Congratulations to the happy couple, and to Utah!
I think it speaks well of the people of the Utah County that such reconciliation
can be found and good feelings shared even in the face of an emotional issue
like this. It looks like every county in the State is complying with the
Congratulations to the newly weds!A living proof that it is just a
matter of time that marriage equality will win out.
Someone please look at those pictures and tell me why the government should
prohibit such joy. Congratulations to the happy couple, to Utah County, and the
State of Utah. Let love rule.
Still feel Thompson should be removed from office and do not buy his story for
Utah County was right to wait until after the decision was to not grant the stay
was made by a court rather than a single egotistical judge. Now that a court has
not granted the stay, every county has no choice but to grant the marriage
licenses. I have said it before and I will again. Although I don't support
it, I have no problem with the gay marriage movement as long as they don't
take it to the extreme where they are suing churches for not performing their
marriage for them and as long as they respect the religious rights of myself and
many others. I also would prefer it be done by the voice of the people rather
than courts, but that apparently is not going to happen as judges think they
should have more power than the constitution allows them (which is a problem
that spreads far beyond the gay marriage movement). I think it is a fair
compromise for both sides of this particular issue to put their differences
aside and respect the other group's rights to think, feel, or believe what
they think, feel, or believe.
Looking at a picture as evidence that something is working is not a reliable
criteria for whether it is working. If this doesn't describe the approach
of the leadership in Washington the past 50 years, I don't know what does.
The appearance of reality is better than reality.
The Mormon church agrees that sexual relations are also "to express love for
one another" as another function besides procreation. But, says the Church,
such sexual expression of love can only be allowed within the bonds of
marriage.At least in the civil realm, could the church then not
accept that a legally-married gay or lesbian couple is not sinning? According to
Mormon morals, it would be preferable for them to marry rather than having sex
outside the bonds of marriage. It would be such a simple step to acknowledge
that, while still upholding the traditional-marriage-rule for church members.
"I am not a hater, but to continue to devalue the purity of marriage for the
"Gay" community is disheartening."----------Oh, please. Marriage has been devalued already by plenty of heterosexuals
before these two loving people took that civil commitment. You may think it is
fine and does not tarnish the word if Brittany Spears was married for 27 hours,
or that Ted Bundy was allowed to marry before he was executed, but I think all
of us have our own houses to clean before we complain about a couple that has
been together for as long as these two have finally being able to celebrate
their county granting them a license.Congratulations to them!
@TN CougarPeople can believe all they want, whether they oppose same
sex marriage, or like the majority of American general public and 70-80% of
young generation who support same sex marriage. But we have to agree, young
generation's opinion matters more for this issue, and that is why like it
or not, marriage equality is inevitable. @Billy BobSome
pastors decline to marry divorcees, and no one can prosecute them. There is no
need to worry priests may be sued because of not marrying gays.Also,
whether SSM is legalized by popular vote like in WA, MA, ME, or by legislature
like in NH, VT, NY, RI, MN, DE, IL, DC, or by court order, they are all playing
by the rules. After all, legislature and independent judiciary are both key
elements of "check and balance" set by founding fathers.
@TN Cougar --"it is wrong to attempt to destroy traditional
American family values. "There is nothing about gay marriage
which requires "destroying traditional American family values".Gay people who wish to marry cherish the very same traditional values of love
and commitment as any other couples wanting to marry."Liberals/anti-religionists will never be happy until they make everyone
as miserable as they are."Yet again -- this isn't a
question of "Religion vs. The Gay".Many Christian
denominations are already happy to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.And many gay people are devout Christians.@omahahusker --"If two people want to have relations that fall outside the norms of
biology "What does "the norm of biology" have to do with
morality?I am left-handed -- representing 10% of the population. Is
left-handedness immoral?I am also very tall -- taller than 95% of
women my age. Am I therefore immoral?Don't confuse
"norm" with right and wrong.In fact, many many nonhuman
species practice homosexual behaviors out in nature. Therefore, it's
perfectly natural."to grant the the prize of marriage by
activist judges is clearly against the wishes of the founders of the
constitution. "How so?
I've said it before but it's worth saying again:"How
many legs has a dog, if you call a tail a leg? Five? No. Four. Calling a tail a
leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham LincolnIf the
government classifies an SUV as farm equipment for tax and emissions regulation
purposes, does that make it farm equipment? No. That's absurd.If the government classifies a homosexual relationship as a marriage, does it
make it a marriage? No. It's still not a marriage. It's still a sham.
CONGRATULATIONS!!! So excited to see love and equality win over ignorance and
hate. The utahans I know are much more loving and accepting that what you see in
blogs and on TV. Utah county takes one step closer to being a more Christian
place to live.
This is something that is so hard for me to understand why men/women seem to
have a desire to marry each other. As a wife of 69 years, I am so grateful for
a husband who helps me, and also for the wonderful children, grandchildren,
greatgrandchildren and great greatgrandchildren that I have that they will never
have to bless their life.
@ ProdicusWhat is traditional marriage and when did it begin?I'm confused because I read through history and see:•
Abraham had many wives (even married one of his half-sisters) and concubines (is
that traditional marriage?)• Arranged marriages to promoting family
ties and/or exchange of land and wealth (is that traditional marriage?)• Serial Monogamy, those who divorce and remarry multiple times (is that
traditional marriage?)• Polygamy, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young
said that was required to gain the highest glory (is that traditional
marriage?)• Monogamy becomes the standard for the LDS faithful in
1890 (is that traditional marriage?)I'm confused. What is
traditional marriage and when did it begin?
@ProdicusIf you want to believe same sex marriage is "not a
marriage. It's still a sham", no one will force you to change your
belief, and frankly, many same sex couples don't even care. What truly matters to them is that their marriages are recognized by the
government, they now have equal protection and equal liberty under the US
constitution. whether other people like it or not, after all, the government can
no longer deny their 1100+ rights and benefits under the law. That is what they
Does legalized same-sex marriage open the door for legalized polygamy? How
about for other prohibited marriages such as to a sibling or relative?If the argument is over equality in marriage not social or religious
immorality, shouldn't those other types of prohibited marriages also be
To BYU-2000All you need is look up the term marriage, origin and
came abouts.It started with the use of the word, somewhere in the
beginning of dark ages.But when did they start the term
"traditional marriage", I guess in our time.I think many people
like to be not bothered by these issues, and I do believe the SSM community has
many nice and hard working people, just the propaganda elite is suspect to
me.That elite is driving us all nuts, to change terms and
definitions until we all give up.That is why we need to keep talking about
it, and hold up some clear view what life is really about, or else they win over
society, elections and our children' future.
What is a traditional marriage? Well, we've only got a few thousand years
of history to work with in forming an answer. Whether polygamy or monogamy,
males were paired with females and vice versa. Even ancient societies that
tolerated or encouraged homosexual behavior didn't attempt to marry the
individuals involved. It takes the decadent modern mind to come up with such an
idea. Also, I don't understand Christians or Jews who encourage "gay
marrioage." Homosexual behavior is condemned in the strictest of terms in
both the Old and New Testaments.
How does it hurt us if same-sex marriage is legalized? What is the downside?1- It violates the long held axiom that the family is the basic unit of
society which is held by the majority of Americans (homosexuals are citing
dubious polls to argue their point of view) but constitutional amendments in 33
states refute that illusion. It is offensive to supporters of traditional
marriage to have this notion of "alternate legal definitions of
marriage" shoved down our throats by activist judges.2- It introduces
an un-natural biology (sodomy does not produce offspring)3- Children
reared by homosexual parents are disadvantaged."In a historic study of
children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the
University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom
that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by
their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science
Research, the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever
conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these
groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal"
(Regnerus' word) in almost every category".Just a few of
the reasons how same sex marriage negatively impacts us!
