A good editorial. Sure to be slammed as "bigoted, hate mongering,
sexist" and probably racist by some of our leftist commentators, who,
apparently, cannot bear to hear of any dissent to their "gay is the
greatest, bestest thing ever and anyone who doesn't tolerate--by which we
mean fully embrace and celebrate-- the gay ideology is a bigot who should be
shunned, fired, prosecuted and jailed if possible. Because we want everyone to
be tolerant, so we cannot tolerate dissent from our positions." You would think that our crop of leftists would be content that the entire
rest of the media is 110% on their side, and comment there, rather than try to
suppress and tear down one dissenting paper.
I assume the editorial writer(s) must also believe that the courts were wrong to
strike down state bans on interracial marriage.
@Deseret News wrote: "The opponents of traditional marriage..."That phrase is intellectually dishonest, DN. Those seeking marriage equality
are not opposed in any way to "traditional marriage." What we are
opposed to is excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
I know conservatives hate to admit it, but the 14th Amendment exists
specifically to limit the 10th Amendment. States don't have free range to
pass laws in violation of the Constitution and the equal rights of all citizens.
Kelly is a former state legislator and brings a unique perspective to the case
that deserves to be heard. I happen to disagree with him, but he actually makes
a better case than Utah's lawyers made.
Who are these "opponents of traditional marriage" these DN editorials
keep mentioning? I've been in a traditional marriage for almost 32 years
now. I live in a marriage equality state. I've had no one oppose my
traditional marriage and I see absolutely no evidence of "opponents" of
traditional marriage. None.
I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis.When you think
about who they speak for - its good company!
I have no issue with listening to dissent. I do have an issue when
the motivation behind legislation on my, is not true. In the decade
since marriage was afforded to LGBT Americans since MA in 2004, zero losses of
legislation and legal protections have happened to Heterosexual marriages. Sure, you can claim your 'morals' and your
'beliefs' are being effected. But that can also happen if
I eat Bacon for lunch. As such we need quantifiable things were to
base legislation upon. Facts. Effects. Real Vs. Rhetoric.
Everyone is trying to cite Amendment 3 that 'the people' have spoken.
Sure. In 2004. It's 2014 today. So,
if you are so secure in said belief, put it up for a vote again.
You believe, that you have nothing to loose, correct? Gallup Poll:
Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews
- 05/20/2011 'For the first time since Gallup started studying
the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor
legalizing same-sex marriage.Fifty-three percent of Americans answered yes
to the question...'
Well said Vanceone. The one thing I keep coming back to is that as a society,
somehow we view marriage as far easier to redefine than the benefits afforded to
heterosexual couples. Far easier to re-write the laws of God than the tax laws.
Far easier to redefine the eternal institution of marriage than to include
civil unions in the group of individuals receiving state and federal benefits
and legal protections. Far easier to lay aside the scriptures than lay aside
our pride. I know that sounds a lot like "separate but equal", which in
today's world is a taboo phrase. But then again, when has SS marriage ever
been equal with traditional marriage? It never has been, it never will be,
regardless of how many federal judges side with you, regardless of how you
interpret the US constitution.
“...we should be reluctant to invalidate state constitutional or
legislative enactments,” is more persuasive...".We(?)spent
a great deal of time reluctant to invalidate state constitutional enactments.Then along came Loving v Virginia.June 12, 1967 is a day
which began the end of America...or so we(?)were told by those who oppose
interracial marriage.June 25, 2014 we(?) are still plugging
along.What happened?...Or... is this just the new
beginning of the end?BTW..."...the majority leapt to
the conclusion that same-sex marriages need to be accorded the same legal
recognition as man-woman marriages...".Leapt?"...December 2013, the United States District Court for the District of
Utah repeatedly cited Loving in its decision Kitchen v. Herbert, which held
unconstitutional Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. February 2014, Judge
Arenda L. Wright Allen, writing for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia in Bostic v. Rainey (which struck down
Virginia's ban), not only cited Loving, but also prefaced her opinion with
Mildred Loving's above-mentioned statement of 2007. May 2014, Pulaski
County Circuit judge Chris Piazza likewise cited Loving as precedent when
holding Arkansas's ban unconstitutional in Wright v. Arkansas...".
You're wrong. If a law violates the Constitution it needs to be invalided
regardless how the law came into being. Amendment 3 violated the US
Constitution. Judge Shelby, and now the 10th Circuit Court, did the right
thing. Good for them.
Yes, the judiciary should invalidate state laws if they are found to be
contradictory to the guarantees found in the U.S. Constitution or contrary to
the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. I don't know who wrote this op-ed,
but they are advocating to get rid of judicial review--a foundation pillar to
the checks and balances of our government system.
The fourth estate, which you represent in Utah, is a sacred public trust in our
democracy.Your editorial represents a dying point of view. The
preponderance of evidence and the forward march of justice on this important
human issue should have shed light on this news organization. You do your
readers and the LGBT community a disservice by trying to maintain the status
quo. The frightening history of prejudice and abuse that gay people have
suffered in Utah and which has irrefutably come to light in recent years should
have made you walk forward on this issue with careful steps. History will be
embarrassing for this editorial board. What's right is right and your
position is wrong.
@Frozen Fractals "I assume the editorial writer(s) must also believe that
the courts were wrong to strike down state bans on interracial marriage."You assume incorrectly. The writer dealt with those cases. I suggest you
go back and read it again:"In all those cases, the marriages at
issue were marriages between a man and a woman." That's the difference.
Individual state kingdoms couldn't exist in today's world, our nation
and its people would be much better off and have a better chance for survival if
we could get rid of the redundant state governments. State governments are too
easily controlled by local business interests even to the destruction of the
American Constitution. Criminals who flout the laws of the American government
are given safe haven and encouragement by the other local business people.
@Nate,Frozen Fractals actually raised a valid point. Before Loving v
Virginia, all those marriage cases in courts were marriages of same race, no
interracial marriage. In fact SCOTUS even affirmed anti-interracial marriage ban
in Pace v Alabama, only reversed themselves in Loving v Virginia.So
Frozen Fractals' point is, even if traditionally marriage was between two
people of same race, does not make it self evident.Similarly, even
if marriage was traditionally between one man and one woman only, it does not
make it self evident or self approved, it still needs rational reasons to
justify. Unfortunately, in the past year, even though all kinds of
rationales have been argued in courts, and 22 court decisions have been
delivered, none of those arguments were found valid.
