The good news for Monte Stewart is that the Supreme Court has made it clear that
it will decide the fate of state laws banning same sex marriage. Unfortunately,
it has also made clear they will strike them down just as they struck down DOMA.
Just ask Justice Scalia.
There would not be "chaos" in Utah if the State had not decided not to
recognize legal contracts.
Chaos? LOL, so dramatic.
When are people in states like Utah and Idaho going to learn that the best way
to handle this issue is to get their governments out of marriage altogether,
rather than spending a fortune on a losing legal battle? Civil unions for
everyone of legal age, marriage for those who wish to do so under the auspices
of their chosen church, spiritual authority, or dot com pastor.Marriage is inherently an intensely personal and private contract between two
individuals, or at most two families, and ought not merit any concern or
regulation from the state. Nobody should have to seek permission from their
government to be married.I am actively opposed to gay marriage on a
personal level, but every person in this country is guaranteed the freedom of
association by the United States Constitution, and that freedom of association
absolutely must include marriage. That supreme law of the land does not permit
any local, state, or federal government, no matter how many people support it,
to deny that right to anyone on any basis.The only solution that has
a snowball's chance in h*** to satisfy both parties is for government to
exit the marriage equation altogether.
What about the chaos in Massachusetts? Marriage rates in Massachusetts are the
lowest in the country. Bottom line is nobody there cherishes marriage anymore.
We are slowly dipping into a marriageless society. That chaos is unfathomable.
Just ask SSM couples who were married during that brief period if chaos does not
prevail in Utah - they'll give you the straight scoop.
A SS relationship 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. States have a vested
interest in successful families, the optimal family opportunity being a husband
wife/mother father marriage and therefore endorse and promote that which
encourages the ideal. Other relationships may be formed by persons as they see
fit and the same legal rights may be extended but SS unions are not marriage
despite what judges may rule.SSM advocates label any differing
opinion as bigotry, homophobic and having vile animus. 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 new
rights while shouting down, discrediting, and even threatening any who advocate
for the true definition of marriage.
While they show little enough regard for democratic process, bless their hearts,
the dear sensitive Federal judges profess a desire to avoid creating
"chaos"? Not credible. Perhaps these judges need to elaborate on just
what they mean by "chaos".
For all those who jump on the SSM rights band wagon by 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. The overall agenda is much bigger than inventing
the right to SSM. 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.Indifference on this subject is not acceptable. As soon as SSM becomes the law
of the land there will be expanded efforts to indoctrinate elemtary school
children as is already happening in California,and a few other states. We will
be pressured to not just tolerate or accept SSM but to embrace it.
And what is interesting about us bigots and homophobs is that all we ask is for
our rights to believe how we want. We are not the ones driving others out of
business for not thinking the way we do.
"Since the Supreme Court’s intervention, all but one of the district
courts that ruled against man-woman marriage stayed their own decisions".None of the judges has ruled against man-woman marriage.
@Rocket ScienceBrigham City, UTStates have a vested interest
in successful families, the optimal family opportunity being a husband
wife/mother father marriage and therefore endorse and promote that which
encourages the ideal. ====== Then "States"
should be doing a better job making sure ONE Father can provide for his family,
and ONE wife can stay home and take care of the kids and home and be a Mom.Tell you what -- You get that fixed, and I'll listen to the
rest of your sob story about screwed up marriages and families.It's not Rocket Science...
@ Rocket Science"We will be pressured to not just tolerate or accept
SSM but to embrace it."How old are you? If you believe and feel
you can be pressured "to embrace SSM" may be you are not what you think
you are. Just a thought! You see, we LGBT people have been pressured since we
were born to be heterosexuals and marry somebody from the opposite sex, it just
doesn't work for us, unless..... you know.
WRK, believe what you want. Act like a nice person.
"SS marriage doesn't hurt anyone"Can't tell you how many
times I've heard that. Maybe someone should tell that to the ex-CEO of
Mozilla (Brendan Eich). He contributed $1K to a lawful proposition that was
ultimately passed by the majority of California voters, then 5 years later he
got canned for it. So yes, there is a direct impact. He never tweeted
anti-LGBT propaganda. He silently contributed to a cause based on his opinions.
