Reader comments
Becker, Buhler to face off
107 comments | Read story
Buhler | 12:47 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Rock on! Buhler's the real deal. He backs his stuff up and he's a
friendly neighborhood family man who will be great as mayor. And he
doesn't want gay marriage...Go Buhler
Jazz Fan Slapper | 1:18 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Anyway Becker can say no thanks to Rocky's endorsement? It sure did
Christensen a hell of a lot of good.
B Alza Bub | 1:32 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I'm glad to see Becker finish first. He's the most ethical politician
that I've ever met.
Comments continue below
Buhler Fan | 1:42 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Buhler will be a breath of fresh air after the antic's of Rockey as
our mayor. Thank goodness for fair play
Will support Buhler in November too.
Will support Buhler in November too.
Billy | 2:06 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I have a quesion. Why is Becker a Non Mormon and Buhler a Mormon? Why does it
always come out that way. Couldn't we leave the specific religion out of
politics?
lamonte | 4:56 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Billy - Aren't YOU the ONLY one who has mentioned each candidate's
religion?
Anonymous | 6:07 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Thank goodness Becker pulled it out!
WC | 6:44 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Congratulations Ralph.
Terry | 6:45 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Congratulations to Dave Buhler and Ralph Becker. Both are worthy candidates for
mayor of SLC. They are down-to-earth able leaders, hard working, good listeners,
and most importantly focused on what they feel is best for SLC. They won't
be jousting with any windmills!
I like Dave and will vote for him in the final election because I believe he is best qualified.
I like Dave and will vote for him in the final election because I believe he is best qualified.
walkon | 6:51 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Leave religion out of it? In Utah? Not gonna happen. Interesting that the one
issue brought up by the Buhler supporter was the anti gay marriage stance.
Hmmmmm , maybe they'll stop being gay? Or is a committed gay couple just so
reprehensible. Should we keep them in the city parks and the Airport bathroom
stalls? Let the race begin!
religion | 7:18 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
lamonte - nope, check the article again. The candidates' religions are
indeed mentioned.
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs | 7:18 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Lamonte: Fifth paragraph of the article. Thanks DN for breaking down
Jefferson's wall between church and state!
Chet | 7:19 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
It is sad for the rest of the State to watch Ms. Wilson have her motives and
background questioned in such an unprofessional and in such a discriminative
matter by soon to be former Mayor Anderson. Under Title Seven of the 1990
Employment Act, Ms. Wilson has a claim with the EEOC, as he is the Chief
governmental head in Salt Lake City!
B.L. | 7:29 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I wanted to confirm Bub's comment. I have worked with Ralph for more than
10 years in a lot of situations, including some very high pressure ones. He has
always been open, honest, thoughtful, articulate and effective. And no, I am not
a campaign worker. I am not even a member of his Party and sometimes I was on
the opposite side of the issue. I guess the point is (in short phrase terms)
Ralph is the "real deal" and "what you see is what you get."
While I am not an SLC resident and have no vote; as a resident of Utah, I know
that the Mayor of our capitol city has a significant effect on our whole state.
I hope you who do have a vote choose thoughtfully and well. And get out to
VOTE.
PS. About the mention of religion, the official "handbook" of the very first Utah Territorial Legislature listed not only each electe official's name, city and party but also a code "m" or "g" for mormon or gentile. (and, surprisingly even in the 1850's there were a significant number of non-mormon elected officials in SLC.) I guess Utah will never get past mentioning a candidate's religion, but I doubt it will ever dictate who we elect.
PS. About the mention of religion, the official "handbook" of the very first Utah Territorial Legislature listed not only each electe official's name, city and party but also a code "m" or "g" for mormon or gentile. (and, surprisingly even in the 1850's there were a significant number of non-mormon elected officials in SLC.) I guess Utah will never get past mentioning a candidate's religion, but I doubt it will ever dictate who we elect.
Great! | 7:47 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Even though I voted for Buhler, both of these guys were my top canidates. I
ended up voting for Buhler in the end since his stance is a little closer to my
own; when I talked to Becker, a lot of what he said he was going to do as mayor
was already being done and rolling forth (much from "Downtown Rising"
plans and Trax lines types of things) so I felt there wasn't necessarily
anything new happening there.