In our opinion: In marriage dispute, judiciary should not invalidate state laws
Every time I read the Constitution, I have yet to see anywhere where it says
Marriage is a constitutional right. Someone point me in that direction so I can
better judge whether I should go against God and Nature and side with the
philosophy of man.
A useful editorial would explain to readers how the outcome of this case hinges
on these two different ways to frame the legal question:==
Utah/Appellants: Must Utah recognize and validate a previously unrecognized
right to something called “same-sex marriage”?==
Kitchens et al/Appellees: Can Utah infringe upon any U.S. citizen's
fundamental right to marriage, using the characteristics of some citizens to
create the classification upon which the infringement is based?An
honest editorial would then explain how SCOTUS precedent supports the latter
articulation of the legal question before the 10th Cir., but not the former.Finally, a persuasive editorial, if advocating the position DN holds,
would explain why SCOTUS was wrong in those instances or how the 10th Cir. erred
in applying them.Congratulations to Kitchen plaintiffs and their
legal team. Opponents of SSM in Utah and elsewhere in 10th Cir:
please don't despair...this case isn't quite done yet, but remember
life does and will go on, and not as badly as you may now fear. Supporters of SSM: try to be graceful in this recent victory, and tread with
gentleness even in those places where you have found none.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to Marriage, Heterosexual or
Homosexual. What it does guarantee is equal protection under the law. There
are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital
status in Federal law. Once we decided to bestow rights, benefits and
protections on marriage those same rights, benefits and protections have to be
extended to everyone that chooses to enter into a marriage. Lastly,
if I hear one more Mormon tell me that God has always defined
"traditional" marriage as one man and one woman I am going to lose it.
We literally left the country to practice polygamy, a practice that we believed
was ordained of God.
Loving V Virginia overturned state bans on interracial marriage, in 1967.Many states kept their laws on the books even though the Supreme Court
decision invalidated them and made them unenforceable.The last state
to repeal their ban on interracial marriage was Alabama, in 2000, via direct
vote, on the ballot. The repeal passed 60% to 40%. (That 40% of Alabamans
still supported banning interracial marriage in this century is baffling, but
revealing).Presumably, those 40% of Alabama voters would completely
agree with the D-News on this editorial, in 2014, that state laws are
predominant, and can't be overturn by federal judiciary.Being
opposed to committed couples marrying is a regrettable position to take, one
that will be difficult to explain, in the future. Beyond these
court decisions, the younger generation sees this issue completely differently
than a sizable portion of today's older adults, and this change will be
more robustly supported. I'm not looking forward to the
awkward explanations of the future, along the lines of "well, it was a
different time, and we didn't really see things as we should have".
@chris B yet you slam them when they disagree with you on issues
like poverty and immigration, so do they only "speak for" God when they
agree with you?
@Nate""In all those cases, the marriages at issue were marriages
between a man and a woman." That's the difference."I
could just as easily say these all marriages including a pair of adults. If the
14th amendment applies to interracial marriage, why wouldn't it apply to
Yes, the judiciary should invalidate state laws. We need protection from states
like Utah, which essentially seek to impose religious law as its' own. We
need to be married not just in one state but in all. We need our basic rights
protected from the mob. Even if that mob is the entire state. Sorry, but
you're just plain wrong on this one.
Chris B chooses to follow the prophet when it's convenient. But
when issues arise such as caring for the poor, immigration, and abortion, he
seems to reject their counsel.Interesting.
I do not believe standing up for traditional marriage is a dying issue. Those
are the only marriages that have a chance of making society better in the long
"Every time I read the Constitution, I have yet to see anywhere where it
says Marriage is a constitutional right."Bribri86, you
can't find it? Here, let me help you. The ninth amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."This was specifically put in because the framers were worried that there would
be people, like you, that would try to say that certain rights do not exist
because they were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.You're welcome.
Didn't SSM become a federal question when the U.S. Congress specifically
excluded it in DOMA?Re: all previous case law pertains to hetero
marriages only: The majority opinion disposes of this argument quite easily
beginning on p. 23.Others have already pointed out the unnecessarily
divisive and intellectually dishonest phrase, "opponents of traditional
marriage." On the contrary, yesterday's opinion AFFIRMED our belief in
the value of marriage.Re: states' right to regulate marriage:
Yes, it is repeatedly noted in federal case law. And as the majority opinion
noted, this right is repeatedly paired with language that says "as long as
it isn't unconstitutional."Judge Kelly's dissent
basically comes down to, "It isn't time yet. We don't know
enough." But this is based on the erroneous premise that LGBTs are a
different strain of human being that must be studied before we can trust them.
This is insulting, backward, and ignores the fact that they have been in
relationships and raising children for ages. The fact that we didn't see
this until the last 40 years because it wasn't safe for them to be out
doesn't mean it wasn't happening.
@ Ultra Bob"I detest the Gay lifestyle..."I
think this perpetuates a harmful stereotype. There is no more a "gay
lifestyle" than there is a "hetero lifestyle." Lifestyles are as
diverse as human beings. It's time to discard this factually incorrect and
needlessly diminishing idea.
Why is it that discriminatory views voiced by an aggrieved majority fall back on
the cries of "States rights!"?That argument brought upon us
the Civil War. That argument brought about Jim Crow laws, segregation in
schools, voting rights violations, and a myriad of other woes.The
world is a very different one than confronted by 18th century thinkers. The
planet is interconnected in ways that the founders could never imagine. It is
folly to continue this notion that we are 50 separate countries bound together
for convenience. Rather, it is imperative that we stand together as one nation
to confront the problems of inequality, violence, and the threats of
"The opponents of traditional marriage... "Don't exist.
Those in support of marriage equality also SUPPORT "traditional
marriage"."...marriage does not exist in a vacuum; it is a
public institution,..."Are heterosexual marriages carried from
state to state? Do heterosexuals need to re-marry every time you move from one
state to another? Are they banned in one state and void if the couple
relocates? If the answer is "no" then you have to ask yourself the next
logical questions. "Why should the marriages of LGBT couples be treated
differently?" "Why should LGBT couples lose their marriage rights when
relocating?" "Why should an LGBT relationship be treated differently
than an OS relationship from one state to another?"There is no
good reason for your position. Not one.
