Will the Lege debate gay rights?
Gay rights supporters are increasing the pressure on the Legislature to pass a package of bills that protect the rights of unmarried couples. Equality Utah is buying newspaper ads and radio spots and billboards explaining the so-called Common Ground Initiative.The Ogden Standard-Examiner argues for at least a full debate of the bills in the initiative.
Supporters of the initiative are trying to calm lawmakers that the bills are not a "slippery slope" to legalizing gay marriage — Utah's constitution bans gay marriage. Mike Thompson, Equality Utah's executive director, explains:The Legislature's apparent move to quickly kill — in committee — several bills to ensure legal rights for gay persons and same-sex couples is a cynical, political short-circuit. The bills deserve an appropriate debate period and floor votes before state legislators.
We should not allow this tired, fear-based argument that somehow these rights are going to lead to gay marriage. Amendment 3 [Utah's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage] prohibits that.This comes amid the controversy over California's Proposition 8 that bans gay marriage in that state. The most recent revelation is that after denying direct financial involvement, the Utah-based LDS church acknowledged it put $190,000 into passing the ban:
- $97,000 in time that church staff members devoted to the campaign.
- $21,000 in the use of church buildings and equipment.
- $72,000 in airline tickets and lodging for church officials.
- The church made no cash donations.
The value of the Church's in-kind contribution is less than one-half of one percent of the total funds raised for the Yes on 8 campaign.
6 Comments:
So, it's alright for organizations representing people who successfully translated formerly rejected sexual behavior into the same status as race, civil rights wise, to spend millions on their causes - but it's not OK for organizations representing people of faith to do the same.
Gay people and the supporters of gay/equal rights have never even attempted to strip anyone of their basic civil rights. The Mormon church has done exactly that. Big difference.
Growing tired of hearing that marriage is a "basic right". The legal answer is that it is not.
While marriage can be seen as a basic right (feel free to miscite the Loving case from Virgina here), the method and manner of marriage has been frequently restricted by the government. In fact, a few years after the Loving case, the US Supreme Court said in Baker v. Nelson (1972) said that requirements that applicants for marriage be of the opposite gender did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause.
Another example of where government has legally regualted marriage is inbigamy laws. I can't marry my wife and someone else.
So, yes, the homosexual community can feel free to assert their "basic right" of marriage, but it is just not so.
The homosexual community feels that if the bring the issue to the Court today that they would find a different answer. The problem is that the Court does not seem to want to readdress the issue. I think that they understand that its not their role to change laws according to the various moral whims of culture.
Alright, you have heard a legal reason. Now you can ingore the argument and begin attacking me as a homophobe and racist, blah, blah, blah. At the very minimum, I want some pumpkin bread.
"The most recent revelation is that after denying direct financial involvement, the Utah-based LDS church acknowledged it put $190,000 into passing the ban" I thought Jeebus said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick. Seems that $190K would have gone a long way toward that goal. But obviously it's more important to spend that much to make sure that teh gay doesn't defile that holy institution of marriage. I have to wonder what Gordon B. Hinckley would have done; it seems Monson, for all his jolly persona, is a lot more doctrinaire and willing to use the church's political clout to shove their hatreds down everyone's throats.
rdale, Hinckley would have done the same thing. Remember that Prop 8 was in response to a court ruling over turning Prop 22, during 2000, when President Hinckley was alive. So, showing the continuity of it all, I don't think it would have been any different.
Besides, see the above post. Very convincing.
Anonymous, you're mistaken. The CA supreme court did rule that marriage was a fundamental right, and that any attempts to create a second-class version of marriage (even if the difference were only nomenclature) constituted the equivalent of Jim Crow. The question at hand is how the CA courts interpret these issues; when a federal case comes (as will inevitably happen when the 14th amendment is applied), the supreme court case you cited may be relevant. Until then, this is a state matter.
Sorry you're growing tired of hearing arguments you don't like. You should get used to it.
This drama is going to unfold just like divorce did - with states passing conflicting laws and the federal government reluctant to step in until such involvement becomes unavoidable. Like divorce, gay marriage will be resolved in a manner that expands, rather than narrows, the definition of the institution.
Sorry folks. Utah can debate this and we can go back to listening to Ruzicka. Or we can go the Alabama route, and wait for a court order and the national guard to come out.
With the pig-headed, uneducated (thanks BYU!) mormons and repubutards in this state, my money is on the latter.
Post a Comment
<< Home