The examples listed in the article are just a few of the legal benefits that are
being denied to LGBT couples. And conservatives say there's no
Every child deserves to be raised by Father and Mother they have something that
other gender can't give. Do they care about well being of there children
people in so called same sex marriage situations. No real such thing as same
gender marriage even if government grants it.
It's the helpless children who will suffer, what about their rights?
Marriage is about bringing the two great halts of humanity together and
providing the bond for the children they bring into this world. Every child
deserves to have a know their mommy and daddy. Same-sex couples need to think
for a moment, and ask themselves "Which parent could they throw away? Which
one didn't they need? Which one was least important in their lives?
Same-sex marriage is about permitting same-sex couples to take the rights away
of others peoples children. Governor Herbert and AG Sean Reyes a fighting for
the common good of humanity. What is wrong with that? Every child deserves to
be loved by a real family with a mother and father.
Same sex couples are going to raise children regardless of SSM. Once you get
that through and understood then you realize that SSM in fact helps protect
these children that will be raised regardless.Do I really think that
the opponents of SSM are concerned about the children? Nope. If they were
they'd support SSM, not argue a point that doesn't exist.
Mormons should lecture me more about how to live my life. Feign humility, and
then in the next sentence, tell me how to live my life. Or maybe this comment
won't even make it through, because some Mormon sensor thinks it might be
too harsh for the next Mormon in line. This is what other Mormons think of each
other. "Oh gosh, this guy was critical, so lets hide the comment."
If, as several of the previous comments assert, every child has the right to a
mother and father, then why do we allow divorce in Utah? Not to mention, why
does Utah have the fourth highest divorce rate for women, and a
higher-than-average divorce rate overall? Seems like people should be cleaning
their own house before knocking down the walls of another home.Also, I
suspect that if you asked the children of same-sex couples which would they
prefer:1-Parents who loved them them, no matter what their gender...2-Parents who were opposite genders, but it didn't matter if they loved
them......you would get the resounding answer that love is most important.
Statements like "Every child deserves to have a know their mommy and
daddy" and "Same-sex marriage is about permitting same-sex couples to
take the rights away of others peoples children" can't see the love
that exists in same-sex couple families.
It is nice to care about children and to pretend that "every child deserves
a mother and a father". But precisely such rhetoric hurts millions of
children in single-parent homes and in homes where a same-sex couple fulfills
the parental roles. Stigmatizing such families as failures is unchristian. Homes
with single parents and same-sex parents are a given in our society. They
deserve our full support, for the happiness of all.
Two parents is the ideal. The gender is not as important as the number. When
parents divorce, it is generally almost always in the child's best interest
to have both parents significantly involved in the child's life. It is unfortunate that Utah voters and elected officials are having gay
marriage (two parents if children are involved) shoved down their throats. It
would be much better if the voters and elected officials of Utah had a change of
heart and instead of fighting marriage would embrace it and also embrace their
gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at the same time. Give love a chance.
The constitution doesn’t guarantee people the right to marry. People who
want to redefine marriage to include SSM don’t seem to realize the
unintended consequences of that. Allowing people to change the definition to
suit their personal desires leave states unable to define marriage at all. If
the courts rule against the rights of states to define marriage as the union of
one man and one woman, then any group of individuals (polygamous, bigamous, or
polyamorous) who say it is their right to marry base on love, or desire for
acceptance, or perceived social benefits could change the definition of marriage
to suit their purposes.
Not only is traditional marriage deserving of our support because it is what is
best for society and children, the consequences of changing the definition of
marriage makes marriage meaningless. The argument that children are being hurt
because they live in family groups that don’t include a married father and
mother miss the point. Its not that the care givers are married. Its that
they love and care for the child. That doesn’t change by forcing the
state to say they caregiver are married. All other social contracts between the
care givers or perceived benefits of being married can be handled through other
means without forcing states to redefine marriage. I support the
states rights to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman because
that is what is best for society, including our children.
Strategically, now is the time for DN to embrace the inevitable outcome of SS
couples being able to get married and begin publishing feel good articles about
avoiding SS divorce, tips on inviting straight couples to events, etc. This
braying is becoming obnoxious...