That is what I can't wrap my head around... the definition keeps changing,
so how can the argument be framed using the term "traditional marriage."
My opinion is that the government shouldn't be in the business
of marriage. It should grant civil unions only. And let churches perform
marriages. Straight people can get married at the church of their choosing. Gay
people can get married at the church of their choosing. Everyone can do what
they want. Some churches will never recognize gay marriages just like some
churches still do not recognize interracial marriages. That is their choice.
So sad that the voice of the people is just cast aside. This country was
supposed to be governed by the people, not by a few judges. The
thing that gets me is that they said "if you don't like gay marriage,
don't get one!" which was fine, but now they're saying "you
still have to make our wedding cake, and take our wedding pictures, and
participate in whatever way we want you to because if you don't, we're
going to sue you." I feel like I'm losing my voice.
@Meckofahess"It violates the long held axiom that the family is the
basic unit of society which is held by the majority of Americans (homosexuals
are citing dubious polls to argue their point of view)"Just
about every poll this year shows majority support for same-sex marriage. Not my
fault you deny reality. As for the family being the basic unit of society...
you're the ones trying to break up a particular type of families. "2- It introduces an un-natural biology (sodomy does not produce
offspring)"There's no offspring requirement in marriage.
This is completely irrelevant and not any sort of "downside" since gay
people are gay, married or not. "Mark Regnerus "Whose study compared families with a married mother and father to families to
any family with a gay parent(s) which is not the same as comparing a married
heterosexual couple led family to a married homosexual couple led family.
@ MeckofahessYour claims are bogus, as are most claims of the right
wing.Regnes' study does NOT say what you claim. "Indeed, the study acknowledges that what it's really comparing with
heterosexual families is not families headed by a same-sex couple but households
in which parents broke up. A failed heterosexual union, Regnerus writes in the
study, is clearly the modal method the most common characteristic for the group
that he lumps in with same-sex-headed households. For example, most of the
respondents who said their mothers had a lesbian relationship also endured the
searing experience of having their mothers leave the household as the family
collapsed.In other words, Regnerus is concluding that when families
endure a shattering separation, it is likely to shatter the lives of those in
them. And this is news?Not only is it not news, it keeps alive the
mistaken impression that social science is on the side of anti-gay policy and
law."If you can't be honest in your statements, don't
join in the discussion. A simple Google search would tell you the truth.
grandmagreat:There are plenty of things I don't understand the
appeal of. I can't stand to watch more than a few minutes of "reality
television" and professional sports just bore me to death. It doesn't
mean I want to use the law to forbid others from enjoying them. As long as it
doesn't impact me in a negative way, what do I have to complain about?
And in speaking of sibling marrying sibling, we already found that procreative
possibility or danger is not justifiable grounds to prohibit a loving brother
and sister from tying the knot as man and wife... I mean, that is just a matter
of due consequence for what we have seen over the last few weeks. Polygamists
should once again from sea to shining sea be able to marry legally to each
other. Marriage was not defined by the constitution, therefore, any law that
does otherwise is unconstitutional! Due process... Fine! Just let everyone
win... Morality comes from within, laws and legality don't force it on
anyone! However, within the realm of religious institutions, do not EVER expect
things to change... And do keep in mind the eternal perspective... Is 100 years
worth damning a period of time beyond mere mortal comprehension!?
It took a bit, but it's nice to see people getting their rights and
exercising them. Congratulations to everyone who got married.
@ProdicusI always fall for Lincoln quotes...even those out of
context.To continue your metaphor...If the scotus
classifies a corporation as a person...(See Citizens United)It IS absurd and a sham.
Art, poetry, liturature, sunsets, flowers, beaches, music, dance, science,
invention- all spice up our life; some only want to speak of one subject.
There is more than one key on a piano.
Disagreement with same-sex marriage is not 'hate' nor is it
'bigotry' -- what is bigotry is the intolerance of those who continue
to trash those who disagree with same-sex marriage on religious and personal
Maybe now is the time for the state (county) to stop issuing marriage licenses
in the state of Utah. What would be the harm? If marriage is simply a religious
or moral issue, it doesn't need to be governed by the state. From what the
10th Circuit Court has said, no citizen or the state would be harmed by giving
out same-sex marriage licenses. Just being in possession of a marriage license
doesn't make the living arrangement, "normal." Marriage
license could be replaced by civil contracts such as a prenuptial agreement, if
the two parties (or more as in polygamy) thought that it was necessary. Groups
such as the churches, atheists, homosexuals, etc. could make up their own
cohabitation contracts for their organizations, if they wanted too. People could
cohabitate in anyway that they wanted, as long as it didn't harm the state
or individuals. If there was a contract disagreement that could be adjudicated
by the courts, just as we do other contract disagreements. This is generally
what is done in a divorce anyway. If there is no contract, child and property
settlements could still be adjudicated by the court.
@Wilf 55"At least in the civil realm, could the church then not
accept that a legally-married gay or lesbian couple is not sinning?" That would be a subtle but extremely significant change that I'm
positive will never happen. My understanding of the position of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is what was taught (I believe in the last
conference) that there are many actions that are sins (or immoral) but still
legal. God expects us to keep the higher law and stay away from the immoral
whether it's legal or not.I think what you are suggesting would
be one more philosophical step in the demise of religion and the justification
When I was fourteen, I was taking a creative writing class in school. They other
students whispered that the teacher was gay and then told me she liked me. I was
so upset that I transferred and quit writing. I was not no prepared emotionally
for dealing with it. I don't think I ever could have been. For this reason,
among others, I am against gay marriage. If I had known she was married, too, I
believe I would have really freaked me out ever more. So now I have given you an
example as to why I believe children should be kept safe in traditional
marriage. I have relatives that are gay. I love them, but I cry for them when I
hear about the choices they are making. I literally just want the whole thing to
just go away, but I guess it won't.
@Brer Rabbit "Maybe now is the time for the state (county) to
stop issuing marriage licenses in the state of Utah. What would be the
harm?" Wait a minute. SSM proponents just won the rulings for
SSM. They fought and fought for the right to legally marry. An now you're
saying govt. should not even issue marriage licenses. Is that a turnabout to
I promise that every pro-family, pro-marriage and Christian group in the country
is now jumping on board with the State of Utah. They are offering expertise,
resources and any other help they have in order to help the State fight this
thing. Godspeed in all their efforts.
@ ContrariuserThere you go again. It is not perfectly natural nor
will it ever be. I challenge you to look up the health risks on google. It has
been claimed that it's 3 times more harmful than smoking. The fact that
coitus between two men and even sexual relations between two women is physically
harmful is so very obvious if you know anything at all about anatomy or
physiology and especially about communicable diseases. Do some real research
rather than just parroting back the typical and tiresome talking points of gays.
Bob K, nice try but you're way out of bounds with the facts. If you have 5
sons there is NOT a likelihood one of them is gay. The old statistic used by
the LGBT community was 10%. I can tell you that of all my family and my
wife's family we have one gay relative among about 70 persons. Many
families have none at all.It's also pretty apparent that the
young, liberal thinking persons (every generation generally starts this way and
then turns conservative as they grow older) think it is ok and should be
allowed. Obviously they have no regard whatever for the scriptures in either
the Old or New Testament. They also embrace adultery and personal perversions,
as long as it feels good. Nor do they understand why living together outside
marriage, divorce for convenience only or incest is bad. They ignore the
Proclamation on the Family and follow whatever trend is next in a long line of
questionable behavior, all in the name of freedom and pleasure. They
wouldn't approve polygamy but they'd sure support nudity, adultery and
This isn't about equality. Homosexuals already have the same rights that
the rest of us have. But they don't want that they want marriage changed to
fit their own fancy!
