10th circuit will definitely rule in 1300+ same sex couples' favor, all
they need to do is to look California, those SSM performed before Prop. 8 are
recognized, even with Prop 8 in book, aren't they?
If we assume that words only have meaning because they can be defined, and that
the definitions of words are only valid within the context (time, place, intent)
they are used, then before we can understand any communication we must first
understand the definitions of the words used in that communication.The primary argument in support of SSM is the 14th amendment. This amendment
in itself isn't enough to support SSM however. You must also bring in a
number of SC rulings which state that Marriage is a right protected by the 14th.
Now we get to the crux of the matter. You see, in every dictionary I
could find, up to the last 20 years or so, the word Marriage is quite clear to
include the concept of opposite genders. Even a very current online legal
dictionary I looked up used the same language.So, if the rulings
which are being used to support SSM were given by Judges who intended their
words to have specific meanings, and if those meanings can be decoded by the
dictionaries in effect at the time of the ruling, those ruling actually support
Traditional Marriage, and argue against SSM.
@Kirk R GravesEvery year committees and editorial boards for various
leading dictionaries meet to discuss new words to be added, and word meanings to
be amended or added to. Dictionaries follow and reflect society, they do not set
the meaning of society. So, in the next round of updates, you will
begin to see the definition of marriage being amended to reflect the current use
of the word in society. If dictionaries were static things that
dictated to society, we would all sound like a Shakespeare play and a whole lot
of technology and activity would not be able to exist because we would not have
words to describe it.
This cat has nearly gotten entirely out of the bag.
Kirk R Graves:Words have meanings, but those meanings often evolve
through time:"Awful" used to mean "full of awe"."Gay" used to mean "happy""Egregious" used to mean "remarkably good"."Nice" used to mean "foolish, senseless""Villain" used to mean "peasant"Some socially
acceptable terms & definitions from the Bible are not used at all today,
they've become socially unacceptable. Example: "Concubine"Evolution in word definition is nothing new. Sometimes
words are completely made up from scratch, such as "contraband", which
is a legal term coined by a Union general named Benjamin Butler to describe
slaves who defected to the north. Ordinarily, the property rights of slave
holders would have been honored, but Butler decided these escaped slaves, if
returned to their owners, might potentially be used in warfare against his men,
so he coined a new term and let the slaves stay in Union territory.
Sometimes words are intentionally changed to give definition not originally
intended. Gay began to be used in the 70's to soften the correct term of
homosexual. Now the attempt is to change the definition of marriage to make
homosexuality mainstream. Coming soon, with a broadened legal definition,
indoctrination efforts in the schools to teach children, even in elementary
schools, to accept, appreciate and embrace homosexual marriages. already
happening in some states.The book, After the Ball – how
America will conquer it’s fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s,
Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. 1989 argues that after the gay liberation
phase of the 1970s and 1980s, gay rights groups should adopt more professional
public relations techniques to convey their message. That marketing has worked
very well. The book laid out a six point plan to transform the beliefs of
ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior including: Talk
about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible... Portray
gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers... Give homosexual
protectors a just cause... Make gays look good... Make those who
disagree to be victimizers and make them look bad... Get support from
Cats and dogs living together....Bill Murray
I like your comment Carlady79. My question is, A couple of years ago the
majority of people who live in Utah voted and won that marriage here in this
state of Utah is to stay traditional and now because a couple of judges have
ruled that now SSM can happen here in Utah because a few people got their
feathers ruffled and all is to their favor, why do I bother to vote, if it means
nothing? What about voters rights? So yep "cats and dogs living
Oh no! Schools teaching tolerance for others? What's next?