@higv & No-Liberty for Any;In that case, you are going to have
to outlaw divorce, death and grandparent headed households, foster households,
etc.Anything else is utter hypocrisy if "every child deserves to
be raised by a father and mother". You simply can NOT provide that to every
child.Besides, that argument being one of the stupidest arguments
against SSM ever.
Things would be so much easier if people would spend less time reading
propaganda on this topic and more time looking at actual evidence. The study
most commonly cited suggesting that traditional married couples are better for
children than same sex couples was deeply flawed, and has been rejected by both
professionals and professional organizations. The threat to families is not more
families. It is poverty and abuse and divorce and children raising themselves
and a failed foster care system with an abyssmal success rate. People worried
about children need to address THOSE issues. Single sex parents are part of the
solution, not the problem.
@RanchHandI don't know what conservatives you are referring to,
or even what you mean be conservatives, but as a traditional marriage supporter,
I am completely clear that my position in regards to marriage law IS
discriminatory in that same-sex partnerships should not be recognized as
If the common good is the welfare of the children then (by that logic) same sex
marriages are as equally valid as opposite sex marriages as they provide a legal
basis for the family (and children) and will help to move children out of
institutions into the kind of caring environment that the children deserve.
Perhaps a mother and a father are ideal - but two committed people of the same
sex who truly care about a child and are committed to raising that child
(children) well, are infinitely better than two opposite sex people who really
don't care (and unfortunately "don't care" ends up happening
far more often than it should these days).
I wonder how many of those claiming Marriage should be left to the States
support Senator Hatch when he tried to pass an amendment to the National
Constitution "defining marriage as between a man and woman."Is this really about States Rights? Or is that a cover to push an agenda
Now that many of the old, tired arguments have been stripped away to prohibit
same sex marriage, we see full display of the remaining ones.Two
prominent arguments made here are: 1) I just want to discriminate, and 2) states
rights are more important than Federal rights.As to #1, at least you
are honest. Thank you. Let your maker judge you, but at least we know you love
to discriminate. Who/what is next on your list to discriminate against? As to #2, not so honest. Confederates hid behind the mantel of states
rights to continue the inhumanity of slavery. Almost any time a progressive law
is seen as an American right as opposed to a state citizen right (voting,
discrimination, etc) the ghosts of the Confederacy come out. Last time I
checked my passport said citizen of the United States. No one citizen of the US
should have more privileges and rights as citizens than should another. And
that means if I am a free person in Utah, I ought to be free in Idaho, even if
Idaho citizens would votes to enslave me. This argument is only meant to keep a
group of people seen as second class citizens.
"...can be handled by other means without forcing states to redefine
marriage."Why? Are you hung up on a word? The fact is that SS
marriage is the easiest, fairest, and least complicated way of ensuring that SS
couples and their children are protected just like with OS marriage.
I note the relatively sympathetic tone of this news article and it encourages
me. But why not include a photo of Mr. Milner and Mr. Barraza? or some of the
other affected couples? By not doing so, the DN is missing an opportunity to
further humanize them and thus make the inevitable arrival of marriage equality
in Utah (and the U.S.) potentially more palatable to more of its readers.
Again, the DN includes a generic photo with the article instead of actually
showing the faces of the subjects. I wish they would include a photo of Tony and
Matthew and their son so readers can see the family the state refuses to
recognize.I hope we can all agree that refusing to recognize their legal
marriage causes harm to this family. Utah's attorney defending Amendment
3, Gene Schaerr, agreed in oral arguments before the 10th Circuit that children
of same-sex couples “would likely be better off if their guardians or
parents were allowed to be married.”So the question is whether or
not it is worth it to harm gay families and their children because of some
benefit to straight families. I have not heard a single rational argument
explaining how refusing to recognize and give the legal security and
responsibilities of marriage to this family make it so straight people are more
likely to marry or stay together. Can somebody please explain this link? There
would have to be a strong argument to make me believe we should hurt gay couples
and their families for the greater good.
Every choice has a consequence, whether people like it or not.Everyone should choose to either be homosexual or heterosexual. And both have
consequences. The reason why we, as members of the Christian faith,
are opposing the SSM movement is because we know that there are more blessings
in following the commandments of God than rejecting them because of both
personal experience and learning from the past. We acknowledge the fact that
people are imperfect, at least I certainly am. But we know that people can
change their natural desires to the point where people can say to God "Not
my will, but thine." It IS possible; millions of people both in the past and
today can testify to that. God loves everyone because He is our
Father. Just as a father rewards or punishes his children for their works, even
so will Heavenly Father judge the world at the last day. He wants everyone to
come back to him, but he cannot save those who chose to not keep the
commandments.I testify that this is true. I stand with the Lord
Jesus Christ and his prophets and I am not alone. Amen.