There's no freedom of expression, no right of free speech when you can do
something like that and get fired for it years later. Yes, Eich resigned, but
you can't honestly tell me there wasn't serious pressure to do so from
both outside and inside. His views on SS marriage have nothing to do with his
ability to run a company, yet somehow his right to free speech was used to harm
him. SS proponents have no qualms trampling the rights of others, as outlined
in the constitution, to get their way.
@LovelyDeseret - You're wrong. The great commonwealth of Massachusetts,
does not in fact have the lowest rate of marriages per capita. There are
numerous states with lower marriage rates than Massachusetts that do not allow
SSM. Massachusetts does hold the notable distinguishment of having the lowest
uninsured rate in the nation, in part due to legislation that was developed with
the assistance of Mitt Romney.
Now comes the interesting part:The 9th Circuit has issued a
temporary halt to enforcement of the lower court's decision while it
considers whether or not to extend the stay during the appeals process. But keep
in mind that the 9th Circuit ruled in SmithKline v. Abbott that equal protection
cases involving sexual orientation are subject to a "heightened
scrutiny" standard of review.Unlike "rational basis,"
this higher standard means Idaho has a more difficult burden of proof that their
law is constitutional. Few people believe same sex marriage bans can survive
"heightened scrutiny." Therefore the appeal is unlikely to succeed.Usually when an appeal is unlikely to succeed, you don't get a
stay. On the other hand, the Supreme Court issued a stay in the Utah case
(without any explanation.) Which why does the 9th Circuit go?By the
way, this is the case that is the most likely one to end up in the Supreme Court
Whoa Rocket Science, you'd better be careful... That's an awful lot of
logic you're injecting into this conversation!
WRK says:"And what is interesting about us bigots and homophobs
is that all we ask is for our rights to believe how we want. We are not the ones
driving others out of business for not thinking the way we do."No, you're the ones who voted to deny equality to LGBT Americans.
You're the ones who are fighting against LGBT families being treated like
your family by our government. You're the ones who go around calling LGBT
people "perverts", "broken", "disordered", etc.You're not just "asking to believe how we want", you're
trying to legislate your beliefs into law.@Blue AZ Cougar;It isn't SSM that "hurt" those people you mention; it was THEIR
OWN actions coming back to bite them in the butt (Karma). Same sex marriages
haven't hurt anybody.
The complete text of the Supreme Court stay issued January 6th:(ORDER
LIST: 571 U.S.)MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2014ORDER IN PENDING CASE13A687 HERBERT, GOV. OF UT, ET AL. V. KITCHEN, DEREK, ET AL.The
application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor andby her referred to
the Court is granted. The permanentinjunction issued by the United States
District Court for theDistrict of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December
20, 2013, isstayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the
UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. From this
news story:Stewart said the Supreme Court made it clear when it issued the
Jan. 6 stay in Utah that it will decide the marriage question and no lower court
decision should allow same-sex couples to marry or have their marriages
recognized.Ok Mr. Stewart, where in what came forth from the Supreme
Court does it state "that it will decide the marriage question and no lower
court decision should allow same-sex couples to marry or have their marriages
recognized." All I see is a stay, nothing more.
@WRK"We are not the ones driving others out of business for not
thinking the way we do."Do you believe a business should be able
to fire someone just because of their sexual orientation? If you don't,
then do you support the anti-discrimination job/housing bill that keeps getting
stalled in Utah's state legislature?
@Rocket Science"States have a vested interest in successful families,
the optimal family opportunity being a husband wife/mother father marriage and
therefore endorse and promote that which encourages the ideal. "You live in a state where single people can adopt and based on your statistics
argument, two parent households do better on average so... why are you trying to
keep gay people from creating two parent households for the kids adopted by one
of them? There's something in there that doesn't jive with your stated
goal. By the way, the "optimal family opportunity" is a wealthier
household, so should we prevent poor people from marrying? Basically, your argument is based on both stereotyping (by using statistical
averages to determine "optimal" situations) and then completely ignoring
statistical averages except when it comes to gay marriage. So really, is this a
reason, or is it an excuse?
