Quantcast
Faith

Same-sex marriage creates uncertainties decade after Massachusetts implementation

Comments

Return To Article
  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 17, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    Notice the silence on the subject of social ills arising from SSM. All concerns are about religious freedom, i.e., "We're afraid that, when in the public square, we'll be forced to behave as if we approve of SSM when our religion forbids it."

    I think it's more accurate to say that you'll be required to refrain from discriminating against those of whom you disapprove.

    MY concern is that some are placing their religion before the nation. What's wrong with this? Of the two, which one is protecting your right to practice your religion? (And my right to not believe.)

    If your belief about SSM is exempted from public accommodation laws, all other beliefs must be honored too, and we revert to "majority rules." If your religious sect doesn't have a majority right now, you're working against your own self-interest.

    IMO, you are seeking relief in the wrong place. It needs to come from your religion, not your nation. Your religion needs to come up with a workaround that allows you to remain faithful to it. Fortunately, our nation grants it the freedom to do this.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 17, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    This article tries to give balanced information from the pro and the contra sides, but gives the impression that religion is per definition against same-sex marriage. It fails to acknowledge that many churches have already opened their doors, their hearts, and their sacraments to our gay brothers and sisters. And more are to follow.

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    May 17, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    "It was a massive mistake and a betrayal when the Supreme Judicial Court foisted same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts, and it remains so today." Being from Mass., I couldn't agree more. When the tyranny of a few appointed individuals overrides the will of the people, as Shakespeare once quipped, "Something is rotten in the state of ________ (fill in the blank)."

  • ultragrampa Farmington, UT
    May 17, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    As hard as I try - and I have really tried over the past few years as the debate has heated up - I still cannot come to grips with the concept of a girl having a "wife" or a boy having a "husband." It all seems just so unnatural and weird, just SO against logic and reason.

    And that a child have have "two mommies" or "two daddies"? Yeah - that just can't be normal; just can't be right. Can it???

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    May 17, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    This piece makes the case that those who oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds ought to be given a pass for providing services to same sex couples on the grounds that it violates their strongly held religious principles.

    The main religious objection to anything homosexual are a few references to homosexual activity in the Bible that elevate the practice to some sort of sin (the level of which I will leave to religionists). Unspoken, but on display, is the another objection to same sex marriage. Namely the "I find it icky" factor. (The child rearing argument has been thoroughly destroyed.)

    My question to religionists of any stripe. Why does the "sin" of homosexuality become elevated so high. No one discriminates on the grounds of strongly held religious views for someone who violates on of the Ten Commandments. All you folks buying milk on Sunday ought to be sanctioned every bit as much as a same sex couple wanting to get married.

    My question to homophobes is why you find homosexuality so "icky". I find smoking, obesity, crude language and a disregard for our common humanity far more repulsive.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 17, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    So same sex marriage might upset your religious sensitivities. That's too bad. You're not owed the right to act on what you see as a god given impetus to discriminate. I cut the lawn on sunday, while drinking beer. Some of the neighbours probably oppose this. But like same sex marriage, they're not owed obedience on my part because of it.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 17, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    Cool Cat, I suggest you go back to Massachusetts and talk to some people there. I don't understand your concern unless you think that you think you will be forced to marry a SS person as soon as you cross the border.

    Ultragrandpa, I invite you to meet my daughter and her wife. The concept of same-sex marriage seemed as strange to me as the concept of interracial marriage once did. I invite you to come to my church and meet gay couples raising children. I admire you for being honest about your feelings--it does seem strange. The concept of interracial adoption seems strange to a lot of people--heck, the concept of adoption at all (for otherwise fertile couples) as a chosen way to build a family is hard for a lot of people to accept. Living in Farmington, you may not realize how "unnatural" a lot of southerners think it is to belong to the LDS church.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 17, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    I could not agree more ordinaryfolks. What really annoys me is that in the bible adultery is condemned just as harshly if not more harshly than homosexuality. Adultery is condemned no fewer than 52 times in the christian bible and homosexuality is only mentioned 6 times.