What has the National Organization of Marriage and all who subscribe to such
ideology - done to ensure that heterosexual couples don't divorce and that
further, single parents don't have children?If we are to
believe the rationale that ALL children deserve a mother and a father.
Yes, they're tangled. Let's work to untangle them and get same sex
marriage underway. It can be done. It needs to be done.
RanchHand: "The examples listed in the article are just a few of the legal
benefits that are being denied to LGBT couples."If these people
want the benefits of marriage all they need do is get married... to a person not
already married, of marriageable age, not too closely related, and of the
opposite sex. It's not rocket science.It's kinda like if
you want federal education funding for your state all you need do is... accept
federal requirements such as adoption of Common core."And
conservatives say there's no discrimination. Yep."Discrimination comes in may forms. How do you think polygamists feel, and do
you support their cause?
To higv and Liberty for All: As a general rule, two parents are better than
one, because the second parent can be a backup if the first parent is not
available for whatever reason. I don't see anything magical about the
parents being of opposite sexes, however.There are hundreds of
thousands of children in foster care in the US alone who don't have even
one committed parent, though. My husband and I were not content to speak
platitudes about how much children need parents, etc. etc; instead we have
adopted (so far) ten kids. How many have you adopted?
Let it Go! wrote:"I testify that this is true. I stand with the
Lord Jesus Christ and his prophets and I am not alone. Amen."And
I testify that you are misguided and incorrect in your interpretation of what it
means to be a Christian (and bout matters of human sexuality, as well). So where
does that leave us?Not sure, but how about this? -- I won't
interfere with your understanding of your faith, especially as it relates to
personal decisions you make about your own conduct, but please show enough
respect for the beliefs of others to allow them the same consideration. If your
understanding of your faith fulfills you, live it, love it, BE it! But
don't try to compel your fellow citizens to adhere to your understandings
through force of law.
@Let It Go!I go to the same church as you and believe in the same God and
Jesus Christ. Some of the things you preach in your comment are not true and are
not helpful. They hurt faithful people living with SSA, they hurt the image of
the church, and they hurt our ability to relate to our GLBT friends and family
who don't share our faith.Our church does not teach that people can
choose whether to be homosexual or heterosexual. The LDS church's website
on the topic states "individuals do not choose to have such
attractions."The church also does not teach that all people who
experience SSA can change to experience OSA, it only teaches that people can
choose how to respond to their attractions. When "ex-gay" people say
that they have changed, they do not mean that they are now straight, they mean
that they have learned tools for managing their attractions and avoiding
behaviors and conscious thoughts that cause them personal distress because of
conflicts with their belief system.
Relying on the Sutherland Institute for insightful commentary on the subject of
same sex marriage is like looking in "Das Kapital" for the benefits of
@slcdenizen"Strategically, now is the time for DN to embrace the
inevitable outcome of SS couples being able to get married and begin publishing
feel good articles about avoiding SS divorce, tips on inviting straight couples
to events, etc. This braying is becoming obnoxious..."This
sounds like asking an entity or group to abandon its values as a
"strategic" move. I find that particularly offensive. If something is
worth defending, it’s worth defending no matter what the odds. To do
otherwise is selling out.On another note, several things have
happened in the last twenty years.1. Judges have taken on
themselves the right to legislate from the bench to a highly inappropriate
degree.2. The will of the majority in the form of state
constitutional amendments have been ignored. This would not have happened
without the first item above.3. The majority of people have lost
enough of their moral compasses that they no longer are sure of their moral
judgments or they are making immoral judgments.4. Federal laws to
protect marriage (i.e. DOMA), promoted by both parties and signed into law by
President Clinton, have been overturned or otherwise undermined by the courts.
Again, highly inappropriate.