@Rocket Science - If you truly are concerned with creating the optimal family
environment derived base on optimal outcomes for children, i.e. level of
education, income, etc. you should be pushing efforts to increase livable wages.
Income is one of a very small set of variables that have a direct positive
correlation for outcomes for raising children, one of the others being a stable
household. All of the research conducted and published to this point suggesting
negative impacts on children who are raised in same sex households has been
scientifically disproven and essentially disallowed in the court rooms.
ODannyBoy posted"Since the Supreme Court's intervention, all but
one of the district courts that ruled against man-woman marriage stayed their
own decisions".None of the judges has ruled against man-woman
marriage.Just wait, the day will come when Gays will consider a
Male-Female marriage an affront to their life style and seek to deny it to
@RanchHandQuit kidding yourself. When someone can't express their
views civilly without threat of recourse to the extent they may be fired from
their job despite the fact that their views have nothing to do with their work
qualifications, there's a problem. I don't advocate firing people
simply because they are SS oriented -- that would be wrong because it clearly
has nothing to do with their ability to work. But it goes both ways!
Boycotting an entire business and demanding the resignation of an individual
because s/he decided to contribute an inconsequential amount of money to the
support of Prop 8 is just as intolerant as how you perceive the religious folks
in relation to the SS movement. I'm tired of being labeled
"intolerant" when some SS supporters will go so far as to destroy the
livelihood of individuals who oppose SS marriage. It's equality as long as
you get your way, right? So much for your platform of tolerance and acceptance.
All drama aside (Chaos?), same sex marriage will occur. That's ok.
Our Judicial needs to be reformed. Judge shopping should not be allowed then to
have Judge Candy Dale disagree with the Supreme Court on the stay of gay
marriage is unbelievable and reeks of activism instead of judicial
interpretation of the Constitution while giving all deference to the Supreme
@mcdugall I am not wrong, Massachusetts has the lowest marriage rate of any
state in America. If you reword what I say and include children (since
Massachusetts doesn't generally have large families) and include elderly
widows/widowers, then yes. But if you only include people of marriage age in the
calculations then Massachusetts has the lowest marriage rate. Massachusetts also
has the highest abortion rate which could speak to their lack of regard for
marriage and morals.
@BjmooseThe Supreme Court voted 9-0 to stay Judge Shelby's
decision. The burden for staying a decision is the likelihood that the decision
will be overturned. On that the Supreme Court voted 9-0. They never agree on
anything political and yet they voted 9-0 on protecting citizen's rights to
decide the definition of marriage. This should be a clear message to all
Judge's that there is a likelihood that the votes of citizens will be
upheld and the Courts can't overturn marriage laws.
Some people seem to think being denied the ability to oppress others is bigotry
against themselves. Gays will be married. Get over it and move on.
LovelyDeseret:"What about the chaos in Massachusetts? Marriage
rates in Massachusetts are the lowest in the country." States
that allow SSM have divorce rates that average 20% lower than states that
prohibit SSM, and Massachusetts leads the nation in having the lowest divorce
rate. Utah, on the other hand, has a high rate of marriage, people
marry on average 3 years younger than the national average. Utah has the highest
rate in the nation for teen births. And it has the 4th highest divorce rate in
the country. In other words, those who marry in states that allow
SSM actually cherish the whole idea of marriage, and those states have
recognized that gays and lesbians add to that, not detract from it. In Utah,
teens get married, produce kids, then get divorced a few years later. Imagine the chaos if the whole country acted followed the Utah pattern. I mean, who cares if lots and lots of people are getting married if you
also have lots and lots of people getting divorced because they don't care
at all about marriage?
@LovelyDeseret"I am not wrong, Massachusetts has the lowest
marriage rate of any state in America."Where are you getting
that data? According to Pew Research, there are eight states that have lower
marriage rates than Massachusetts: California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico,
Mississippi, Louisiana, New York, and Rhode Island. I am sure that
the demographics of each of those states would have different reasons for the
lower marriage rates. Let's take into consideration, for example, the
number of colleges and states in Massachusetts, which runs well over 100, would
tell us that there is a large number of young college-age adults who are more
likely to put off marriage until after they finish their educational endeavors.