@Vanceone;Why preach to the choir? They don't need help.@Chris B;They speak for themselves and nobody else (not even
god).@Blue AZ Cougar;You refused to allow "civil
unions" when you had the chance and passed Amendment 3. Now you're
going to lose the entire train. In order to allow civil unions, you'd have
to repeal Amendment 3 anyway.@Nate;Look up
"similarly situated".@Ultra Bob;I usually like
your comments, but what about the "gay lifestyle" do you detest? Here's a breakdown (please show me which one you find
objectionable):Gay Lifestyle:- Out of bed- take care of
morning chores and walk the dog- shower, shave, brush teeth- off to
work- work- break for lunch- work- home from work-
more chores and walk the dog- watch TV, read, maybe a hobby or three- walk the dog again- brush teeth- go to bed@bribri86;Is straight marriage a Constitutional right? No? Equal
kind of like the Feds shouldnt have stepped in down South in the 1960s when
states there decided Blacks were less than equal??? federalism, deferring
to states, always sounds good in theory but when it comes to denying people
fundamental Rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of -- Wedded -- Happiness) and Equal
Treatment under the Law, well, then, that's when Uncle Sam is called for.
besides, most Utahns now favor same-sex protections.time for Utah to
step aside and let common sense/common consensus prevail.
Mark, thank you for your addition of the ninth amendment to this discussion. If
one reads the history of the ninth it's clear the Founding Fathers knew
they couldn't enumerate all liberties and that society would in the future
be more explicit. The argument between the federalists and the anti
federalists was centered on this point and the discussion was how to deal with
it. It's the very reason MR is so wrong so often, and while
not the primary argument that will eventually allow SSM it will act as the
foundation that says previous rulings that marriage is a fundamental right are
correct and constitutional.
The majority of my gay friends are involved in living healthy lifestyles. They
participate in athletic activities, travel and discover new cultures, donate to
and volunteer at charitable functions,participate in civic and religious
organizations, and work hard to pay all of their financial obligations.
That's the lifestyle most of my gay friends. Let's get over making us
out to being so different than everyone else.
We can change society... but I'm pretty sure biology isn't going to
change, and God's acceptance of sin isn't going to change.======You can say, "There is no God, therefore there is no
sin". We can say it individually or as a society. And
that's OK. Society doesn't know better. But members of the LDS
church can not say, "I believe the gospel is true, I believe what the
scriptures say, and I believe what the Prophet says... but I think God expects
me to disregard his doctrine and and his Prophet, and indulge my own
wishes".You can't have both (accept the gospel is true and
accept it's blessings, but insist on not obeying his laws). It
doesn't work that way.People of other faiths will have to come
to grips with it in their own ways. And people of NO faith... have nothing to
worry about (UNLESSS... there IS a God).But you can't say the
gospel is true and you accept it... but then insist the Prophet, scriptures, and
everything God has given us is wrong (but just on this one topic).
"Lastly, if I hear one more Mormon tell me that God has always defined
"traditional" marriage as one man and one woman I am going to lose it.
We literally left the country to practice polygamy, a practice that we believed
was ordained of God."Check out the book of Jacob in the Book of
Mormon and you'll find that God does define traditional marriage as one man
and one woman. Jacob also points out that God does require His people to take on
more wives when HE says so, not when man says so. Jacob states that God commands
His children to practice polygamy to raise up seed unto Him, usually after His
people have been brutally killed by mobs and tyrants, not to gratify their own
""The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."Ok, thanks for pointing this out to me. "Of certain rights" If they
wanted all rights, wouldn't they have said all? But that is still not an
issue because it still doesn't say anything that marriage is right for all
people. It's not a right. It's a privilege. Having a drivers license
is a privilege, not a right. Have a marriage license is a privilege, not a
right. "This was specifically put in because the framers were
worried that there would be people, like you, that would try to say that certain
rights do not exist because they were not specifically mentioned in the
Constitution."The framers were worried about a lot of things,
but they certainly weren't worried about people like me who swore to defend
the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Plain and simple, the
constitution only guarantees certain rights, all other decisions are left up to
the states. Some people are trying to federalize state's decisions which is
what the founders really were worried about.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other."John Adams
October 11, 1798
@bribri86;Marriage may not be mentioned but the 14th Amendment says
that the government must treat citizens equally. If you, a heterosexual, get
benefits your your relationship, then I, a homosexual, should get the same
benefits for my relationship. "Our Constitution was made only
for a moral and religious people...."Okay, so you don't
think that LGBT citizens might believe in god or be a "moral or
religious" people. I get it. "Judge not lest ye be
I agree with your points.But you missed important issues. Those who
argue for SSM refer to the 'Due Process' and 'Equal
Protection' clause in the US Constitution.Due process - Simply
means assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the
law and provide fair procedures. This is being done. Has nothing to do with
whether SSM is legal or not.14th Amendment - Says that States must
not deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law. The
question then becomes what law? It can't be federal law since there is no
federal law dealing with marriage. So, it must be state law. And Utah law says
that anyone can marry. Anyone. Provided they meet certain criteria: neither
person is married, of legal age, are not closely related, are not of the same
sex. This applies to everyone in the State of Utah. So, where's the
discrimination? There is none.On the other hand, if SSM is
authorized and the other types of marriage (above) aren't, discrimination
has been introduced into the law.We can only hope the judges at
SCOTUS are smarter than the federal judges.
bribri86,Mormons did not leave the United States so they could live
polygamy. They left so they could live (they were being killed by mobs) and
they left so they could worship they way they want. They were
FORCED out by the government. Remember Missouri Executive Order 44... AKA
"Mormon extermination order" (Google "Governor Boggs" or
"Extermination order"). Staying where they were was not an option.
Polygamy was not the issue.===But while we're on
the topic of polygamy... In light of this ruling, is there ANY leg to stand on
that prohibits it now? Is it not also an "Equal Protection" issue?
Any law prohibiting plural marriages is now pretty much
"UN-Constitutional". Is it not?I mean if no State
government or even their Constitution can prohibit ANY type of marriage (equal
protection)... those laws are gone as soon as somebody challenges them in
court.=========There have been rules regarding marriage
on the books for a long time. Same-Sex marriage isn't the only one
that's been prohibited.But if this is what "equal
protection" means... then there can be no limits on any desired marriage
relationship.. can there??