If traditional marriage is about the children, the we should do a couple of
things to reinforce that:1. All other benefits and preferences
should be provided across the board, whether heterosexual or homosexual
relationships.2. We should make it ridiculously easy for couples
without children to divorce, or perhaps even to abolish the concept of marriage
altogether where there are no children involved.I realize the
emotional impact of this issue, but the issue of marriage equality is chugging
through the courts and it will get worked out. The reality is that the trend is
pretty clear and society needs to make the adjustment. As I've said
before, separate the legal aspects from the sacrament, and it will be the way to
best preserve religious freedom.
@rw1231. Judges have taken on themselves the right to legislate from
the bench...If by "legislate from the bench" you mean
interpret laws in response to claims of unconstitutionality, then yes, I agree.
2. The will of the majority in the form of state constitutional
amendments have been ignored...Many will(s?!) of the people are
ignored. It stinks. In this case though, the word "ignored" should be
"overturned" and you'll be on the right track.3. The
majority of people have lost enough of their moral compasses that they no longer
are sure of their moral...My moral compass is working fine. If an
individual claims a right, I feel morally obligated to address the concern as if
it were my own. SS couples have done that and I agree, they have the right to be
married.4. Federal laws to protect marriage (i.e. DOMA), promoted by
both parties and signed into law by President Clinton, have been
overturned...We've made mistakes in the past. A sign of
functioning democracy is the ability to recognize and address mistakes.
That's being done. This is a positive sign for our great nation.
@1Voice"Not only is traditional marriage deserving of our support
because it is what is best for society and children"On average.
You can do dangerous things with averages. Want to start applying averages to
other demographics than just sexual orientation when it comes to marriage? Race?
Religion? Income? State? Surely we can find more things that on average lead to
better outcomes for children. So why only apply it to sexual orientation?
Especially in a state that allows single people, including of course single gay
people, to adopt. You argue that two parent households do better (on average)
but then ban a gay adopted parent from adding a second parent. That seems
@Let It Go!"Everyone should choose to either be homosexual or
heterosexual. "Sexual orientation
(heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual) is who you're attracted to. That
isn't a choice. The choices come from what you do about those feelings.
I didn't marry my precious wife 40 years ago just because I was attracted
to her. I married her because I loved her. I admired those feminine qualities
that made her so wonderful to me. I appreciated how I felt around her. Our
natures complemented one another. We believe that the love we share is a gift
of God, because He lovingly promotes marriage between men and women.If two men or two women really feel exactly as described above, then perhaps
Same Sex Attraction should more appropriately be called Same Sex Affection.
rw123: "Judges have taken on themselves the right to legislate from the
bench to a highly inappropriate degree."Here's the deal...
Many Judgeships are life appointments. So, if there are controversial issues,
the legislators are happy to turn the decision-making over to them rather than
jeopardize their reelection chances and being tossed from lucrative elected
positions. For example, politicians would rather have the courts decide on
controversial issues involving the 2nd Amendment rather than risk offending
their gun-owning electorate by limiting some aspects of gun ownership.
@gmlewis;So, you married your wife because you loved her, but as
you've said before SS couples are "selfish" because we want to
marry the person we love. Why don't you call your love for
your wife "opposite sex-affection"? It makes as much sense as calling
our love for one another "same-sex affection"; or don't you see the
hypocrisy you're displaying?Your Jesus told you to "do unto
others as you would have them do unto you". Why don't you want to obey
him? Why would you want to treat others differently than you want to be
treated? Why don't you go count how many times the hypocrites are
condemned in your bible and then let me know how you expect to get into
heaven.@wrz;Judgeships are lifetime appointments so they
don't have to worry about making the majority happy and can focus on the
Constitutionality of the laws they're adjudicating.
@TiagoThank you for letting me know about that. I am sorry for any
misunderstandings I have caused. If that is what the church officially says,
then I will comply. @Frozen FractalsThanks for clarifying
that. I appreciate it and am sorry for making it sound like that. It is so
good to be corrected. Practices humbleness. I am so grateful for a religion that
teaches people to deal with difficulties in Christ.
I have yet to see an SSM supporter give me a decent argument as to why a judge
can ignore "Equal Protection" and allow a state to make marijuana
illegal, yet still use the same Amendment to make Gay Marriage legal.You are living on another planet if you believe that "Equal
Protection" was designed to force states to legalize illegal activities
simply because another state is doing it.The SSM supporters seem to
follow the tired logic that the Constitution grants the "Right" to
marriage. There is NO such verbiage in the Constitution. Amendment 10
guarantees that any law not SPECIFICALLY defined in the Constitution is granted
to each state to define."Equal Protection" was designed for
one thing and one thing only: abolition of slavery after the Civil War.
