Reader comments
Gay community meeting focuses on equal rights

The issue is not equal rights. That can be legislated as it has been in California. LGBT want recognition.

The issues of the Utah gay man and California gay man are very different. Californian's are reaching for full equality while Utahn's are searching for basic protections.

Marriage is not a civil right. It is a religious symbol. The best way to solve this whole issue is to take government out of marriage. Problem solved.

I have a gay son. He and his partner work hard, are finacially responsible, contribute greatly to both our family and the neighborhood community around them. As tax-paying citizens, they are justified in wanting their full equal rights under the law, whether those rights are called "marriage" or civil unions. I have seen firsthand over the years the difference in my son's life since he found a caring partner to share his life with. Although they are not welcome in many churches, including my own, I feel it is so wrong to take away a person's hope. My son did not ask to be gay, and it has made no difference in my love for him, or my family's love for him. I know that God loves our gay children, and friends, too, and I will work alongside them to help them achieve equality in our society. I hope they will do so with respect for others, including churches, even those who would exclude them from participating in a faith community. I believe this issue can be resolved peacefully. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

Our government was created, in part, to enforce contracts. That is why we have civil courts to handle business disputes and contract violations. The government should have civil domestic contracts available to any couple who wants one. It would do away with the need for prenuptial agreements and spell out each others obligations. The equal rights problem would be solved. If you want to be married, have your church marry you. If your church does not want gay marriage, they don't have to perform the ceremony. Bottom line, get the government out of marriage, it is a sacred ceremony and properly the business of the church.

Marriage started out as a govt contract and religion wasn't involved regularly until the 18th century.

I'm a memeber of the LDS Church, and certainly for those of us in the Church and in other Churches marriage is a religious cerimony/ritual. I'm not sure what "Get Real People" meant when he said, "Marriage is not a civil right. It is a religious symbol." Some marriages are performed as civil cerimonies without any religious reference. In addition, there are many civil implications to marriage, whether perfomed in a church or not, including taxes and who is responsibile for bills incurred by a spouse.

So, all those marriages described in the Bible were actually government-sponsored civil unions? Okay, gotcha.

The historical ignorance of some gay rights activists can reach breathtaking levels.

I agree that to the extent a citizen of this Nation is denied a civil right, we should all be up in arms about it.

The sticking point is the definition of a civil right.

The Constitution lays out our protected civil rights -- religion, speech, assembly, counsel, fair trial, etc. We all agree that a big one is equal treatment under the law.

But the LGBT community doesn�t demand equal treatment. They already have that. A gay man can marry a woman under the same terms as anyone else. He inherits property under the same terms as anyone else. He visits people in the hospital the same as anyone else. The law makes no distinction for or against gay people.

The gay demand is for unequal treatment. Without going through the political/legal process to get it. In essence, the demand is for unequal treatment, notwithstanding the law. Inventing rights as they see fit.

I don't have a right to marry 2 women, inherit from my horse, or visit unrelated people in the hospital. If I want those rights, they are granted by the legislature, not the courts.

Why should the LGBT community be treated differently?

The second that marriage left the religious institution and was given legal contract status, it lost it's exclusion to only men & women. Legal contracts & remedies must be accessible to all citizens of legal age. It's not a religious issue, its simply a legal issue. Not everyone believes in equal rights for all - hence blacks being assigned 3/5 vote and women not getting to vote until 1920. It's basic civil rights. Tax-paying citizens should not be treated differently because of gender, and the legal relationships they form has no business being judged by anyone.

All members of the GLBT community and our allies need to continue to be vocal about wanting the legal rights that the straight people are ALLOWED to have!

We need to stop allowing all of us to be treated like second class citizens!

I applaud the comment made from the mother of her gay son! We need more people like her and real change can happen!

Please tell me why on God's green earth a gay man would want to marry a woman?

That's the problem with so many people: you just don't get it. Gay men seek government-sanctioned partnership with the man they love, rather than living the false life advocated by so many. Or would you rather they ignore the old adage, "To thine own self be true." See, your problem isn't the marriage. Your problem is that you don't want homosexuals to be homosexuals. You want them to be heterosexuals. That's intolerance in my book, buddy.

It's not me who doesn't get it.

If gay men seek a "government-sanctioned partnership with the man they love," let them do it openly, legally, decently, non-violently, through the political process. Like I would have to do if I wanted to invent a new civil right to marry 2 women, or my gerbil.

Instead, you invent or discover a completely indefensible definition of civil rights that includes sodomy, and expect people to agree to something so demonstrably silly. Then, when we can't agree, you engage in mindless and childish namecalling, threats, and violent demonstrations, clearly aimed at forcing the spineless and clueless to go along with you.

I don't give two hoots whether homosexuals are homosexuals. That's your business. But your accusing me of intolerance only makes my point.

Those whose position can't stand up to logical inquiry are quick to resort to mindless invective.

And, lest anyone get the wrong idea -- I'm not your buddy.