages be civil marriages regulated by government and that all persons be required to have civil marriages. Then, persons choosing so could have ceremonies by the church or social organization of their choice. This might work, although it would have more government regulation than I would like.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    All current Utah laws that reference the term "marriage" should be changed to the term "heterosexual marriage." As a result, there will be no claim of discrimination. Nothing to do in Utah, but try to pass "homosexual marriage" laws, instead of piggybacking on decades of laws that reference marriage.

  • trueconservative Northern Utah, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    The lies that people tell regarding the stability of homosexual relationships is staggering. Plain and simple homosexuals want to be on the same playing field as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, which they never will be. Studies have shown that even in a committed relationship,male homosexuals will have 5 to 8 sexual partners a year. In "The Male Couple", authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. This study hardly spells a wholesome environment to raise children that so many champions for this cause are stating. What on earth are we doing here! Marriage between a man and a woman has worked for thousands of years. Why are we wanting to define marriage so differently from its origins?

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    @John20000

    Even better would be to revoke all Utah laws referencing marriage. Let's get government out of the business of regulating marriage. Let government focus on civil liberties via social unions.

    Government = social unions
    Social groups = marriage

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    And so the fight to redefine marriage, one more means of demeaning and devaluing it, will continue.

    Anyone actually surprised by this?

    The forces of evil have **always** been as relentless and those for good. I suspect that fact will remain in the future.

    The trick is figuring out how to distinguish between the two and then, most importantly, face toward and push for that which is good.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    @trueconservative;

    3 of my 5 siblings have been divorced and are on their 2nd marriage, a 4th is in the process of getting a divorce. My heterosexual father had multiple affairs while married to my heterosexual mother. I've worked with numerous heterosexuals who were in the midst of an affair. Should we ban heterosexual marriage then, because heterosexual men are having affairs? You should talk to one of your LDS Bishops and ask the simple question, "approximately how often do you have to deal with infidelity in your calling"? You will be stunned, STUNNED, at how often they have to deal with infidelity.

    But, I'm with you. Anybody who has been unfaithful to their significant other/spouse should NEVER be allowed to re-marry. How does that work for you?

  • Blue AZ Cougar ,
    June 28, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    @trueconservative

    Well said. What this debate really boils down to is validation. Same-sex supporters are asking that the government and the rest of society validate their choices and feelings. A law like Proposition 22 or a state constitutional amendment like Proposition 8 do not prevent ANYTHING in the bedrooms of same-sex couples.

    So what is it that same-sex couples want? They say equality. There's equality of federal tax benefits, which I think is a legitimate concern. But equality in the sense that "my marriage is the same as yours" -- not so much. You cannot force people to swallow their morals and accept same-sex marriage as valid -- people fundamentally disagree with the practice.

    Don't come looking for validation of your marriage from me. I have no problem with equality in the sense of tax, housing, healthcare, etc. benefits. But you cannot require me to validate your marriage in the sense that it is morally acceptable, because I don't believe it is.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    @trueconservative --

    Here's a dose of reality for you:

    Legal gay partnerships actually appear to break up at roughly HALF the rate of straight partnerships, from the data we have so far.

    "In the states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples ...ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or ***1.1% on average***, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually."
    -- from "Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States", published in 2011 by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

    If you oppose promiscuity, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage ENCOURAGES monogamous, stable relationships.

    Gay couples are ALREADY raising hundreds of thousands of children, with or without marriage. Attempting to deny marriage to gays won't change that.

    If children are important to you, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages stable families, and that is GOOD for children.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    "A day later, same-sex marriage advocates make a 5-year prediction"

    Of course they do. The tide is rolling their way. Now that the definition of marriage is being redefined to two people who love each other regardless of their gender, why not broaden the definition to be even more inclusive? Why stop at two people? What so magical about that number? There are many situations where children are being raised in homes with one dad and a few moms. Society has marginalized these families as well and shamed their children. They have been incarcerated for loving and marrying who they love. Where are their civil rights? The man loves all the women and they love him. Isn't that the new requirement for marriage? - love only. Marriage is about what the adults want, and if what they want isn't sanctioned by society then shame on society for oppressing them and their children!