That state also has a large Catholic population, which means there is probably a
higher percentage of nuns and priests than in other states. Could this be
reasons for a lower rate a marriage than, say, the legalization of same-sex
@LovelyDeseret:SCOTUS stayed Judge Shelby's ruling suggests
justices are reluctant to allow a lower court to nudge them into answering a
legal question they carefully avoided in two landmark gay rights rulings last
year. Imagine if they denied the stay, they would simply open the flood gate.
But staying a decision doesn't indicate they will overturn the
ruling or uphold it.
Well this is good news. Idaho voters have not been disenfranchised by a single
judge. We are moving into a post-progressive era where the march of history is
to limit rights and democracy."When are people in states like
Utah and Idaho going to learn that the best way to handle this issue is to get
their governments out of marriage altogether, rather than spending a fortune on
a losing legal battle? "Win or lose:1) Their voters have
as much right to be franchised as any other voters, i.e. to choose laws that
reflect their value that children have the right to be raised by a father and a
mother, and2) The price for liberty is eternal vigilance.
@Blue AZ Cougar;No amount of money put towards bigotry is
"inconsequential". I couldn't care less what you
believe, personally, about SSM. That's your business. The actions of
those who PROMOTE bigotry, however, are coming back to haunt them and if you
think otherwise, you're the one "kidding yourself". If
you don't believe in SSM, don't have one; if you try to prevent others
then you have to be willing to accept the consequences.
Blue Cougar, I wonder how many LBGT people have lost their jobs, homes and
apartments because they were simply "not straight" To compare them to
the loss of a job by a CEO who angered his own employees and stockholders is
apples and oranges. His ideas did him in. In his position with the people and
company that he worked for he used bad judgment. He wasn't fired because he
was gay, like so many thousands of people.
Airnaut, Agree it would be better if the optimal family opportunity of husband
wife/mother father marriage was also ability for father as sole income and
mother staying home to nurture children. My church has asked if at all possible
we do, I might add it is possible with sacrifice. We don't have what many
others do but for 29 years it has been worth the sacrifice. I highly recommend
it.Baccus 0902 the pressure has already been turned up. One cannot
voice an opinion without threat of reprisal. In some places in CA teachers of
elementary students must teach children that gay relationships are the same as
heterosexual marriages now that is pressure having your children taught
something you believe is wrong.Schnee optimal family is husband
wife/mother father in the household. Sometimes divorce, illegitimacy,or death
take away from optimal in which the state has an interest to see that they do
OK. Neither my statistics nor your have been scientifically disproven.Anyone dare to read The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and
Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987. If a SSM advocate you may agree
with all but it really is about more that SSM.
@Rocket ScienceShould we figure out which race has the highest test scores
and limit marriage to that too while we're all about this
"optimality" thing? These averages are only ever used against same-sex
marriage (single people can adopt in Utah, I don't see outrage about that,
but if a gay person with an adopted child wants to add a second parent...)."Anyone dare to read The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall
Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987."Skimmed
it. I can see why it'd concern you since the end result pretty much results
in regarding those who oppose equal rights for the LGBT community as something
akin to those who support segregation. Not sure why I should be concerned
Surely, everyone must realize that we would not be here for this very case, if
the Formula of the opposite Genders were any different. If it was the Same Sex
Formula, we would be like the Neanderthals,extinct. Everyone has the equal
Right to mate with the opposite Gender. Again, if that was not true, Mankind
would be not be here today. It would have died out millions of years ago. It
is a no-brainer, what the Formula must be. Pity
@Tekakaromatagi;So, Idaho voters weren't "disenfranchised
by a single judge", but somehow, it is okay (based on your comment) that
LGBT voters, and American Citizens, were disenfranchised by Idaho voters?@Rocket Science;Why are you so afraid of your LGBT
So, Rocket Science, You're basing the motivations of an entire
group of people on the writings of an extreme activist?I don't
know about you, but I'd take offense if someone based their assessment of
Christianity on the teachings of the KKK. Look, I believe the gay
marriage is wrong. I also believe it is detrimental to God's plan for the
family. I also believe in the law of agency. You can't have obedience or
righteousness without the ability to choose. If we go around outlawing every
little thing that is wrong, we're going to end up losing our freedom to do
what's right. People should have the agency to do wrong things, as long as
it doesn't infringe upon the right to life, liberty, or pursuit of
happiness of any other person, including the liberty to make righteous choices.