@Laura Ann"If you don't believe in the Bible, then, except in
other religions such as Muslim, which believes in their own theology which
prohibits such behavior, then I guess anything goes for you."New
Hampshire is the state with the highest percentage of atheists. It's also
the state with the lowest (least) crime rates. Atheists are just as good at
following the common standard (law) as members of other faiths and they
certainly have morals. Incidentally, I worry about anyone who
can't imagine how they would have morals if they weren't religious.@Wilf 55"At least in the civil realm, could the church
then not accept that a legally-married gay or lesbian couple is not
sinning?" The church doesn't recognize that kind of
marriage and would thus still consider it a sin.@Cats"I
promise that every pro-family, pro-marriage and Christian group in the country
is now jumping on board with the State of Utah."Oh good, now
maybe we can figure out the answer to 'how many activists does it take to
figure out how to constitutionally defend a marriage amendment'.
Wouldn't count on it.
The word marriage has been changing throughout history:1 --- From
prearranged relationships to those based on contractual agreements2
--- From contractual agreements to those involved to form allegiances and
bonds3 --- To relationships based on romantic notions4
--- to relationships where only the the elite, land-owners, male had privilege
of inheritance and divorce5 --- to relationships where women
eventually earned the right to own property themselves6 --- to
arrangements where those who were enslaved or had been enslaved did not have
arrangements akin to marriage, but were, in fact, married.7 --- to
marriages where the ban on interracial relations were put aside and left to
history8 ---to the eventual development of no-fault divorce.Wherein exactly did the SSM community change these definitions?How did people stand in relation to their religious beliefs every time the
definition of marriage changed?Did people use the argument of
"let's do it for the children?" and if so... what happened to that
@ VinceIsn't it obvious? They were always between people of opposite
O'Really,It isn't obvious.They were not, in
fact, always of opposite genders. Early Medieval Europe had recognized
relationships akin to marriage and many Native tribes have recognized same sex
marriages since before European colonization.
Firefly,Admiring this picture says nothing about happiness- not
theirs, their loved ones, children, etc.In records both modern,
ancient, revealed and man-made, and from voices within each family and in each
chapel- you will hear those testifying that they returned from living a life of
choices which caused them pain. We do not speak in bitterness or hatred for a
mere desire to be politically dogmatic or prohibiting. We speak from a safe
harbor. We've made it and want to help others do the same so they can avoid
a painful life, numb of joy. It's about helping people.People
get so far away from the gospel that they forget what it's about: helping
people remember who they are, who their Heavenly Parents are, and the love they
can feel in their lives. Having recently entered the temple for the first time
in over a decade, I can surely declare the happiness found from temple
blessings. Constantly turning away from the truth may temporarily satisfy
emotional voids or physical urges, but nothing can replace or satisfy the desire
for happiness except returning to the Savior and feeling His love.
Such a lot of silly anti-gay comments here. "Grandmagreat," what on
earth makes you think that gays and lesbians can't be blessed with
children, grandchildren, and more? They already are. (And not all straight
people want children, believe it or not.) Open your hearts, people, and your
eyes and your minds. Live and let live. Do unto others as you'd have them
do unto you.
"The Mormon church agrees that sexual relations are also 'to express
love for one another...'"I don't think the church
meant 'sexual relations' as in how homosexuals engage."At least in the civil realm, could the church then not accept that a
legally-married gay... couple is not sinning?'The church calls
SSM not a marriage. Accordingly, they're not married. Thus, their sexual
relations are considered by the church not acceptable."In fact,
many many nonhuman species practice homosexual behaviors out in nature.
Therefore, it's perfectly natural."Some animals even kill
and eat their young."Abraham had many wives (even married one of
his half-sisters) and concubines (is that traditional marriage?)"No. It's called a polygamous marriage... and apparently approved by God
as we can see the the Christian Bible."What truly matters to
them is that their marriages are recognized by the government..."Those benefits are available through a regular marriage... available to
all."If the argument is over equality in marriage not social or
religious immorality, shouldn't those other types of prohibited marriages
(polygamy, incest, juvenile, etc.) also be allowed?"Sounds
These country clerks were simply following Utah law... which states, marriage is
between one man and one woman. Clerks might be breaking state law by issuing
these licenses. The judgement by Shelby was about an amendment to the State
Constitution.It has been prophesied that Salt Lake City will, one
day, be the wickedest city in the world. Maybe Utah County ain't far
behind.If the picture was of two siblings or a man and two women,
would you think it would also be joy? If not, why not?Some
people's objectives seems to be to totally do away with moral code. So far
Utah is on track.
... As a BYU alumni, who is Gay and a former Mormon, I'm glad to see Utah
County - the home of the Y - comply with the law. Not in my wildest imagination,
could I have seen this coming when I transferred from New Mexico Highlands
University to BYU in '66. Change and progress is possible, it's all
about education as well as people "Coming Out." With the new
developments in Rome with the Pope, I trust LDS Church leaders will realize this
is a human rights issue, nothing more, nothing less.
The voters did the right thing by approving marriage between a man and a woman.
The judge did the wrong thing by overturning the will of the people.
There's still hope in the higher court.
Highland, UT@ ProdicusTo answer your question about
traditional marriage and when it began, I remind you that November 2, 2004,
Amendment 3 was approved by 66% of Utah voters, defining marriage between a man
and a woman. The courts were wrong in June, and wrong again last week in
overturning the will of the people.
I'm rather annoyed that conservatives, who rail on and on about wasting tax
dollars, are going to hire outside counsel on this.
@ Vince hereWell said!
VA SaintChester, VA"Disagreement with same-sex marriage is not
'hate' nor is it 'bigotry' -- what is bigotry is the
intolerance of those who continue to trash those who disagree with same-sex
marriage on religious and personal grounds"... Oh, please!
Polite disagreement is fine, but comparing someone's love to bestiality and
terrorism, etc., is rude and unkind. If you can't open your mouth to a Gay
person without giving a sermon about Bible passages and your other beliefs, you
are a bore. If you defend the lady who made love bouquets for 2 men for 9 years,
but broke their hearts by refusing to do the wedding (after her church fought
the law), you do not seem very Christian to me.Even in States where
discrimination is forbidden, almost any Gay person is fine with a polite request
to trade elsewhere.If you do not allow that a Gay person is a Christian
also - rude!CharlemagneSalt Lake City, Utah"This
isn't about equality. Homosexuals already have the same rights that the
rest of us have."... NO, not true -- without marriage, no
sharing health benefits, pensions, Social Security, joint tax returns,
inheritance by spouses, and hundreds more.
Sin is sin no matter how it is dressed up or clad in emotion
@Guywithaquestion --"Does legalized same-sex marriage open the
door for legalized polygamy?"Individual rights are always
limited by harm.Polygamy, incest, etc. convey significantly
increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage.Gay
marriage does not.It's a very simple distinction.@Bloodhound --"Even ancient societies that tolerated or
encouraged homosexual behavior didn't attempt to marry the individuals
involved."That's untrue.Same-sex marriages were
even practiced as far back as the Assyrian culture. They were also known in Rome
as early as 600 BC. In fact, Rome didn't fall until roughly 300 years AFTER
they made same-sex marriage illegal. Same-sex marriage contracts are known from
other cultures as well, including China, where homosexual relations were
considered essentially normal until the invasion of Western values.'"Homosexual behavior is condemned in the strictest of terms in
both the Old and New Testaments."Jesus never said a word against
homosexuality. The ONLY person who spoke against it in the NT was Paul. Paul
also supported slavery, thought women were inferior to men, thought that nobody
should ever get divorced, and thought it was better to remain single than to
marry.Do you believe everything Paul said?
