Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California
714 comments | Read story
Common Sense | 5:33 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Good article. As a member of the LDS church,I've been following the events
in California. My concern is for the children. Making gay marriage legal would
open the doors to the adoption of children, who would have little or no choice
in the matter. THAT is why LDS were for prop 8. The opponents can trot out
whatever stats they want, but children NEED to be in a family with a FATHER and
a MOTHER. Two of the same doesn't qualify.
D Shields | 5:35 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
It is offensive to have these protests characterized as whining. Most of the
protesters and supporters see this as a civil rights issue. The momentum that
continues to carry forward activism is much like the stone rolling downhill, it
is picking up steam. It will be an issue until the laws are changed to include
all people.
I for one am glad the "whiners" persevered in the late 1800s and the 1960s. How about you? How long would you champion change for something you believe in? This nation would look dramatically different if when handed defeat everyone went quietly home.
I for one am glad the "whiners" persevered in the late 1800s and the 1960s. How about you? How long would you champion change for something you believe in? This nation would look dramatically different if when handed defeat everyone went quietly home.
Comments continue below
Preserve Marriage | 5:43 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Traditional marriage is worthy of being protected. It is high time that a US
constitutional amendment defining marriage is written and adopted ending the
debate.
puzzled by california | 5:51 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
amen.
stating the obvious | 6:08 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Thanks Lee. Amen.
DCnTN | 6:18 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Let it go DesNews. It's like picking a scab over and over.
This whole thing has been discussed ad nauseum with the only result being bad feelings on both sides.
This whole thing has been discussed ad nauseum with the only result being bad feelings on both sides.
Thank you! | 6:42 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Well stated. Won't change anyone's mind. The majority have spoken
and the minority continues to ask for rights forced on the majority by the
minority. They can't have it both ways but they will continue to whine and
whine and whine. I only wish the debate would be civil and not disgusting as
the minority have chosen it to be. But then again, the minority are always
right and the rights of the majority are irrelevant. The whole thing makes me
sick.
Cultivate or Cult of Hate? | 6:49 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Hey, Lee!
Ever hear the phrase "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again"?
With some more education to dispel hate-spawned myths, Californians will eventually get this one right.
Ever hear the phrase "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again"?
With some more education to dispel hate-spawned myths, Californians will eventually get this one right.
Lies of prop 8? | 6:50 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
I keep hearing about the lies used to win prop 8. What lies? You mean the one
that said gay radicals would demand the tax exempt status of churches would be
take away? Look at what the protestors are demanding! The lie that said people
who believed in traditional marriage would be ostracized? Look at what the gay
radicals have tried to accomplish with their boycotts! That people and churches
that don�t teach gay marriage would begin to be attacked
and ridiculed? Well, well, well. Don�t you think that
accusing the pro marriage side of the issue with lies is beginning to look a
little silly about now?
Clueless | 6:56 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
This is stupid. Slavery won the popular vote. Maybe the slaves should have just
stopped whinning. Or, those pro-lifers, you lost so stop whinning. The Courts
are not activist when the rule that something is unconstitutional. They are
suppose to go against the majority if the minority is discriminated against. Get
a clue.
@DCnTN | 6:57 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
When the gays let it go it will go away.
I say let them have children, IF they can figure out a way to do it without using someone else to supply the child. There is a biological reason gays can't procreate.
I say let them have children, IF they can figure out a way to do it without using someone else to supply the child. There is a biological reason gays can't procreate.
Mike | 7:00 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Why do the gay/lesbian groups need the definition of marriage changed to allow
their idea of marriage to exist?
Is it the idea that their lifestyle choice MUST be accepted by all?
Society in general is tolerant of their lifestyle choice. Sadly, tolerance is just a 'Politically Correct' word for conceding ones values to Man's desires.
Get it straight world...God abhors sin in any form. Period.
God said, 'Love the sinner, not the sin.'
We as Christians (from all denominations) understand what is at stake and thus will stand up for and defend God's definition of marriage.