    Do these religious organizations refuse to do business with anyone who has committed adultery. Are they fighting for laws to allow them to discriminate against anyone who has committed adultery? Why are they so obsessed with this one "sin" in their book while they have let all the others go? Not even abortion, the other really hot button issue, rises to this level. No one is asking for laws that will let them never do business with anyone who's had an abortion.

    They likely do business with people who have violated every single belief they hold sacred yet this one "sin" is the line they won't cross. The "religious rights" argument makes these people look very bigoted to much of society - simply because this seems to be only issue they are making this argument against, it's the only one they seem to care about.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    May 17, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    @Wilf55 >>>This article tries to give balanced information from the pro and the contra sides

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    @Cool Cat Cosmo
    "When the tyranny of a few appointed individuals overrides the will of the people,"

    It is a fundamental American value that when the tyranny of the majority institutes something that is unconstitutional, the courts have the duty to override it.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    May 17, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    When they first allowed gay marriage in Utah, I was very upset. After a lot of prayer and scripture study, I was filled with the knowledge that all will be well. That the power of men can never overcome the will of our Heavenly Father. Some may mock me for my beliefs, but I care not. All of this is just part of the latter-days prophesized by ancient prophets and modern prophets. Although I'll always be kind and courteous to those who disagree with me, I claim the constitutional right to live and defend my faith. I claim the right as a citizen of this great country to disagree with others and fight against things I feel are wrong. I believe that all children of our Heavenly Father are worthy of love. It is our actions that define us.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 17, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    What other acceptances will same-sex marriage lead to?

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    May 17, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    @ultragrampa who said:
    "As hard as I try - and I have really tried over the past few years as the debate has heated up - I still cannot come to grips with the concept of a girl having a "wife" or a boy having a "husband." It all seems just so unnatural and weird, just SO against logic and reason."

    So an entire section of our community should be denied equal rights because of your lack of empathy, understanding and simple imagination?

    I personally find the thought of engaging in homosexual sex icky. For me. It's just not gonna happen. But because I understand loving someone and wanting to be with them forever, I will fight (and vote) to ensure all my fellow Americans have the same right. To do otherwise is selfish and just plain mean spirited.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    May 17, 2014 1:03 p.m.

    @Cool Cat Cosmo - Also being from MA, I couldn't me more proud that the Supreme Court of MA put an end to one form of discrimination. The founding fathers left England in the pursuit to freedom to practice their beliefs or non-beliefs without the burden of Governmental interference. Whatever your religious beliefs are, this country is designed to protect your rights as individuals to practices your beliefs without persecution from the Government and as such religious organizations should not force, through legislation, their beliefs on the masses.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 17, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    The article states:

    "Just look at what happened to Catholic Charities, which ceased adoption services in Massachusetts in the aftermath" of the 2003 ruling."

    What the article doesn't state is that Catholic Charities was taking tax-payer dollars to run the agency for all citizens of the Massachusetts - not just Catholics. Private adoption services run with private dollars such as LDS Social Services did not have the same constraints.

    Had a state funded agency refused to provide adoption services to Mormons because of the sincerely held religious belief of some that "Mormons are not Christians," I doubt this newspaper would see that as an act of Religious Liberty.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    May 17, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    Have no fear Mormon friends very soon samesex marriages will be the law of our great country and we all will be better for it!

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 17, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    @ultragrampa:
    "And that a child have have "two mommies" or "two daddies"? Yeah - that just can't be normal; just can't be right. Can it???"

    We have two adopted kids, a boy and a girl.

    They are thrilled to have two mommies and a loving home and security and hope.

    Sometimes, I call her my "wife." Sometimes I use "partner." Sometimes I call her my "husband" because she works so I can be a stay-at-home-mom, and she changes the oil and kills spiders.

    We know a couple at church where she works as an internal medicine doctor and he stays at home with their children. The insist that he is the "wife" and she is the "husband." Started as a joke, but now it is a statement about gender roles and what society expects.