@Kirk Graves:"You see, in every dictionary I could find, up to the
last 20 years or so, the word Marriage is quite clear to include the concept of
opposite genders. Even a very current online legal dictionary I looked up used
the same language."The fallacy in your argument is "up to
the last 20 years or so". As someone else points out here, old and outdated
dictionaries have definitions that are no longer used or are no longer
acceptable. Modern dictionaries include same-sex couples in their definition of
marriage. In any case, while courts may sometimes use the dictionary in
determining the meaning of a word, when it comes to basics, Noah Webster does
not decide the law of the land. The Supreme Court does. In this
case, unless there is dissent between the various Federal Circuit Courts, the
Supremes are far more likely to decline cert, leaving the lower court rulings
"10th Circuit decision could impact Utah marriage recognition case"
Should, not could. Also in re Mr Kirk Graves stating that marriage is defined in
the dictionary as a union between man and woman, move over. His argument is so
juvenile that it does not need further discussion. His subsequent comment about
the "evolution" of the meaning of words is more appropriate. Everything
changes. Men are not dragging women around the cave by the hair, at least they
are not supposed to. Marriage was ceremony performed long before the Bible. It
was primarily instituted to protect property rights not children. Thankfully
this has changed. Children were bred for labor in the early days.The more kids
the more field hands you had. Education was not the focus. Life changes and
those that want to resort to dictionaries to support their arguments should look
a little deeper into those tomes. There are plenty words to prove pro and con of
the same issue.
Words and definitions,,, just diversions from the point of "equal
protection under the law".Are you tall? Are you short? Black?
White? Male? Female? ,,,,If you are born that way, whatever that way is, you
then must be equal in the eyes of the law. MUST BE.Annnnnd we are
pretty sure these days, science is never, should never be, certain, that
'gayness' is something that happened before birth. Born that way? No
different than being born black, white, pink, or purple, tall, short, male,
female,,,, WE are all equal.
Kirk R Graves says: "The primary argument in support of SSM is the 14th
amendment . . You see, in every dictionary I could find, up to the last 20 years
or so . . "No, the primary argument in support of SSM is that it
ain't your business to tell consenting adults who they can or cannot marry.
People can bandy about the language of this document or that document or this
judicial decision or that judicial decision all the live long day, but the
overriding factor is that your biases or opinions should have no effect on laws
that prevent other adult citizens from conducting their lives as they please,
absent any demonstrable harm caused.And, did you really, truly grab
a bunch of dictionaries and look the word "marriage" up thinking that
would somehow bloster your case? I call balderdash.Rocket Science
says: "Now the attempt is . . to make homosexuality mainstream. Coming soon
. . indoctrination efforts in the schools to teach children . ."More alarmist fantasy. Are you equating schools not explicitly teaching the
wrongness of gay marriage with indoctrination to the contrary?Nice
quote, Catlady. Unfortunately, the humor was lost on CP.
Aren't our laws were based on the will of the people? The people of Utah
clearly and strongly support the "traditional" definition of marriage as
the union of one man and one woman. A civil union of any other type may be
recognized by the state but it is not a marriage.
@Kirk R. Graves. AgreedI might add, word definitions
may indeed change but the concepts they originally meant to portray generally do
not. Yes, Shakespeare's words may have changed in meaning but the concepts
his words portrayed are timeless and unchanging. Same with the Bible and Book
of Mormon. The moral foundation of society is cracking. People of
conscience everywhere should wake up and do what they can to remedy the
situation. Militant and activist gays, those who support them, and activist
judges who legislate from the bench are turning good for bad and bad for good.
Try as they might, no court in the land can change what's right and whats
You can put any kind of spin on it want, But same sex couples , is just wrong,
it always has been and it always will be.
It seems that everyone keeps talking about the recognition of the approximately
1300 Same Sex Marriages that occurred in the state of Utah, but what about the
rest of us that were married out of state prior to Judge Shelby's ruling?
There are more than a few of us that considered getting married here in the
state of Utah in order to make sure our rights were protected. However, we were
told, by certain County Clerks, that our marriages were already valid and that
they were not legally able to issue marriage licenses to us unless we did not
divulge the fact we were already married. If the court orders the state to
recognize the Utah marriages, will ours be recognized as well?