    Society draws a line somewhere, or nowhere. Since gender doesn't matter any more, why should the number of adults?

    On so many levels marriage between one man and one woman makes the most sense, still.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    June 28, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    @amazondoc

    Those are good points. It's not as linear of an argument as you're portraying it (i.e. kids do better with 2 parents, ergo same-sex marriages = heterosexual marriages). Some people believe gay marriage is not the ideal environment for raising kids -- certainly the factual studies and science behind those claims have yet to be seen, but from a religious standpoint I think people have some basis. Regardless, that's an ancillary argument for opposing gay marriage (at least in my mind).

    Just out of curiosity, what is your religious affiliation (if you have one)? I actually really enjoy discussing the various points of view through these comments, even though nothing I say will persuade anyone else to change their mind, and vice versa.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 28, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    @Blue --

    "It's not as linear of an argument as you're portraying it"

    It isn't really a linear argument at all. It's more like three or four parallel arguments:

    1. gay couples are raising kids with or without gay marriage, so efforts to deny marriage to gays don't help children.

    2. gay couples aren't stealing kids from stable straight homes. Denying gay marriage doesn't increase the number of kids in straight homes, so, again, it doesn't help kids.

    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, so we have no right to invalidate gay marriages based on that same argument.

    "what is your religious affiliation"

    None of your business.

    Anything I say will be "used against me in a court of law" -- so I don't plan to disclose that info.

    I'll go so far as to say that: 1. I have been a regularish attendee in two different Christian denominations over the course of my life; and 2. my closest religious affiliation will actually be pretty obvious if you pay enough attention to my posts. :-)

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 28, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    @jeanie --

    "Why stop at two people?"

    Here we go again.

    1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens. Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal freedoms.
    -- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though they've had gay marriage for years now.

    2. adult incest (adult siblings, adult parent/children) -- illegal in every state because of public safety concerns. Not only is there the question of undue influence/coercion amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is very high (roughly 30-40%).
    -- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent court cases, in both state and Federal courts, which have very clearly and uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings DON'T apply to incest.

    3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It can't be removed.

    4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't** convey any special risk to public safety.

    The courts easily distinguish between these different practices -- even if you can't.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    @ Contrarius:

    You spew out a bunch of questionable assertions with your 4 point argument, but back none of it up with any valid statistics and/or sources. Where does your information come from?

    I've very seldom been able to find any "experts" that claim kids grow up just fine with gay parents, let alone any "wide expert agreement" contending such. Since not enough gay couples (for statistical relevancy) have been raising children long enough (less than a generation) to make any valid "expert" assertions, your claims again seem very suspect. Most reports I've read say that it's still too early to determine the extent or degree of negative effects that may result from that particular arrangement.

    As far as whether amazondoc wants to discuss his/her religion, that's his/her business, not yours. The question wasn't posed to you, so why stick your nose in it by answering for someone else? Maybe amazondoc doesn't figure it is anyone else's business, but let the person who was posed the question do the answering.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" go back and read the court case, and become informed on polygamy. The canadian case that you cite only states that the FLDS culture is bad, it does not say that polygamy is bad. In doing some reasearch about what women think about polygamy and the benefits, I found that many women would welcome it since it would give them a chance to have more adult help around the house.

    Actually gays do pose a risk to public safety. According to National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, up to 45% of lesbians are abused by their partners. In comparison, only 11% of women in heterosexual relationships report abuse. The fact that in the gay community there is so much more abuse than in the straight community should bother you and your ilk. Why promote a lifestyle that tends to be so abusive?

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 28, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    @Tators --

    "You spew out a bunch of questionable assertions with your 4 point argument, but back none of it up with any valid statistics and/or sources."

    We only get 200 words per post, sorry!

    "Where does your information come from?"

    You'll have to be more specific.

    "I've very seldom been able to find any 'experts' that claim kids grow up just fine with gay parents"

    The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the National Association of Social Workers ALL support gay marriage -- because they agree that kids grow up fine with gay parents.