    He is very masculine, by the way. He is also good with kids and the best cook I know.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 17, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    Whether SSM is legalized or not, decisions have consequences! God will not be mocked and SSM is mocking Him! To place the acts of Homosexuality on par with buying milk on Sunday is akin to equating abortion to a passionate kiss! One of the great benefits, however, will be to see all our SSM advocates come to the support of our brothers and sisters who want to live in polygamous marriages! Equality for all is a wonderful concept that brings Social Justice to all forms of marriage! Right!

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 17, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    Cool Cat Cosmo
    "When the tyranny of a few appointed individuals overrides the will of the people"

    That is why they are appointed. If they were elected their decisions would all look toward the next election and what is popular at the moment and, over time, be influenced by whoever gave the biggest campaign contributions.

    But their job, in the constitution, is to be a balance that looks at the legality of the law and does what is right. Yes, the system has flaws, but better appointed than elected.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 17, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    If being gay is SO wrong - why do straight people keep producing them?

    God's will?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    @Ultragrampa

    No it isn't right (at least not in the eyes of folks like you and me). However, it is right in the eyes of the traditionalphobes. I for one don't object if John and Fred want to be lifelong partners and do what they want within their four walls - that is between them and their God. What I do object to is the gay community trying to force us to accept their definition of marriage and family structures. I think society will need to come up with something like a "same-sex partnership" that is recognized as different than traditional marriage but I don't think the traditionalphobes will want to compromise at this point.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    May 17, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    @The Wraith

    "Why are they so obsessed with this one "sin" in their book while they have let all the others go?"
    Most refusals of same sex couples happen when they are getting married, such as the Colorado bakery case. It is morally wrong to force anyone to celebrate what they believe is a barbaric violation of God's standards. Selling something to an adulterer is not celebrating the sin. They are customers purchasing products completely unrelated to their sin.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 17, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    ultragrampa,

    Imagine if your only option was marrying another person of the same sex?

    That IS the way gay people feel!

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 17, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    Laura Ann,

    We need more people like you in this world.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 17, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    @bandersen: "One of the great benefits, however, will be to see all our SSM advocates come to the support of our brothers and sisters who want to live in polygamous marriages!"

    I would support laws legalizing polygamous marriages. I would not support just legalizing polygyny - also known as "plural wives." Polygamy, or as it is now more commonly known, polyamory, might be better characterized as "plural spouses."

    I firmly believe that the biggest problem with polygamy is the hidden nature of it, so it leads to abuse of all sorts. Legalizing it and regulating it would not solve all the problems, any more than marriage laws end all marital abuse - but it would certainly help.

    And you should understand, "legalizing polygamy" is a huge button-pusher along the Wasatch Front. Not so much in other parts of the country that has little connection to the various historical issues Utah experienced with polygamy.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 17, 2014 8:31 p.m.

    @Avenue: "It is morally wrong to force anyone to celebrate what they believe is a barbaric violation of God's standards."

    You are selling a product or service to the public. If you don't want to sell to the public, do something else.

    In Atlanta I knew a professional photographer who was a Mormon Bishop at least twice. He took jobs that paid.

    Bar Mitzvahs. Legal documenting for attorneys and insurance companies. Family photos. And weddings. LDS weddings. Christian, Catholic and Jewish weddings. Weddings in the nicest religious buildings, weddings in hotels and rented halls, weddings in back yards. I know he shot at least one Wiccan and one Pagan wedding because, while I was LDS at the time, I was widely read and experienced and could answer some questions he had.

    Some he found interesting. Some he found boring. Mostly, he sold his services and supported his family and didn't much worry about being offended.

    I recently read the owner of the bakery in Oregon is now hauling trash. Honest work that supports his family and does not require him to be offended. See how that works?

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    May 17, 2014 8:41 p.m.