K R Graves: "Now we get to the crux of the matter. You see, in every
dictionary I could find, up to the last 20 years or so, the word Marriage is
quite clear to include the concept of opposite genders. Even a very current
online legal dictionary I looked up used the same language."-------------------But Kirk, less than 100 years ago,
"voter" meant male citizen only. All the law books stated so and it was
written into the Constitution.In our journey to a more perfect
state, in 1920, we added women as voters. Did it change the meaning of that
word to make it mean less than it did? Do all the rulings and even amendments
regarding the word "voter" become nil and void? Do not those rulings
also apply to women now too?I think that you are making rules and
analogies that do NOT exist in the law.
Betcha" You can put any kind of spin on it want, But same sex
couples , is just wrong, it always has been and it always will be."My partner and I have been together for 33 years. We have been happy and have
had a strong relationship through good and bad times.Most of our
friends are straight people.Our families love us and we love and
share with them. Our daughter is blossoming into a beautiful well educated young
lady.I am sure my circle will be dissapointed when they find out we
are all wrong. Thank you for telling us. I don't know how we could have
been so blind and nobody noticed.What to do? what to do?
PLMKaysville, UTAren't our laws were based on the
will of the people?---------------In a word--NO. Are
laws are based on the constitution. Plan and simply put, if you don't
remember from your civics class: all laws, whether national, state, county or
city, must conform to the constitution. The people can change the constitution
if they do not agree with the rulings of the judiciary, but it has a very high
bar to do so.We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional
republic. These judges are doing just what they were appointed to do. We do
not elect these judges because they are only there to judge against the
constitution and not play to the public. It is all in the constitution, if you
want to read it.
@MtnDewerI understand your point, but a little correction.
Ultimately, the people's will is the final say, because in our government,
the constitution can be changed (amended) by the voice of the people through
their elected officials and by ratification of their state legislatures, again
through elected officials.For instance, if there were enough
groundswell support for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, the
constitution could literally be amended to reflect that.
What's being discussed here is the right for equality every American
citizen has - not the religious definition of what marriage is. Everyone should
has the same basic rights and obligations, we shouldn't have
discrimination. The discussion here is about marriage as a civil part of
society, and not what it means to religion. I am a latter-day saint and I do
believe in the religious definition of marriage as stated by the scriptures -
but that's what I live and believe. No one should be forced to live by what
I believe, that goes totally against the doctrine of agency. My religion should
not be impacted by what happens to society - it is something between me and the
Thank you Deseret News for actually showing loving gay couples in your picture
instead of a generic stock photo!
@CP" why do I bother to vote, if it means nothing? What about voters
rights?"Let's say the people of a state vote to ban all
guns. Let's say that vote was 60-40 for the ban. Should the Supreme Court
strike that down because it's unconstitutional, or should voters rights
prevail? Now, I'm sure you think gay marriage isn't constitutionally
protected, but I think we can agree that voters rights should be trumped if a
hypothetical thing passed violates the constitution.
Mr. Graves, read the decision. The definitional issue you raise is specifically
addressed. And found to be irrelevant to the issues of the case. Dictionaries
are useful for purposes of spelling;they have no standing in a court of law.
Betcha says: "You can put any kind of spin on it want, But same sex couples
, is just wrong, it always has been and it always will be."Great. You are free to believe that for the rest of your life. Put it on a
bumper sticker ant tee-shirt. Write a song about it. Tell your kids and
grandkids (none of whom could even be gay, of course) how you feel. For all the
talk of an "attack on religion" I've seen, I don't think
anyone has seriously proposed laws that would restrict you from believing that
SSM is a horrible abomination or saying so in your church meeting.But you can't turn your abhorrence and aversion into a law.
kolob1"Marriage was ceremony performed long before the Bible. It was
primarily instituted to protect property rights not children."Is
that why Adam and Eve got married? To protect their property rights?MtnDewerWhere in the constitution does it say gays have the right to
marry? Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. doesn't think it does.