After all, He made the first couple, He made and defined the first marriage as between a man and a woman, and He said we are to follow His commandments. We should be more concerned with what God wants than what Man wants.
Is it the idea that their lifestyle choice MUST be accepted by all?
Society in general is tolerant of their lifestyle choice. Sadly, tolerance is just a 'Politically Correct' word for conceding ones values to Man's desires.
Get it straight world...God abhors sin in any form. Period.
God said, 'Love the sinner, not the sin.'
We as Christians (from all denominations) understand what is at stake and thus will stand up for and defend God's definition of marriage.
After all, He made the first couple, He made and defined the first marriage as between a man and a woman, and He said we are to follow His commandments. We should be more concerned with what God wants than what Man wants.
Pro-Lifers did not lose a vote | 7:07 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
To Clueless, there was no vote on abortion, that decision was made by judicial
fiat. Just like gay marriage. That is one reason abortion is still an issue more
than 30 years later, it was never a decision by the voters.
In Ca | 7:12 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Great article. Finally someone is talking about the rights of the unborn.
The real problem is gays will not stop until they have homosexuality defined as normal. That means it must be taught in the schools, and protected by any lawyer who chooses to sue. Anyone who does not accept their agenda as normal can and likely will be sued.
When in the past have lawyers not sued when given the power to do so?
What society in world history has propered by promoting homosexual rights?
Maybe letting the majority decide is not that bad after all?
The real problem is gays will not stop until they have homosexuality defined as normal. That means it must be taught in the schools, and protected by any lawyer who chooses to sue. Anyone who does not accept their agenda as normal can and likely will be sued.
When in the past have lawyers not sued when given the power to do so?
What society in world history has propered by promoting homosexual rights?
Maybe letting the majority decide is not that bad after all?
Texas LDS | 7:13 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
To Clueless: Slavery didn't win the popular vote. The Constitution was
amended (13th and 14th) by the indirect congressional and state's voting
according to the process set forth in Article V. Furthermore the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 was passed by indirect popular vote. Abolishing slavery and poor
treatment of blacks was not the single product of the courts.
The gays are upset not just because Prop 8 passed, but because Obama won and it passed. They suddenly realized that even people on the left don't support gay marriage
The gays are upset not just because Prop 8 passed, but because Obama won and it passed. They suddenly realized that even people on the left don't support gay marriage
Kevin | 7:16 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
I've overwhelmed by the lack of empathy in this article and in the
postings.
FYI. Morality doesn't come from your flowery, fraudulent scripture. It comes from empathy.
Sore loser? Try empathy. Imagine - just image for a minute, please - what it would be like to have people vote against your right to have a family. What would it be like for you if your marriage had just been nullified in a ballot initiative, and your neighbors had just coughed up millions to see it through. You seem OK with individual rights coming and going with a casual majority referendum.
Your flippant drivel shows how your culture is not only morally deprived, but intellectually deprived as well. Maybe you'd be so kind to go back to sports writing.
FYI. Morality doesn't come from your flowery, fraudulent scripture. It comes from empathy.
Sore loser? Try empathy. Imagine - just image for a minute, please - what it would be like to have people vote against your right to have a family. What would it be like for you if your marriage had just been nullified in a ballot initiative, and your neighbors had just coughed up millions to see it through. You seem OK with individual rights coming and going with a casual majority referendum.
Your flippant drivel shows how your culture is not only morally deprived, but intellectually deprived as well. Maybe you'd be so kind to go back to sports writing.
re: Lies of prop 8? | 7:16 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Amen!
B-Rex | 7:21 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
This is not about equal rights, this is about forcing an agenda. The gay-rights
groups have always been "In Your Face" and that is where they want to
be. The want to force everyone to believe that their way of life is normal.
What about my civil rights. They are attacked every time I see a "Gay
Rights" parade. They are attacked every time I am forced to explain to my
children that we believe that those acts are evil. From what I understand from
here in "Fly-over" country, the Gays in California have all the rights
of a married couple except the formal "Marriage" title. What else are
they fighting for except normalization of what many believe is abnormal?