    From the position statement of AAP: "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" and "Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development".

    From the APA: "...children raised by same-sex couples have been shown to be on par with the children of opposite-sex couples in their psychological adjustment, cognitive abilities and social functioning."

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 28, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "it does not say that polygamy is bad."

    Judge Bauman specifically stated: "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

    Keep trying, Red.

    "According to National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, up to 45% of lesbians are abused by their partners."

    PARTNERS. That can mean opposite-sex partners as well as same-sex.

    From their paper "Violence in Lesbian and Gay Relationships":
    -- "In a study asking about whether a same-sex relationships had suffered from physical abuse, 7% of 706 lesbian couples and 11% of 560 gay men couples indicated physical abuse had occurred."
    -- "Sexual abuse by a woman partner was reported by 1% of lesbians, but 20% of lesbians indicated having been sexually abused by a male partner. "
    -- "Design flaws in many studies also may exaggerate prevalence rates, e.g., when asking lesbians about abuse in previous relationships, some fail to distinguish between same- sex violence and previous violence by a male partner."

    Please try not to misrepresent the facts, Red.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    To "amazondoc" that is in the FLDS culture. Again, outside of the FLDS culture, you don't have the child bride issue or the hyper male dominance problems so the abuse, violence, and neglect problems don't exist.

    Justice Bauman doesn't know much about polygamy or people that have lived in it. His comments, like yours, show that you only know the FLDS and similar sects use of polygamy.

    Read Psychology Today's article "The paradox of polygamy II: Why most women benefit from polygamy and most men benefit from monogamy" There are also many other first person histories written about women in polygamy, and they report non of the problems that the judge claims.

    The biggest question is this. With nearly 50% of gay relationships experiencing violence and abuse, why were those legalized when the violence rate is less in plural marriages?

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 28, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "outside of the FLDS culture..."

    Sorry, Red, but your personal beliefs are not what matter in Constitutional issues. Facts, expertise, and law are the things that matter.

    Supreme Court justices -- whether American or Canadian -- do a heckuva lot of legal and factual research on these issues before they make their court decisions. If you disagree with them, take it up in court.

    "With nearly 50% of gay relationships experiencing violence and abuse"

    This simply isn't true, Red, as I've already shown you in a very recent post. Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

    Oh, I did manage to find one paper, nearly 20 years old, that claimed a 47% "victimization" rate for lesbian couples. Of course, they counted PUSHING as "victimization", so it's no wonder they found such a huge percentage.

    Facts, Red. Let's try for FACTS -- not hype.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:01 p.m.

    Contrarius, my friend -

    You are basing your opinion about polygamy on fringe groups and legal cases involving them, something you bristle at when it comes to the gay issue.

    Where I live there are many thousands of decendants from polygamists who are contributing citizens to our society, my husband and I being among them. You are showing your ignorance to assume polygamy is inherently dangerous when there are many written histories that prove otherwise and healthy, functioning decendants as evidence. Polygamy has a history upon which to base decisions, gay marriage does not.

    I do not condone polygamy. I bring it up as the next natural step in defining marriage if we continue this course. If it's not about gender, then why should it be about a specific number?

    If two loving parents are good for kids wouldn't three or four loving parents be better? Why humiliate the children who currently live in a polygamist home? There are thousands. Why punish them for what you see as the shortcomings of their parents? What have they done to deserve that? Marriage equality for all, or does your line get drawn just after your issue is deemed acceptable?

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    June 28, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    @plainbrownwrapper
    @RedShirt

    I agree with both of you to a certain degree. Let the facts and studies be reflected accurately and without bias on either side. That said, the several points that RedShirt is arguing, while important, are not the foundation for the disagreement. Rather, these studies and their resultant conclusions are ancillary to the real issue, which is that same-sex marriage proponents want society to validate their actions, choices and feelings by allowing SS marriage to stand on equal footing with traditional marriage.