"One is not a class because one has committed a fault. Selfishness is not
one of the divisions of the social order." Les Misérables, Volume IV,
@cory.byufan;Since you seem to believe in fairy tales, I don't
think anything you say is relevant or credible.
cory.byufan"Is that why Adam and Eve got married? To protect
their property rights?"The book of Genesis describe the creation
of Adam from the earth and Eve from Adam's DNA (Rib)they were given a
command to multiply and work the land. Is that the marriage you are talking
about? Because really, unless my Bible is missing something Adam and Eve may be
the product of an experiment based on what is written. Of course, people fill
the gaps in the narrative with their own imagination.MtnDewerWhere in the constitution does it say gays have the right to marry? Judge Paul
J. Kelly, Jr. doesn't think it does.Do you realize that Judge
Kelly's is not the prevalent opinion?
CP Tooele, UT "A couple of years ago the majority of people who live in Utah
voted"The vote was many years ago i.e. 10 years ago, and most
people have learned more about LBGTs and that they are no threat to them.
Perhaps Utah should vote again.Betcha And you live in
Massachusetts. My partner and I of over 52 years have lived in Massachusetts
for 51 years, married 10 years, and Massachusetts is doing great. We have many
gay and straight friends here and no one has said that they have been affected
by marriage equality. Based on what you say, the often used phrases - "The
marriage of two businesses, the marriage of two universities, etc. should be
It should not matter that 4 people is upset over a case that was voted by the
people. Why did they not get out rally votes.
EstoPerpetuaGo to youtube and type in "What "gay
marriage" did to Massachusetts". It's an eye opener. To say no
one has been affected by "marriage equality", is simply not true. People
who try to speak out against SSM are persecuted in one way or another. J.S "The discussion here is about marriage as a civil part of society, and
not what it means to religion."Not true. It is about religion.
I'm curious to know what you think about gay couples demanding to be sealed
in the LDS Temple. This will be their next push. Sealing's are a religious
ceremony, not a civil ceremony.
Rocket Science said: "Now the attempt is to change the definition of
marriage to make homosexuality mainstream. Coming soon, with a broadened legal
definition, indoctrination efforts in the schools to teach children, even in
elementary schools, to accept, appreciate and embrace homosexual
marriages."That sums up completely and perfectly my whole
opposition to SSM.
Allow me to summarize StandAlone, windsor and RocketScience's reasons for
opposing SSM:"Now the attempt is to allow people to (1) define
their own marriages the way they want to without being barred by my personal
religious convictions; and(2) allow gay couples to come out of the shadows to
marry and stop feeling like their government brands them as abnormal and
illegitimate. Coming soon, with a broadened legal definition, educators will
teach children, even in elementary schools, to accept other people's
personal choices and natures and mind their own business.I
can't even fathom what any of you think the schools are going to do to
"indoctrinate" our poor kids. What do you predict will happen;
full-color pictorals explaining "the act"? Lessons on how fab-YOO-lous
it is to be gay? Are kids going to "convert"?You're
inventing and/or predicting things to be alarmed at and offended by, and you
don't even know what they are beyond vague notions that "something
ain't right." In 20 years people will wonder what the big deal was, and
the planet will not have turned gay.
@RocketScience"...efforts in the schools to teach children, even in
elementary schools, to accept, appreciate and embrace homosexual marriages.
already happening in some states."I can only that this happens
in my lifetime!I have nothing to lose if I accept my neighbor's
marriage, even if it's same-sex. Even you have nothing to lose by
accepting their marriage either. It does nothing to demean your own marriage,
or make it less special. You know what ruins the sanctity of marriage?
Divorce. Adultery. Both of those are 100% legal. Do I agree with either? No,
but I respect that someone has the opportunity to make those choices.But "People of the same sex marrying can't procreate!"
