Had the right to an interracial marriage been left to voters, it would still be
illegal in many southern states.
So the DN is counting on SCOTUS saying, "Sure, you're denying a group
their equal rights with no rational basis, but it really isn't our place to
interfere. You all do what you want. We'll be over here clipping out the
portions of the U.S. Constitution that are a bit problematic for you."I agree that it would be best for each state to decide on its own to
rescind these laws. It certainly would be better for business. And perhaps it
will be business concerns that give politicians the cover they need to do the
right thing. Like Governor Brewer in AZ: She was able to veto the ill-advised
"religious freedom" law by saying "I will always do what's best
for my state."I think it will be this way for religions too. If
they want to continue to attract converts, at least here in the U.S. - or stop
losing them - they're going to have to do what's best for their
I didn't even read the article but I'm guessing it's the same
nonsense as we have read hundreds of times in past Dnews articles.People should decide, not judges. States rights. Bla bla. Children are raised
better if the parents are biological. Bla bla. Maybe some completely bogus
discredited study will be cited. Blast Obama or Harry Reid.And
that's a wrap!
I think it's time I stop reading the Deseret News. It's not healthy to
be constantly reminded about how opposed the editorial board is to me having
basic rights that would lead to real happiness in this life. While there are so
many people sincerely trying to reach out and understand what it means to be
homosexual in this community, you continue to publish articles that undermine
those attempts. Don't you realize that your words continue to compel people
to keep us as strangers in our own churches, neighborhoods, and homes. I am saddened by this fight you continue to wage against a group of people who
have been marginalized for far too long. Can't you please remember that
these are people--children of God--who deserve a break from the rhetoric that
"...The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about
who shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic processes? Or will
it be a federal district court judge asserting a constitutional right to a
practice that remains deeply divisive within our nation?...".Why
stop there?The DN editorial is dismissive about a federal district
court judge.Yet the DN editorial gives deference to another
unelected lawyer's single vote.In both cases, the problem is
unelected lawyers making decisions that affect all of us.It appears
that the age old axiom of where one stands on an issue depends upon whose ox is
being gored continues to be the golden rule.
I am going to have to disagree with the statement in the article."It is almost certain that one of the pending appellate court decisions
regarding the right of a state to define marriage will again return to the
Supreme Court. And four of the current nine justices are almost certain to
uphold laws."Not necessarily. That will only happen if there is
a disagreement among the different federal and appellate Judges. Last I counted
the score was 42 decisions supporting Marriage equality to 0 that were ruled in
favor of discrimination... oh I'm sorry "traditional marriage". If
there is no disagreement then the Supreme Court will not take up the matter.
They will just deffer to the lower courts rulings and Marriage Equality then
becomes law. I hope that there is a decisive ruling by the Supreme court that
will be sweeping across all states. But eventually, one by one all of these
unconstitutionally voter approved laws will fall.
"The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who
Can democracy abrogate civil rights? Is marriage such a basic civil right?
Public sentiment is mercurial.
Wow, is everyone afraid to stand up for traditional marriage? I have always
believed that we have created through legal contracts and needed to create a way
for LGBT people to have equal rights when it comes to survivorship, hospital
visits, tax policies, etc. That is what equal rights are about. I believe that
people of all races and religions should have equal rights too. That
doesn't mean that we must call all the people of all religions Catholics or
all people of all colors Asians. If people in gay relationships want to call
themselves married, I don't care. If they want the government to compel ME
to call them married, that is an over-reach of government and it is a change of
historic definition that I believe is wrong AND incorrect. I am sure I will now
be labelled a bigot and a hater though I am not either. I have family members
that are gay that I love and a number of gays that I work with and enjoy
friendships with and a number that visit regularly in my home. I still have to
stand for what I believe.
So what if a group of voters in a certain State, even a huge 80 to 20 margin
decided "Freedom of Religion" really meant "any group of
Christianity"? Should that be legal? Or should a judge throw
that out?What if a State decided that to vote one must own property?
What if a State decided that it would only educate those kids it deemed had a
shot of succeeding in life? Does a State, or the People of a State really hold
all power? Or are they subject to limitations.The fact a specific
right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not make it any less a Right
(in fact that was one of the largest arguments against a Bill of Rights, that
their enumeration would be construed as a limitation.)If you are
enjoying certain legal privileges because of a Status conferred upon you by a
government, that same privilege and Status must be made available equally to
all. After all, aren't all men created equal?
A recent survey found the Roberts court has seen a serious decline in support
for the Supreme Court by a sizable majority of citizens. Even though
they're unelected and serve for life, this has to be on the mind of the
Supremes as they try to sift through cases.They don't operate
in a vacuum.The opinions of Thomas and Scalia - who recently badly
misread even his own earlier opinion - can be easily predicted before any case
is actually formulated, but the rest of the court has to be aware of how
they'll be judged by history.Overturning the striking record of
lower courts on SSM decisions will yield respect by a dwindling group of
Americans, while the younger generations would look at it as just another really
bad decision by a court that seems intent on eroding the respect for the
DN wrote: "The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is
about who shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic
processes?"So what have been the most recent decisions by an
electorate on this issue? I would point out to the DN that decisions made in the
last couple of years are more indicative of where the U.S. stands now, rather
than votes taken a decade or more ago.Here's another set of key
questions: Why have the arguments made by those opposed to Marriage Equality
been losing ground at such a rapid pace? -- both in courts and in the sphere of
I know you are against SSM, but you really don't get this Constitution
thing, do you? Or is it just when it is convenient and in agreement with your
views? This editorial is stunning in its hypocrisy.
@Roland KayserDon't forget Utah, one only has to read the talks
of religious leaders in Utah to be reminded that they too were very much against
interracial marriage. And I'm not talking about the 1800's. I mean the
talks given in the 50's and 60's.In all I think this
entire editorial is pointless. What should guide the decision is not who will
decide but what will decide. Whether it's by the electorate or the supreme
court the constitution should decide this issue. In my opinion that means same
sex marriage will be legal in America soon; and this will actually prove very
positive for our country.
@ShaunMcCMy husband and I are legally and lawfully married in the
eyes of the state of California and in the eyes of the U.S. government. That is
what I care about, legal equality -- that my government not discriminate against
me. Contrary to what you might think, though, I have no objection if your
conscience does not allow you to recognize my relationship. That is your
business.About your first point, I've yet to discover a way to
privately contract for the spousal privilege.
It would appear that the editorial writer fails to grasp that under our Federal
Constitution, the role of the judiciary includes reviewing the laws passed by
the Congress and the various States to determine whether they are in conflict
with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Without that review and court
decisions, segregation would still be the law of the land in states where it
used to exist, miscegenation would be banned by law, police would be allowed to
beat confessions out of suspects, and people could be jailed indefinitely
without charges being filed. It's part of the idea of checks and balances
to prevent, among other things, a tyranny of the majority that would easily
oppress those in the minority. One would think that Mormons in particular would
be sufficiently cognizant of their own history to see how badly that can turn
In other words, you're only willing to accept one outcome and you're
willing to keep fighting and trample to constitution to get it.
"The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who
shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic processes? Or will it be
a federal district court judge asserting a constitutional right to a practice
that remains deeply divisive within our nation?" Alabama - early
@VV, My lawyer friends say that forming an LLC with specific provisions for
those issues will provide every legal remedy you seek with the possible
exception of some tax laws which I agree should be addressed. My Constitutional
conviction is that marriage should not be a part of the equation when it comes
to the Federal government - that marriage should be between two people or
between two people and their God. The fact that the government IS involved is
what has led us down this path.