    I am in Massachusetts sitting in my old room reading the Deseret News about Massachusetts, "Same sex marriage creates uncertainties..." No, not that I am aware of. Gay marriage is rarely a topic of conversation in media, public forums, or private discussions. Gay marriage is a simple distraction to the Catholic Church compared to the massive damage it inflicted upon itself with the child sex scandals. The author indicates that Catholic Charities and the Knights of Columbus are beloved organizations whose work is so important that they deserve the right to discriminate against gays. Well, that's just not going to happen. I attended Catholic elementary and high schools here and they dished out anti-gay venom without any regard for the consequences of their words. It was abusive by any measure, but it was within their four walls and within their right to do so. Today however, most Bay State residents of all faiths don't subscribe to the churche's view on gays. In summary, gay marriage is a non-event here. You may discriminate privately, that's your right, but not in the public forum. It's not a case of uncertainty.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    May 17, 2014 10:53 p.m.

    @Stormwalker

    All businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter the reason. This is especially true if providing a product or service would violate the personally held religious views of the owner to do so.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 17, 2014 11:45 p.m.

    @Avenue:

    Not exactly...

    Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation. The Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

    The Americans with Disabilities Act extends that to disabled people.

    Even if your religion says you can discriminate, Federal law says you can't.

    Many state and local laws extend protection to gays, lesbians and transgender people. Currently, Federal law does not extend full protection, however court cases are increasingly seeing animus as discrimination and not recognizing "religious belief" as a legal reason to treat people badly.

    I predict that the animus displayed about gay marriage will give reason for the government, courts and general public to support adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 18, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    @ Meckofahess

    Equality for all is a tradition too.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 18, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    "All businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter the reason. This is especially true if providing a product or service would violate the personally held religious views of the owner to do so."

    Do you live in America? How can you say this or better yet how can you believe this? If you operate a business you can't refuse service to anyone based on gender, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion. If you run a photography business you can't refuse to take pictures of a Muslim family, or an old couple, or a Black family, etc... Laws in many countries have added sexual orientation and sexual identity to the list. America will follow shortly, and thankfully.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 18, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    "It is morally wrong to force anyone to celebrate what they believe is a barbaric violation of God's standards"

    Not long ago I had my name removed from the LDS Church's records. I celebrated by having a party and committing, as the highlight of the party, quite publicly and proudly what the bible , book of mormon, and LDS teachings consider to be the worst and most unforgivable sin. To help celebrate I bought food, drinks, and other party supplies from business I'm sure were run by Mormons. Do I see them out pushing for laws to be passed so they won't be forced to celebrate what they believe is the worst violation of god's standards in all of existence? Nope.

    Are they're christian hotel owners pushing for laws that would let them deny service to people who are renting their rooms in order to commit adultery? What about a restaurant where two people having an affair go to celebrate something? Nope and nope.

    No these businesses will go on helping people to celebrate all manner of sin, happily taking their money. But not the gays, not the gays.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    May 18, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    @Avenue
    "All businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter the reason. This is especially true if providing a product or service would violate the personally held religious views of the owner to do so."

    This is what confuses me the most. I've read your Bible. And find many things like:

    "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

    "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

    "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

    No where have I seen where it gives followers the right to judge other people, especially people from other faiths. In fact it's the opposite throughout: Don't be hypocrites, don't judge others.

    Yet, all of a sudden, it's some cherished religious right to hold judgement over your neighbor and withhold goods, services, and health care if you find them guilty by your interpretation of your religion.

    I just don't get it. And I find it more than a little disturbing.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 18, 2014 6:04 p.m.

    "Unless lawmakers carve out broad protections for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, they see the trend of current court ruling favoring gay marriage as an erosion of freedom of expression and conscience rights."

    In your home and your church you can discriminate all you want on "religious conscience". In the public arena, absolutely not.

    Unless those claiming "religious conscience" refuse to do business with adulterers, fornicators, murderers, thieves, etc. then all their hullabaloo about "religious conscience" is a lie.

    I guess Mr. Brown doesn't like the word "parent".

    They're not bigots, Mr. Brown for supporting "traditional marriage", they're bigots for opposing marriage equality.