    Let me put it this way: I don't pay my tithing because I get a tax break. I pay my tithing because God commanded it. Similarly, I did not marry so I could check the "MFJ" box on my taxes. I got married because God commanded it. If SS couples want tax breaks, fine. The LDS church has always been in favor of benefits for committed same-sex partnerships. But please don't expect me to condone your actions on a moral or religious level, and certainly don't ask me to view your marriage in the same way as mine.

    "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 28, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    @jeanie --

    Hiya, Jeanie. :-)

    "fringe groups and legal cases involving them..."

    Nope.

    Read Bauman's statement again. He's the Chief Justice of British Columbia's Supreme Court. As he specifically found, polygamy's harms occur regardless of religion or cultural group.

    "Where I live there are many thousands of decendants from polygamists...."

    I have no personal animosity towards polygamists or their descendants. I knew quite a few descendants of polygamists when I lived in SLC. Fine folk.

    I have *only* been setting down the societal and legal reasons that explain why polygamy is not bound to homosexuality in these constitutional debates -- not condemning the people who have practiced or continue to practice polygamy.

    "Polygamy has a history upon which to base decisions"

    Right -- and that history clearly demonstrates those dangers, as elucidated by Bauman and others.

    Remember, polygamy has been practiced by many religions and cultures -- and it is **never** found in truly egalitarian societies. That tells you something very important.

    "does your line get drawn just after your issue is deemed acceptable?"

    The line gets drawn at the point of public safety -- significant risk of harm to others. And polygamy is on the wrong side of that line.

  • steeleute Sandy, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    Gay marriage is not good for children. It is wrong for adopted children to be forced to have two mothers and two fathers. A child nurtured by a MOTHER and a FATHER is the best situation for a child to be raised.

  • steeleute Sandy, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    It's sad what our country has come to. Thank goodness the founding fathers aren't around to see this day. Whether you're a gay supporter or not just mark my words: This country will not prosper as our morals decline. I don't want arguments I just want people to OBSERVE how un-prosperous our nation will become.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    June 28, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    I love reading the weak arguments against allow two consenting adults who love each other from being married, all antiquated and non-sequitur arguments akin to moral superiority and ignorance I might add. So here is an idea for those bent out of shape with the recent rulings, work on strengthening your marriages (if you are married) work on that, and mind your own business. Don't worry about what others are doing, if you have strong moral objections to various social issues, live your life as an example of those strong moral leanings, and don’t go wagging and pointing your finger at others.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    June 28, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    @ParkCityAggie

    Whoever said we're worried about what other people are doing? This isn't about same-sex acts that occur in the privacy of one's home, this is about defining marriage for our society. This is about setting the precedent that society must recognize SS marriage as a legal AND moral equivalent to traditional marriage. Prop 22 and Prop 8 were never designed to criminalize same-sex acts. Any two consenting adults may do as they please in the privacy of their own home.

    When I hear comments like yours, it makes me think back to the several times I've been called a bigot. You know what the definition is? A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Take a second to read that, then read your last post.

    "Equality" in our nation comes in 2 forms -- legal and social. You can mandate one but not the other. If it's legal rights you want, I'm all for it. But you cannot legislate social acceptance of one's behaviors (religious or otherwise), and you cannot deny my right to free speech simply because it is inconsistent with your views on same-sex marriage.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    June 28, 2013 4:11 p.m.

    Hi Contrarius -

    The opinion of a Supreme Court judge in British Columbia does not counter the overwhelming evidence that polygamy itself is not problematic to society. How it is practiced - like any union, gay, straight or polygamist - can create significant harm to others. The descendants of polygamists in Utah have demonstrated that polygamy can be lived successfully and produce healthy, happy, successful citizens - as you are aware.

    If gay marriage is ok, then polygamy should be too as long as it is between consenting adults, as required by any marriage.

    Since I have no other screen name this is all I have to say.....here. :)

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 28, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    @jeanie --

    "overwhelming evidence that polygamy itself is not problematic to society."

    I dispute that there actually *is* overwhelming evidence to that effect -- and Bauman found what he considered "overwhelming" evidence to the contrary.