By the way, Buhler is not anti-gay! He supported a bill to get every household fair rights with regards to employment benefits (which includes gay couples). This coming from a so-called Conservative; he seems pretty open minded and fair to me (which is not to say that Conservatives can not be these things, just seems to be the generalization).
I am excited to see the outcome. Personally, I would welcome either into the Mayor's seat, even though I prefer Buhler because of his proven track-record and strong ties to education. I think both are positive people running positive campaigns and will continue to bring that trait into office with them.
I just hope (sigh) that Buhler being somewhat conservative is not creating auto responses from the liberal side (or republican for that matter!). This always seems to be a huge deal to voters here- probably heightened because of our President. We need to remember to look at the issues and successes of the person rather than grouping them into a category with someone just because of their party affiliation and our feelings towards it (or because of the unpopular person in the White House). Dave Buhler is not that person and not all conservatives share the President's ideals. Please vote fairly!
Best of luck to both!! =)
By the way, Buhler is not anti-gay! He supported a bill to get every household fair rights with regards to employment benefits (which includes gay couples). This coming from a so-called Conservative; he seems pretty open minded and fair to me (which is not to say that Conservatives can not be these things, just seems to be the generalization).
I am excited to see the outcome. Personally, I would welcome either into the Mayor's seat, even though I prefer Buhler because of his proven track-record and strong ties to education. I think both are positive people running positive campaigns and will continue to bring that trait into office with them.
I just hope (sigh) that Buhler being somewhat conservative is not creating auto responses from the liberal side (or republican for that matter!). This always seems to be a huge deal to voters here- probably heightened because of our President. We need to remember to look at the issues and successes of the person rather than grouping them into a category with someone just because of their party affiliation and our feelings towards it (or because of the unpopular person in the White House). Dave Buhler is not that person and not all conservatives share the President's ideals. Please vote fairly!
Best of luck to both!! =)
Anonymous | 7:56 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Congratulations to Salt Lake City's new mayor, Ralph Becker. Sure, I know
the actual election has not happened yet, but that is going to be just a
formality. You have to think most of the people who voted for Wilson and
Christensen are going to vote for Becker, so the only question is how much will
Becker win by. My guess is that he will get about 65-70% of the vote.
P & K | 8:00 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
congrats to both --- GO DAVE
Anonymous | 8:19 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Alright! The two best got in! But now... Go Dave!!
Becker's the man | 8:23 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
It seems the city has a great opportunity to bring in someone with a proven
political track record and at the same time inject the city government with the
kind of fresh energy that someone from outside the current system can bring.
In my mind, this decision is not difficult at all. I think Becker should (and judging by the primary numbers will) win in a landslide.
In my mind, this decision is not difficult at all. I think Becker should (and judging by the primary numbers will) win in a landslide.
Politico | 8:26 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Wow, so much for Rocky's "kiss of death" for Christensen.
Christensen's camp has to be saying, "Thanks alot Rocky." That
the top money raiser, Christensen, finishes so poorly has to go down as a
resounding rejection of Rocky! It's like the voters said, "Hey Rocky,
don't let the door hit you on the way out."
PS | 8:27 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Correction: In the last mayoral race, Anderson vs Pignanelli, it was not
non-Mormon vs Mormon. I'm pretty sure Frank Pignanelli is Catholic, not
LDS. He is a great guy, honest, and ethical... but not Mormon.
Ken Baguley | 8:38 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Good going Dave. Maybe passing out chocolates would help. We like you and
them. Carry On ! ! !
DaveB | 8:39 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I love how the DN has all of their photos as those of Buhler, even though he got
second place and Becker is the one with the big Mo.
comment | 8:42 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
So which candidate will continue on with Rocky's Anti-Bush protests?!