@RanchWell, as long as we're talking about what Jesus said....Leviticus 18:22"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
womankind: it is abomination."John 7:24"Judge not
according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."Matthew 19:4-6"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,And
said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to
his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?Wherefore they are no more
twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder."I also suggest you read 'Judge Not and
Judging' by Elder Dallin H. Oaks (August 1999 Ensign).
If the marriage concept of one man and one women is ultimately struck down, then
polygamy restrictions must also be struck down. As a marriage between a man and
a women cannot be deemed illegal, nor a marriage between two of the same sex
cannot be deemed illegal. Then by logic a marriage between a man, a women, and
another women can in no way be deemed illegal.But wait opposition to
polygamy will use emotional unsubstantiated descriptions of polygamous
relationships as arguments to fight polygamy. They will claim a Canadian Judges
opinion is fact. They will cite one or two bad examples as if they cover all.
But wait, isn't those kind of arguments against ssm that they decry as
bigoted and hateful. There are past judges whose opinion said ssm was harmful.
But they tell us the opinions of judges against ssm were just the opinions of
bigots and thus invalid. Then so is the bigoted opinion of a Canadian judge
bigoted and invalid.The next filling in Utah will be a polygamist
marriage seeking equal justice under the 14th amendment. The Utah constitution
provision against polygamy, and any federal laws against polygamy are null and
@bribri86 9:06 a.m. June 26, 2014One does not support and defend the
constitution by trying to deny people their Constitutional rights. That's
what you're trying to do. If you read the 9th Amendment (and understand
it), you would know it says that the fact certain rights are mentioend in the
Constitution does not mean that other unmentioned rights are not also protected.
It's clear that you don't have a good concept of Constitutional law,
or you would know that marriage has been deemend a fundamental right in Supreme
Court decisions going back to the 1880s. Because of that, it is a right
protected by the 9th Amendment and subject to the equal protection of the laws
established by the 14th Amendment.If you truly want to support and
deefend the Constitution, don't try to take away people's rights (even
if they are gay and you have no use for gay people).
Religion has no place in this argument, as we do not live in a theocracy. But as 2 bits reminds us of state rights, like that extermination order, is
that what this paper is promoting?Cause you don't get it both ways.
@BlueAZCougar;RE: Leviticus 18:22Leviticus 19:19
You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen
and wool come upon you.27 You shall not shave around the sides of your
head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard. 33 And if a
stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. 34 The
stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you
shall love him as yourself;35 You shall do no injustice in judgment,Leviticus 20:9 For everyone who curses his father or his
mother shall surely be put to death.10 The man who commits adultery with
another man’s wife, ... the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be
put to death.Do you obey all these too? Yeah, I thought so.Your leader's words have no bearing on my rights.
In the Oct. 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found
"The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving
the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book
of Genesis.”Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance
Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The
movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex
couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage."In April 2013, Slate published a plea for legal polygamy by writer
Jillian Keenan: "Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than
homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently
more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six)
That a judge can legally declare that my sister must henceforth be defined only
as sibling, my father defined only as parent, both aforementioned mandates
intended to discourage sexism, or lastly, the term marriage must include
homosexuality, is surely the sign of a corrupet, perverted, and dysfunctional
society.The United States of America, nothing lasts forever.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTYou can't have both (accept
the gospel is true and accept it's blessings, but insist on not obeying his
laws). It doesn't work that way.But you can't say the
gospel is true and you accept it... but then insist the Prophet, scriptures, and
everything God has given us is wrong (but just on this one topic).8:36 a.m. June 26, 2014 ======= I'll remember
that everytime my fellow "Mormons" -- Ignore the
Church's support for Immigration Reform, The Church's plea for
equal access for LGBT housing, jobs, and education, are Speeding
down the Freeway, tailgating, and Texting while Driving, Turn their backs
on the poor, sick, and the needy, Vote for and support War-mongers, Trash the environment, and - in this case - treat [judge] others
differently than they treat [judge] themselves.To be a true disciple
of Jesus Christ, one needs to -- Show me, Don't tell
It's very odd to see Mormons using the prospect of polygamy as a scare
tactic, when that part of LDS scripture has never been rescinded (D&C
132).For all we know, if marriage laws are loosened to allow
polygamy in the US, it may become a big opportunity for LDS missionary efforts
in countries where polygamy still exists.(Stranger things have
@10CC "It's very odd to see Mormons using the prospect of polygamy as
a scare tactic. Which Mormon." Are you making assumptions? As far as I
know there are no Mormon polygamists currently.Polygamy in the
United States has a long history. Many Native American tribes practiced polygamy
and European mountain men often took native wives and adopted the practice. Some
tribes seem to have continued the practice into the 20th century.Scots-Irish settlers, and some Welsh emigrants, carried long-standing multiple
partner traditions to the Americas from Europe. Utopian and communal groups
established during the mid-19th century had varying marriage systems, including
group marriage and polygyny. There is also some evidence in the American South
for multiple marriage partners, particularly after the Civil War.Polygamy has also been practiced, discreetly, by some Muslims living in
America.It is not a Mormon issue.
@ bribri86: You have chosen to focus on one clause of the Ninth Amendment,
"of certain rights," but you have chosen to ignore all the other
verbiage in that Amendment. Your interpretation takes things out of context and
makes no sense.If you read the entire Amendment you will see that it
states that just because those "certain rights" are listed does not mean
there are no other rights."The enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people."Some of the FF's were indeed very worried
that rights not listed in the Constitution would be taken away.It is
impossible to defend the Constitution if you don't understand it.
Is it a good idea for the various states to have different laws with respect to
SSM? Having different laws with respect to slavery nearly destroyed the union.
Having different standards for SSM has the same potential.
" . . . judiciary should not invalidate state laws . . ."Well, that depends.If state laws are found to be unconstitutional,
then the judiciary had the right and the DUTY to invalidate those state laws.
To "Ranch" that is where your argument breaks down. If you must get
equal treatment for your relationship, what about polygamy, incest, cousins that
want to marry, or anything else between consenting adults?Jesus also
said "If you love me keep my commandments", and one of his commandments
is that homosexuality is not allowed.So, before you start quoting
Jesus, you better make sure that you are doing what you can to follow Him.You should also be careful in quoting from the OT, especially the parts
taken from The books of Moses because it contains many things that God said were
to be stopped at the coming of Christ. Unfortunately for you, that includes all
of the scriptures in Leviticus that you quoted.