It's sad that civility has gone out of civil rights.
It's sad that civility has gone out of civil rights.
lwt | 7:23 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
There is a difference between protesting and vandalizing, defaming, and
intimidating. I am all for the protesting. BUT the reasin this article is
calling this whining is because the protesters are also vandalizing, defaming,
and intimidating. THIS IS NOT LEGAL OR RIGHT. Go ahead a protest, go ahead and
work to pass the rights you believe that you should have.I'm ok with that
and so are most American's. BUT STOP your vandalizing, defaming,
intimidating and whining.
Richard | 7:29 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
I would like to know also what lies were told. Can someone specifically list
them? Or some of them? I am not from California or Utah so I am not aware of
lies that were told. Can someone enlighten me?
LogicRules | 7:30 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
I just don't understand what all the fuss over "gay marriage"
laws is about. Everyone in America has the same marriage right - to choose to
marry a person of the opposite sex, or choose to not do so. Yes, I believe that
we need laws to force companies to provide benefits for same-sex partners of
employees, and any children they adopt. But we don't need to legally
redefine the institution of marriage. It already has a "love it or leave
it" legal status.
Getover it | 7:31 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
When are people going to stop calling the homosexual lifestyle a constitutional
right? Have you even read the constitution? If so you would know that IT IS NOT
a protected class. Only gender and race are classes that are protected under the
constitution. Lifestyle choices are not.
Robert | 7:42 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Those who say that legal recognition of same gender relationships does not hurt
marriage simply refuse to recognize that marriage is a valuable social
institution that would be lost if changed to include same gender relationships.
You don't believe that? Try teaching a child that marriage is a legally
recognized union of a man and a woman for the benefit of their children, but
that it's also a legally recognized relationship between any two consenting
adults.
Those who oppose legal measures such as California's Proposition 8 are frustrated because, try as they may, they just can't pin the "bigot" label on their opposition and make it stick. They fail to understand that it's not about them personally; it's all about a priceless social institution that must not be weakened, let alone lost.
Those who oppose legal measures such as California's Proposition 8 are frustrated because, try as they may, they just can't pin the "bigot" label on their opposition and make it stick. They fail to understand that it's not about them personally; it's all about a priceless social institution that must not be weakened, let alone lost.
To Clueless | 7:48 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
that was a clueless remark, We are not talking about a race of people, we are
not talking about life or death issues. We are talking about devient behavior
and it's proponents trying to change societies moral values. Benson is
right enough is enough.
Learn History | 7:48 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
To Clueless:
Lincoln's election was basically a vote over slavery and states rights. The country split (North & South) over the matter which led to the Civil War because the Majority (The North) fought to preserve the union and eventually for the ideals of emancipation. So, to claim that the majority vote was to preserve slavery is simply wrong - it was after Lincoln's election that you began to see the south secede. Buchanan is widely critized for doing nothing to stop the south while he was a lame duck president, essentially giving the south a few months head start on war plans and preparation.
To equate the same sex marriage issue to slavery or the battel for civil rights of racial groups is not a fair comparison. With a civil union, a couple has ALL of the same legal rights as a married couple. This is about symbolism - it is about defining same sex sexuality as socially acceptable (i.e. not a sin). It is about defining family in society. It is about imposing the will of the minority on the majority. Stop obfuscating this issue with claims of civil rights as that is not a fair comparison.
Lincoln's election was basically a vote over slavery and states rights. The country split (North & South) over the matter which led to the Civil War because the Majority (The North) fought to preserve the union and eventually for the ideals of emancipation. So, to claim that the majority vote was to preserve slavery is simply wrong - it was after Lincoln's election that you began to see the south secede. Buchanan is widely critized for doing nothing to stop the south while he was a lame duck president, essentially giving the south a few months head start on war plans and preparation.
To equate the same sex marriage issue to slavery or the battel for civil rights of racial groups is not a fair comparison. With a civil union, a couple has ALL of the same legal rights as a married couple. This is about symbolism - it is about defining same sex sexuality as socially acceptable (i.e. not a sin). It is about defining family in society. It is about imposing the will of the minority on the majority. Stop obfuscating this issue with claims of civil rights as that is not a fair comparison.
definition | 7:55 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
What is wrong with people these days??