Aaron | 8:51 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I'm glad to see this finally formalized, and Rocky officially on his way
out. Don't get me wrong, the man has his good points, but has become way
more of a liability than can be justified this past couple of years. I hope he
can deal with not having his pedestal to jump on and rail against Bush. Good
riddance, and welcome to a new era of politics where the Salt Lake mayor sticks
to his duties and doesn't embarrass the state. Either of these guys will
be good.
jackhp | 8:52 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I feel sorry for Buhler supporters. He really doesn't have much of a
chance, but his supporters are all giddy about him making it through the
primary. Don't get too high folks; it will be a swift fall come
November.
I'm pretty surprised it went down like it did. Becker really was on a roll the last couple of weeks, and it seems he probably siphoned off a small chunk of Wilson's previous support which cost her a chance at the final. It would have been nice to have Becker and Wilson in the final; a battle of two true progressives to lead our city into the future. It would have been a great race. As it is, I think it's a forgone conclusion, barring any bathroom antics, that Becker will win by a landslide.
As for Great!'s comment that Buhler is not anti-gay, I have a question. Does Buhler support marriage equality or, at the very least, civil unions for gay people? If not, then he most definitely is anti-gay.
I'm pretty surprised it went down like it did. Becker really was on a roll the last couple of weeks, and it seems he probably siphoned off a small chunk of Wilson's previous support which cost her a chance at the final. It would have been nice to have Becker and Wilson in the final; a battle of two true progressives to lead our city into the future. It would have been a great race. As it is, I think it's a forgone conclusion, barring any bathroom antics, that Becker will win by a landslide.
As for Great!'s comment that Buhler is not anti-gay, I have a question. Does Buhler support marriage equality or, at the very least, civil unions for gay people? If not, then he most definitely is anti-gay.
Dan | 9:02 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Thank you Salt Lake City!!! I feel the best two candidates are now going to be
on the ballot. People don't realize taht the S.L. Mayor really has an
impact on those who don't live in S.L. I'm also glad that "My
Dad was Mayor so I know how to be Mayor" is out of the race. She had great
credentials but needs more public leadership experience, not behind the scenes,
to prove what she is capable of.
Just another voice | 9:09 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
As a non-resident of SLC, I would like to thank the voters of SLC for choosing
the best candidates to move forward. SLC's mayor affects the entire state,
and we've all been suffering too long under the current administration. I
agree with Aaron that Rocky has his good points (although they are hard to find
sometimes), but he has gotten too far away from his primary responsibilities and
is an embarassment to the state as a whole. Good luck, Dave and Ralph!!
Scoopslc | 9:09 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
The way I see it Buhler is a triple-dipper. He has a huge salary as a
commissioner of higher education for the State. He is paid by the City to serve
on the City Council. And he is paid by the University as an adjunct professor of
Political Science.
Politico | 9:23 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
No, jackhp, Buhler is not anti-gay just because he may be against gay marriage
(gay marriage is a misnomer anyway). Being gay does not, by definition, mean
being married. The opposite is true. Marriage is an institution set up by
civil law to protect the off-spring of a hetero-sexual union, children. Since
being gay, by definition, means the inability or unwillingness to procreate,
then the legal institution called marriage -which exists legally primarily to
protect children - is totally inapposite to the state of being gay. Buhler is
letting gay people be gay, and letting the marriage institution stay the way it
is. That's all. That's not anti-gay. Gays can keep being gay.
Marriage can keep being marriage. Neither pollutes the other.
ok! | 9:25 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Jackhp, Are you forgetting there were 7 other candidates in this race? That
means their vote will have to go to Buhler or that other guy,
what�s his name again?
I LIKE DAVE!
I LIKE DAVE!
How's that again? | 9:39 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
DaveB, It's always fun to rail on the DNews, but the photos I'm seeing
include 2 of Becker, 2 of Buhler, 1 of Wilson, and 1 of Christensen.
Where's the "has all of their photos as those of Buhler?"
newsjunkie | 9:46 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Gay, Schmay--mayors don't have one thing to say about marriage or civil
unions--that's the legislature. What mayors do influence is non
discrimination in city policies--on that count with benefits and Employee
Nondiscrimination, Buhler passes the litmus test. Better than that, however, he
did the right thing.