The people in the picture don't seem very happy. The posters today (on
BOTH sides) don't seem very happy.It seems this debate in
particular, doesn't bring out the happy side in ANYBODY.Even
the people who won... seem nasty today.
@RanchHand "similarly situated" Here's where the
similarities end: one type of union has the potential to produce children, and
the other one doesn't. If the state's interest in marriage is to
promote homes where both biological parents are there for their children, they
don't need to concern themselves with same-sex unions. They have no
interest in it.@Frozen Fractals "I could just as easily say
these all marriages including [sic] a pair of adults."The state
of Utah has an interest in some pairs of adults, but not necessarily all pairs
of adults. Your comparison with inter-racial marriages breaks down on this
point. Same sex couples really are not similarly situated.
@ Nate: The court actually addressed your points. Utah law allows
non-reproductive marriages, they even have one law that specifically requires
the couple be non-reproductive. How are same-sex couples differently situated
from other non-reproductive couples? The court found they are not and
therefore, being similarly situated, were entitled to marriage.As
for pairs of adults, what differentiates the pairs of adults Utah has an
interest in from those they don't? Again, how are same-sex couples
differently situated from opposite sex couples?Note to all same-sex
marriage opponents: Many of the arguments you raise have been brought up by the
legal teams who are fighting against same-sex marriage and, consequently, are
addressed in the court rulings. It would be very helpful to the discussion if
you actually read some of those rulings.
"It refers back to decisions permitting inter-racial marriage, marriage by a
prisoner, and marriage by a “dead-beat dad.” In all those cases, the
marriages at issue were marriages between a man and a woman."This is certainly no argument against the constitutional right to same-sex
marriage. Before the interracial marriage case, none of the precedent involved
anything but marriage within one's race. Before the case on a
prisoner's right to marry, none of the cases involved anything but marriage
between two people not in prison.
@Nate"The state of Utah has an interest in some pairs of adults, but
not necessarily all pairs of adults. Your comparison with inter-racial marriages
breaks down on this point."The relevant issue is not what Utah
thinks but the Constitution and federal courts. The courts have previously
struck down bans on inter-racial marriages and it is up to you to prove that the
14th Amendment does not apply to same-sex couples the way it was used for
inter-racial couples. Your side is 0-16 in this so far. If my comparison were as
flimsy as you suggest, this wouldn't be the result we'd be seeing.
As bribri86 pointed out:"Our Constitution was made only for a moral
and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other."-John Adams October 11, 1798The reason it is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other is because as a free society,
unfortunately our laws have to cater to the lowest common denominator. The
Constitution doesn't spell out every single right, which on the one hand is
great because it allows flexibility, but on the other hand it also requires a
certain level of moral aptitude by society as a whole. That minimum standard of
moral awareness is what gives the constitution the ability to govern a great
nation.Several years ago there was a small island country (I believe
off the coast of South America somewhere, can't remember exactly where)
where the people wanted their own government, wanted to be separate from
everyone else. Interestingly enough, over time this small group of people
exhibited both a high level of albinism and a high level of homosexuality. From
a medical standpoint, albinism is indicative of a genetically degenerative
society. I wonder if homosexuality is indicative of a morally degenerative
Although this is a contentious issue... I hope Utah will stick with it to the
Supreme Court. Some State needs to.... so it can be answered once-and-for-all.
California ducked and the SC said the people wanting a ruling had no
standing... so they didn't have to decide.I think there's
enough momentum and attention on it this time... they will have to decide. And
then the question will be answered for ALL States... instead of each state
having various decisions from various courts. We need to have a SC
decision on this. So we can put it away and stop bickering over it. It's
causing too much division. I don't know why civil unions
weren't good enough. We should have allowed them, but it wouldn't
have made any difference. States that DID allow them are now in the same place
as Utah (being sued).I have no doubt plural marriages will also now
be legal (the FLDS people will be happy about that). Not a scare tactic, just
the logical next step if ALL definitions of "Marriage" must be
accepted.But somebody needs to force the SC to rule.
I love freedom and the freedom that I love, is the same freedom that allows Gay
people to live their life as they choose and allows me to believe and think as I
please. I do not have freedom to act and do as I please that effects other
people. I love the freedom of speech that allows me to tell other
how I feel without imposing any requirement for them to believe as I do. I love the government of the United States of America for making it all
possible.Ranch Hand. The distinguishing activity that
is different between Gay people and non-Gay people is in the attraction of a
partner for sexual gratification.
@2 bits wrote: "I don't know why civil unions weren't good
enough."Mainly, for the legal benefits: while in some cases,
civil unions were granted equal benefits to marriage (as they were in the state
of Washington from 2009 to 2012), that is not always the case: frequently civil
unions had fewer of the benefits: in the state of Wisconsin, for instance, the
law banning same-sex marriage also mandated that civil unions could exist only
if they did not have as many benefits as marriage. Not to mention the fact that
since the federal government does not recognize civil unions, all legal benefits
in the federal arena are solely for married couples.As you state,
Amendment 3 forbade both anyway, not to mention the fact that only married
couples in Utah could adopt. Do you think that a bill to allow a couple in a
civil union to adopt could pass the Utah legislature?
@Frozen Fractals:"I assume the editorial writer(s) must also believe
that the courts were wrong to strike down state bans on interracial
marriage."What ticks alotta folks off is the federal ban on
polygamy (Edmonds Act off 1882).@Understands Math:"Those
seeking marriage equality are not opposed in any way to 'traditional
marriage.' What we are opposed to is excluding same-sex couples from
marriage."How do they feel about other types of marriages...
such as polygamy or marrying your sister or brother? If you're gay can you
marry your brother? If you're lesbian can you marry your sister? And, can
you marry both at the same time? Inquiring minds wanna know.@DanO:"...the 14th Amendment exists specifically to limit the 10th
Amendment."Wrong. The 10th Amendment delegates all powers, not
specified as federal powers, to the states and the people.The 14th
Amendment simply says that States must apply State law equally (equal
protection) to all citizens of the State. The 14th says nothing about the
validity or invalidity of State law.@Furry1993:"Amendment
3 violated the US Constitution."Please provide the
@Karen R.:"I think this perpetuates a harmful stereotype. There is no
more a 'gay lifestyle' than there is a 'hetero
lifestyle.'I could explain the difference but you wouldn't
seen it in print on this thread.@ordinaryfolks:"It is
folly to continue this notion that we are 50 separate countries bound together
for convenience."That's not what the Founding Fathers had
in mind. And they're the people who wrote the Constitution. If it
doesn't reflect today's reality perhaps in needs to be amended. There
is provision to amend so the Founders must have thought it'd, someday, be
necessary. So, let's stop bending the document to try to make it fit SSM
notions.@RanchHand:"Is straight marriage a Constitutional
right? No? Equal treatment IS."Please explain 'equal
treatment.' I suspect you're referring to the plight of polygamists.