You're right, they can't produce kids of their own. Does that mean
that they can't be good parents to an adopted or surrogate child? If you
honestly answer "yes" to that question, you have personal prejudices you
need to get over, and quit projecting onto everyone else. You know who else
can't have kids of their own? The elderly and sterile. We allow them to
marry! Why? Because they love and care for one another.
@StandAlone;If a gay couple "demands" to be married in your
temple, I will support your church in saying no.This is 100% about
civil marriage. Religious marriage has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Religious marriage does not come with any legal rights, privileges or benefits.
Those are only available through civil marriage, which is what we're
seeking. Your churches can be a bigoted towards LGBT couples as they want (all
it'll do is lose them members); but they have no business telling civil
authorities what citizens of this country, who are NOT MEMBERS of their
congregations are allowed to do. No business whatsoever.
@StandAlone:" I'm curious to know what you think about gay
couples demanding to be sealed in the LDS Temple. This will be their next push.
" If it is, they'll lose. The First Amendment protects
the right of churches to decide who is or is not eligible to participate in
their sacraments and services. It's no different than the present right of
the LDS Church to limit access to their temples to folks who have a temple
recommend. It may well be that the church will someday allow sealings for gay
couples, but if so, it will be because the church made the decision to allow it
based on their belief in ongoing revelation and prophecy, but not because a
court ordered it. This is the underlying issue with so many of the
anti- arguments. They conflate civil marriage rights (the subject of the suits)
with religious marriage rites (which have nothing to do with the case at bar).
They're two entirely separate issues which have the misfortune to share the
same name -- marriage.
Although I really disagree with same sex marriage,the red flag that should
trouble all of us is that the Federal government has pushed aside the expressed
will of the people in almost every state, and has started down the road to
judicial tyranny. It must be stopped and soon.I predict that if all 50 states
are forced to accept so called gay marriage, than any religious organization
that stands in opposition to this sort of thing will find itself in court
defending their right to proclaim the truth as they understand it.At that point
those of us who refuse to compromise may be fined, told to shut up , or face
jail. Bring it on! We will not be quiet!
@DanclrksvllPlease explain to me how this instance of the federal
judiciary declaring state laws banning same sex marriage is different than the
federal judiciary declaring state segregation laws in the 1950's.
SSM involves everybody, including religious institutions. To those who say "
religion has no place in politics", would you say that to Reverend Martin
Luther King? Most movements to improve law were led by religious leaders,
including the civil rights movement. Our government was also founded on moral
and religious principles.Government can treat people equally and
ensure their liberty without redefining marriage. Government has no business
reaffirming romantic or emotional attachments. You can keep your head buried in
the sand, and pretend that government and the constitution will protect you.
But what is at stake here, is a government that recognizes SSM and then force
every citizen, religion, school and business to do the same.
@Danclrksvll:I doubt religious people will be fined, told to shut
up, or face jail (unless there opposition turns to battery). But I
wonder if there will be attempts to revoke the tax exempt status of churches
that won't perform same sex marriages.
@StandAlone"I'm curious to know what you think about gay couples
demanding to be sealed in the LDS Temple. This will be their next push.
Sealing's are a religious ceremony, not a civil ceremony."Right, it's a religious ceremony, so much like the LDS church can choose
not to marry mixed-faith couples in temples (even though we have laws against
religious discrimination) they can likewise choose not to marry same-sex couples
in the temple. Now, of course, they might face criticize and protests (something
like Ordain Women, and like OW would pretty much only come from people inside
rather than outside the faith), but they can't be made to change in the
law; that'd be unconstitutional and I'd support the churchs'
rights in that (you're on your own when it comes to any protest stuff).
Both sides in CA Prop 8 had it's ups and downs all the way to SCOTUS.I empathize with both sides of this issue.Almost 19 years
together with my SSM Partner, we were married in 2008 during the "open
window" prior to Prop 8. (Six years ago.)Fortunately, in this
state it is now a non-issue.Straight couples still go on with their
lives ........... as well as us gay couples.