I did the math for U Jackhp | 9:48 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
The other 7 candidates had a total of 9,183 votes�once
again it�s not over�
That's alot of votes jackhp
I LIKE DAVE!
That's alot of votes jackhp
I LIKE DAVE!
Josh | 10:01 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Jenny Wilson seemed like the only candidate that help change the COMMUNITY for
the better, specifically the west side. It is sad to see her go...
FR | 10:08 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Rocky has been a total jerk and public relations disaster for the city. It will
be refreshing to have a new, decent human being for a mayor. I bet the mayoral
staff will appreciate a more pleasant person to work for. Rocky has been way off
base and irresponsible with his critical comments about Dave Buhler during the
campaign. FR
Is This A Case of Voter Ignoranc | 10:21 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
All summer Ralph Becker had been a distant third, granted he steadily crept up
in the polls. However did it seem like out of nowhere he wins in a landslide?
I am wondering if he happened to pick up a measurable proportion of the votes
just because his name was the first name listed on the ballot.
jackhp | 10:37 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Politico,
You'll notice I did not use the term "gay marriage". Regardless, your narrow definition of marriage is simply not ture. Marriage is many things other than "an institution to protect the off-spring of a hetero-sexual union." In fact, I'd say civil marriage has nothing at all to do with protecting offspring from heterosexual unions. When was the last time a heterosexual couple was denied a marriage license simply because they couldn't procreate?
What is this semantic garbage about "being gay, by definition, means the inability or unwillingness to procreate"? Are all gay people unable and unwilling to procreate? Are all people who are unable or unwilling to procreate gay?
This is about marriage equality. If Buhler can't even support civil unions so that gay people have essentially equal rights under the law then he is anti-gay.
You'll notice I did not use the term "gay marriage". Regardless, your narrow definition of marriage is simply not ture. Marriage is many things other than "an institution to protect the off-spring of a hetero-sexual union." In fact, I'd say civil marriage has nothing at all to do with protecting offspring from heterosexual unions. When was the last time a heterosexual couple was denied a marriage license simply because they couldn't procreate?
What is this semantic garbage about "being gay, by definition, means the inability or unwillingness to procreate"? Are all gay people unable and unwilling to procreate? Are all people who are unable or unwilling to procreate gay?
This is about marriage equality. If Buhler can't even support civil unions so that gay people have essentially equal rights under the law then he is anti-gay.
Rich | 10:39 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
If marriage is "set up to protect children", why:
1. Can senior citizens get married
2. Can women unable to bear kids get married
3. Couples with children get divorced
4. In the South till recently, interracial marriages were banned
These, particularly #4, lead me to say that marriage is set up to legitimize what society deems to be acceptable relationships, and exclude what the majority (sometimes driven by racists or theocrats) deems to be offensive or non-acceptable.
Hey, I grew up in the '70's, and have a hard time thinking it not 'strange' that two guys would marry. But there's no way to argue that civil law should exclude this, unless civil law were to be driven by majority rule.
1. Can senior citizens get married
2. Can women unable to bear kids get married
3. Couples with children get divorced
4. In the South till recently, interracial marriages were banned
These, particularly #4, lead me to say that marriage is set up to legitimize what society deems to be acceptable relationships, and exclude what the majority (sometimes driven by racists or theocrats) deems to be offensive or non-acceptable.
Hey, I grew up in the '70's, and have a hard time thinking it not 'strange' that two guys would marry. But there's no way to argue that civil law should exclude this, unless civil law were to be driven by majority rule.
jackhp | 10:48 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
ok! and "I did the math for you"
Do you really think Buhler will get more than a handfull of Wilson's supporters?
Out of those 9183 votes, how many do you realistically think will go to Buhler. Let's be extremely generous and say half. That's 4592 (I even gave him the extra vote.) Add that to his primary total and you get 12162. Add 4591 to Becker's total and you get 15077. That's roughly a 55/45 split, and I was being generous.
Now, I realize that this was just the primary and voter turnout will be much larger for the November election. But I would argue that Buhler's constituency was the most motivated to turn out for the primary because he was the only true Republican out of the top four. The progressives in the city new that even if they didn't show up, Becker or Wilson would be likely to be there in November.