Period. Trying to pigeonhole this Amendment on whatever you see fit is an
incredibly slippery slope. You could cite the same argument to say that someone
carrying an AK-47 legally in Texas could walk into Chicago and be legal because
of the 14th.The Constitution was designed to be limited and
ennumerated so the States could hold it in check to prevent tyranny.
@illuminated;Equal protection: The state treates EVERY citizen the
same. Drugs are illegal to everyone, ergo, no violation of the equal protection
clause.Marriage is available in some states ONLY to heterosexuals;
ergo, it violates the equal protection clause in relation to homosexual couples.
@ 1 Voice"The constitution doesn’t guarantee people the
right to marry."This point has been addressed multiple times on
these threads. It's also fully addressed in many of the judges'
opinions issued to date. Perhaps you weren't previously aware that this
statement is untrue, but now that you are, I hope you'll refrain from
passing along information you know to be false.Re: your second
comment, you concede that SS couples love and care for their children, and you
express no objection to them receiving every other legal benefit afforded
married couples...except the label "marriage." So your
argument is that it is best for our children to learn that, in America, we
believe not in equality, but in a two-tiered system in which a minority is
treated as inferior. And the reason it is okay for them to be treated as
inferior is because certain religious doctrines teach this. Not all. Just
some.Can you see that you are arguing against the very values that
protect your right to believe what you do?
Illuminated, "Equal Protection" has nothing to do with what any other
state is doing. There are laws regulating marriage, and there are laws giving
benefits to married couples. It is illegal to deny these benefits (and the
right to marry, itself) to anyone without a rational reason. There are solid
and rational reasons to restrict marriage to non-related adults and to limit it
to two people. Tradition, the "ick" factor, and religious doctrine are
not deemed solid reasons to deny anyone the right to marry the person of their
"Equal protection: The state treates EVERY citizen the same. Drugs are
illegal to everyone, ergo, no violation of the equal protection clause."Huh? When did you last check the news? Marijuana is legal in
Washington and Colorado now, even if it's illegal in every other state.
Zoning laws, smoking laws, gun laws, driving laws, and on and on and on change
state by state. If Equal Protection could be applied as broadly as the SSM
supporters are arguing, then every state would be required to legalize a law if
another state had done it. All it would take is a few radical rabble rousers
and an activist judge or two.That's not how the Constitution
works, my friend. No, this is just an extremely convenient crutch for the SSM
crowd to use as excuse to push their agenda: Trying to remove the guilt from
their lifestyle choice.
@Laura Bilington"It is illegal to deny these benefits (and the
right to marry, itself) to anyone without a rational reason."Actually it is the other way around. It is illegal for the Federal Government
to provide these benefits as RIGHTS under the Constitution since no such
verbiage exists in it. Am I wrong? If so, please cite the precise place in the
Constitution that describes that "Marriage" as a "right".If you cannot, Amendment 10 describes that States only have the power to
enumerate these laws. Period. End of story. No, post-Civil-war, anti-slavery,
"Equal Protection" law changes that fact.Finally, everyone
in the United States of America can marry under currently established state
laws. No laws have been taken away from gays. None. So the argument that
something has been stripped from them is patently false.And, again,
please stop with stereotypical pulling of the religious card every time SSM is
opposed. If that's all you got to argue your side, please give it up. The
Constitution & Federalism, the bedrock of our nation, is all that's
needed to blow the SSM argument out of the water.
I find it hilarious that SSM supporters argue that marriage is a RIGHT. Do you
not know what a Right is? It's something that cannot be denied at all. If
marriage was truly a "Right", then anyone could marry someone else even
without another person's consent. The stalker could propose to a woman and
if the woman said no, he could argue that the woman was denying his Right to
marry and a judge could force the woman to marry him.Please, PLEASE
education yourself and think about what you are really saying. Under our
Constitution, Rights can NEVER be denied someone, never. The Right to marry
would mean that the dude living in mom's basement next door could force
your daughter to marry him.Yet people keep spouting this "Right
to this" & "Right to that" nonsense. It really would be funny
if it wasn't so sad.