An apple is the term used to describe that particular fruit. Just because a minority comes along wanting to change the name doesn't also change the fruit itself. Changing the definition of the term marriage doesn't change the definition itself (a man and a woman are still needed to produce a child). Let's face it folks. What is wanted is not equal rights but the legalization of these sexual acts of a minority in order to force the majority to "appreciate" those acts under force of law. Having already prepared the way for punishment of thoughts and attitudes as "hate" crimes. Anyone or any organization speaking or demonstrating any behavior that could be construed as opposing that which would then be legal sexual behavior could be punished as hate crime with increased penalty because of the hateful nature of the action.
Anyone who thinks this is a matter of simple civil rights is ignoring the fact that regardless of how much this minority would like to be appreciated and accepted by others it is not possible to change the biological facts nor the obsessive fixation of such people on sex.
An apple is the term used to describe that particular fruit. Just because a minority comes along wanting to change the name doesn't also change the fruit itself. Changing the definition of the term marriage doesn't change the definition itself (a man and a woman are still needed to produce a child). Let's face it folks. What is wanted is not equal rights but the legalization of these sexual acts of a minority in order to force the majority to "appreciate" those acts under force of law. Having already prepared the way for punishment of thoughts and attitudes as "hate" crimes. Anyone or any organization speaking or demonstrating any behavior that could be construed as opposing that which would then be legal sexual behavior could be punished as hate crime with increased penalty because of the hateful nature of the action.
Anyone who thinks this is a matter of simple civil rights is ignoring the fact that regardless of how much this minority would like to be appreciated and accepted by others it is not possible to change the biological facts nor the obsessive fixation of such people on sex.
to Robert Johnstone | 7:59 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Gay marriage does nothing to discriminate????What about when they start sueing
churchs who refuse to marry them. Do you really think they will stop at being
able to marry.They will then start insisting that they can marry anywhere they
want to. And for your info, when the government told the church to stop
polygamy, they did,"We believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the
law" Those who continue to practice polygamy are offshoots that are no
longer associated with our church and are breaking the law. and you full well
know that the money came from members who have a right to support a cause, just
as the gay community donated to the cause, and they did by the way, donate more.
It has been proven and documented that the money did not come from the church
it came from the people of the church. Say what you will, facts are facts and
like Lee Benson, I too am tired of all the nonsense. Not happy with the outcome
then PEACEFULLY try again.
instereo | 8:09 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Maybe it has something to do with the constitution and how we belive that it
protects the rights of the minority against the wims of the majority. To put it
bluntly, do we want to believe in a country where the majority can vote away
someones rights. Even if I don't believe it's proper for gays to
marry, I believe it's even more wrong to take away their rights to marry.
So I guess, since California didn't even get then when they get so many
other ideas is what's frustrating. The debate will not go away though
because no one wants to throw away our constitution.
Why are we still here? | 8:11 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
This is all a joke to me. Why do we discuss something that is a non-issue? Its
like winning a football game 52-48 and after the game is won, the losing team
says someone slapped them in the face after the game so they want to go to
overtime. No to Prop 8 are sore losers and need to grow up. This is a country
whose laws are enacted for the people and by the people, not by California
judges and lawyers that can have biased rules based on family members who are
gay and want the vote rehashed. If you still feel the itch to get married, go to
the states that allow it and live happily ever after, but not in Cali.
Anonymous | 8:13 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
It is amazing how obsessive the Utah culture is around this issue, I will never
understand the boggy man syndrome of the LDS faithful. You same people have been
posting the same ridiculous post for more then a year now. Maybe you should let
it go.
Anonymous | 8:14 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Sorry Robert Johnson, spelled your last name incorrectly.
Empathy | 8:17 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Kevin, we have empathy.
Most of us have friends or relatives who struggle with homosexuality.