@Jake2010 --"we already found that procreative possibility or
danger is not justifiable grounds to prohibit a loving brother and sister from
tying the knot as man and wife..."No we didn't.Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. But danger in procreation is
still a valid reason for banning incest, according to states' interests."Polygamists should once again from sea to shining sea be able to
marry legally to each other."Here we go again.Harm
always limits individual freedoms.Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey
significantly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage.Gay marriage does not.It's a very simple
distinction.Look up the harm principle.@Laura Ann --"If you don't believe in the Bible, ...then I guess anything
goes"Morality is not dependent on religion. Heck, I knew that
much by the 4th grade."Why is it wrong to steal?"Because it does harm, of course."The ten commandments are
being completely ignored."There is no commandment which says
"thou shalt not be homosexual".
Come on, people. Take a deep breath. The panic over same-sex marriage is silly.
Society is not going to fall apart by simply allowing the maybe 5% of people who
are gay to marry each other. No one who is not already gay is going to forego a
heterosexual relationship because of this ruling. Besides, where do you think
gay people come from? They come from average, normal, heterosexual families.
They're our brothers and sisters, our aunts and uncles, our children, our
cousins. About 1 in 20, forever and always. Allowing them to bond and marry with
their own kind doesn't hurt the other 19 out of 20 of us, and never will.
In fact, it might make us happier to know that these few children or relatives
of ours won't be outcasts and can live a happy and relatively successful
life, with someone to care for who also cares for them.
Dear Billy Bob, You can be your bottom dollar that the Gay community will not
stop at just a "civil" marriage. The next "tick" on their list
is getting a "Church or Temple" marriage. Watch and see. Millions of
dollars will be spent on Churches protecting their doctrines and practices. I hope I can ask this next question (Deseret News): I have always
wondered, if same sex marriage is between two women, why does one of them always
dress like a man? I see it over and over again. Is it just me or has anyone else
The federal courts have required the state of Utah to extend to SSM the benefits
traditionally provided to heterosexual couples. However, by definition a SSM has
neither the power nor the inclination to provide to the state in return the same
benefits as a traditional couple. As a consequence the state stands to lose the
legal capacity to require heterosexual couples to feed, clothe, shelter,
nurture, correct, and teach their children as a condition of marriage. The equal
protection clause cuts both ways.The commitment traditionally
required of heterosexual couples is significant and extends far beyond the
coming of age of the youngest child. It is common for a married couple to
dedicate the majority of their time and resources for fifty years or longer to
the proposition of ensuring that their own children are cared for, and then
watched over and mentored as they themselves become parents. It is impossible to
overestimate the value of this commitment to society. Even childless couples
play a valuable role through adoption, should they choose to adopt, and gender
role modeling.While the joy of same sex couples at receiving this
undeserved gift is understandable, the long-term social consequences may be
TO disagree is not hate.Many believe Adultery is wrong, but none claim
that they hate all adulterers.I believe homosexual activity is wrong, but
I do not hate them.As far as legality goes, there is a duality to
marriage that has been splitting and is now torn from each-other: morality
(spiritual) and legality (secular).While most of the religious folks
want to defend both, it is more and more apparent that it is indefensible in
today's climate. The state needs to get out of marriage, and just recognize
legal contracts between consenting adults. Then churches can quit worrying about
the legal designation and permit moral "marriages" according to their
belief.The state would only affect tax status / medical information
privileges / inheritence / division of property and child time in case of breech
of contract.The religious side would determine was is moral,
(polygamy, gay marriage, etc)People could choose
one/both/neither.As long as we keep certain things illegal, we can
all rest easy: - rape- incest- bestiality- pedophiliaRather than legislating morality or to control behavior, just follow
laws that prevent/punish people for stepping on other people's freedom.
If the only way in which those seeking to change marriage can force it on all is
to disregard democratic law, then by what standard do they expect others to
recognize or honor their counterfeit of such law? Do these people seek civil
I got married 30 years ago for the exact same reason gay want to -- LOVE and
committment.If you got married for sex, then you got married for the
@PopsNORTH SALT LAKE, UTYour point is moot.Most of the
Gay people/couples I know -- already have children from previous
"marriages".It's no different than the Brady Bunch,
@ Endure2EndThe Constitution trumps the electorate. You can't
vote away someone's rights
@omahahusker;My, you're sure the grinch who stole Christmas,
aren't you. LGBT couples haven't "devalued" the
"purity" of marriage. You're doing that by denying them their
joy.@Lady Wren;So sad when you can so easily vote away
the rights of your fellow citizens. Does that not keep you up at night?
Thankfully, we have judges who adhere to the Constitution to over-rule "the
people" when they're wrong.@grandmagreat;Two of
my close friends were married the other day. They raised two children who have
both produced grandchildren for them. Of course, you don't recognize them
as "family", I understand that; but they're not missing out on
anything, you're just willfully blind to their joy.@VA
Saint;Bigotry is using your religious and personal grounds to
violate the rights of others.@Laura Ann;I don't
believe in your vindictive, capricious god.@Cats;You're wrong. We're "pro-marriage"; you're
"anti-marriage".@III;I don't believe in
your "gospel", and I have the right to live free of it.
@ Pops"However, by definition a SSM has neither the power nor the
inclination to provide to the state in return the same benefits as a traditional
couple."This is an assertion without basis and so easily
disproven. Just take a look around, Pops. The evidence is everywhere, and
based on the news in recent days, quite prevalent in your own community. Let
your eyes see what is right in front of you.To those who object to
being called bigots or haters for your anti-gay views, I agree. I doubt that
most of you are bigoted or hateful in every aspect of your life. Very few human
beings are. However, this particular belief of yours is bigoted in that it
represents an intolerance of a group of people without a rational basis. The
fact that (for some of you) the belief stems from your religious doctrine does
not sanctify it. Religion must not be allowed to protect actions and beliefs
that are harmful. If we never examined our religious beliefs, we'd still
burn "witches" and condone slavery.
@SchneeSorry you missed my point about sodomy not being a natural
biology. I did not say that marriage requires offspring my friend, the point is
that sodomy is counter to the biology that the creator intended for the human
race. It is un-natural and perverted. Homosexual sex will not result in folks
who engage in sodomy having a posterity. Does that help?
Perhaps, the answer is to abolish all marriage, outlaw it for everyone; no more
marriage for anyone. That way it will be a level playing field for every
citizen, and show god's equal love for all.
@Pops --"However, by definition a SSM has neither the power nor
the inclination to provide to the state in return the same benefits as a
traditional couple. "Again -- gay couples provide exactly the
same benefits to the state as any other infertile couples do.And
many gay couples are already raising children. They produce children in exactly
the same ways as any other infertile couples do.@Jamescmeyer --"If the only way in which those seeking to change marriage can force
it on all is to disregard democratic law"If the courts had
refused to override "democratic law", then we would still have state
bans on interracial marriage. That is exactly what Loving v. Virginia was all
about.All state laws MUST conform to the US Constitution.