@slcdenizen As I understand it, the original intent of the
constitution was for the legislative branch to make the laws, the executive
branch to enforce the laws, and the judicial branch to judge cases according to
the law, not judge THE law itself. This was done after great deliberations and
for good reasons. From what I see, this "balance" is far OUT of
balance. I too have considered SS couples claims on certain rights
as if they were my own, and given the circumstances, I disagree. Where does
that leave us? You agree. I disagree. I will admit though that my arguments
ultimately trace back to my belief in God who loves His children and has a plan
for them. Obedience is a critical part of that plan of happiness. I would
claim my moral compass is working fine as well. I would also claim
that the mistake was in discarding DOMA, not in enacting it. Where does that
leave us? Apparently some would like us to walk away. And if we don't,
they would like to nullify our votes. They revel in their apparent victories.
They may win some battles but will not win the proverbial war.
Tiago, The Proclamation To The World explains the link; the importance and
purpose of marriage and real families. The lord has created this fundamental
institution as the best environment for the rearing of children. As Sean Reyes
and Governor Herbert have said over and over this has been proven over millennia
as a critical foundation of society. Children matter, marriage is not about the
selfish desires and choices of adults. Governor Herbert said yesterday that
sexual orientation is a choice. In other words, selfish desires of adults.
Given the proclamation to the world, why would the lord support any other
arrangement that was not supportive of his children and the natural family? The
State of Utah is trying to support the natural family in adoption law, and
remind people that children matter, that a child's right to a mother and
father matter; where children should be placed, with the force of Utah law if
necessary. Traditional marriage simply works best and is time tested as the
best way to raise children and the lord has even made this so in his doctrine.
The link to healthy well adjusted children is clear and supported by the social
@illuminated"Please education yourself." I am glad you have had a
laugh today.Equal Protection means laws must apply equally to all people
within a jurisdiction. Any variation needs to have a rational basis. For
example, a law that says Utah drivers get their license at 16 years old would
need to apply equally regardless of sexual orientation or race. You might
however require a test that would exclude people who are blind or who cannot
read traffic signs (rational basis). The fact that Idaho drivers can get a
license at 15 does not require Utah (different jurisdiction) to do the same.Marriage is a fundamental right. Search for the Wikipedia page "Marriage
as a fundamental right" to begin your study of this topic. People have the
right to choose who they marry. Exclusions must have a rational basis.We
also have the right to own property. That does not mean the government must give
us property or we can take it from others, it means that everyone is allowed to
purchase property they can afford and decide how that resource is used.
@illuminated Do you not know what a Right is? It's something
that cannot be denied at all.===============False! We have the Right to Freedom of Religion. However, we as a society have
decided to place reasonable restrictions on that right. For example, Warren
Jeffs was jailed for rape; he claimed to have been doing God's will. We
decided he violated a reasonable restriction and imprisoned him. Try yelling Bomb in an airport to test your right to free speech.There are no absolute rights in society. We surrendered the absolute part
when we formed the social contract known as the Constitution so that the rest of
our rights could be protected. We have decided that there are
reasonable restrictions that can be placed on marriage: Harm can be shown if the
two are genetically related, therefore close family members are forbidden to
marry. Young people cannot legally consent to a contract, and are thus not able
to consent to marry; therefore I cannot marry a 13 year old.At one
time Race was thought to be a reasonable restriction, but that has since
Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that
marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the
Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of
marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process
Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the
State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”Maynard v. HillMeyer v. NebraskaSkinner v. Oklahoma ex rel.
WilliamsonGriswold v. ConnecticutLoving v. VirginiaBoddie v.
ConnecticutCleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurMoore v. City of
East ClevelandCarey v. Population Services InternationalZablocki v.
RedhailTurner v. SafleyPlanned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. CaseyM.L.B. v. S.L.J.Lawrence v. Texas
@illuminated"Marijuana is legal in Washington and Colorado now,
even if it's illegal in every other state."Possession of
marijuana is a violation of Federal Law, and according to the 10th amendment
Federal law trumps state law. The Fed, for now, has chosen not to enforce in
Washington and Colorado (that could change at the drop of a hat), ergo, your
comparison is fallacious. Further, Utah residents traveling to either Washington
or Colorado will be able to buy and use marijuana regardless of residence,
citizenship, skin color, religious belief, or gender while in Colorado or
Wshington. Your argument is without merit."I find it hilarious
that SSM supporters argue that marriage is a RIGHT."The Supreme
Court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right. It is, therefore,
a constitutionally protected right.