Thus, the best option is to recognize the right to freedom of association and to
focus on purging all state regulation from our personal relationships. In this
way, the religious have the right to freely interpret marriage as they wish and
to associate themselves accordingly, without infringing on the rights of anyone
else to do the same.
@Rocket Science: "Anyone dare to read The Overhauling of Straight America by
Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987. If a SSM
advocate you may agree with all but it really is about more that SSM."I read it. It is an advertising strategy, not much different from
strategies for new product categories or unknown political candidates or wars in
foreign countries. In fact, it isn't much different than campaigns against
SSM and gay rights. All long-term advertising campaigns are designed to
introduce ideas and get people comfortable with them - who, 20 years ago, would
imagine that virtually every American would have a smart-phone connected to
every part of their life? Yet smart advertising campaigns took a gimmick and
moved if from geek-fringe to commonplace. This outline is simply a
codification of Harvey Milk's exhortation to "come out" because
more people knowing they know gay people will move us from scary boogey-men in
the shadows to regular people, take us from threat to "so what."Melting pot. America. We all get a place in the public square.
In the article, Romboy adopts nearly word-for-word Idaho's ham-fisted
mis-characterization of the decisions of all the Federal District Courts that
have heard these cases: "...the district courts that ruled against
man-woman marriage..."As a rule, legal briefs attempt to
persuade by citing case-law and framing the issue with language that steers the
analysis in the most favorable direction as possible, given the facts/law that
might support a position. Readers expect similar spin in op-ed
sections of newspapers.What readers do not expect is to see this
tactic employed in the text of articles that run as "news".To be clear: in all the states referenced in the article, where district
courts have issued rulings, men and women can and are continuing to get married.
Men and women could get married before all the constitutional SSM-bans were
passed in the 2003-2004 era, as well as afterwards. In other words, none of the
district court decisions changed the ability of a man and woman to get married.
DN readers are being manipulated.
The personal attacks on "Rocket Scientist" are unconscionable. Does 2%
of the population think that attacking anyone who disagrees with them advances
their cause. The word that most people use for those attacks is
"bullying".The best way to respond to those who attack is to
copy their responses to everyone you know and to encourage the other 98% to get
involved. Sitting on the sidelines and pretending that no one is attacking the
family will ensure the destruction of the family.The family IS under
attack. Some people think that they have the right to redefine marriage. Some
people think that they have the right to tell society that we must teach our
children that same-sex "marriage" is acceptable. Some people think that
they have the right to mock the Supreme Law of the Land and claim
"rights" based on nothing more than their "feelings".Others of us know that God has defined marriage to be between a man and a
woman. Others of us know that sex of any kind outside of marriage is
prohibited. Others of us know that redefining immutable laws will destroy
GZE - it is not a "legal contract" when it is against state law. Aggie 238 - this is not about the freedom of association. Gays can
associate with whomever they like, civil union or otherwise. This is about
their attempt to force society to adopt their new definition of marriage, which
has historically always been between people of different genders.
Mcdugall:Just like a liberal to try to blame Romney for problems in
Massachusetts despite years of Democratic leadership since his tenure. The same
way that Obama and his cronies are still blaming the economy on Bush after years
of failed leadership from the Democrats.By the way, the insurance
situation in Massachusetts that you criticized is the model that Obama praised
and touted as the prototype for his health care plan (in spite of the fact that
it is much more complicated, intrusive, and expensive).
"Utah has the highest rate in the nation for teen births." That is true ONLY if you count Married teenage mothers in that total. This statistic has often been quoted by critics of Utah and of Mormons,
without noting the obvious difference between married mothers and unwed mothers.
When there is a mother AND a father that are married to each other, then those
children have a proper family, not the same as with single moms.