Once we accept redefining marriage based on one atypical sexual practice, there
is no legitimate reason not to extend it to others (i.e. Pederasty, Polygamy,
etc.) If the Courts believe the States cannot refuse to recognize
marriages based on gender, it logically follows that States cannot discriminate
based on age or the number of participants either.They have opened
Pandora's Box. I hope the Supreme Court slams it shut.
Has anyone else noticed that the same people who claim churches will never be
forced to perform same-sex marriages are often the same people supporting and
applauding the efforts of groups like Ordain Women who are attempting to forced
churches to change doctrine and policy?
I'm sure at some point a judge will determine that the 14th amendment means
that churches have to marry gay couples against their will, just like when
marriage was somehow found in the same amendment that allows gay or straight
people the legal right to marry (even though it's not mentioned
[enumerated] anywhere).What could possibly make me believe that gays
won't push the government to force my church to marry gays if the
Constitution is open to interpretation by a select few, ignoring the will of the
people?I call baloney to those who deny that it will eventually
I wish I had the ability to edit a post. I forgot to put the word
"unconstitutional" in two places in my prior post. I hope this clarifies
that prior post.
The Constitution's guarantee of the "free exercise" of religion
are flimsy protections at best. Churches in Denmark have been ordered to
perform SSM whether they want to or not, and the U.S will not be far behind.
Don't think for a minute it cannot happen here, it can and it will. To
think otherwise is extremely foolish and naive. Even if a church tries to keep
going without tax-exempt status, it won't be long before they are ordered
to perform SSM anyway, tax exempt status or not. If the gay gestapo can order a
baker to make a wedding cake, they can order a pastor to perform a wedding.
People better wake up.....
@StandAlone"The Constitution's guarantee of the "free
exercise" of religion are flimsy protections at best. Churches in Denmark
have been ordered to perform SSM whether they want to or not, and the U.S will
not be far behind."This is wrong on many levels.Denmark does not have the same Constitution as we do, so comparisons of
constitutional rights aren't direct.Denmark has a state church,
the Danish National Church. And, yes, they recently passed a law requiring all
(Danish National) churches to perform same sex marriages. The law took effect
June 15. No Danish National priest can be forced to perform such a ceremony,
but all Danish National churches must provide someone to officiate such
marriages upon request. This is appropriate, because all Danish citizens pay to
support the church and should have access.HOWEVER, the law only
applies to the national church, no other denominations. The Mormon chapels and
temple in Denmark are unaffected by this law.The law has sparked
debate about separating church and state in Denmark. The separation of church
and state in the U.S. means this will never happen here.
Sometimes the RIGHTS of the minority need protecting from the will and opinions
of the majority. You should never be permitted to vote on the rights of
another....The court got it right and I wish the state would stop wasting my tax
$$ trying to get it wrong.
@StandAloneOne example of the separation of church and state and the
establishment clause:This year a church in the south made headlines
for refusing to marry an interracial couple -- 47 years after Loving.The couple were members of the church and had dated and been engaged while
attending there. But they had to go elsewhere to get married. And the church
is within its rights under the establishment clause. No government agency tried
to force them to perform the ceremony. And 47 years from now, if Mormon
doctrine doesn't change and they refuse to marry same sex couples, no
government agency will try to force them.I'm not saying there
won't be groups like Ordain Women, who will call attention to the church
and try to force change. But the church cannot be forced by the government
without constitutional changes to the 1st amendment.