Our hearts go out to those in that predicament.
However degrading the institution of marriage as militant homosexuals demand will not help.
Can you feel the love?
Most of us have friends or relatives who struggle with homosexuality.
Our hearts go out to those in that predicament.
However degrading the institution of marriage as militant homosexuals demand will not help.
Can you feel the love?
Guilt | 8:17 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Deep down gays feel guilty for their homosexual behavior. They hope that by
having it be accepted and completely tolerated that this will somehow make them
feel less guilty for their sinful acts. If everyone accepts homosexual
behavior, then they think they will feel less or no guilt. They will find they
are wrong and search for more justification. That is why if we budge an inch
they are likely take a mile.
More so-called lies | 8:18 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
One of the things they claim is a lie, is that children will be taught gay
marriage is normal. If that's a lie - tell it to the Massachusetts family,
whose kindergartner was bringing home books about gay families, and whose
teacher was reading them to the class. The father went to the school and asked
that his child be excused from such lessons. He wound up spending the night in
jail, banned from school grounds. He was told, in no uncertain terms, that he
had no right to keep his 5 year old from hearing such information.
The other so-called lies involve adult religious liberty. In hundreds of cases across the country, religious people are being sued - and losing - for not supporting the gays. Google "When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash", you'll get an NPR story listing the types of cases. Non-discrimination laws are trumping religious liberty - even though religious liberty is in the Constitution and gay rights are not. It is NOT a lie to say that gay marriage does affect everyone.
The other so-called lies involve adult religious liberty. In hundreds of cases across the country, religious people are being sued - and losing - for not supporting the gays. Google "When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash", you'll get an NPR story listing the types of cases. Non-discrimination laws are trumping religious liberty - even though religious liberty is in the Constitution and gay rights are not. It is NOT a lie to say that gay marriage does affect everyone.
Cats | 8:27 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
It's interesting the way anti Prop 8 people keep claiming that Prop 8 was
based on "lies." In fact, there is ample precedent to support every
contention the pro Prop 8 people cite.
A protestant Church lost it's tax free status in New Jersey when it refused to allow a gay wedding ceremony in it's facility. Pro gay marriage materials have been used in schools in Massachussets and California. In some cases, parents were NOT allowed the choice to opt their children out. Catholic charities was forced to halt their adoption services in Massachussets because they refused to adopt children out to gay couples.
You see, freedom of religion (which is guaranteed under the first amendment) has ALREADY been affected by so-called gay "marriage."
The real lies are being told by the pro gay "marraige" crowd. They are not asking for "TOLERANCE." They are DEMANDING that society ACCEPT and LEGITIMATE their lifestyle.
To say gay "marriage" is a right is absurd. Marriage is a privilege--not a right. That is why you have to get a license.
By the way--I'd like to thank the teacher who took her first graders to her lesbian wedding. She put our side over the top.
A protestant Church lost it's tax free status in New Jersey when it refused to allow a gay wedding ceremony in it's facility. Pro gay marriage materials have been used in schools in Massachussets and California. In some cases, parents were NOT allowed the choice to opt their children out. Catholic charities was forced to halt their adoption services in Massachussets because they refused to adopt children out to gay couples.
You see, freedom of religion (which is guaranteed under the first amendment) has ALREADY been affected by so-called gay "marriage."
The real lies are being told by the pro gay "marraige" crowd. They are not asking for "TOLERANCE." They are DEMANDING that society ACCEPT and LEGITIMATE their lifestyle.
To say gay "marriage" is a right is absurd. Marriage is a privilege--not a right. That is why you have to get a license.
By the way--I'd like to thank the teacher who took her first graders to her lesbian wedding. She put our side over the top.
Constitutional Right?? | 8:28 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Marriage, in any form, is not a Constitutional right! It is a social contract
that has, throughout history, been given certain legal protections and provided
a method for legally binding transfers and consolidations of property.
Why is it possible to deny a legally binding marriage between two individuals except that they conform to a one-man/one-woman standard? Because society, for many thousands of years, in almost every major culture, has defined it as such!