I fully support the rights of LGBT couples to legally join in unions of their
choice. But to shoehorn everyone into a one-size-fits-all marriage arrangement,
regardless of obvious differences, only leads to a legal and moral morass
detrimental to all. Any party could and will take advantage of ill-suited
legalities to constantly “harass” another.
The voice of the people cannot trump equality and human rights. Compare: the
Mormon Church is particpating in a worldwide movement for religious freedom, in
order to be able to preach in countries where the democratically elected
legislation has voted to restrict or forbid any Christian missionary work.
People in those countries are convinced that foreign religions threaten their
moral and cultural standards. Do we then agree with "the will of the
people"? No, we believe the democratic process has its limits when it takes
away the freedom to be and to manifest who you are. It's fundamental in the
Declaration of Human Rights.
@HutteritePlease supply the exact article and section of the
Constitution that is being "trampled".
Debating the "Legality"... is one thing. But please don't pretend
that God must accept whatever we decide in our "legality" debate.The laws of men are one thing, and they are changeable by men, and they
can be structured to justify whatever men want to make "acceptable"...
the our laws are not God's eternal laws of heaven. That's a
different thing. They are not set by men. And they don't bend to accept
what our modern society or this debate says should be acceptable. IMO... Some of our desires and our laws are drifting away from what God
intended. That's OK. Because our laws are not HIS laws. They are
different from God's law. And that's the way it's supposed to
be. And I'm OK with that. I realize they are totally different
things.Debate this all you want... but don't pretend that
forces God to change the standards.
@ShaunMcC:I'm pretty clear on where you stand and I appreciate
you conveying the information free of any animosity. I also
appreciate your passing along the information from your lawyer friends, but I
can't help but notice that what my husband and I could have expected to pay
for forming the LLC (and related matters) would be quite a bit more than the
$61.00 we paid for our civil marriage license. Fortunately for us, we
didn't have to go the route your lawyer friends suggest. Here in
California, the equality train has already left the station, and there's no
"I didn't even read the article but I'm guessing it's the
same nonsense as we have read hundreds of times in past Dnews articles."I feel the same way about the comments by same sex marriage supporters
on the same articles.
Utah, Oklahoma and other states with same sex marriage bans may win the battle
but end up losing the war. Even if SCOTUS rules in favor of states having the
right to define marriage and thus ban same sex marriage in the end these states
will give up the bans on their own because of econmic threats, boycotts, loss of
convention business and coporations refusing to move and bring jobs to the
states with the bans. If SCOTUS is smart they would allow the issue to be
decided state by state knowing that in the end the states will adopt same sex
marriage all on their own without SCOTUS mandating a federal definition. It is
the same with the interracial marriage case. All the states would have
eventually allowed interracial marriage through the democratic process. Utah
did four years before SCOTUS ruled the ban on interracial marriage
Once same-sex marriage is the reality everywhere, Utah, like all other states,
will have complete and total "states' rights" freedom to write
whatever marriage laws they chose -- as long as they comport with fundamental
liberty rights, equal protection and due process.America and the
world has huge problems. Same-sex marriage is not one of them. It's a shame
we've wasted so much time and so much energy and money on a non issue. -- For gay couples and their children and families and friends, of
course, it is a big issue. And rightfully so. To the degree that marriage and
family is the foundation of society, gay marriage and family will only
strengthen it.We should all be getting ready to move on to real
So let me get this straight - the DNews is against SSM? That comes as quite a
No matter what, this has to end with the legal rights afforded to married
couples being granted to LGBT couples who enter a contract. It might not end up
being called "marriage," or perhaps religious weddings will be re-termed
as "holy matrimony," but to me the compromise solution seems obvious. We
need to allow access to legal rights to all couples regardless of gay/straight
orientation, yet we need to allow churches to restrict their actions based on
behaviors, which may include LGBT behavior being considered a sin. You
can't force a church to allow the marriage of gay couples, but at the same
time, you can't allow LGBT community to miss out on legal rights or endure
discrimination in public. It seems that the city of Salt Lake figured this out
early, if only the rest of the country would catch on.Maybe that is
just too much common sense though.
In the year 2014 the Desert News editorial department is operating from a
completely false premise: Gay people are sinners, being Gay is a sin and
therefore deserve no happiness until they renounce homosexuality and become
heterosexual. This is akin to "God will strike you down if you mix with
someone other than your own race" How can any supposedly educated individual
believe that society is served by denying people their rights? It boggles the
It has never been our right to vote on whether or not other people have full
rights. All are created equal. We hold these truths to be self -evident, etc.
You don't have to read many of these comments to see just how far our
society has distanced itself from the commandments of God. I'll probably
be labeled a "bigot" for saying that, but it's true.1)
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.2) For men
shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,
disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,3) Without natural affection,
trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are
good,4) Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers
of God;5) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from
such turn away.(2 Timothy 3:1-5)If that doesn't describe
our day, I don't know what does. Our nation has lost its moral compass.
We are more concerned with equality than righteousness. When you understand
where you came from, why you're here, and where you're going,
it's easy to understand why SS marriage is inconsistent with God's
intended purposes. People claim that God made us equal as if to persuade us
that SS marriage should be accepted, yet they take His commandments and prophets
and openly trample on them.
If God has an issue with same-sex marriage I, for one, am more than happy to
leave the consequences up to Her.The reality is, Homo sapiens
sapiens can safely ignore any and all pronouncements on the opinions of the gods
on the matter of marriage.What we know for sure is that, for an
"ideal gold standard" of marriage and family and child-rearing -- a
claim that predicts HUGE measurable differences in advantages and childhood
outcomes -- there is pretty much only the failed study by Regnerus. Where there
should be HUGE advantages and benefits everywhere easily documented, there is
virtually nothing.Comparisons to the fatherless, single-parent,
underclass family are bankrupt -- the families and children of same-sex couples,
and their childhood outcomes, look nothing at all like them. In fact, they
can't be reliably distinguished from the so-called "gold
standard."The ultimate "legality" of same-sex marriage
is not in question. The only question is how much time, money, angst and
self-righteous moralizing is going to be wasted getting there.If
there's no negative secular consequence it's not even a moral issue. A
religious issue, perhaps, but not a moral issue.
Beyond the legalisms, the foundation of this debate is this: where does
homosexuality come from? Is it willful disobedience or mental disease, or is it
a natural state? Science has generally concluded that homosexuality is a
natural state, a minority state, but a natural one.We had a similar
debate over why some people are black. The religious explanation was that
everybody started out white, and that blackness was imposed as a punishment for
some deeds. The scientific explanation is that we all started out black, out of
Africa so to speak, and that some of us are white because of natural
selection.The war goes on, but I'm pretty sure where its going
to end. In the meantime people suffer.
I read a Reuters article by Kevin Gray on February 7 entitled "Florida judge
approves birth certificate listing three parents." I am interested in
reading responses to it within the context of this discussion.