Congratulations to the gay citizens of Utah. I am truly happy for you. As a
practicing member of the LDS faith (before other members of my faith begin the
inevitable criticism of me, please note that had I believed blacks should have
been allowed to hold the Priesthood in the 1960s, you would have criticized me
then too), I want you to know that there are many of us who support your desires
to live a full and happy life. My best wishes as many of you embark on a
legally recognized path as a couple. May your marriage bring you and others
I read the headline on this article. We have another name for this: "A
Fool's Errand." The likelihood of SCOTUS granting a delay/stay on this
seems highly improbable. On what legal grounds? We are dealing with secular
civil marriage, not religious marriage. I just do not see anything in the Utah
case where there are legal grounds for any kind of delay. If someone has one,
please let me know. Again, this would need to stand up in court.
The State of Utah is going to waste a substantial amount of tax dollars fighting
an issue that the U.S. Supreme Court has already - clearly indicated it will not
uphold Utah's law against gay marriage. The legislature is constantly
fighting to save tax dollars and rails on about the national debt, but when it
comes to their misguided agenda, based in theology, they open the vault and
spend out tax dollars like crazy. I hope the Deseret News will keep track of
the funds this nonsense will cost all of us.
So ironic.LDS/Mormon people are pushing to have Mormon temples for
marriages built worldwide.Now this religion wants to absolutely,
positively make sure the world understands it is only possible to marry there if
it is by THEIR definition of marriage. And..... ONLY certain, qualified people
can marry there.Things could become even more confusing now for possible
LDS converts throughout the world.
If the Attorney General was deficient in his process due to his underlying
problems in his personal and professional life and those in the Executive
offices that didn't ensure he was pure to fulfill his obligations, we
should not be spending money outside the AGs office. We knew this contest of
the Utah mores was going to be pushed to the hilt for years and this was the
perfect timing for the AGs office to suffer it's highest elected position
to an appointment by the GOP and Governor. The Governor has his own issues and
even though Sean Reyes may a good person, the office has been subjected to years
of problems with the two previous AGs. We need to stand on our own. The House
of Representatives used outside counsel to pursue the AG. They were on a
selective mission to see if they had enough to impeach a person who swore on a
bible that he was innocent as a newborn lamb. Utah has values and the GOP has
pushed that to an area that they don't even know from the Eagle Forum and
Tea Party which is almost like Germany in the 1930s.
@ CATS: You said, "I promise that every pro-family, pro-marriage and
Christian group in the country is now jumping on board with the State of Utah.
They are offering expertise, resources and any other help they have in order to
help the State fight this thing."Here's the problem. It all
boils down to one question, which no allegedly pro-family, anti-marriage
equality, and/or so-called "Christian" group in the country can answer:
What negative impact has same sex marriage had on opposite sex marriages? As the
lawyer (funded by LDS) in the Prop 8 case said in California when asked the
question, "Um, uh, I can't think of any." Therein lies the crux of
the case. (Religious citations are not valid in a court of law.)I
think every one of those groups is running as far from Utah as it can. I mean,
Utah has put forth this impossible argument: the 14th Amendment applies ONLY to
African Americans because it was passed after the Civil War. You think anyone
wants to be associated with this kind of reasoning? Pul-leez. Give us a break.
@Prodicus:You said, "If the government classifies a homosexual
relationship as a marriage, does it make it a marriage? No. It's still not
a marriage. It's still a sham."Bzzz. I'm sorry, but
thanks for playing. A marriage is a LEGAL, CIVIL agreement between two
non-related consenting adults. Furthermore, in 18 states (plus DC) these ARE
marriages. You might not like it, but it's all legal. And
let's look at the harmful impact marriage equality has had in
Massachusetts, where it's been the law for 10+ years. The divorce rate has
dramatically declined. Yup, you add in all those LGBT people and divorce rates
go down. Want to explain how this is a bad thing? I think with Utah having a
divorce rate among the highest in the country, you should be encouraging more
LGBT to get marry. They seem to set a good example. (And nothing devalues
marriage more than divorce. Oh wait, that's right, Britney Spears, Newt,
Rush, all the Kardashians--they've really elevated the sanctity of
It is really simple. And I do not see it in any of the comments.If
someone were born with a short leg, would we forbid marriage? If someone were
born Black, would we forbid marriage? Tall ? Short? Born with a preference,
meaning fall in love, for the opposite sex? Born with a preference, meaning
fall in love, for the same sex?The only real question is a person
born that way? In this case with a preference for someone of the same sex.If anyone is born with a specific preference, born with, THEN WE ARE ALL
EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. And that is as it should be. We are
all equal.The only degrading of morals, the only degrading of family
values is the end of another discrimination, another bias, another bigotry. If
Family values stands for bigotry,,, well heaven help you. You're gonna
I think the reason there is so much disagreement on this issue is not that one
side believes that people should be denied rights and the other side believes no
side should be denied rights, rather one side sees this as a civil rights issue
and the other as a moral issue. As long as we disagree on this I don't
believe we will get anywhere. Instead, I believe we could have much more
productive dialogue if we could talk about what values each side is promoting.
All of the name calling that goes on in these posts only takes away from each
side's argument and desire to do what they believe is best for society.
For all of those people who talk about 'traditions and traditional
marriage.' 'Traditionally' until at least until 1978,
didn't the 'Mormon' church disallow 'Blacks' from
receiving the priesthood in 1852? Some 'traditions' are meant to be
Gender describes the qualities of masculine and feminine. (Sex describes male
and female). So, same-gender marriage is not descriptive of what has come to
pass to Utah this past week. Because those who choose homosexuality still
display either a dominant feminine gender or a dominant masculine gender. Other
thoughts on this is that marriage is not a right; it's a responsibility,
and it's about families. Children do best when they have a father and a
mother in the home. Last year, Obama and the left leaning Supreme Court struck
down DOMA. And meanwhile, Utah was busy investigating John Swallow instead of
paying attention to what was going to be dumped on them. I think our society
has been like a frog that has been gradually boiling. If you want to know how
this will end, look at past civilizations that have fallen. Look at Sodom and
Gomorrah. Homeschool your kids. Homosexuality will be taught as a normal
lifestyle choice in Utah public schools.
The AGs office is wasting money on this. This is about Due Process and that
Liberty is the Process that is Due under the Constitution of the United States.
Courts have held that 14th Amendment due process claims of Liberty include
marriage. This is the root of this. No state law by a State of the Union, can
superceed the Process Due under the Constitution of the United States..
Utah may be making a serious mistake. If the state throws all its resources into
this battle, as it appears they will, the result could well be economic
disaster. We will be boycotted. Hi tech industry, the convention business,
tourism--everything we depend on for growth will dry up. People will shun this
state as it becomes the same thing Alabama was in 1963. Herbert should carefully
weigh the consequences of being the modern-day George Wallace.
@GoWest --"If you want to know how this will end, look at past
civilizations that have fallen."No civilization has ever fallen
because of homosexuality or gay marriage.In fact, ancient Rome
didn't fall until roughly 300 years AFTER they made same-sex marriage
illegal."Look at Sodom and Gomorrah."That was
about arrogance, not homosexuality."Behold, this was the guilt
of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and
careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty
and committed abominations before Me." (Ezekiel 16:49-50 NASB)
Very sad state of events in regard to this case. The "will of the
people" was thrown out by the will of one judge who just happened to have
been appointed by Bush. Charles Krauthammer concurs. He stated that "the
will of the people" seems to be evolving toward acceptance. In spite of this
evolution, it is still the will of the people which must decide and not just one
individual who appears to look at himself as a "czar".
No one will be gay in the hereafter.
"However, by definition a SSM has neither the power nor the inclination to
provide to the state in return the same benefits as a traditional couple.