Is it possible that this �tradition� is incorrect? Perhaps, but society is not bound by any means, to re-configure its traditions to conform to the minority definition! As a society, and by majority, we the people, will determine all permissible social contracts and standards. NO ONE is denied these privileges! They are available to all who choose to abide by the standards of the society which confers them!
Why is it possible to deny a legally binding marriage between two individuals except that they conform to a one-man/one-woman standard? Because society, for many thousands of years, in almost every major culture, has defined it as such!
Is it possible that this �tradition� is incorrect? Perhaps, but society is not bound by any means, to re-configure its traditions to conform to the minority definition! As a society, and by majority, we the people, will determine all permissible social contracts and standards. NO ONE is denied these privileges! They are available to all who choose to abide by the standards of the society which confers them!
Nobody talks about it | 8:31 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
HIV, the virus that leads to AIDS, was discovered in 1985, and is treatable but
at a very high cost. I had a cousin who died of AIDS along in the world, in my
arms because no one else would touch him, defiant until his last breath,
refusing to acknowledge that his reckless choices had produced an outcome he
didn't want, claiming in his dying breath that he could do nothing about
his "gayness," because he had been born with the tendencies and was
powerless to do anything but accept this final outcome. When I think about
homosexuality there is very little in this lifestyle to recommend to me, knowing
and having seen what I have seen and witnessed with my own experience. So if
you assert that my advocacy of Prop 8 is bigotted and narrow-minded, that I am
without empathy or sympathy for those who embrace the gay world, then so be it.
However, there are few who realize just how devisive and hurtful it can be to
families whose core values have been assaulted and eroded by the debate. Until
you have held a dying relative in your arms and witnessed the tragic outcome, be
more understanding.
This is not a sports game | 8:32 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
The statistics given in the article don't mean much. This is not a sports
game. Those who want to change the definition of marriage play by only one rule:
winning, regardless how many times it takes. So, those who want to keep the
traditional definition of marriage had better be prepared to keep defending
their view for more props.
Rights | 8:35 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Perhaps gays can form a religion and then have the right to practice that religion with constitutional guarantees.
Then again.....the polygamists have tried that argument and we all know where we are today with that issue.
KJB | 8:43 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
And I'm sure that if Prop. 8 had failed, everybody here would have said,
"Oh, well, California wants gay marriage. We'll never bring it up
again." If a ballot measure had overturned your marriage, you'd be
"whining" too.
(And anybody who thinks that civil unions are equal to marriage is just willfully ignorant. I know a gay couple who had to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the rights me and wife got for the price of a marriage license.)
(And anybody who thinks that civil unions are equal to marriage is just willfully ignorant. I know a gay couple who had to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the rights me and wife got for the price of a marriage license.)
rights | 8:44 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Homosexuals screech that Prop 8 'took away' a constitutional right and
that the voters can't strip a minority of it's 'rights'.
They fail to mention that the 'right' was delivered by the vote of a single corrupt radical left judge who was overturning the earlier vote of millions of Californians.
They pick and choose which votes they will accept and which they declare to be illegitimate.
Ill-gotten gains are short-lived.
Cheaters never prosper.
A stitch in time....-you get the point.
They fail to mention that the 'right' was delivered by the vote of a single corrupt radical left judge who was overturning the earlier vote of millions of Californians.
They pick and choose which votes they will accept and which they declare to be illegitimate.
Ill-gotten gains are short-lived.
Cheaters never prosper.
A stitch in time....-you get the point.
Kevin | 8:46 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
@Empathy | 8:17 a.m.
You just don't understand humanity. By saying allowing people like me to marry each other "degrades" marriage totally degrades my humanity.
To say homosexuals are "struggling" with themselves is an insult. Are you struggling with yourself?
Similarly, to say being pro traditional marriage is not the same as being anti-gay is simply trying to redefine insolence. To say "this is a moral issue" implies I am inherently immoral, which I will argue against until my dying day.
The fight for marriage equality will not end until there is marriage equality.