@illuminated"everyone in the United States of America can marry
under currently established state laws. ""every gay can
marry, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex; every black can
marry, they just have to marry someone who is black; every Mormon can marry,
they just have to marry another Mormon..." Do you see how ridiculous that
argument quickly becomes?"please stop with stereotypical pulling
of the religious card every time SSM is opposed"Gladly, when
anti-SSM can provide a legitimate and secular reason why same sex couples need
to continue to be treated as second class citizens. "Rights can
NEVER be denied someone, never."Yet, the anti-SSM crowd
continues to do just that.
I don't know where illuminated got his idea about rights, but the fact is
that almost any constitutional right including life can be eliminated through
due process of law.
To Liberty For All: I don't know about or care about your proclamation of
the world, whatever it may be. Is it a legal document? If not then it has no
bearing on marriage which is a secular institution.
@BJMoose, You may not care about the Proclamation To The Family, but I assure
you that many of Utah voters do.Many have have an understanding of
traditional marriage that the Proclamation represents. Therefore, they were
entitled to codify their understanding of the family in cvil law as expressed
through the passage of Amendment 3. This is how a democracy works, through the
political and legislative process as expressed by the will of the people.
@Lib;It doesn't matter how many Utah voters believe in the
Proclamation. It doesn't matter what your church leaders say, we are not a
theocracy. Your religious views are your personal views and have absolutely no
place in our civil law. We are Americans and we have a Constitution that grants
us our freedom and liberty. Our religious freedom is as important as yours.
You do not have the right to enshrine your religious view into civil law at the
expense of other American citizens.You do not have that right. You
have never had that right. You do not have the right to vote on the rights of
others; not even if your church leaders tell you to.
Ranch, I have a great deal of compassion, empathy and understanding for you
misguided opinion. While you are entitled to that opinion, you are not entitled
to your own set of facts. We must defer to the wisdom, experience and judgement
of our great and wise leaders; Governor Gay Herbert and Sean Reyes, who
understand both the Utah and US Constitutions. They represent the best
interests of the will of the people and its church. They have explained the
concept of federalism as outlined in the US Constitution numerous times, for
those willing to listen and understand. This clearly documents and shows that
States have the right to regulate and define marriage.
Its time for our mormon church to show support for the lgbt community and ssm ,
enough harm was done by the church support of prop H8ATE in our golden state.
Remember homophobia equals racism.
@Liberty for All wrote: "This clearly documents and shows that States have
the right to regulate and define marriage."I think that's
what the Commonwealth of Virginia argued in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Turns
out, the US Supreme Court disagreed with them. They said the law was
unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.It is being argued that Utah's Amendment 3 (as well
as similar amendments and laws from other states) are similarly
unconstitutional. And the courts are agreeing with that opinion.
@Liberty For AllYou may not care about the Proclamation To The Family, but
I assure you that many of Utah voters do.Many have have an understanding
of traditional marriage that the Proclamation represents. Therefore, they were
entitled to codify their understanding of the family in cvil law as expressed
through the passage of Amendment 3. This is how a democracy works, through the
political and legislative process as expressed by the will of the people.NO, NO, NO! A thousand times no!The majority NEVER has the
right to vote on the rights of a minority. The Christians in Mississippi CANNOT
vote to make Mormonism illegal because of rights defined in the Constitution.
And people in Utah CANNOT vote to treat LGBTs differently than heterosexuals.
This has been shown again, and again, and again in the courts — by judges
right and left, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama appointees.The Constitution exists to prevent a tyranny of the majority, not to create
There is no confusion on this issue if you are an active Christian. The
scriptures speak exactly and clearly to the issue of same sex relations, and
shines a bright light that the tangled web of darkness does not like.
I stand with LDS prophets and other church leaders in saying that the state
cannot make moral what God has declared to be immoral! I suppose that if the
Farmer's Almanac dedicated a whole page to so called ''farm
equality'' and taught that two bulls mating is a good idea, we would
accept that too? Really? It is a sad commentary on our Republic that we are
being lead by the nose down a very dark path and that if we continue we shall
not see the light of day.
50 million people can be wrong.