" Octo-mom had x8 children, with no husband. If we
follow this albeit weak logic, then we should deny marriage to infertile
couples, or people in advanced age. Do we? No. As such the double-standard was denied under a state judge, and now the 10th
circuit in Utah. I see no reason the Supreme court would side
against, when that state can provide no reason to be against marriage. And in
2013 years those against gay marriage have no proven one iota of any
'harm' done by gay marriage. Your morals, are great. And they should only ever apply, to you. If I eat a Ham
Sandwich, it can offend someone's morals. Should I be denied from eating
pork? No. And I agree that it's hypocrisy that
groups rally against big government and adding the the deb.. will
now spend money outside the state, on an issue that has no legal standing. But, then again, this is the same group that took no issue, when George
W. Bush DOUBLED the national debt.
Same sex marriage is not legal in many states that do not have an amendment
prohibiting the same. Striking down the amendment did not authorize same sex
marriage. The county clerks need to pull back on this. There should be no rush
just because of this ruling.This is why we need a constitutional
convention and provide some accountability for our judges.
@The Balloontic"The majority of Amercans are against changing the
definition of marriage "Polling disagrees with you on this."and suicide/depression. "Let's blame the
bullied for being bullied.@Go West"Children do best when
they have a father and a mother in the home."On average. Some
single parents do great and some father/mother couples do awful. Studies show
children do better... on average, when they have two parents in the household.
Why do you want to limit them to one by preventing same-sex marriage? Also, you
really don't care about this, none of you do. Utah wouldn't allow
single people to adopt if you thought this was so important."Look at Sodom and Gomorrah. "Heh, we'll be fine, in
case you haven't noticed this area has been pre-salted. Also, natural
disasters don't work that way.
@omahahusker: "This is good news? All the values I grew up with now are
vanishing before my eyes. " Your values were taught to you. That does not
mean you were taught correctly. It may be time for you to start questioning the
answers you were given during your formative years.
@The Balloonatic"The majority of Amercans are against changing
the definition of marriage"that was true in the last century
even last decade, not so much now. Let's face today's
reality: majority of general public, 70-80% of millennial support marriage
equality. it is inevitable that SSM will be recognized nationwide, just a matter
of time. and those "brainwashed" young people? they are
entitled to their own opinions just as you do to your.
@Go West who wrote; "Homeschool your kids. Homosexuality will be taught as a
normal lifestyle choice in Utah public schools."The public
school kids are taught not to bully others who happen to be different. They
learn to respect diversity and get along with different opinions. They discover
that kids from gay couples have just as loving and committed parents. They will
contribute to a more tolerant world.
As B.Y.U alumni, my family, including my wife of 41 years and three grown
children congratulate all the same sex couples in Utah! Change comes slowly
sometimes, but it comes. Blacks couldn't hold the LDS priesthood until
there was a crisis for the church in the late 1970's. Religious
insitutions will catch up to equality or will become irrelevant.
Judge Selby was appointed by Barack Obama; not George W. Bush. But Shelby was,
unfortunately recommended by Orrin Hatch.
While I am delighted with the Judge's ruling, there is no question
Utah's position was poorly represented in Court. I think Sean Reyes has
done the wise thing in seeking outside help. While it is too late to expect a
stay, it isn't too late to prepare an appeal that will actually address the
Constitutional issues at hand.
If "Pops" of N.SL believes in personal responsibility and in paying for
what you get, then his argument is entirely in conflict with his beliefs.Any pair-bonded couple who live their lives together provides the State
with lots of free services, taking care of each other so the State doesn't
have to. An otherwise single person living alone who would need nursing care or
hospitalization for an illness, gets free care at home from their partner.
Couples provide all sorts of free benefits to each other that taxpayers would
otherwise be on the hook for, including financial support, housing, healthcare,
supervision, and burial expenses. When the State provides tax breaks for
marriage, it is in recognition that these household units make for a stronger
society and less burden on the apparatus of the State.To ask
pair-bonded gay couples to do this for absolutely free, with no State
recognition, and no legal status as a unified household is not only cruel,
it's freeloading on the part of the State. You do owe them the same
accommodation as any other married household which provides you that same
The Governor appears to be running the boat. He and other elected officials
don't agree on everything except the use of money for their own purposes.
The State gave $13M to a Colorado company and at least $85K from Utah companies
for election purposes.Utah needs responsible leaders that have
integrity and honesty in their DNA. Developers and Payday loans are not
necessarily the best purposes of elected leaders.
As long as the courts interpret Amendment 14 to mean the right to marry who you
want, Utah won't win. They must take a different approach. Of course it
was unconstitutional for a judge who legislates from the bench to overturn a law
which was the will of 66% of the people. Nowadays, the support for Utah's
Amendment 3 is about 58%, which is still a majority. I think this should be on
the ballot in 2014, following the due process. Overturning laws is not in the
job description of the judicial branch.
"This is good news? All the values I grew up with now are vanishing before
my eyes. " Kim Kardashian was married for only 7 weeks. That had nothing to do with marriage equality."The majority
of Amercans are against changing the definition of marriage"
'that was true in the last century even last decade, not so much now. -
J.S. J.S. , please allow me to support your claim…
*'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By
Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011'For the first time since
Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a
majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.'
*'Poll: Support for gay marriage UP among Catholics' – By
Jillian Rayfield – Salon – 03/08/13 *'Poll: New
High Of 58 Percent Support Same-Sex Marriage' – By TOM KLUDT –
By Talking Points Memo – 03/18/13 Notice, those against SSM
are citing the 'will of the people'… from 2004. None are even making an attempt to try to claim that the majority of
Americans support denying LGBT marriage today… because, that
would be a lie. In today, 2013.
"Overturning laws is not in the job description of the judicial
branch."That is precisely the job of the judiciary. Do you
understand "Separation of Powers"? Checks and balances. If the
legislative branch decides to ignore the U.S. Constitution, the judicial branch
is there to correct it.
C'mon Moderators. @omahahusker;My, you're
sure the grinch who stole Christmas, aren't you. LGBT couples haven't
"devalued" the "purity" of marriage. You're doing that by
denying them their joy.@Lady Wren;So sad when you can so
easily vote away the rights of your fellow citizens. Does that not keep you up
at night? Thankfully, we have judges who adhere to the Constitution to
over-rule "the people" when they're wrong.@grandmagreat;Two of my close friends were married the other day.
They raised two children who have both produced grandchildren for them. Of
course, you don't recognize them as "family", I understand that;
but they're not missing out on anything, you're just willfully blind
to their joy.@VA Saint;Bigotry is using your religious
and personal grounds to violate the rights of others.@Laura Ann;I don't believe in your vindictive, capricious god.@Cats;You're wrong. We're "pro-marriage";
you're "anti-marriage".@III;I don't
believe in your "gospel".
Who is in favor now of legalizing polygamy ? If the courts are going to declare
same sex individuals rights for marriage are protected under the 14th Amendment
then they have to give polygamists this same opportunity.
@Heidi71;What part of the 14th Amendment's equal protection
clause and the part about not making laws disenfranchising citizens didn't
These 'happy couples' may find that they have gotten themselves into
alotta difficulties. Should they decide to later separate and go their own
ways, they will now have to go through a divorce court rather than just parting
company. This may involve the nasty job of showing up in divorce court,
splitting assets, child custody, and of course, hefty lawyer's fees. We
wish them luck.But wait! Perhaps if the courts and judges (who seem
to be able to make decisions for the vast majority of the citizenry) decide that
multiple marriages are OK (such as polygamy and even group marriages) divorce
and divorce courts may not be necessary if a couple decides to split and go
their separate ways. I think we are gradually moving into a very interesting
era of human existence
@EJM --"Who is in favor now of legalizing polygamy ? "Here we go again.Individual rights are always limited by
harm.Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey a significantly increased
risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.Gay marriage does
not.It's a very simple distinction.Look up the harm
principle. Every judge understands this principle, even if you don't."...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted
to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this
constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or
incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate
justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous
relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family
environment. ..." -- In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.Justice Bauman of the Supreme Court of BC, reaffirming Canada's
polygamy ban: "I have concluded that this case is essentially about
harm,"... "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."