@ Aggie238You wrote:"Look, I believe the gay marriage is wrong.
I also believe it is detrimental to God's plan for the family. I also
believe in the law of agency. You can't have obedience or righteousness
without the ability to choose. If we go around outlawing every little thing that
is wrong, we're going to end up losing our freedom to do what's right.
People should have the agency to do wrong things, as long as it doesn't
infringe upon the right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of any other
person, including the liberty to make righteous choices."Aggie,
I find your comment very refreshing. It seems that very few LDS understand that
in Mormon Theology compulsory adherence to the commandements was promoted by
Satan."I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll
defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire
@RanchHandWow, your thought process is astounding. So let me get this
straight -- I have to "accept the consequences" if I don't see
things the way you see them? I can voice my opinions as long as they don't
conflict with yours, is that it? Obviously you DO care what I think about SSM
or you wouldn't be trying to ram that agenda down my throat. Who's
promoting intolerance here? The person who gives a little bit of money to a
moral cause they believe in, or the individuals who decide to picket a business
because someone thinks differently than they do?@Utefan60Did
you read my comment? I said it's wrong to fire someone solely because of
their SS attraction. How did Eich anger his employees? Did he distribute an
internal memo expressing his views? Did he encourage employees to contribute to
the support of Prop 8? No. From the comfort of his own home he decided to
contribute some of his personal money in support of something he agreed with.
He was fired because he expressed a view different from other people, and did
not abuse his position as CEO to do it.
In addition, to those who say that anyone is "making up rights that
don't exist," please let clue us in on which exhaustive list of
enumerated rights you are referencing which allows you to authoritatively make
such a statement. And before you invoke the U.S. Constitution or its
Amendments, please read the 9th Amendment carefully. No government, even with
the support of a majority, has the authority to define or limit the rights of
any person, only where that person's actions curtail the right of another
to lead his or her life in a manner most desirable to himself or herself. To prevent this from occurring on either side of the issue, we just need
to get government out of marriage altogether.
@Mike Richards: "The personal attacks on "Rocket Scientist" are
unconscionable."Personal attacks? I just re-read the thread,
noted everything RS said, and all responses. RS started out with a
standard "SSM is not marriage" and "states must defend the
family" stance, and the claim that SSM labels all opposition as animus.He then posted about the "Overhauling America" article, with
claims on meaning.El Chango Supremo supported him.Schnee
challenged claims RS made about the family, referencing Utah state law.RS made a personal statement about his family, claimed California requires SSM
be taught in elementary school, and again referenced the article. Schnee asked a logical question on enforcing an "optimal home" beyond
requiring opposite sex parents and dismissed the article.Ranchhand
asked why he is afraid of his GLBT neighborsAngie238 agreed with him
on marriage but did ask why he condemns an entire community on the basis of one
article.Stormwalker (Hi.) challenged his interpretation of the
importance of that article.I think I caught all the interactions.Is disagreement a personal attack?
@Rocket Science: “Preserving the 'traditional institution of
marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral
disapproval of same-sex couples” - Lawrence, Justice ScaliaMoral disapproval has never been constitutional or a legitimate state
interest. "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and
constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress
of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new
discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change,
with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace
with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which
fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of
their barbarous ancestors.” - Jefferson MemorialThe United
States Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among
citizens." Romer v. Evans, "There can be no circumstance
under which this discriminatory classification is constitutional, as it was
intended to, and on its face does, stigmatize and disadvantage same-sex couples
and their families, denying only to them protected rights to recognition of
their marriages andviolating the guarantee of equal protection."
@BlueAz;You, and I both, can express our opinions. Neither of us is
free of the consequences of doing so. If my opinion is largely unpopular, I
will probably feel some backlash. Yours is currently unpopular and you'll
feel it instead. Don't you conservatives believe in "taking personal
responsibility"?In any case, you are welcome to any opinion you
desire; you're just not allowed to use that opinion to violate the rights
of others. Express it all you want, but if you go a step further, and pay money
to deny equality; expect consequences. Nobody says you can't
express an opinion. Spending money to violate civil rights is not
"speech" - money isn't speech.