No?@Ranch:"Marriage may not be mentioned but the 14th
Amendment says that the government must treat citizens equally."What it does say is that States must apply State law equally to all citizens.
If citizens are to be treated equally, polygamy in a State would have to be
@Blue AZ Cougar,Do you have sources you could cite about that small
island? It could be some interesting reading, if it actually existed.
"I could explain the difference [gay lifestyle vs. heterosexual lifestyle]
but you wouldn't seen it in print on this thread."You know,
we aren't that different than anyone else. Perhaps you think we are more
sinful because many of us have chosen to leave our churches because of the lack
of acceptance. Maybe you think we are more sinful because you only notice the
behaviors that go contrary to your beliefs--face it, you rarely pay attention to
the majority who just blend in with everyone else.The truth is some
people participate in outrageous and dangerous behaviors and others don't.
Unfortunately, too many gay men and women choose to participate in dangerous
behaviors because they feel abandoned by their family and church communities.
The opponents of SSM and Utah's desire to take their case to the SC reminds
me of that famous line from Dumb & Dumber, "so what your telling me is I
have a chance".
@Really???Unfortunately I don't, I tried looking around for it online
but I can't remember where I had read about it. I'll have to keep
looking for it.
@Maudine "The court actually addressed your points."Yes, but
insufficiently."How are same-sex couples differently situated
from other non-reproductive couples?"A medical breakthrough or a
trick of nature can turn a non-reproductive couple into biological parents. This
will never happen to a same-sex couple.@Frozen Fractals "...it
is up to you to prove that the 14th Amendment does not apply to same-sex couples
the way it was used for inter-racial couples."I've already
explained it. All things are not equal that you think are equal.
I don't believe in drinking alcohol, coffee or tea. Many people do drink
these things. Therefore my religious liberty has been taken from me. Does this
make sense, even to the most devout SSM haters? Of course it sounds silly and
over the top. The anti-SSM rhetoric has no more logical consistency, and as
I've said before, it amazes me that otherwise rational people make these
kind of statements with respect to SSM.
@Nate"I've already explained it. All things are not equal that
you think are equal."And your explanation/argument has been
rejected by 20 different courts."A medical breakthrough or a
trick of nature can turn a non-reproductive couple into biological
parents."But government does not make non-reproductive couples
wait till that medical breakthrough to get married, does it?
I'm fascinated that it's the secularists of today who seem to care
more about actual people, the downtrodden and oppressed, than today's
Vanceone in Provo says, "You would think that our crop of leftists would be
content that the entire rest of the media is 110% on their side, and comment
there, rather than try to suppress and tear down one dissenting paper." I find your comment to be really quite surprising since it is you who is
trying to suppress opinions by suggesting that those with whom you disagree have
no right to participate in this forum. While I do not agree with this editorial,
I completely respect the Deseret News for conducting a reasonable debate, for
inviting thoughtful comments and for giving the readers an open forum to express
diverse opinions about incredibly important issues that have immediate impacts
on our collective lives. This is democracy at its best. It makes me proud to be
an American and it makes me greatful that I live in a country where we can
disagree without violent repercussions, compare ideas, seek common ground and
hopefully make progress...together...as one people.
"The framers were worried about a lot of things, but they certainly
weren't worried about people like me. . . "Sure they were,
no matter what you swore. "Plain and simple, the constitution
only guarantees certain rights. . . "And that is why they were
worried. They specifically put in an amendment, addressing exactly what you are
saying. They wanted to be very clear. Because they mentioned some rights they
knew people, like yourself, would claim that other rights did not exsist. So
they put it down in black and white. Did you not understand it the first time?
It really is very clear:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people."Has nothing to do with the states. They are saying
there are other rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Rights
can't be voted away. The states cannot deny rights, neither can they
legislate rights away. Marriage is one of those rights.
Kenyan Anglican Archbishop Eliud Wabukala said it better than I can:“The homosexual movement has become an ideology that attacks our human
identity as male and female created in the image of God, and same sex marriage,
which became legal in England, is therefore a profound rejection of the law of
God.”God isn't mocked.
Blue AZ Cougar says:"From a medical standpoint, albinism is
indicative of a genetically degenerative society. I wonder if homosexuality is
indicative of a morally degenerative society."Disgusting. @alfred;Article IV Section II:"The Citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in
the several States." (i.e. marriage is a privilege and immunity, The (all)
citizens...)Amendment 14:"No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; (Amendment 3 abridges the privileges and immunities of LGBT
citizens) nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws."@wrz;Polygamists can
already marry one other person.
There are some interesting comments, but I think that most of them are just
talking points presented by those who don't understand the core question.
What is best for society?Anyone who demands that society accept
same-sex marriage seems to forget that he has a mother and a father. He is the
product of intercourse between a man and a woman. He has life because a man
and a woman used their reproductive power to generate new life.That
is the foundational concept that the State of Utah used to declare that marriage
is between a man and a woman.Some have written that no harm comes to
society when they "marry" someone of the same sex. Do they think that
when children are taught false concepts that society will not suffer? No child
can be born into a same-sex relationship, yet many want to "raise" a
child. There are very serious consequences to those who lead children astray.
Consequences that extend far beyond mortal life. It's simple.