You just don't understand humanity. By saying allowing people like me to marry each other "degrades" marriage totally degrades my humanity.
To say homosexuals are "struggling" with themselves is an insult. Are you struggling with yourself?
Similarly, to say being pro traditional marriage is not the same as being anti-gay is simply trying to redefine insolence. To say "this is a moral issue" implies I am inherently immoral, which I will argue against until my dying day.
The fight for marriage equality will not end until there is marriage equality.
Not Lies | 8:53 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Those who say that the "Yes on 8" people spread lies obviously
haven't read the applicable IRS code (503c). That code section says that if
a tax-exempt institution violates public policy, it risks losing its tax-exempt
status. So, if gay marriage were to become the norm--public policy, let's
say--churches would have to accept gay marriage or risk losing their tax-exempt
status. This happened to Bob Jones University when the IRS decided that
it's stance against interracial marriage was contrary to public policy
(I'm not defending Bob Jones U., I'm just illustrating a point). So,
by that logic, if BYU refuses to provide housing for gay married couples, it
would risk losing its tax-exempt status because not accepting gay marriage would
be against public policy. And the LDS Church would have to give gay newlyweds
the same access to meetinghouses as other couples for wedding receptions or risk
losing its tax-exempt status. Taxing religions is a burdensome entanglement of
church and state that no one should be comfortable with. So the "Yes on
8" people were not lying at all. Read up on the law, folks.
Support Civil Unions | 8:57 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
So Lee, if its all about the children and the sanctity of marriage, when are you
going to write an editorial for a constitutional ban on divorce?
Better yet when are you writing a column supporting same sex civil unions, especially here in Utah? Most gay people I know simply want basic legal recognition of their relationships by the government to protect their children, family, and property. If they had civil protections they wouldn't need the term marriage for validation.
Face it, the apple pie "pro-family", "pro-marriage" referendums that have passed across the Bible belt, the Mormon belt, and beyond, were/are inherently anti-gay. Just look at the second part of Utah's Amendment Three and tell me otherwise.
The reason California is a flash point is that rights had already been conferred, and the Yes on 8 campaign used fear, innuendo, and deception to portray gays and lesbians as less than human, and a threat to children, schools, churches, and families. And drive-by columns like yours do nothing to refute those smears and distortions.
That's why the protests will continue.
Better yet when are you writing a column supporting same sex civil unions, especially here in Utah? Most gay people I know simply want basic legal recognition of their relationships by the government to protect their children, family, and property. If they had civil protections they wouldn't need the term marriage for validation.
Face it, the apple pie "pro-family", "pro-marriage" referendums that have passed across the Bible belt, the Mormon belt, and beyond, were/are inherently anti-gay. Just look at the second part of Utah's Amendment Three and tell me otherwise.
The reason California is a flash point is that rights had already been conferred, and the Yes on 8 campaign used fear, innuendo, and deception to portray gays and lesbians as less than human, and a threat to children, schools, churches, and families. And drive-by columns like yours do nothing to refute those smears and distortions.
That's why the protests will continue.
Robin | 9:00 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
This is a religious matter and the state has no need to involve, since it
contains civil power of marriage or union. A religion does not need approval of
the beasts law.
Clawing at the Slippery Slope | 9:00 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Sadly, this discussion will mean nothing in ten years. The lack of appreciation
of our ancestor's values has declined steadily and there are no signs of
that changing. The values that made America what it is have erroded away and
will continue that path until there are no "American" values. We will
have sunk to the lowest common denominator to determine what is right and wrong.
That which was an abomination only a few decades ago is not tolerated by a vast
number of people (over 21 million according to the article). I predict that in
10 years gay marriage will be practiced in every State of this once great nation
and those that oppose it will be in the minority - God help us all.
Re: Support Civil Unions | 9:08 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
See my comment directly above yours. Get the facts before you tell us what the
Yes on 8 campaign used. ("the Yes on 8 campaign used fear, innuendo, and
deception . . ."). What about the No on 8 campaign using fear--Mormon
missionaries will ransack your apartment and tear up your marriage license if
you're gay--come on!