    "Just look at what happened to Catholic Charities, which ceased adoption services in Massachusetts in the aftermath"

    -- This is a lie, frequently used in an attempt to disuade people from choosing equality. The truth can be found online. One of the board members of Catholic Charities wrote an op-ed and explains what really happened.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 18, 2014 6:04 p.m.

    @ultragrampa;

    Yes sir, it can be right and I don't understand why you should find it odd.

    @Laura Ann;

    Has it occurred to you that the "all will be well" feeling is because God is okay with SSM? Maybe you're interpreting your feeling incorrectly.

    @bandersen;

    Perhaps you're the one doing the mocking. Have you thought about that? You continually spout "god says", "god wants", etc. Perhaps she considers that "mocking",.

    @Avenue;

    But celebrating adultery, fornication, etc. is okay? Hypocrites.

    @koseighty;

    They're just being deceitful. There isn't any scripture anywhere that says "thou shalt not do business with sinners". Not one.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    May 18, 2014 7:07 p.m.

    Ranch Hand is correct in that there is no scripture that says one shouldn't be working or assisting sinners as everyone that has lived, is living and is yet to be born shall all sin in some way or another. The problem is that it is decided that if we disagree with their choice that we hate them and can not love them. Yet the Savior came to save all mankind and to allow them to return to the Father but he didn't come to save them in their sins. Those who fail to repent of sin will be severely judged and can not be saved in the kingdom of God.

    Everyone makes judgements. Even the woman taken in adultery and brought before the Savior by her accusers. Christ told them that they had judged rightly. Yes, they did judge correctly but for them to kill the sinner they must be sinless. That was part of the Law of Moses that was done away upon the Saviors coming. We all make judgements and yes we will be judged on our judgements and how we made our judgements.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    May 18, 2014 7:44 p.m.

    @Stormwalker
    Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution prohibits Congress passing laws that stops anyone from free practice of religion. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    Even if your political leaders say you can violate the Consitution, federal law says you can't.

    @The Wraith
    "Are they're christian hotel owners pushing for laws that would let them deny service to people who are renting their rooms in order to commit adultery? What about a restaurant where two people having an affair go to celebrate something? Nope and nope."
    The owners of these businesses have no idea what their customers are doing, while same-sex couples usually tell the business what they are using the cake for.

    @koseighty
    My religion encourages not to judge, and I do not. I simply love the sinner, and hate the sin. I do not celebrate evil and sinful behaviors and practices.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 18, 2014 9:28 p.m.

    @Avenue;

    Neither a bakery, florist, or photograpy business are religious organizations. As such, they don't "practice religion". They are obligated, however, as public businesses to adhere to the laws which prohibit discrimination.

    Jesus may have told the woman to "sin no more", but what if you are wrong and loving couples who happen to be of the same gender are not "sinning" to him? What if?

    Think about it.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 18, 2014 10:40 p.m.

    @Avenue: "Even if your political leaders say you can violate the Consitution, federal law says you can't."

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal Law.

    People in the South thought they had religious right to segregation and Jim Crow laws. Turns out, First Amendment notwithstanding, they didn't. If you own a business that serves the public you can't discriminate.

    The way court cases and public opinion is moving do you honestly think Title II won't soon cover GLBT citizens?

    The First Amendment says you are free to practice your religion. It does not say you can mistreat others or, if you are in business, can refuse to sell to some people because God disapproves of them.

    We are already seeing cases where business owners are claiming God gave them permission to be mean to some customers. Those business owners have not done so well in courts of law or in the court of public opinion. Few people want to do business with a bigot.

  • Let it Go! Omaha, NE
    May 19, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    I stand with what Laura Ann has spoken. I have previously stated my position on gay marriage and I will continue to do so, even if it so be that I am held at gunpoint and told to recant my beliefs.
    I stand with the LDS Church.
    I stand with the prophets.
    I stand with the scriptures.

    I stand with God.
    And nothing stops God from fulfilling His word.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 19, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    @Let It Go!
    "even if it so be that I am held at gunpoint and told to recant my beliefs. "

    It's easy to make overdramatic statements about things that have no realistic likelihood of ever happening.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    May 19, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    It is interesting how I hear a lot of LGBT supporters / promoters on here often say how the country is so supportive and accepting of them and so on and so forth.