I didn't say Buhler had NO chance. But, any way you look at it, he has a huge hill to climb. My prediction come November: Becker 65%, Buhler 35%.
Do you really think Buhler will get more than a handfull of Wilson's supporters?
Out of those 9183 votes, how many do you realistically think will go to Buhler. Let's be extremely generous and say half. That's 4592 (I even gave him the extra vote.) Add that to his primary total and you get 12162. Add 4591 to Becker's total and you get 15077. That's roughly a 55/45 split, and I was being generous.
Now, I realize that this was just the primary and voter turnout will be much larger for the November election. But I would argue that Buhler's constituency was the most motivated to turn out for the primary because he was the only true Republican out of the top four. The progressives in the city new that even if they didn't show up, Becker or Wilson would be likely to be there in November.
I didn't say Buhler had NO chance. But, any way you look at it, he has a huge hill to climb. My prediction come November: Becker 65%, Buhler 35%.
Georgia | 10:48 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I would have liked to see Jenny Wilson get it, becasue she was very clear on her
goals for SLC. Becker was a bit vague on his goals, but still better than ANYONE
who was endorsed by Rocky Anderson, who, in my opinion, has been a major
embarrassment to SLC.
Dick | 10:56 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
@ Politico:
If marriage is only for the protection of offspring and those that can't procreate can't be married, why are infertile couples or aged couples allowed to marry?
If marriage is only for the protection of offspring and those that can't procreate can't be married, why are infertile couples or aged couples allowed to marry?
Josh | 11:08 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Rocky Anderson's endorsement of Christensen was the kiss of death. I
almost turned up to vote yesterday just so I could vote for somebody besides
him.
Cicilia | 11:15 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I would have voted for Dave Buhler if I lived in Salt Lake and Not Cottonwood
Heights. I felt that just the countenance and vague statements of Ralph Becker
were dishonest. I definitely would not have voted for Keith Christensen. I
can't believe he slammed motherhood and politicians; that might have been
different if we were living in the early 1900's when women didn't have
very many rights at all. Jenny Wilson seemed like a good candidate too; and to
take those statements by Keith Christensen and Mayor Rocky Anderson! I
can't believe our city is led now by someone who is more concerned about
Religion than ethics and the people. I'm glad to see Rocky go.
SH | 11:35 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I think Politico's comments are SPOT ON! Being a supporter of marriage
being between one man and one woman does not mean anti-gay in any stretch of the
imagination. Also, I agree that even if you don't live in SLC, who the
mayor is has an impact on the rest of the state. I support Aaron's
comments....it will be good riddance to Rocky Anderson who has used his position
to further his own political agenda and embarrassed the State of Utah and who
has just been downright disagreeable. I definitely think that Rocky's
endorsement of Keith Christensen did him no good, which is a reflection of being
linked with Rocky Anderson!! Rocky's comments of Dave Buhler and Jenny
Wilson were uncalled for. He should have kept his mouth shut because none of us
want to know what he thinks. Good luck to the remaining two candidates. I would
vote for Buhler if I could!
jackhp | 11:50 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Is this a case of voter ignorance? I highly doubt it. Primary voters
don't tend to be ignorant of who they are voting for.
If you look at the polls and then the final outcome you can see where Becker's support eventually came from. He was down in the 10-12 percent range a couple of months ago along with Christensen. Buhler and Wilson were both in the mid-20s. Undecideds were in the low to mid 20s. The pollsters at the time mentioned that Becker suffered from lack of name recognition.
Once Becker's campaign started full-force and the debates started happening, people began to get the message. About a month ago he began to climb as people started to figure out who he is.
By a couple of weeks ago, the undecideds were down to 10 percent and Becker was up in the mid-20s along with Buhler and Wilson. Christensen was still wallowing in the low 10s. It's pretty obvious that Becker picked up most of those undecideds.