Roger S. | 9:09 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Kevin,
We already have marriage equality in this state and in California. Any man can marry any woman, and vice versa, so long as the two are of legal age, obtain a license, pass required medical tests, and satisfy other miscellaneous legal requirements.
But to change the institution of marriage as you would have it changed, would end marriage as we know it, and that's not equality for anyone, especially for those who have entered into the institution of marriage in reliance on its current definition.
We already have marriage equality in this state and in California. Any man can marry any woman, and vice versa, so long as the two are of legal age, obtain a license, pass required medical tests, and satisfy other miscellaneous legal requirements.
But to change the institution of marriage as you would have it changed, would end marriage as we know it, and that's not equality for anyone, especially for those who have entered into the institution of marriage in reliance on its current definition.
take a deep breath... | 9:13 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Kevin,
There are moral absolutes.
Where you choose to align yourself determines if you are 'immoral'.
We all struggle with our choices, but some choices provoke more torment and self-loathing than others.
How you choose to behave determines your 'humanity' much more than the opinions of others.
Don't be so prickly.
There are moral absolutes.
Where you choose to align yourself determines if you are 'immoral'.
We all struggle with our choices, but some choices provoke more torment and self-loathing than others.
How you choose to behave determines your 'humanity' much more than the opinions of others.
Don't be so prickly.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Jail term ordered in fraternity death 10:04 p.m.
- Twitter de France 10:03 p.m.
- W.V. man arrested in cigarette thefts 10:03 p.m.
- New lead pursued in 1995 slaying 10:02 p.m.
- Stadium of Fire flag burning was fake 10:00 p.m.
- Armstrong split-second off lead 9:59 p.m.
- Pets of the week 9:58 p.m.
- Birthdays for Friday, July 10 9:53 p.m.
- The number: 32% 9:52 p.m.
- McKean to reprise donut shop owner 9:49 p.m.
- Blazers may offer Millsap a contract
- Utah's top 10: Wealth of recreation
- Restaurant burns in 3-alarm fire
- Send Boozer to the Bulls?
- MWC, WAC rushed into BCS
- O'Connor unhappy Fes not with team
- Jazz in back of line for free agents
- Keeping golf light on the wallet
- Fatigued Jazz no match for Pacers
- Teen injured in fall from waterfall
- Bronco collecting a galaxy of recruits
138 - Letters: Palin mistreated136
- Teachers struggle with district cuts134
- Blazers may offer Millsap a contract120
- 'Tea party' protesters unhappy107
- Fairness of BCS debated81
- Stadium of Fire lights up the 4th79
- Chaffetz eyes challenging Bennett72
- Millsap not franchise player70
- Services bids farewell to Jackson70
As more and more dads are put out of work in this economy, I've been...
The photographs are mysterious, brooding, dark. They show dimples and...
Latest comments
Hatch moved-- is he really still awake?? He must be coming up for election!!!
I'm good with this trade if we can weasel Martell Webster or Rudy Fernandez...
@Freedom70 at 5:02 The court case was District of Columbia v. Heller. ...
I called it last year in 2008. I predicted 11-2 again with losses to Utah and...
I think your comment was totally out of line CHristopher... I've had that...
I get this quaestion often as an independent consultant for plastic surgery....
Unemploymenmt cv calculation has notheing to do with those receiving...
good move by the Jazz. He's a quality player and person. He spreads the...
Okur can't play under the basket-- if you watch European Basketball they all...
Every time something intelligent is said, it doesn't get posted. I have a...
Advertisements
What you fail to address is that it is a very scary proposition that anyone's Constitutional rights can be taken away by a 50%+1 vote in California (and yet a tax for subway construction required a 2/3 majority)....that should tell you something is seriously wrong.
Second, gay marriage does nothing to discriminate against those who favor so called "traditional" marriage. They remain free to promote and hold those beliefs. It is funny however, that the Mormon church, a church with a history of non-traditional marriage would finance in large part an initiative touting the sacredness of traditional marriage.