Filthy KuffarYou wrote:"I call baloney to those who deny that it
will eventually happen."Filthy Kuffar @ Stand Alone,You are expressing similar "feelings". You can call it anything you
want... I will call your "feelings" paranoia.Let's
examine this:Would any of you marry in a church that doesn't
want to bless your marriage. No? I didn't think so.Yet, in your
mind, LGBT people would do that. Why? Because, again, in your mind, we want to
destroy the holy institution of marriage.To that type of
un-reasoning there is no arguments that can persuade you.Fortunately
for us and for you: Marriage is a civil institution and your religious beliefs
are protected.Have a wonderful life. Please do NOT let that SSM
harm your family or your marriage.
@wendell:"...but what about the rest of us that were married out of
state prior to Judge Shelby's ruling? There are more than a few of us that
considered getting married here in the state of Utah in order to make sure our
rights were protected."I don't see that as a problem...
It's my understanding that the SCOTUS decision on DOMA, prohibits States
(and the federal government) from denying benefits to married SS couples
residing in the State.That could be the answer to the SSM dilemma...
SCOTUS could rule that States can decide that SSM is not an authorized marriage
but cannot deny SS couples State benefits (such as filing a joint state income
koseighty"The Mormon chapels and Temple in Denmark are
unaffected by this law"...... for now.........I'll tell you
what's wrong on many level's. Putting your trust, and
relying on the government to respect anything in the Constitution, including the
separation clause. The separation clause in the long run will likely
not protect religious institutions any more than it protected some catholic
Institutions from continuing attempt of having the HHS Contraceptive mandate
imposed on them.The U.S Constitution is only as strong as the
Supreme Court's interpretation of it. Political machinations are in place
to interpret anything. Those who smugly think, that any government,
under any constitution, in any country, would never force SSM upon any religious
institution, State run or not, is being deceived.
The point about homosexual marriage indoctrination in the public schools is not
helping people to learn to be kind, friendly and respectful to all, but rather
teaching and indoctrination that SSM is good and wonderful and should be
celebrated despite rights of the parents to teach their children right and wrong
according to their particular religious belief. In some places it is already
not acceptable to say I disagree I believe SSM is wrong.
at some point perhaps a court will rule in favor of a voter approved
"Baccus0902:"Our families love us and we love and share with them.
Our daughter is blossoming into a beautiful well educated young lady."How in heaven's name did you get a daughter? If you or your spouse
were involved in making the child, then you may not be as homosexual as you
suppose."I am sure my circle will be disappointed when they find
out we are all wrong."If I were you, I'd be more concerned
about meeting my maker. But, that's just me.@rw123:"For instance, if there were enough groundswell support for a
constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, the constitution could
literally be amended to reflect that."But you have to have a
moral country to get that done. And we're moving very swiftly toward
immorality.@StandAlone:"Go to youtube and type in
"'What gay marriage did to Massachusetts."Absolutely
astounding and frightening that this is what is coming to communities when SSM
is legalized. All I can say is, the Supreme Court better watch the film-clip.
It will open their eyes as to what will come should the court rule in favor of
RanchHandYou bet I believe in fairy tales! Like the 1980 miracle bowl.
Oh wait, that really happened haha.Baccus0902You asked what
bible I use. It’s the King James version. I don’t think I’m
using my imagination to say that Adam and Eve were married. Genesis 2:25
“and they were both naked, the man and his WIFE, and were not
ashamed.”wrzOuch. That was kind of harsh against
Baccus0902 who is still a nice person even though they disagree with you.
@mrjj69 9:41 p.m. June 27, 2014at some point perhaps a court will
rule in favor of a voter approved initiative.-----------------It's very simple. If the voter-approved initiative establishes a
law that is constitutional, the courts will rule in favor of it. If on the
other hand the voter-approved initiative establishes a law that is
unconstitutional (like Amendment 3), the courts will rule against of it. The
courts rule strictly on whether or not the voter-approved initiative establishes
a law that is constitutional. Nothing more, nothing less.