Why is it that the bulk of the comments indicate their dissatisfaction with the
opinions of the DNews, yet never seem to hesitate to comment (even if they
don't read the editorial)about their dissatisfaction with the DNews
editorial board and its connection with the Mormons?You are free to
read the editorials of the publications of others - which are most likely more
abundant than the ones expressed by the DNews. Is this another way
for you to "shout-down" opinions that differ from yours? Enlightened or
Oh, and as for those who are all upset that the Deseret News is opposed to Same
Sex Marriage--I know it is a shock, but perhaps the Deseret News is the only
Media organization that isn't all in on the gay stuff. In the New America,
I'm pretty sure that you gay rights people will have them investigated and
shut down, but for now, Kudos to the DesNews, for bucking the "Gay is good,
gay is great, let's hate those who procreate" that the rest of the
The "equality" argument has been taken to a ridiculous length. Any man
can marry any woman who will have him. There is no discrimination about race,
national origin or religion. ANY man can marry ANY woman. Some
demand that equal rights include how they feel about themselves. Some say that
their physical body is different than what they feel it should be. They claim
inequality based on their feelings.If feelings are the basis for
equality, then watch out. I feel that I should be paid the same as the CTO of a
company that I consult with. I feel that I should drive a much better car than
I have. I feel that I should live in a much larger house than I have. If feelings are the basic for equality, then grades must be abolished.
All people must be paid the same amount. Everyone must live in the same type
and size of house. Everyone must drive the same model car. That is the only
way that feelings can be equalized.No judge can legislate from the
bench. Judge Shelby disregarded the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.
"Will it be the people, through democratic processes? Or will it be a
federal district court judge asserting a constitutional right to a practice that
remains deeply divisive within our nation?"The courts, as it is
in their brief to decide on the constitutionality of laws.That was
@ Mike Richards, Judge Shelby most definitely did NOT disregard the majority
opinion of the Supreme Court. I would love to see the substantiation of that
assertion. But even if he did, if the Supreme Court disagrees, it has the power
to overrule him. Your whole "feelings" argument is in the realm of
nonsense. It seems to be a mockery of the principles of equality under the law.
You may mock those principles when not convenient to your beliefs, but a more
consistent argument would be to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the
courts, as provided for in that document. Reading your arguments over time,
your reliance on the Constitution is really about supporting your personal
beliefs, nothing more.
Who should decide? Every individual and that right is protected by our
constituion. Utah should hope the courts decide, otherwise they'll be one
of only a few states making SSM illegal and we'll lose millions of dollars
in our economy from boycotts and business investments. One day the majority in
this state will realize how prejudiced their view was to deny others their
personal freedom and individual rights.
@Vanceone"Gay is good, gay is great, let's hate those who
procreate"LGBT people are around 2-5% of the population; most
who support same-sex marriage are straight, and many of them procreate. This
idea that they hate straight people is absurd.
As long as "government" remains in the business of marriage (sanctioning
by virtue of a marriage license) it's pretty clear that the Equal
Protection Clause makes it unconstitutional for government to discriminate
against a specific class of people...period.At the same time, as
government migrates into the arena of officially sanctioning "gay"
marriage, there is no legal basis for government to then discriminate against
polyandry, polygyny, group marriage, inter-family marriage etc. One group simply
can't make a "moral" or "legal" argument for government to
sanction their marriage narrative and then argue government can't
officially endorse another. The solution would be for government to
get out of the business of marriage and sanction legal contracts such as civil
unions...leave the business of "marriage" to religion. Those who want
to be "married" based upon their specific marriage narrative can then
find a religion who will marry them.
@Ajax - Marriage is a civilc "business/property"contract in the eyes of
the Government, nothing more.
@Mike RichardsAny man can marry any woman who will have him.==========Are you suggesting that we take love out of the
picture? Should a man marry a woman just so he can enjoy the legal benefits of
marriage you and I obtain because we have married someone we love?
Human society is a composite of legally constituted unions of all types. None,
however, is more fundamental to a society’s well-being than heterosexual
marriage. That is not to say that other marriage arrangements don’t
contribute (they do and substantially so) or should in any way be discredited or
discouraged. Clearly, as amply demonstrated, homosexuality has a legitimate
role in a healthy society. Persecution of any sort is only divisive and harmful
to all, perpetrator and victim alike. And yes there are countless heterosexual
couples who are infertile or post-menopausal or perhaps with questionable
parenting skills, but still to pretend that exclusively homosexual marriages are
in the end the equal of heterosexual marriages in promoting human welfare is
folly.Rather than all or nothing, might we have a more Solomonesque
This is the most important issue of our time! It is crucial to the foundation of
our society that we protect the traditional family. A society can only be as
strong as our weakest link. Right now Obama is trying to weaken the crucial unit
of our society known as the traditional family. God has made it clear that the
family is important as outlined in the Proclamation of the Family. Our society
owes it to our future generations to uphold the God ordained traditional family!
Mike Richards said, "No judge can legislate from the bench." So, then,
the SCOTUS decision in the Greece, NY, City Counsel prayer case was in error,
If the Supreme Court leaves the SSM decision to the sates, there could be some
interesting (and serious) consequences. There could be a division between states
having SSM and those which do not. The United States could break apart, with
the interior west joining Texas and the Bible Belt south to form one nation, and
with the coasts and some of the midwest forming another. Impossible? No,
it's quite possible. Yugoslavia blew apart. Scotland may leave the UK.
Ukraine may break in half. And remember the United States broke apart on
slavery.SSM is a potent issue which could well bring about the
balkanization of the United States.
OK, I'll try again....1. Courts rule on the Constitutionality
of a law -- NOT wheather it is popular.2. If the majority still
wants the change - they can, but they must have their Elected Representatives
Amend the Constitution.I'm not so much offended by the Deseret
News Editorials bias, as I am by their lack of understanding how our
Constitutional form of Government works.
Ajax: "Rather than all or nothing, might we have a more Solomonesque
decision?"--------------If you are speaking about
letting gays have "civil unions," that boat sailed 10 years ago. Gays
begged the legislature and actually put advertisements on TV trying to stop the
second part of Amendment 3 that states that no legal recognition of any kind for
gay couples. Remember?It passed by 66% of the population. Now, the
only recourse is to take it to the courts and have the whole thing overturned.
That is what is happening.The choice Utah made was all for
heterosexuals, nothing for gays. Now they will pay the consequences for that
choice. There will be no do-over. Utah made their decision and will have to
live with the outcome of it.
@ truth in all its formsI would like to know why those countries
that legalized same sex marriage are still doing just fine. Some of these
societies have had a legal form of same sex marriage for over a decade. These
societies haven't weakened, they are doing just as well or better. I keep
hearing that if America allows same sex marriage it will mean the end of our
civilization and yet it hasn't in any of these other societies. So when
America legalizes same sex marriage (and it will) what is going to happen? I
would like a list of things in detail I can expect to happen to America once
this becomes law.
Justice Scalia in his dissent in U. S. v Windsor criticized Justice Kennedy
saying:"The opinion starts with seven full pages about the
traditional power of States to define domestic relations—initially fooling
many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism
opinion."Apparently the Deseret News Editorial Board was among
those who were fooled, because Scalia goes on to say:"It takes
real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door,
that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex
marriage is not at issue here."Scalia goes on to say:"In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state
prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s
opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever
disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that
DOMA is motivated by ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ couples in
same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same
conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital
status.”Sorry but its Game - Set - Match.
The States role in marriages is what? From my libertarian perspective, why does
the state care? Utah and Oklahoma have both provided a reason what the state
interest is. They say it is for the purpose of supporting a naturally occurring
family relationship.The next question should be, why are homosexuals
so interested in redefining marriage? Is it because they want to pretend that
when they play house that everybody has to accept their unnatural relationship?