"The likelihood of SCOTUS granting a delay/stay on this seems highly
improbable. On what legal grounds?"The legal authority re
determining marriage arrangements is vested in the states. And the state of
Utah has decided that marriage is between a man and a woman and the state's
law books reflect such a determination.Some say 'Equal
Rights' (14th Amendment) are violated by Utah's marriage law. This is
not so. Everyone can marry provided they meet certain criteria... i.e., they
are not trying to marry more than one person, they are of a certain age, they
are not closely related, they are not juvenile, and they are not of the same
sexes. This law applies to everyone. And everyone can marry by following these
clear-cut rules.And, of course, if some in those restricted
groupings wishing to marry, and get authority to do so by legal decree, all
others in the groups should have the same freedom to marry else they become the
subjects of discrimination. It if only logical and fair.
I used to live with women, but we were housemates, or roommates. Never would
there have been even a Thought of any of us having a sexual liaison. Why
can't these men and/or women be happy sharing a house as good friends
without trying to "redefine marriage"? It is not theirs to do.
"Why can't these men and/or women be happy sharing a house as good
friends without trying to "redefine marriage"? It is not theirs to
do."----------------Who does it belong to? As long
as the United States of America uses the term "marriage" in granting
privileges and rights to married couples, it belongs to every citizen.The reason that "these men and/or women" don't want to just be
good friends is because the actually love the person that they are living with.
Would you like to be "just friends" with your spouse? Not have that
special touch, look, or understanding that couples in love share? Would you
like to be the one that makes these couples have less rights, less privileges
and be second class citizens just because you are afraid of what adding them to
your interpretation of a word might mean? Have you ever read the
14th amendment? I would recommend that you do so.
@wrz (yes, yes, I know, "Mr. Bean") --"The legal
authority re determining marriage arrangements is vested in the states."States do not have unrestricted rights to determine marriage
arrangements. If they did, there would still be state bans on interracial
marriage. That's exactly what Loving v. Virginia was all about. Here's a clue for you: Virginia lost.ALL state laws MUST
conform to the US Constitution. Utah's amendment 3 didn't."Everyone can marry provided they meet certain criteria..."Yet again -- that argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it
won't work now either."all others in the groups should have
the same freedom to marry...."Yet again -- All
individual rights are limited by harm.Polygamy, incest, etc. all
convey significantly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of
marriage.Gay marriage does not.It's a very simple
distinction.Look up the harm principle.All judges
understand this principle, even if you don't.@fourforsons --"Why can't these men and/or women be happy sharing a house as
good friends..."Because they are more than just "good
friends", of course. And they deserve the same rights as all US citizens.
This comment board does not represent the average Think Tank in Utah, but it
shows something very interesting. The propaganda machine of the "SSM
Community" is bussy and drawing the line where ever possible. They are very
bussy.And those defending the traditional values are weak and
difficult to understand.I bet the line drawn here is not between pro and
contra, but rather who understands the gospel.Those who do not understand
gospel doctrine, will never come to the sense of what most people in Utah want
them to know.Utahns are traditional in the eyes of the world, but they are
unprepared for this one.Here is a very weak point, where gospel teachings
could start, not to strangers but to Utahns.Like in the era of purpose and
pre-existing feelings. There is always a win in helping out, but on the ground
of legal rights, language is shifting slowly.To Sum up this : there is
still room for improvement in representing Utah to the rest of the world.
@cambodia girlTo answer your question, yes.I've
been asking that question too.
Contarious"Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey a significantly
increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage."Polygamous marriages can work also. But their rights don't matter because
it's not in the mainstream right? Violence has the potential to exist in
any marriage. You have no leg to stand on. Polygophobia has got to go.
@ BloodhoundI will admit I'm not much of a New Testament
scholar. Where is the New Testament does it condemn homosexual behavior? I did
a quick search and couldn't find it. I know where to find it in the old
This won't get overturned. The monkey is out of the bag now.
@wrz --"The legal authority re determining marriage
arrangements is vested in the states."States do not have
unrestricted rights to determine marriage arrangements. If they did, there would
still be state bans on interracial marriage. That's exactly what Loving v.
Virginia was all about. Here's a clue for you: Virginia
lost.ALL state laws MUST conform to the US Constitution. Utah's
amendment 3 didn't."Everyone can marry provided they meet
certain criteria..."Yet again -- that argument didn't work
in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work now either."all
others in the groups should have the same freedom to marry...."Yet again -- All individual rights are limited by harm.Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey significantly increased risks of harm
compared to other forms of marriage.Gay marriage does not.It's a very simple distinction.Look up the harm principle.All judges understand this principle, even if you don't.@fourforsons --"Why can't these men and/or women be happy
sharing a house as good friends..."Because they are more than
just "good friends", of course. And they deserve the same rights as all
@ContrariuserHow does Polygamy cause harm whereas Gay marriage does
I've already addressed the issue of how marriage might be beneficial not
only to gay men or women, but to their families, their brothers, sisters,
parents, etc., who could then hold some comfort that their family member was in
a recognized, mutually-caring relationship.And, I've addressed
the issue of how the State benefits from the free services both members of a
couple provide each other that the State would otherwise be on the hook for:
nursing, housing, support, etc.Now, let's address
"redefining" marriage. First, what marriage is not: Marriage has
nothing whatsoever to do with sex or having children. It can't possibly,
since people do that without being married, ALL THE TIME. (Witness all those
"living in sin" or "playing the field" or born out of wedlock.)
Marriage as an institution simply recognizes a life partnership, granting
next-of-kin rights and legal status to a household for social and governmental
administrative purposes. You folks who want to add sex and children to the
equation are actually the ones trying to redefine it, long after that horse has
left the barn.
Perhaps this is where the LDS and other religion's negativity and
"fight to the death" comments are coming from?Many are inquiring
about what may have been stated at the pulpits last Sunday during Mormon Church
services.Could those church congregations have completely lost sight of
what they, and now their children, studied in school as they learned about
history, the United States government, and the Constitution?Are these
church members being told in their many meetings each Sunday that they should
stand up and fight our country's legal system and the Constitution?Is this their "White horse riding in with the Constitution hanging from a
thread" that so many of them warn the rest of us about?What did their
LDS leaders advise them to do regarding Same Sex Marriage soon to be the law of
This is nothing more than the manifestation of a corrupt government allowing for
moral decline in this nation. Gay anything is against GOD's laws and
that's all that matters. Our society will continue to decline until such
time as it is abolished by Jesus Christ and He reigns again.Homosexuals will have no place in the Kingdom since they have violated
GOD's law. Gays are free to live their lives out on this planet doing
whatever but they will not have the blessings that others are entitled to.
Again, GOD's laws are very specific - marriage between a man and woman is
the only acceptable option to GOD.If all were gay we would all do
extinct. Sounds like Satan's plan to me.
As a High Priest, I am assigned to watch over several single sisters in our
Ward. I have often thought how much benefit there would be if some of them moved
in together and shared and cared for each other. Now, with same sex marriage
legalized, the benefits are even greater!It is not good for human
beings to be alone. Same sex marriage encourages support, caring, and
togetherness.This is a good thing!