"It seems that very few LDS understand that in Mormon Theology compulsory
adherence to the commandements was promoted by Satan."How in the
world is maintaining the traditional definition of marriage compelling anyone to
keep the commandments?A gay individual's exercise of free
agency does not require societal approval. Gays are free to be with and love
the person they want, and I don't know anyone who doesn't support that
right. But free agency does not mean gay unions have a right to be defined by a
term which has had a heterosexual meaning throughout history.
@SoCal History and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases
the ending point of a substantive due process inquiry. Lets take a closer look
at the constitutional context of Loving. “The freedom to marry has long
been recognized” as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process
Clause. Loving (1967). See Turner (1987) “The decision to marry is a
fundamental right ; Moore (1977) “The Constitution protects the sanctity
of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted
in this Nation’s history and tradition”; Griswold (1965) intrusions
into the “sacred precincts of marital bedrooms” offend rights
“older than the Bill of Rights." The law “Disrupts the
traditional relation of the family – a relation as old and as fundamental
as our entire civilization”. While courts use history and tradition to
identify the interests that due process protects, they DO NOT carry forward
historical limitations, either traditional or arising by operation of prior law,
on which Americans may exercise a right, once that right is recognized as one
that due process protects.While states have a legitimate interest in
regulating and promoting marriage, the fundamental right to marry BELONGS to the
@SoCalYou wrote:" How in the world is maintaining the
traditional definition of marriage compelling anyone to keep the
commandments?"So many implications and loose ends in that
question.What is the traditional definition of marriage? I
don't know, there have been so many throughout history and a variety
according to the diversity of cultures.However, I can give you a
modern,Western 20,21Century, definition of: Marriage is the union of two
unrelated adults in a consensual and cotractual relationship recognized by
law.Regarding the "compelling part" of your question. You and people who believe like you have prevented a whole segment of
society to obtain the benefit of marriage. Basing your objections mostly on your
religious beliefs. You have given money, spread fears and fallacies in order to
prevent SSM. You have attempted (with great success) that your religious
perception of the world be established as the law of the land, despite the fact
that our system of govern is secular.Your claims that SSM is
immoral, that God will do something horrible to this nation, that our country is
a Judeo-Christian nation, etc. etc, are forces to force society to be
"righteous". Do you deny that?
To those who are not LDS this does not apply. Those who do believe and sustain
The LDS President and Prophet, First Presidency and 12 Apostles, are obligated
to know their words reflect the words of the Lord Himself. That is what is
intended, that is what is meant by signing the The Family: A Proclamation to the
World. The first part of March this year they also published a letter to leaders
of the Church across the world. In part it read: Changes in the civil law do
not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects
us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or
trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper
only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband
and wife. We urge you to review; the doctrine contained in; The Family: A
Proclamation to the World.LDS persons cannot support SSM and sustain
and support their Prophet, First Presidency and Apostles. The Proclamation is
an affirmation of the Church's doctrine of Family.
@ It ain't Rocket Science. In 1967 N. Eldon Tanner spoke in General
Conference and said: "The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine
on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro
never held the Priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this.
It's a law of God."Eleven years later, in 1978, Bruce R.
McConkie also spoke in General Conference. He said: "Forget everything that
I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or
whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We
spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now
has come into the world..."Someday the faithful might be told:
"Forget everything that was done or said in the past. Excommunicating civil
married same-sex couples or harming their children by giving higher priority to
politics and animus was based on our limited understanding without the light and
knowledge we refused to see for so many years.... Make no mistake, we are not
apologizing for the harm done to these couples or their families..."
@Rocketscientist...Continue the legal strategy of using "God" and
"Prophet" during any legal argument. Those of us that continue to
support equality for all will be grateful that you believe that there is a
correlation between the two.
... and now, Oregon. (This one won't be appealed by the state).
@SoCal" How in the world is maintaining the traditional definition of
marriage compelling anyone to keep the commandments?"In some
states it's a crime to perform symbolic only (since in the state same-sex
marriage is banned) same-sex marriages in churches.