Is it because they want to undermine the fabric of a nuclear family and change
it to fit their definition and in absolution live a lie? Why compare it to
interracial marriage? People's color is a naturally occurring genetic
outcome. Are gay people claiming their orientation is natural while biology
disagrees?Marriage is God's institution and man can not
re-define it. Man may change it for now, and it will be harmful there is no
doubt about that. But we can't force people to live as God has asked.
"I know you are against SSM, but you really don't get this Constitution
thing, do you?" "This Constitution thing" never said a
word about SSM, at least not until judges with incredibly high opinions of
themselves recently began deciding it's been there all along. Amazingly, the Supreme Court itself didn't understand SSM was in the
Constitution in 1971 when it decided against Baker v Nelson. And yes, that was
AFTER Loving v Virginia.The DN says the issue should be decided by
the states rather than have unelected judges simply dictate the definition of
marriage. Of course the left sees that as a position that deserves to be
Blue AZ Cougar,Wow, Because of LGBT and SSM, you say that God is
calling an end to all of us, destroying our civilization, and the world?What about all the other "stuff" that has happened, and is going on
at the present time? You certainly have missed a great deal of famous
historical events for thousands and thousands of years. Have you forgotten about
that vital historical history we have obtained?Do you reside in a very
small isolated area, away from history books, and today's utterly amazing
electronic world?Appears that many religions seem to play tricks on
people, leaving out so much of the truth.
It's now Federal v States...and Religion v Government. For Abraham Lincoln,
the slavery issue was second to keeping the union together, even though he
believed slavery abhorrent. SSM should be a federal decision, ensuring tax
rights and visitation rights for any two people who live together and are
committed to each other. But the Feds should also protect the right of
religions to practice how they please so long as the worship doesn't break
the laws of the land. The answer is to get churches out of the marriage
business. Let them perform holy matrimonies for those who qualify (every church
has a set of standards a couple must meet in order to be "married").
Couples can be civilly married at the courthouse. And if they choose a higher
standard within their church, they can do so, and should be guaranteed that
right...whether the majority of citizens agree with the teachings of that church
or not. The fastest growing religion in America right now is an undying belief
in the Federal Government. You Federalists make your choice and allow me to keep
mine and we will all be better off. God and Obama bless us all.
"The DN says the issue should be decided by the states rather than have
unelected judges simply dictate the definition of marriage. Of course the left
sees that as a position that deserves to be mocked."Our
government was established with an executive branch, a legislative branch and a
judicial branch. The legislative branch makes the laws we follow and funds the
programs we sponsor ("we" of course means the people who elect those
folks.) The executive branch carries out those laws in the day-to-day operation
of the government. Certainly there are and have been conflicts between the
executive and legislative branches of the government. That;'s where the
judicial branch comes in. These "unelected" judges are there to
interpret the laws that the legislative body passes in accordance with what the
Constitution says, without political influence. Certainly there have been
different opinions within the judicial branch. Our current method
of choosing Supreme Court Justices has become more and more political resulting
in a consistently split court. The only way to make it more political would be
to have "elected judges." Is that what you're suggesting?
@ haggie"Are gay people claiming their orientation is natural
while biology disagrees?"Are you claiming that you've never
seen information that ACCURATELY states our current knowledge; that is, that
biology-based theories point to genetic factors and/or the early uterine
environment as determinative of sexual orientation? In other words,
a heterosexual's orientation is no more "natural" than a
homosexual's.Sneaky Jimmy is right. The religion-based
anti-SSM position starts from a false premise. The only thing wrong with LGBTs
is how some people view them and choose to treat them on the basis of this
viewpoint. Finally, FINALLY, a majority recognizes that this is wrong and
we're moving steadily towards legal recognition of LGBTs' equal
standing.Yes, this is a sign of the End of Days: The end of the days
of children being kicked out of their homes for being gay; of state-sanctioned
discrimination; of state-sanctioned second-class citizenship; of loneliness,
desperation, and hopelessness caused by fear and ignorance. The end of days
indeed. Bring it on.
DN quotes SCOTUS Windsor opinion: "...the tradition of recognizing and
accepting state definitions of marriage..."DN calls this a
"central plank in the..decision that the federal government could
not...undercut the state of New York's definition of marriage."That is not accurate. The full SCOTUS quote:
"DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and
accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex
couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal
recognition of their marriages."DN flips the meaning of the full
sentence. Yes, in some sense, it is a "central plank" but in the
opposite way DN implies to readers. The omitted phrase "unusual
deviation" is crucial, as SCOTUS calls this "strong evidence of a law
having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class [of SSM married
couples]." This "purpose and effect of disapproval" is a key reason
why SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional.
Good article. Kennedy is the man who will decide whether to preserve a
state's right to define marriage. Go traditional marriage!
"Feelings" are the only parameter that fits. A doctor would tell a
homosexual male that he is male. A doctor would tell a homosexual female that
she is female. A doctor could explain to either the male or to the female the
proper use of their sex organ. Those who disregard their anatomy and the
observations of their doctor rely on their personal feelings to decide their
gender. They rely on their personal feelings about the "proper usage"
of their sex organ. They use FEELINGS, not God given physical attributes, to
define their gender.Utah's Supreme Law, the Utah Constitution,
defines marriage. The Supreme Court left that definition to the States. The
14th Amendment does not use FEELINGS as a basis for inequality.Judge
Shelby used the dissenting argument from the Supreme Court to overrule the Utah
Constitution. There is no basis for him to use FEELINGS as a determination of
inequality. He legislated from the bench. He wrote new law.
Yes - it is the end of the world, You could either agree with Muslim
Terrorist that America IS the great Satan, or leave the world by
pulling a Jonestown People's Temple or Heaven's Gate self-rapture
stunt.I for 1 believe the world - as screwed up as it is - is still
a pretty great place, that is far from being perfect, but like our
Founding Fathers believed, is not a finished stone, but is an ever lasting, ever
perfecting, ever progressing Country.Onto Eternal perfection.I
Allow me to summarize this and everything else the Des News has ever published
on this subject:1. When a court decides a case that is consistent
with a conservative political philosophy, the Constitution is honored and the
government is functioning properly. When a court decides a case that is
inconsistent with that philosophy, then it's judicial activism and offends
notions of democracy. (Ex: The Prop 8 decision was judicial activism, but the
opinion last week on legislative prayers was not).2. Similarly, when
a court reaches a conclusion that supports a conservative political philosophy,
then a court has properly exercised its jurisdictional powers. But, when a court
decides a case that is inconsistent with that philosophy, then it's
judicial overreach or federalism trying to tell us locals how to best run our
lives. (Ex: The LDS Church supported an amendment to the federal constitution
defining traditional marriage, but now complains that federal judges are
defining marriage the other way).I appreciate that reasonable adults
can have differing opinions on same-sex marriage, but let's not pretend
that any of the arguments advanced by this editorial board have been consistent
for anything other than their hypocrisy.
marxist“There could be a division between states having SSM
and those which do not.”A perceptive observation.Both sides in their all-out commitment, one against the other, may well be
surprised at just how fragile are the ties that bind us as a nation. Winning at
the expense of others is always an illusion.
Marriage is not a constitutional right. There are good reasons a state has the
authority to define marriage. Its important that states have the
right to define marriage as the union of one man and one women. The traditional
definition of marriage is what is best for society (That is why we have the law
in the first place). States also have the right and obligation to exclude from
the definition of marriage any relationship that is not in the best interest of
society. This includes SS, polygamous, bigamous, or polyamorous relationships.