    If that statement was true then you would have no problem going through the typical manner in which laws are created and changed which is through the state legislatures. Instead with all these lawsuits in the various states I see the LGBT crowd trying to take the back door and force it through the courts.

    If a lot of these cases make it to the Supreme Court I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court allows for the state amendments to stand. It is up to State Legislators to make state laws if you want to change state laws you should be going through the legislative branch to do it.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    May 19, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    I am trying to understand the slippery slope that churches are going to be forced to do anything. They do not have to marry any one for any reason. They also do not have to accept any funds or support the government and they can do whatever they wish. As for businesses...if you want to profit off a society you have to follow the rules. You may not like the rules but it is the cost of doing business. Like paying taxes.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 19, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    @greatbam wrote: "Instead with all these lawsuits in the various states I see the LGBT crowd trying to take the back door and force it through the courts."

    The correct way to challenge the constitutionality of a law is through the courts. There are many lawsuits against same-sex marriage bans because that's the correct way to challenge them.

    Another reason not to go a legislative-only route: because it's incredibly easy for legislation to be blocked by a minority or even by one single legislator. Because legislators do not always reflect the opinions of their constituents. Because in some states, the process for reversing a constitutional amendment can take years, and need a level of legislative support that is far higher than a simple majority.

    Because justice delayed is justice denied.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 19, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    Now Oregon.

    Another favorable ruling for Marriage Equality. This one will not be appealed by the state and the judge did not stay his ruling. Licenses are already being issued and marriages will start almost immediately.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    May 19, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    A federal judge on Monday struck down Oregon's voter-approved ban on gay marriage, saying it is unconstitutional. Mormons are you watching?Equality for all Amerikans is on is way fast!

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 19, 2014 2:02 p.m.

    Ooops! I wrote too quickly.

    Apparently there is a 3-day waiting period in Oregon between obtaining a license and getting married -- but it looks like some clerks may waive the waiting period for same-sex couples, one saying "they've waited long enough."

  • Lilalips Attleboro, MA
    May 20, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    Diversity of genders in a union is called "marriage". Anything less is simply living together with the approval of the state. The people who are short changed from SS families are the children who don't have biological diversity of parenthood in their families. It does short change them no matter how happy the relationships are with the people who raise them. Spend a lot of time with groups of ss people. Something is definitely missing. There is a partnership with God that true marriage brings about that ss relationship cannot give. They who set this world in motion created human bodies to procreate in an ideal way with two opposite genders. Heterosexuality about loving what is different from you in a very real way. Does that mean ss families are not good? No, they can be good but they are not the ideal that we should strive for, the same way that single parenthood is not ideal even though it can work for some. Diversity of the sexes is the best for the human family. End of story.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    May 20, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    For those who lament that this overturned a vote of the people --

    From the United States Supreme Court case of Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly of Colorado (1964):

    "An individual's constitutionally protected right ... cannot be denied even by a vote of a majority of a State's electorate, if the [law] adopted by the voters fails to measure up to the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause. Manifestly, the fact that [a law] is adopted in a popular referendum is insufficient to sustain its constitutionality or to induce a court of equity to refuse to act. As stated by this Court in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, "One's right to life, liberty, and property . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

    "A citizen's constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be. We hold that the fact that a challenged [law] was approved by the electorate is without federal constitutional significance if the scheme adopted fails to satisfy the basic requirements of the Equal Protection Clause."

  • AerilusMaximus Berryville, VA
    May 20, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    @ Understands Math

    If it isn't defined as a right in the constitution then how can it be unconstitutional?

    If it isn't defined then it isn't a right the Federal government needs to protect. If it isn't explicitly mentioned it is up to the states to define.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    May 20, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    @ AerilusMaximus: The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution answers your question quite nicely, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    It also negates the entire second part of your comment.