Why are lds members writing here ignoring your own Gay children, and referring
to Gays as if they were only some outside group, not mormons too?If
you have 5 sons, there is a fair likelihood you have a Gay one. You might have a
Gay daughter, or aunt, or cousin. All of you went to school with Gay people, had
Gay teachers, shopped in stores with Gay clerks, etc etc etc.Why
should these people, who are Americans, taxpayers, and part of your community
have to accept one of 4 rather odious choices --1-- They can lie and
enter a sham heterosexual marriage, with great risk of causing hurt.2-- They can accept the current church doctrine and live without love, without
sex, without someone waiting at home with dinner for their entire lives, as if
crippled by what God has put into their hearts.3-- They can have
discreet relationships, but always be "on the back streets", and in
disapproval by their church and community and families.4-- They can
leave, forever damaged by having to give up famiy and community because they are
different, and hope to be maybe welcomed for Christmas, if they are lucky.God is ready to change this
Contrariuserer,your confusion between Inter Racial marriage and Gay
marriage is apparent, Inter racial case that was won was based on the
Anti-miscegenation laws, therefore, were attempts to eradicate the legal status
of real marriages by injecting a condition—sameness of race—that had
no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a
legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race
has no bearing.It is clear then that the miscegenation/same-sex
analogy does not work. For if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial
purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the
ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages
were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth.
But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the
opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to
marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for
Part IISupporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause
precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in
matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with
their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural
trajectory.In other words, the fact that a man and a woman from
different races were biologically and metaphysically capable of marrying each
other, building families, and living among the general population is precisely
why the race purists wanted to forbid such unions by the force of law. And
because this view of marriage and its gender-complementary nature was firmly in
place and the only understanding found in common law, the Supreme Court in
Loving knew that racial identity was not relevant to what marriage requires of
its two opposite-gender members. By injecting race into the equation,
anti-miscegenation supporters were very much like contemporary same-sex marriage
proponents, for in both cases they introduced a criterion other than male-female
complementarity in order to promote the goals of a utopian social movement: race
purity or sexual egalitarianism.
Part IIIThis is why, in both cases, the advocates require state
coercion to enforce their goals. Without the state’s cooperation and
enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be
no same-sex marriage. The reason for this, writes libertarian economist Jennifer
Roback Morse, is that “marriage between men and women is a pre-political,
naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create
children, independently of any government.” Hence, this explains its
standing as an uncontroversial common law liberty. “By contrast,”
Morse goes on to write, “same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a
creation of the state.
@md --"Two homely women who obviously had no other options.
"That just says it all, doesn't it? The anti-gay crowd is
reduced to insulting a happy couple.And then they dare to mention
"the adversary" as though petty personal attacks are works of God.
@Anti Bush-Obama --"But their rights don't matter...
"It has nothing to do with "mainstream" vs.
"non-mainstream". It has to do with harm."Violence has
the potential to exist in any marriage. "Think about drunk
driving. All driving carries some risk. But drunk driving carries significantly
greater risk than sober driving. Therefore, drunk driving is illegal and sober
driving is not.Similarly, polygamy (and incest, etc.) convey
significantly greater risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage. Gay
marriage doesn't. Therefore they will remain illegal, and gay marriage will
not.@benjoginko --"Where is the New Testament does
it condemn homosexual behavior? "Paul is the ONLY person in the
NT who spoke against homosexual behavior. It is never mentioned anywhere in the
Gospels.@ValiantDefender --"How does Polygamy cause
harm..."There are many studies which demonstrate several
different harms conveyed by polygamy. I don't have nearly enough words to
include them all here. In general, harms include physical, sexual, and
psychological abuse of women; abuse and neglect of children; increased disease
transmission; displacement of young unmarried men; poverty; unequal legal
protections for women (inheritance, financial holdings, etc.); and I'm out
@Confused --"...the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not
work. "It depends on what parallel you're drawing.It works perfectly for states' rights arguments, religious arguments, and
bigotry-based arguments."...such a purpose only makes sense if
people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each
other."Define "nature". There are plenty of examples of
nonhuman same-sex couples "marrying" (pair bonding and raising
offspring) out in nature. It is, indeed, natural."“By
contrast,” Morse goes on to write, “same-sex ‘marriage’
is completely a creation of the state."False claim.See my comment above about nonhuman animals. Additionally, same-sex marriages
are known from the very dawn of written human history. For examples, the
Assyrians had blessings for same-sex unions in their books of prayer. They were
also recognized in Mesopotamia, and they were celebrated in ancient Rome by 600
BC. Likewise the ancient Asians accepted homosexual relations as normal elements
of life before Western influence invaded, and Hindu religious texts even told of
some of their gods being BORN from same-sex unions.If you base your
arguments on false assumptions, you end up with false conclusions.
This is very sad, indeed.
Today it's this, tomorrow it may be something else that one single judge
can decide taking away states' sovereignty and undermining laws and
elections. For courts to become all 3 branches of government is dangerous.
Clearly people can't see down the road to unintended consequences and
precedence that can harm in many ways.
There are many comments about democracy. If this is a COTUS issue, why not
change the US Constituion? All it takes is a 3/5th vote from the states?
Where did traditional marriage begin? Why with Adam and Eve, of course. They
were married by God.
'Where did traditional marriage begin? Why with Adam and Eve, of
course.' Where should I send the wedding Presents?
Address please. Longitude and latitude? If the only
place you can support your religion, is in your religion… than
Spider man is real because I read him in a comic book.
It is a sad day in the history of the Republic. One judge has overruled the
considered will of the voters to establish a marriage system that advances the
public policy goals they see as central to marriage. Marriage needs to be in the
form of a man/woman institution to focus it on its main goal, creating a
situation where as many as possible children are raised by both of their
Do judges in Utah have to recognize these licenses, or do they still have the
right to follow their religious beliefs and not perform marriage contracts that
support what is directly and firmly against their understanding of God's
law? How long until a judge is sued or forced from office for following their
Utah county should not have given up. 2 judges on the Court of Appeals should
not be able to unilaterally overturn the law. It will be a three-judge panel
that will consider the appeal, and that will then be open to appeal to the full
circuit and then the Supreme Court. This still has a long way to go. Issuing
licenses now is a way to poison the situation and bias the outcome. It should
not be done.
Separation of church and state, what a concept. What is the big deal about
letting two people who love each other get married? I guarantee the percentage
of divorce is much higher between heterosexual couples than homosexual couples.
I'm straight; I don't want to marry a man, but it sure doesn't
bother me if a male who is sexually attracted to males, wants to marry a male.
Just imagine being told you have to marry the sex you are not sexually attracted
to? That's not right. I've never met one gay guy friend who I thought
could be "changed" into liking women. Let's not waste
taxpayers' money on trying to remake an unjust law.
Remember the Equal Rights Amendment? Remember all the effort to draft and pass
it and the failed attempt to ratify it? How silly was that. All it
takes is to have something made law by a few more-enlightened-than-thou judges.
Government of the judges, by the judges and for the unenlightened
@ John PackThis isn't a theocracy. Your religion begins and
ends with you. "Because God says so" is not a valid legal argument.
Also, a judge who signs a marriage license of a homosexual couple is not going
against his/her religious beliefs anymore than an LDS cashier at a grocery store
who sells beer to somebody. Another person's life-style choices have
absolutely nothing to do with you, and you would be better off not trying to
control everybody else.Lastly, having children was never a
requirement to get married. Infertile couples and elderly couples get married
all the time and nobody says anything about them not being able to have kids.