Not because we are being hateful or homophobic, but because that is what is best
for society. If a state were forced to include SS couple in the definition
of marriage (based on a presumed constitutional right to marry) then states
cannot regulate marriage in any way. States must also include any union
between consenting adults (polygamous, bigamous, polyamorous, etc.) It would
only be fair base on ones perceived right to be married and define marriage as
they wish. States should decide, not the federal government, not
individual with a particular agenda.
If SS couples (or polygamists or bigamists) want to live together, great. Its
just not a marriage. Yes, spousal benefits only applies to married
people. People that form other relationships must enter into contractual
arrangement outlining the restrictions of that relationship. This would any
type of co-habitation arrangement one might have. If a grandparent raises a
child they must first get legal custody of the child just like anyone else that
is not their biological parent. States should have the right to
define marriage as the union of one man and one women. Traditional marriage
should be supported as that is what is best for society.
This is Constitutional Law 101. Yes, the courts can and should override
democratic process when voters pass laws that oppress minority populations.
That's what the constitution is for. The Deseret News loves
the constitution when promoting the protection of religious organizations and
religious liberty, but when the constitution is invoked by the courts to protect
the rights of LGBTs to marry you hate it? You cant have it both ways folks.
Blue AZ CougarChandler, AZYou don't have to read many of these
comments to see just how far our society has distanced itself from the
commandments of God. I'll probably be labeled a "bigot" for saying
that, but it's true.1) This know also, that in the last days
perilous times shall come.2) For men shall be lovers of their own selves,
covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful,
unholy,3) Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,4) Traitors, heady,
highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;5) Having a form
of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.(2
Timothy 3:1-5)9:54 a.m. May 13, 2014[I read that, but
can not see the parallel to homosexual behavior, but I do read it and see
the excesses of WallStreet, Babylon and Mammon.]========== Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah1:40 p.m. May 13, 2014Mike, By your comment, you still don't know the difference between
a Homosexual and a Transexual, because you confuse the 2 in almost every post.
@1 Voice: Stating "Because it's best for society" is
not an answer. In fact it is an example of the logical fallacy known as
'begging the question.'*Is* excluding same-sex couples
from the legal protections that opposite-sex couples enjoy actually "best
for society"? Explain *how* is it good for society to marginalize LGBT
citizens like that.
@1 VoiceMarriage is not a constitutional right. There are good
reasons a state has the authority to define marriage.============If I may disagree, this is very much, and should be a matter decided at
a National Level. I married my wife in the State of Utah. If I move
to any one of the other 49 States, my marriage will be recognized by that State,
with no action whatsoever on my part. I do not even have to tell a county clerk
I am married. Marriage has become such a bedrock, and fundamental
idea in our society that having 50 different definitions just does not work
out.For example, take an Airmen in the Air Force. He is stationed
in New Jersey, and happens to be legally married under New Jersey law to another
man. He gets stationed in Utah; what happens to his marriage? What if his
partner gets in an accident while in Utah? Utah cannot recognize this marriage,
and therefore while in the hospital he gets no visitation rights. Is that fair?
What about taxation? Inheritance? And finally, can I vote on your
marriage? Will you allow me to decide whether or not your marriage should be
Great article DN!. Thank you for providing accurate and balanced information to
the readers of this great newspaper. While I wish the courts would
rule in favor of the will of the people, I doubt that will ultimately be the
case. We live in a nation where immoral behavior is now viewed as acceptable.
Alas, we also live in a nation where the calamities foretold by ancient and
modern prophets are coming to fruition. One need not look far to see that the
nation is beginning to realize the consequences for it's choices. We will
yet come to rue the day we forgot the basic principles our once great nation was
1 Voice. The more I read your posts--and Mike Richards posts--the
more I am beginning to think the issue is not about protecting
"traditional" marriage but about protecting "special' rights:
your right to decide who you will marry while not extending that same right to
those you feel undeserving. Marriage equality is the law of the land in 17
states and life continues normally. The sun still rises in the East and sets in
the West, millions of folks still get to their preferred places of worship,
straights are not abandoning their partners having suddenly become
"gay," and, contrary to your predictions, there has not been a rush at
county offices for marriage licenses for brothers wanting to marry sisters,
uncles wanting to marry nieces, guys wanting to marry the entire cul-de-sac, or
people wanting to marry their pet cats.
Another well reasoned view from Deseret News. This issue has no relation to
interracial marriage and is not about civil rights. Some have been trying to
relate it to oppressions of the past in an effort to give the movement for
same-sex marriage a moral legitimacy. In reality, it has none. The issue truly
is about the right of the people to decide what is best for the country. No
entity should force this on the people of the United States. We can decide
these things for ourselves. It may seem inflammatory, but if you feel others
should be forced to accept same-sex marriage against their will, I cannot see
how you are any different than many fascists of the past.
@Darrel"an Airmen in the Air Force. He is stationed in New
Jersey, and happens to be legally married under New Jersey law to another man.
He gets stationed in Utah; what happens to his marriage?"Nice
try, but we already have hundreds of state laws that become invalid once you go
to a different state. Someone carrying marijuana legally in Colorado can go to
jail if caught carrying it in the state of Utah.If you're
arguing that "equal protection" should make Gay Marriage legal for all
50 states, then you're also arguing that marijuana should be legal for all
50 states.The founders designed the Constitution with the idea in
mind that there would be laws that were different based on the state or local
communities. It would be up to the voters to decide these things. The 10th
Amendment states that this is the case.And no, a state could not ban
interracial marriage because race, like sex, is something you don't choose
at birth. And whether or not you believe being "gay" is a choice, Gay
MARRIAGE, is a choice...and it can and should be up to states to decide.
I agree 100%. Progressives are flippant. They believe the SC will go their way
on gay marriage so they dream up these "rights" that the SC should
enforce. But when the Court votes against Bush v. Gore and against campaign
contribution laws, the progressives complain about the SC going beyond their
authority. The fact is that there is no such thing as ethereal rights that just
exist. The US has been and is a democracy. Even the bill of rights was voted
upon by representatives of the people. These unwritten, but allegedly inherent
rights are not authorized by the people or the Constitution. Progressives need
to stop citing the Constitution for gay marriage and other progressive ideas.
These ideas on the progressive agenda are NEW and were never adopted into the
Constitution. To permit the SC to adopt them anyway would do exactly what the
editorial board suggests, place legislation into the hands of the judiciary.
What if the SC were to say that gay marriage is inherently wrong and no state
could allow marriage? Obviously, progressives wouldn't want the Court
creating legislation then. The ends never justify the means.
@no fit in SGNo, that's not what I said -- don't put words in my
mouth. Read my comment again.----------------------Someone who is predisposed to SS attraction is under the same obligation to
repent or change their life as someone who is pre-disposed to drinking, smoking,
anger, etc. We are all imperfect children of God. Our goal should be to find
out what the will of God is for us, then seek to fulfill the measure of our
creation.Mosiah 3:19"For the natural man is an enemy to
God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless
he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man
and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a
child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all
things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit
to his father."
It is silly to think the states should decide for themselves on national and
international issues. If that were to be allowed there would be all kinds of
confusion: federal highways ending at state borders, national parks and other
public assets closed to the national citizenry, etc. State rights must be
subordinate to national rule.
@illuminatedSo what happens to that marriage in my hypothetical?