  • AerilusMaximus Berryville, VA
    May 20, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    @ Maudine

    "It also negates the entire second part of your comment."

    Umm..no not really. Maybe I need to further clarify...

    All the Ninth Amendment is basically an allowance to add further rights as necessity requires.

    If something isn't defined as a right for all by the Federal government then it isn't a right. Therefore if it isn't a right for all then they would not need to protect it.

    A state can then define that it is a right for all respective to their state.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 20, 2014 5:42 p.m.

    @Lilalips
    "Spend a lot of time with groups of ss people. Something is definitely missing." "Heterosexuality about loving what is different from you in a very real way."

    I've spent a lot of time with gay people and my experience is their relationships are all unique but are generally good, complementary relationships where two good people are better together, just like most hetero relationships.

    The loving what is different argument is strange to me too. I think all people are attracted to some things that are familiar and similar and some things that are different. There are a plenty of differences between two men or two women that make a healthy relationship just like there are differences between a man and a women.

    In the end though, I don't get the point of your comment. Are you saying gay men should try to marry straight women? Do you think that outlawing gay marriage will make gay people start to love women?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 20, 2014 6:00 p.m.

    @AerilusMaximus;

    According to the 14th Amendment, equal protection means that if the government provides benefits to one group, they must provide the same benefits to other similarly situated groups.

    Additionally, the 10th Amendment allows the states to regulate the benefits provided by marriage in the state, but not to violate the rest of the Constitution (i.e., they can't violate the 14th, 5th or 9th Amendments).

  • Born that Way Layton, UT
    May 21, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    Every child who grows up believing there is no preferred responsible longterm benefit to committed heterosexual parents raising their own children in a committed loving relationship ultimately is disadvantaged and has the potential to be a detriment to society's longterm stability.

    Same Sex Marriage is but manmade invention that blurs the importance of longterm societal stability. It does so with certain benefits and trade-offs, as well. Of much more concern to me is the concept of No-Fault Divorce and casual sexual relations that produce children with no commitment from both parents and have no commitment to each other. The economic, social, mental and physical disadvantages placed on single parents is devastating to us all.

    People should be free to acknowlege the huge societal benefit of heterosexual couples who produce their own offspring, care for and provide for them, and remain together in healthy lasting relationships. This is an ideal that many religious people strive for and they should be credited for doing so--not mocked. Imo, no matter how rare it may seem today, this will always be worthy of the highest place of honor in society.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 21, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    There aren't uncertainties, just people trying to find exceptions and wiggle room to equal treatment. If you do business, religious or not, you may not discriminate. Simple. In your church as a church, you can, and that won't change. A hospital is a business. Renting a hall is a business.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 21, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    @Born that Way "People should be free to acknowlege the huge societal benefit of heterosexual couples who produce their own offspring, care for and provide for them, and remain together in healthy lasting relationships... this will always be worthy of the highest place of honor in society."
    Sure, committed people raising children deserve honor, I'm just wondering how you think the incentives work. Does honoring straight people with biological kids make less people gay, less spouses die, less people infertile, less husbands abusive? Does honoring a hard-working single mother, or an adoptive parent, or committed same-sex couple take away honor from a straight married couple with biological children?
    Imagine you see this announcement in your church bulletin this Sunday, and let me know if it seems like it fulfills your vision of honoring biological families:
    "Come to the Ward Family Party this Friday Night. This is an event meant to honor and support true families only--heterosexual married men and women with biological children. In order to avoid confusion, we respectfully request that widows, single adults, step parents, single parents, same-sex parents, orphans, and adopted children please do not attend."

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    @Born That Way
    " and they should be credited for doing so--not mocked. "

    Nobody is mocked for a heterosexual married couple raising kids. The conflict comes from when condemnation is thrown at other families like mine (parents divorced), same-sex couples, single parents, etc.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    So, it will become more difficult to say that it is wrong! People don't want to admit that they were wrong!
    You know, gay people believe in God also! It is sad that so many people push us away. It truly is! I miss so much, but I won't live a lie for anyone! People go way to far in judging us the way that they do!