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Sex is only permitted inside
Richards, the thing you don't seem to grasp, after all theses years, and so
many people pointing it out to you, the thing you don't get, is that we are
not a theocracy. YOUR religion is NOT what laws are based on. See,
we are a republic, a democratic republic formed by a constitution. Is that
really such a hard concept to grasp? You say sex is only permitted
inside a marriage. YOUR religion may permit it only inside marriage, but
I'm NOT an adherent of YOUR religion. I have a fundamental right, no matter
what some states have tried to claim, to have sex with whom I choose, married or
otherwise, as long as they are an adult and consenting. That's what I AM
permitted to do. You talk about teaching children false concepts. I
believe that is what you are doing. It's okay, though, you have a right to
do that, even though I believe society is harmed because of it.Reproductive capabilities have NOTHING to do with allowing marriage. The core question is NOT what is best for society in Mike Richards'
opinion. The core question is: What is constitutional?
You claim that your religion of same-sex marriage is exempt from comment but my
religion of traditional marriage should be held in contempt. I don't
agree. "Humanism" is just as much a religion as Christianity, but it
has no protection under the Constitution to become the State religion. Humanism
is not protected by law. Your "religious" viewpoint is not State
sanctioned. You have no more right to express your opinion about whether sex is
"outlawed" outside of a marriage of a man and a woman than I have to
assert that sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is a sin. Your claim is a fundamental flaw in the claim that you make that
same-sex marriage should be approved by the U.S. government. The U.S.
government is forbidden to establish religion. Your "religion" cannot
become a "State supported" religion. The Supreme Court has already ruled
that STATES have the right to establish the rules of intimate conduct for their
@Mike Richards" Do they think that when children are taught
false concepts that society will not suffer?"What false
concepts? That the only truths are Mike Richards' truths? And, where is the
evidence that society will suffer as a result of SSM?"No child
can be born into a same-sex relationship"Patently false. "Marriage is only between a man and a woman."Except
where it isn't--17 states and growing."Sex is only
permitted inside marriage."Except where it isn't. I
remember my elders telling me as a young man looking for a future mate,
"your first child can come at anytime after marriage but all the rest will
take about nine months." I suspect there is still truth to that statement.
It is confusing to the see the mental and logical twists used to invent reasons
to oppose gay people marrying each other. I'm afraid that "traditional
marriage" advocates are inadvertently deconstructing the institution they
want to protect.One of the latest arguments is framed as the "conjugal
view of marriage" where they say legal marriage is all about
procreation--not about love. Couples marry only to unite their lives in regards
to bearing and raising children.They call marrying because of love and
commitment between two people the "revisionist view of marriage" and
argue that the state has no interest in mutual personal fulfillment or rights
between two people.Why argue that marriage is not based on love? Everybody
knows that marriage starts with two people in love. Prime example: see the
tragic, heart breaking, but beautiful story published in this paper today. It
tells about a man and woman in love and planning to marry when the man learns he
has terminal cancer. The couple held a marriage ceremony and legally married 10
hours before the man passed away. What a beautiful expression of love between
two people! It's a love story. Plain and simple. No procreation involved.
Let's look more closely at some of today's comments. Can a child be
born to a same-sex couple? Absolutely not. Ask your doctor. Ask your parents.
It takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Yes, artificial means may be
used, but that circumvents everything that same-sex sex is about. Those who
believe in same-sex sex cannot use same-sex sex to reproduce.There
have always been those who reject the good of society for temporary pleasure.
They seek out anyone who agrees with them and crowns them as their
"priest". Study history. That pattern is still in effect. Just look
at the last few days of comments and see how many people told us to change
religions instead of changing ourselves. That concept has been called
"priestcraft" for millennia. Those who believe in it think that popular
opinion can change eternal law. Sex is only permitted between a man
and a woman who are married. If you think differently, recite to us the
statistics of sexually transmitted disease - or do you think that AIDS is no
longer transmitted by same-sex sex?
@Mike Richards - I am confused by your STI argument. Are you saying that
STI's can only be passed between same-sex couples? That is not the case.
Yes, AIDS is a horrible and tragic STI that was spread predominantly through
same-sex coitus. It was not limited to same-sex couples, however. STI's
are spread by heterosexual couples just as they are spread by homosexual
couples. And you may say that if those heterosexual couples were to stick to
one clean partner after marriage they would not contribute, you would be
correct. Just as if a same-sex couple were to stick to their one clean partner,
they would not spread STI's either. While some homosexual couples are
promiscuous, so are some heterosexual couples. And as some heterosexual couples
are monogamous, so are some homosexual couples. STI's have nothing to do
with whether or not two consenting adults in love should be able to enjoy the
same rights and protections under the law no matter their choice of consenting
There is something wrong when people feel such a great need to demean, belittle
and degrade others. Especially when it comes to the point where they feel a need
to pass lass against these people! All or most of this problem is fueled by the
LDS church. It isn't about state rights, it is about Mormon rights! Mormons
expect their sacred marriages and their temples and themselves to be respected
by others! They, however, do not feel like they have a need to respect people in
the same way! For fifty years I have lived with being gay and they try to tell
me that there is something wrong with me and that I am an abomination! Then,
they insist that we be treated that way! How dare we stand up and say that we
are as good as them! How dare we! No. how dare they treat the way that they do!
Don't you think that we deserve to be treated equally? No, and it says a
great deal about how they look at us! There is something truly wrong in what
they do to us! We deserve so much more!
@RFLASH 3:36 p.m. June 27, 2014As an observant (straight) Latter-day
Saint, please let me apologize for the unChristlike behavior of members of my
faith. I find it appalling that they would demean, belittle and degrade others.
As a child of God you are deserving of respect and have every right to expect
it from others. Please know though that it is not the Church itself that
teaches that behavior. The Church teaches us the standards by which WE are
supposed to live. We can state how we believe, but we don't have the right
to impose our beliefs on others. That is a violation of the free agency we
agreed to support in the pre-mortal existence. My husband and I supported free
agency then; we support it now. From what I have seen of your comments here, we
would be pleased to have you as a neighbor.
Windsor- State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect
the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (1967); but,
subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is
“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of
the States.” While states have a legitimate interest in regulating and
promoting marriage, the fundamental right to marry BELONGS to the individual.
Accordingly, “the regulation of constitutionally protected decisions, such
as where a person shall reside or whom he or she shall marry, must be predicated
on legitimate state concerns other than disagreement with the choice the
individual has made.” Marriage laws must comply with the 14th Amendment
and cannot exclude based on race, or exclude based on sexual orientation,
otherwise, the Supreme Court places no restrictions on the fundamental right of
History shows us that marriage is not defined by those who are excluded.
Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon child and spousal abusers to
civil marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in the institution that
traditionally did not allow them to marry. Tradition is simply not a valid
reason to continue a practice of discrimination. There are no Interracial
marriage licenses. There are no felony marriage licenses. There are no
non-procreative marriage licenses. Allowing same-sex couples to participate
and/or strengthen the existing institution, means there is only ONE marriage
license for all. Read "Certificate Of Marriage" where nothing has been
re-defined. Look no further than "traditional voting" which was NOT
"re-defined" by allowing women the right to vote. A right to marry
someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply no
right at all. The "redefinition argument" is a logical fallacy and
"You claim that your religion of same-sex marriage is exempt from comment
but my religion of traditional marriage should be held in contempt."Good heavens, Richards! I claimed that? Oh my. Care to show
me where? "You have no more right to express your opinion about
whether sex is "outlawed" outside of a marriage of a man and a woman
than I have to assert that sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is a
sin. "Of course you have the right to claim that, don't be
silly. But it doesn't make it right. And your opinion of what sin is is NOT
what laws are based on. You really don't get it Richards? Enjoy
your religion. Worship as you please. And good for you. Just don't think
you get to legislate your religion. The law should allow everyone to have the
most freedom possible. I will NEVER support, or try to pass laws that would
infringe on your right to practice your religion as you please. Have the same
courtesy and don't try to pass laws that would force others to live by YOUR
You who fight for gay marriage, what is marriage to you? Please, define it.
Obviously procreation is off the table. You'll have a hard time arguing
that it is about rewarding committed relationships as "committed" gay
relationships have far higher rates of unfaithfulness relative to marriages
according to studies performed by the U of SF. Maybe you hope that if gays can
legally marry, they'll stay committed, but that is evidence on the face
that there is a lack of tradition on your side.Is this more than
simply trying to license appetite? People in traditional marriage still have
appetite, and those who learn to control their appetites stay in their marriages
longest and are those who contribute the most to society by offering up the most
volunteer effort and refrain from taking vengeance. Traditional marriage and
preference for self control go hand-in-hand. How is it our nation
will be better off should we codify gay marriage into law? Finally tell us what
marriage is to you. We can all state that laws curb our rights without a
critical analysis of how good laws can be a codifying of principals that
actually make us free.
@BoMeritMarriage for gay people means the same thing as it means for
straight people. For the gay people I know who are married it means making a
public demonstration of love and commitment. It means uniting two lives and
families into one. It means each partner promising to put the needs of the other
ahead of their own. It means commiting to stick out in bad times and good,
sickness and health. It means security. There are legal rights and
responsibilities that come through marriage that benefit gay people just as they
do straight. If you think straight people get married just to regulate
procreation, I suggest you watch some more romance films. Romantic love is a
beautiful thing. I think we should support committed couples, no matter the
Tiago, I suggest you pay attention to success ratios and stories
in the gay community as documented by numerous researchers. There is a facade
that has been created around these claims of commitment and love that deserves
to be challenged. Procreation regulation was a religious function before
democratic societies were even dreamed of. Marriage is a religiously sponsored
protector of society that unfathomably predates our laws and gives pretext to
this whole discussion that progressives want to completely alter. What I know
of the gay community comes not from personal experience, but from familiarity of
published studies crafted by academic institutions that have large percentages
of gay faculty participating. I also have documentation of the leaders of
gay-marriage advocates telling their convention crowds that the real purpose
behind the legal battle is not to institute gay marriage but to destroy marriage
altogether. I'm not bothered by what their minions claim in the media with
their public masks on. This battle has been loaded with nearly impenetrable
lies by the pro-gay-marriage side. Facts seem not welcome to the table. I care
because it affects the world my children inherit.
I have been reading these comments here at DN since the Judge Shelby decision
last December. Little has changed.It is very unfortunate that the
mythology adherents can not allow others to live their own lives.Too, it is also unfortunate that since the marriage equality debate is
essentially over (once the appeals process runs its course) that animus is alive
and well among those wishing to control the behavior of others.
[self-proclaimed] TheTrueVoiceWhy must religion be defined as myth
by you without qualification? The motive is not animus. I have gay
friends and I do not hate one of them; and I believe God loves them. I reserve
the right to "hate sin." I reserve the right to hope this nation would
exalt the Laws of Christ above their natural tendencies. Sincerely believing in
a Day of Judgment coming after death, I have to fight for my rights to influence
others to accept God's laws by persuasion (not force). I reserve the right
to have my conscious firmly rooted in a capitulation to higher laws dictated by
a Creator-God. I've found no other theory, philosophy or theology that
allows me to feel love for people who behave in "sinful" ways, including
those who injure me, which is a source of peace for me. Don't castigate me
as a myth follower or a hater if you are not willing to listen to the Theology I
subscribe to with an open mind.
BoMerit,You speak of studies completed proving that same sex couples
are less capable of being in committed relationships. Please leave a list of
academically published research papers so that I can read them and come to my
own conclusions about that research. You say that facts are not welcome in this
discussion, bit this is untrue... but I'd like to read the facts for myself
and ensure the research holds up to scientific scrutiny and are actually valid
I too will exchange my knowledge from an academic standpoint. Of course I'm
currently at work and do not have access to my sources, but I will gladly share
them. One study I am aware of shows that same-sex cohabitating couples are more
likely to stay together than opposite-sex cohabitating couples. Why? Research
shows that cohabitation fails when couples enter it because they doubt whether
or not they'd like to marry and want to "try it out" first. The
same-sex couples who cohabitate because they have no other option tend to sick
together. This would suggest that some same-sex couples are capable of
commitment. Just because some aren't, should all be denied marriage? By
that logic, straight couples should be denied marriage because some straight
people are promiscuous as well.
As promised, here is a study for people to read who say that homosexual couples
are incapable of committed relationships when compared to heterosexual couples.
Article Title: Are Gay and Lesbian cohabiting couples really
different from heterosexual married couples?By: Lawrence A.
KurdekPublished in: Journal of Marriage and Family (among others)First published: October of 2004 (Yes, that's right. We've
had this information available for 10 years)Synopsis: This study
found that on the areas used to compare relationship health, there was no
statistical significant difference between the couples on 50% of the measures.
Of the remaining 50%, he found that 78% of these "indicated that gay or
lesbian partners functioned better than heterosexual partners did."So tell me again why same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed on the basis
of relationship health?