What should happen? Punish the Airman for serving his country?
Re: LDS Liberal, Open Minded Mormon, etc. ad infinitum,You ignore
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World" in your flippant posts about
same-sex sex. You pretend that sex in same-sex intercourse is natural. It is
not "natural". The Deseret News would never allow anyone to post
specifics about same-sex sex, but most people understand exactly what takes
place. Your continual personal attacks against those who believe in the
sanctity of sexual relations contradicts your self-described appellations.Only the less than 3% of the population who practice same-sex sex claim
that it is "right". 97% of the population tell us that that act is an
unnatural use of the body. Even with those percentages of people who practice
same-sex sex, the Deseret News posts about 50/50 instead of 3/97. Reading the
posts would make the uninformed think that about 50% of all people engage in
same-sex sex when the actual percentage is less that 3%.If laws are
based on "feelings" instead of gender, everything in society will be
@DarrelWhat should happen is we should encourage people to live the
commandments of God. We should gain back the moral compass that once led this
great nation, one that was used during its formation. But no, it's far
easier to align our laws with the unrighteous ideologies of men. Far easier to
put aside the word of God and do what makes us feel good. Far easier to be
"tolerant" and shut our mouths about what is right and what is wrong.
Far easier to confuse our youth with the false idea that there are no
consequences for those actions, to teach them that SS behavior is normal and
beautiful -- it is not.Matthew 19:4-64) And he answered and
said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made
them male and female,5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder.
@Kindred:"It may seem inflammatory, but if you feel others
should be forced to accept same-sex marriage against their will, I cannot see
how you are any different than many fascists of the past."Are
people being forced into same-sex marriages against their will? If that were
true, it would be horrible. However, unless reports of that happening come to
light, I'd have to say this is a stretch on your part.I have a
feeling, however, that by "if you feel others should be forced to accept
same-sex marriage against their will" you actually mean "if you think
civil marriage should be available to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex
couples".If that is the case, then it is highly inappropriate of
you to throw around a word like "fascists."
Illuminated, kind of a silly example. It would be quite simple to ditch your
marijuana before coming to Utah. Are you suggesting that the airman get a
divorce to come to Utah and then remarry when he gets reassigned?
Mike Richards,You are aware that a great many opposite sex couples
incorporate the same acts as same sex couples in their marriages?
@illuminatedSo you would have no problem then with my state refusing
to recognize marriages between Mormons. Equating marriage equalization to drug
use is pretty silly, BTW.@NevadaCougarConservatives need
to stop citing the constitution for continued inequality and protection of their
perceived "special rights." @Blue AZ CougarWe
are a secular nation of secular laws that promote equality under the law. What
your Book of Mormon says is irrelevant.@Mike RichardsThe
only one, thus far, to bring sex acts into the discussion and to indicate they
"understand exactly what takes place" is you; no one else. Why is that?
If your best argument against equality under the law is "feelings"
I'd encourage you to stay out of the business of law.
@my_two_cents_worthWhat the Book of Mormon says is completely relevant.
It was written specifically for our day. It's a historical and spiritual
record of God's dealings with people who once lived on this very continent.
It teaches us about the commandments of God and tells the story of a great
nation that was ultimately destroyed when it rejected the prophets and their
teachings. It teaches us the Plan of Salvation and the true purpose of this
life. It teaches us about our divine potential. It stands as another witness,
in harmony with the Bible, that Jesus is the resurrected Lord. How could it not
be relevant for a society that faces the issues we face today? We are only a
secular society because we don't have enough commitment or righteousness to
live any higher law. We are only a secular society because there are people who
teach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, and not enough who are
willing to stand boldly for what is right.Please read the Book of
Mormon and tell me you haven't felt spiritually inspired, or that it
hasn't changed your life in some way.
. . . and now, Idaho.
Those who advocate SSM now want to label those of us who stand for marriage and
what is really is with bigotry and vile animus. These professed rights to a SSM
are newly claimed in contradiction to long held laws and definitions. No one has
been trying to take away any rights. SSM advocates are inventing a new right
and shouting down, discrediting, and even threatening any who advocate for the
true definition of marriage.
If the right to decide marriage is left to the SSM crowd, then, of course, they
will also support polygamy, polygyny, and other forms of marriage as well!
Right! I knew I could count on the SSM crowd to support equality for all.
A SS relationship simply does not fit the definition of marriage. Marriage is
the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. A husband is a man married to
a woman, a wife is a woman married to a man. No man can be a wife and no woman
can be a husband. No two men or no two women in a relationship can be husband
and wife and cannot provide a mother AND a father to children. The States do
have a vested interest in having successful families, the ideal family state
being a husband and wife marriage. States should defend their marriage laws and
promote that which encourages the ideal. Other relationships may be entered
into by persons as they see fit but they are not marriage despite what congress
enacts, judges rule, or the populace votes.
An Idaho judge has struck down their ban, so I assume some of you are going to
claim we have around 15/15 surely liberal activist judges since Windsor now?
@Mike RichardsActually, it's support for same-sex marriage that
Deseret News posts are around 50/50 for. Not even close to all those 50% that
are for it are having that sort of sex themselves though I suppose some straight
couples (including those against same-sex marriage) use similar acts
sometimes...@Blue AZ Cougar"What should happen is we
should encourage people to live the commandments of God."But
there's a difference between encouraging it and putting religious rules
into law like many Islamic nations do."Please read the Book of
Mormon and tell me you haven't felt spiritually inspired, or that it
hasn't changed your life in some way."Some Book of Mormon
chapters are interesting and/or inspiring but I've never felt it was
anything more than a work of fiction.
In 1998, Coretta Scott King, wife of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr and a civil
rights leader in her own right said, "Homophobia is like racism and
anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large
group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets
the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to
victimize the next minority group.”More recently, Judge Chris
Piazza of Arkansas wrote, "In rejecting the state's claim that
opposite-sex marriage promotes procreation: "Procreation is not a
prerequisite in Arkansas for a marriage license. Opposite-sex couples may choose
not to have children or they may be infertile, and certainly we are beyond
trying to protect the gene pool. A marriage license is a civil document and is
not, nor can it be, based upon any particular faith. Same-sex couples are a
morally disliked minority and the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex
marriages is driven by animus rather than a rational basis. This violates the
United States Constitution."
Mike -- 1. I married for LOVE (a feeling), not for sex.2. You
seem to think marriage and sex are one in the same.3. I know what the
Proclamation on the Family says. I believe, and I live it.4. You are not
my Bishop, you are not my God. They are the only one's I recognize who have
the proper authority to judge me.5. America is not a Theocracy.
Nevada Cougar: I doubt there many that even understand your post! We the
people isn't just a cute phrase! The people are the final arbiter of the
laws, which is a great risk considering if 51 % of the population wanted SSM,
but that is the risk of a Constitutional Republic. History tells us what
happens when a majority of people chose evil, rather than good!
For all those who happily jump on the SSM rights band wagon saying "well it
is not for me but I can't deny someone else that right"; you need to
read article The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Erastes
Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987. Indifference on this subject
is not acceptable. As soon as SSM becomes the law of the land there will be
expanded efforts to indoctrinate our school children as is already happening in
California and a few other states. We will be pressured to not just tolerate it
or to accept it but to embrace it.You will recognize these same
methods, marketing strategies, and techniques outlined over 25 years ago with
what is happening even right here in the discussions of comments on this and
ever other related article. If that is what you are all about it is your right
to go for it but make no mistake the morals of this Nation will decline further.