And my point is, the earliest record we have of a married couple is not two cave
dwellers. And they weren’t trying to protect their property rights if
they were the only two people alive on the earth. They also weren’t
trying to gain respect from their nonexistent neighbors. They did it because
marriage was instituted by God. Now that’s only relevant if you believe
in the bible, but I support traditional marriage because it I think in the long
term it is best for children and for society. And Utah has the right to vote on
that. The constitution will be interpreted differently depending on the judge.
I doubt Judge Kelly is in the minority. I guess we’ll see when the case
goes to the supreme court.
@ cory.byufanAbout Genesis 2:25 You are absolutely right. I read the
scriptures in Spanish, my native language,and in Spanish the text says' The
man and his woman" other translation says "Adam and his woman".
I'll do some research on the original... I love this stuff!About "wrz"; No problem, you see, to be gay and be my age
I needed to develop a thick skin :)Besides, you are right. I'm
a very nice person :)@ WRZRegarding being concerned about
meeting my maker: Not at all! God is an intrinsic part of my life and the life
of my family. I think those who show disdain for other individuals should be
more concerned.Regarding "you (Baccus) may not be as homosexual
as you suppose". OoooH! believe me I am! Very much so. About my daughter? Well, we LGBT can be as resourceful as straights when
it comes to parenthood.
On religious freedom, from the 10th Circuit's opinion (p. 60):"We also emphasize, as did the district court, that today's decision
relates solely to civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214
"[T]he court notes that its decision does not mandate any change for
religious institutions, which may continue to express their own moral
viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage."). Plaintiffs must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married
couples, but religious institutions remain as free as they always have been to
practice their sacraments and traditions as they see fit.We
respect the views advanced by members of various religious communities and their
discussions of the theological history of marriage. And we continue to
recognize the right of the various religions to define marriage according to
their moral, historical, and ethical precepts. Our opinion does not
intrude into that domain or the exercise of religious principles in this arena.
The right of an officiant to perform or decline to perform a religious ceremony
is unaffected by today's ruling."
@cory.byufan"And my point is, the earliest record we have of a married
couple is not two cave dwellers. And they weren’t trying to protect their
property rights if they were the only two people alive on the earth."The problem is, of course, that history shows mankind had been building
cities and farming in the Fertile Crescent for thousands of years before Adam
and Eve appear (according to the Biblical timeline). Writing had been
developed, the first laws recorded, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of
people had lived and died. All long before the Bible got around to creating the
first man and woman.I wonder, when Adam and Eve were finally let out
of the garden, did they finally encounter the human race that had been happily
marching on for a hundred thousand years? Perhaps that's where they found
the wives for their sons. Where Cain was able to find people to join him in
building a city.How lonely life would have been for them, had they
never escaped the garden and thus discovered the real world.
@cory.byufan"Wife" in Genesis 2:25 is Strong's #802:
'ishshah. It can mean "a woman" or "adulteress" or
"each, every, female" or "wife". In fact, Strongs shows the word
used many times and only rarely translated as "wife."The KJV
translators were influenced by the biases of the day. A literal translation
would have rendered it something like "the man and the woman." The KJV
translation sets Adam as the man and Eve as an accessory, like property, as if
she has no existence outside her relationship to "the man."Of course, that is how women were treated in Bronze Age society. Yet another example of why the Bible is such a poor guide on modern life and
society and how to treat people.
koseighty, over his limit, asked me to pass on:Genesis refers to
"Adam and his wife." But Genesis never mentions a wedding ceremony. It
is therefore likely that Adam and Eve were married the way people were for the
vast majority of our history: they simply moved into together.While
the church would deliver great pomp and circumstance for royal marriages, the
common folk were generally left to marry themselves to whom they pleased -- no
priest or ceremony required.It wouldn't be until the
reformation that churches would begin to officiate at weddings for the
peasantry. As part of the struggle for power, the Catholic church declared that
only marriages performed by them had the blessing of God. And thus the practice
of weddings to create marriages was brought to the commoners -- with the
Catholic and Protestant churches battling to win souls by marriage as much as by