    The simple fact that we constantly hear about the mistreatment of both women and children in polygamous societies -- both in the US and around the globe -- would strongly speak against your supposed evidence.

    "polygamy should be too as long as it is between consenting adults, as required by any marriage."

    But all you have offered is personal opinion -- and personal opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight in a court of law.

    In a perfectly egalitarian society, I myself wouldn't have any moral objection to polygamy. Unfortunately, humanity has never (yet) created a truly egalitarian culture -- at least not to any large scale or long-lasting effect -- and in our current unbalanced systems, polygamy just presents too many risks to those women and children (both according to MHO and according to the facts and legalities found by Bauman and others).

    Maybe in the future, when women are actually treated as true equals, we can give both polygyny and polyandry another shot. :-)

  • Wingnut1 USA, UT
    June 28, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    When someone asks why you have to take history class, the teacher always says because we have to learn from history, or we will repeat it. Correct? For those who believe in the bible, Sodom and Gomorrah embraced homosexuality, and they were destroyed. Now for those who don't believe in the bible, Rome embraced homosexuality, and their society fell apart. Greece embraced homosexuality, and their society fell apart. Now America.... Just fill in the blanks :) I can tolerate someone who is homosexual, but I cannot tolerate homosexuality. I should not be asked to tolerate something that will destroy my freedom of Religion which was the right that our country was founded upon.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    June 28, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    Contrarius - You are talking about polygamy the same way gays were talked about not too long ago. It will only be a matter of time (and a good PR machine) for other combinations to win their "civil rights".

    Just to be clear, I support marriage between only one man and one woman - unequivocally. But if society is willing to change the definition for one minority, why should it prohibit another?

    I guess I had one comment left!

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 5:35 p.m.

    FDRfan

    Advocates for same-sex marriage predicted Thursday that in five years, "we will bring marriage equality to all 50 of our states."

    I predict we will see a more serious secession movement than ever before. The Federal Government is becoming more tyrannical than the King of England ever was.

    The rhetoric we are having today mirrors what was taking place in 1861. The only difference is the subject being contended. Once again States and the Federal government are arrayed against each other In the past Blue VS Gray today Blue VS Red

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:54 p.m.

    I predict that in five years the left will have succeeded in tearing down much of the remaining, weakened, moral fiber of our society.

    They will continue to mock, belittle, and attack religion and traditional moral values, destroying as much as they can.

    It will be a more dangerous country to live in, for many reasons.

    But, on the marriage front, why NOT have more than one truly loved spouse, of any gender, or species for that matter. Why all the hatred for people who love their pet cats and dogs? Why deprive them of the right to visit, and inherit property, etc?

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 10:33 p.m.

    Polygamy in the United States still exists and has for over a hundred years notwithstanding all the anti-polygamy laws that the government has passed. The men still have multiple wives some of them minors yet the government just seems to look the other way in all but the most extreme cases. If same sex marriage is now legal in some states why should multiple Consenting Legal age individuals be denied those same rights? Now that the court has ruled, this will not go away. Heterosexual marriage made it an open and closed case. Now things have changed. When all the states legalize same-sex marriage, expect the anti polygamy laws to be overturned

  • Contrariusest Nashville, TN
    June 29, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    @zoar --

    " Now things have changed. When all the states legalize same-sex marriage, expect the anti polygamy laws to be overturned"

    Canada has already proven that the issues aren't inextricably linked together. Remember, they've had gay marriage for years.

    Several other countries also have gay marriage without polygamy.

    "why should multiple Consenting Legal age individuals be denied those same rights?"

    Same reasons as always. Significant risks to women and children.

    From Chief Justice Bauman's decision:

    -- "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial,"

    -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

    -- "Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

    -- "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 2, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    It's always amusing to me when good Latter Day Saints argue against gay marriage by exclaiming (gasp!) that the next horrible thing will be that POLYGAMY will be legal!! Just a bit of denial of history there I believe.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    July 29, 2013 3:29 p.m.

    you can try all kinds of verbal dance moves you choose. The plain truth remains: sodomy is still sin!!