@ Mike RichardsAre you trying to tell us that your personal feelings
had nothing to do with your marriage choice? If I am correct about the reasons
behind your marriage choice, then you did base it on love and feelings. Why are
opposite-gender couples allowed to marry for love but same-sex couples are not?
A prophet weighed in on this subject in 1969, and his words still ring true:"There are certain old truths which will be truths as long as the
world endures, and which no amount of progress can change. One of these is that
the family (the organization consisting of father, mother, and children) is the
foundation of all things in the Church; another, that sins against pure and
healthy family life are those which, of all others, are sure in the end to be
visited most heavily upon the nations in which they take place" ("Our
Children--'The loveliest Flowers from God's Own Garden,'"
Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1969, 4), quoted in "Teachings of Presidents
of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith," Chapter 4.I am not
anxious to see the sins against pure and healthy family life visited on our
nation or state, although I think we see it happening already. Why are so few
standing up to protect what is most sacred?
LDS Liberal: Perhaps you could explain the meaning of Elder Holland's
talk, a man you say you support as a Prophet, seer, and revelatory, wherein he
said, "We must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy in
others"? I see no hint of advocacy of SSM in you. Rather than hint, I see
you tethered with an anchor the size of Manhattan! Don't you find it
difficult to belong to a religion that teaches that Homosexuality is one of the
most grevious of sins, but which you pronounce as equal to mother Teresa in its
lofty nature? This is puzzling to say the least, but which I hope the Deseret
News would allow a reply. I can understand those not of the Christian faith
being confused, but for the life of me, I can not see how someone declaring
themselves Christian, particularly Mormons, who will willingly advocate for
others to do something that is not just considered sin, but deep sin, something
that strikes at the very heart of God's Plan of salvation. Very puzzling!
Rocket Science - Thanks for the article. What an insight! That truly is the
homosexual agenda play book. For those in denial, homosexuality is
in fact about sex. It is not surprising that it is totally everywhere in public.
All kinds of sex is everywhere in public. Propriety is what is hard
to find these days.
@bandersen: "History tells us what happens when a majority of
people chose evil, rather than good!"Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."George Wallace: "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod
this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of
tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation
forever."Martin Luther King, Jr.“I have worked too long
and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral
concern. Justice is indivisible.”Strom Thurmond:
"There's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to
break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our
swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."Correta
Scott King: “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms
of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their
humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further
repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next
In addition to Idaho, federal or state judges in Oklahoma, Virginia, Michigan,
Texas, Utah and Arkansas have recently found those state bans to be
unconstitutional. Judges have also ordered Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee to
recognize same-sex marriages from other states.Note not one victory for our
church held position,friends we all know which way the wind is blowing.
"In our opinion, those who say that the manufacture of buggy whips is no
longer needed are not listening to God""In our opinion,
those who say that women may wear skirts that show the ankle are wrong""In our opinion, folks who approve of race mixing are wrong"etcIn MY opinion, the DN is sinking its own ship by cleaving
to a position that will soon be considered to be so wrong as to be evil.
Banderson,Perhaps you could explain the meaning of L. Whitney
Clayton speach, a man you say you support as a Prophet, seer, and revelatory,
wherein he said, "Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church
on the issue (Gay Marriage) without facing any sanction. We love them and bear
them no ill will."Why are you projecting such ill comments
towards other members who disagree with you in these comments?
Thanks MtDewedI remember the quote, but couldn’t remember
who’d said it.There was also this: , the church "does not
oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," it posted on it’s
website. Something else I have championed for over 10 years now – only to
be treated like banderson did.As for grievous “sins”,
I think trampling on the poor, sick, weak, elderly, and the needy –
while worshipping idols of Babylon, gold, silver, fine apparel and Mammon -- is
far more grievous a sin than SSM.It’s also the real reason why Sodom
& Gomorrah was destroyed, the ancient Nephites were destroyed and us if we
don’t change – SSM wasn’t even mentioned once.
What do you mean by "deeply divisive?" Almost all of the Northeast
states, 3/5 of our Pacific Ocean states (California, Hawaii, Washington) and a
couple states in the middle have dropped their strictures against two people of
the same gender marrying, and... what, exactly? Civil unrest? Blood in the
streets? Churches boarded up?No. Nothing. Your church
doesn't approve. My church does approve. Is your church entitled to
official endorsement and mine isn't? No. Not at all.Government business is none of our church business, unless the government is
stopping us from performing our rites in accordance with our beliefs. And,
guess what? You're not the ones being discriminated against. No one is
telling you that you have to conduct same-sex marriages. No, WE'RE the
ones being discriminated against, in violation of the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment. WE'RE the ones being told that the State will not let
us practice our religion.When it comes to "deeply divisive"
issues in Church, that's not the government's concern. What is
concern is following the Constitution and not "recognizing an establishment
of religion," ie not enacting your religious prohibitions.
I have been a democrat for a long time. Concern for humanity has always been at
the root of my thinking. Now I am 'unaffiliated'. When I was young the
big thing was to attack marriage as old fashioned and pointless. Many people
found no reason to argue with that assessment. After all if you take religion
out of it then why is it all that important? After marriage became
passe' to many but it still was around, the opponents of marriage vocally
and publicly changed tactics and decided marriage should be available to anyone
focusing on same sex marriage. How could anyone be against people being in love
and showing that commitment with a marriage? Odd since they had just won the
battle of public opinion showing how valueless marriage was. So now we
come to today. Anyone can get married or will be able to but it is valueless. A
strange dichotomy dont you think? At this point I quite honestly wish we had a
place in the mountains to go to to live in a society governed by God. Utah and
S. Idaho would make a nice little country.
Mtndewed: Wherein did you detect any ill will? The fact that elder Clayton
said we have no ill will toward any one that defies God does not mean that I
will support those who defy Him and spit upon his Commanments and his gospel!
This is typical Political Correctness at its best! "Don't tell me that
something is wrong, even if it is, because I have reached my conclusion and
everyone must now cease from criticizing me!" Climate change, SSM, Social
Justice, etc have all been codified and written in stone, never to be questioned
by anyone ever again! And what part of education does this fall under?
Seriously, are we heading back to the dark ages? I just like the truth and I
am not afraid to have my views challenged and expect the same in return! Elder
Clayton in expressing God's word was not condoning SSM in the least. he
was expressing the Christian ethic to treat all people with respect! I have
shown no disrespect. I have yet to receive an honest answer to my question!
Ginger ale: George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were rascist! I am
@annewanderingoakley, idahoAt this point I quite honestly wish
we had a place in the mountains to go to to live in a society governed by God.
Utah and S. Idaho would make a nice little country.1:51 p.m. May 14,
2014======= 1. Utah and S. Idaho would have to
quaduruple their taxes to pay for their independant servies.2. A
Society governed by God -- costing 5,000 Americans deaths, 75,000 wounded and $3
Trillion of debt -- fighting Al Queda was supposed to be all about.Who's side are you on?
Open Minded Mormon: "1. Utah and S. Idaho would have to quaduruple their
taxes to pay for their independant servies.2. A Society governed by
God -- costing 5,000 Americans deaths, 75,000 wounded and $3 Trillion of debt --
fighting Al Queda was supposed to be all about.Who's side are you
on?"I hardly think we would be fighting in the Middle East. The
taxes you refer to would not exist in a theocracy. Anyway, it was a comment
expressing my despair in our political system. We mortals dont seem to be very
good at ruling ourselves on our own do we.
Um, DN, the debate is nearly over. Hello?
@banderson:Apologies! Sometimes I am clear as mud. I was not in
anyway trying to imply that you are a racist.If you read the
comments of Dr. and Mrs. King above, and then read the comments of Gov. Wallace
and Sen. Thurman – only replacing certain keywords. For example, in Gov.
Wallace's comment replace segregation with something like traditional
marriage. In Sen Thurmans comments, insert gays and lesbians. And
then reread the remarks of Dr. and Mrs. King. Your mileage may vary, but to me
to context and connection is clear.Again, I was not saying or
implying anything derogative.
"The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who
shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic processes? Or will it be
by a federal district court judge? The legal debate has only just begun."--- I am beginning to thing that DN editorials are written only to
please the oldest, most conservative lds elders, with no consideration of how
they drive away folks who are younger, or who may have more open minds.I notice that the 3 "top comments" ridicule the article and the DN.First, it is ironic and wrong to bring up "the people deciding",
because the lds church and Utah would not exist, if the rest of American had
voted on it 150 years ago.Second, mentioning only one judge is odd:
Not only have many judges ruled, but the matter is going to be settled by the
Supreme Court, not a single judge.Third, the legal debate has not
just begun. All the decisions are going the way of equality, and public opinion
is moving from mild acceptance to overwhelming approval, at a rate no one could
@bandersen 11:09 p.m. May 13, 2014Second try. The first try
didn't violate any of the posting regulations but DesNews didn't like
it so they denied it.I don't see LDS Liberal advocating that
homosexuality is a good thing. I see him fighting the same fight we all fought
in the pre-mortal existence -- the right to have free agency to make our own
decisions as we "wend" our way through mortality. I see him arguing for
the right of each one of us to make our own decisions, right ones or wrong ones,
but make them ourselves and not have someone dictate morality to us and force us
to comply. Forced adherence to morality was the plan we defeated in the
pre-mortal existence but, unfortunately, Lucifer keeps trying to reinstitute
that failed plan time after time after time. It's fine to try to persuade;
just don't try to compel using laws like Amendment 3 and the other laws
struck down because they violate the Constitution. It's time
to both advocate for free agency in civil law and, if you feel it necessary,
seek to persuade people to live in acordance with Heavenly Father's law.
@Furry1993: The only thing I would add is that the Heavenly Father's law
seems to be specific to each denomination. There is no consensus, even among
Christian denominations, as to what that law fully constitutes nor how to
practice one's faith in compliance with it. Every denomination approaches
the subjects of dogma, revelation, and discernment its own way and with its own
results.And historically, some of those results have been violent.
For religions which extol Peace, very few denominations have a great track
record of practicing it.Let me just add, again, that the reason we
have separation of Church and State ("the Establishment Clause") in this
country is that, during our colonial and territorial days, we've had a
violent history of religious strife and oppression, including imprisonment,
exile, torture, and execution of minority religions by governing authorities.
(cf. "Boston Martyrs")In matters of religious faith and
practice, our government only need guarantee individual freedom. For everyone.
Meanwhile, secular law will soon embrace marriage equality because
no one can show a court how they themselves will be injured by it.
How does maintaining the age-old definition of marriage deprive anyone of free
agency? People are free to choose to be gay and live with and love the person
they want. This is all about societal approval. Free agency means
you are free to do what you want but it also means I am free to disapprove.
There is a big difference between allowing the exercise of a freedom and
approving of it. Marriage is a stamp of approval and society is
under no obligation to say that all lifestyles are equal.
SoCalChris,You really think people "choose" to be gay? Why
would someone choose to be discriminated against, ridiculed, beaten, denied
rights? Personally I did not choose to be gay anymore than you choose to be
straight. It's just a fact I eventually accepted - there is no proven
method of changing that fact.The fight for SSM is about equality,
not forcing you to accept it. There are over 1200 federal rights and
protections than automatically come with marriage. I don't care whether
you "approve" or not.
Guess what, from the gay point of view, this battle has been with us since the
beginning, so what else is new? People are so arrogant! Why would I feel like I
have a right to deny somebody to get married? If I truly feel like somebody
should have respect for me, shouldn't I give that respect back? Why would I
have a need to make this kind of judgment and maybe I should think twice before
assuming so much about God's will! How easy it is to make such big
decisions concerning the lives of others! Who are people fooling? I an gay. You
know what, I love the people around me including all the Mormons. All of my
family is Mormon! Seriously, who are people kidding? I guess they can choose to
believe any degrading thing that want to concerning me, but I am a decent and
good person and so is my partner! Our lives together have been good! It has been
good and very important to us! More power to you! All those people who truly
feel a need to put us down, more power to you.
Blue Cougar, the five things that you mention as signs of the last days have
nothing to do with being LBGT. LBGT people had no choice in their orientation.
They truly were created in God's image just like you! These
"signs" apply to all people including many "good members" of the
predominate faith. We have all had experiences with so called "good
people' that have participated in all five of your mentioned signs.I don't see that happening to someone just because they were born
gay or want civil rights accorded by our Constitution. Every one of these
scriptures was warning the whited sepulchers of today.
@ Bob KReally? While I will agree that more people have let go of
their angst toward SSM I wouldn't say they have jumped on the SSM band
wagon.You might have plenty of rallies and such out in your necks of
the woods but I don't see much of any here on the east coast.I
see people growing more apathetic towards the issue which isn't really a
sign of support for either side.
Only the DN editorial board and Karen Carpenter would sing out "it's
only just begun" concerning the issue of burying the idea of marriage
equality. The next song the DN will be singing is "It's my party and
I'll cry if I want too, cry if I want to, you would cry to if it happened
@ Karen R: You cavalierly state: "I think it will be this way for religions
too. If they want to continue to attract converts, at least here in the U.S. -
or stop losing them - they're going to have to do what's best for
their "business."This is what the Creator of the universe
and the earth said to a living Prophet: "...What power shall stay the
heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river
in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from
pouring down knowledge from heaven....."As for me and my family
we will choose the way of the Lord.
@MeckofahessAs soon as a church stops worship to take up a
collection it becomes a business. As soon as there is a "revelation"
that god "commands" a certain amount be given, it becomes a racket. When the income drops there are two choices. Ratchet up the rhetoric
about this or that threat to "the family" or "the children" and
then pitch for funds to fight the group that has been identified as causing the
threat. OR, become more inclusive and ask for help reaching out to
I was only 8 when Stonewall happened in 1968, and I really didn't come out
until a decade ago. But I have been a reader all my life, and have read and
heard the stories about what people went through back then and now. I am very
aware of the history and the sacrifice and the pain of those who lead the fight
out of the closet. As always happens, the new generation has little
connection with that history, and those who are not gay and have no real
connection to gay culture are also unaware. So Pride, which started as an effort
to demand recognition and claim identity, is mostly a party. And people overall
are so accustomed to their gay family, friends, coworkers and neighbors that the
response has become "ho-hum."A good thing. Sad the awareness
of the battles is fading, but a good thing that the battles are mostly over.
The issue of legalizing marriage equality is not so much about whether the
decision is left to the courts or the people, but rather how expeditiously
marriage equality will become the law of the land. It is going to happen . . .
that is a moot point. So for those who oppose the idea of marriage equality,
get ready for a big disappointment.