I would aruge that most of the undecideds were looking at three people: Becker, Christensen and Wilson. Buhler's constituency has always been for him from the get go and they didn't really have another choice (except for JP Hughes, who I would argue was the better Republican choice), so why be undecided? By election day, all the undecideds had to choose, and it looks like most of them went to Becker once again.
I would also argue, based on Christensen's final numbers, that some of those who were supporting him because of Rocky's endorsement probably switched their support to Becker in the end. I think Christensen would have made a fine mayor, but even with Rocky's endorsement, people couldn't see him as a true progressive, which is what SLC wants.
If you look at the polls and then the final outcome you can see where Becker's support eventually came from. He was down in the 10-12 percent range a couple of months ago along with Christensen. Buhler and Wilson were both in the mid-20s. Undecideds were in the low to mid 20s. The pollsters at the time mentioned that Becker suffered from lack of name recognition.
Once Becker's campaign started full-force and the debates started happening, people began to get the message. About a month ago he began to climb as people started to figure out who he is.
By a couple of weeks ago, the undecideds were down to 10 percent and Becker was up in the mid-20s along with Buhler and Wilson. Christensen was still wallowing in the low 10s. It's pretty obvious that Becker picked up most of those undecideds.
I would aruge that most of the undecideds were looking at three people: Becker, Christensen and Wilson. Buhler's constituency has always been for him from the get go and they didn't really have another choice (except for JP Hughes, who I would argue was the better Republican choice), so why be undecided? By election day, all the undecideds had to choose, and it looks like most of them went to Becker once again.
I would also argue, based on Christensen's final numbers, that some of those who were supporting him because of Rocky's endorsement probably switched their support to Becker in the end. I think Christensen would have made a fine mayor, but even with Rocky's endorsement, people couldn't see him as a true progressive, which is what SLC wants.
M | 12:12 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I think think the deseret news is byass and are unfair. It is obvious who they
are supporting (Dave) and they didn't give the other canidates a fair
chance. I was very dissapointed in the article they wrote last night dissing
Keith and Jenny. It was very distasteful.
jackhp | 12:17 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Speaking of vague statements Cicilia, why don't you expand on your vague
concern that Becker was dishonest? And his countenance? What exactly about him
seems so dishonest Cicilia?
If you didn't go on to dishonestly portray Christensen and Rocky as sexists then I might be concerned about your opinion. As it stands, I think I'll ignore your concerns.
If you didn't go on to dishonestly portray Christensen and Rocky as sexists then I might be concerned about your opinion. As it stands, I think I'll ignore your concerns.
Politico | 12:23 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
jackhp, rich and dick:
Notice I said marriage is PRIMARILY set up to protect children. That's the PRIMARY purpose. When a heterosexual couple come together to share their life, the law recognizes that GENERALLY SPEAKING, such a union is likely to produce children. Just because some heterosexual unions don't produce offspring, doesn't defeat the general policy of the law to institutionalize such unions given that that the vast majority of such DO produce children. You don't defeat the argument that marriage rationally addresses the GENERAL tendancy for heterosexual unions to produce children, just by pointing out exceptions to that general tendency. The tendency is still there, exceptions notwithstanding. With gay couples on the other hand, marriage and the off-spring protecting aspect of marriage have no meaning whatsoever for gay unions, because gay unions are 100% guaranteed not to produce offsrping, by their very nature. It comes down to the difference between heterosexual unions, which GENERALLY produce offspring, and gay unions which NEVER produce offspring. There may be exceptions to the general tendency of heterosexual unions to produce offspring, but there are no exceptions to the absolute inability of gay unions to produce offspring (which is sort of Darwinian response to the whole dynamic anyway). The law recognizes the GENERAL NATURE of heterosexual unions to produce offspring and institutionalizes them without getting hung up over the fact that some lesser percentage of such unions will not produce children. The law does this with a view toward the fact that the vast majority of hetersexual unions can and do produce children.
Notice I said marriage is PRIMARILY set up to protect children. That's the PRIMARY purpose. When a heterosexual couple come together to share their life, the law recognizes that GENERALLY SPEAKING, such a union is likely to produce children. Just because some heterosexual unions don't produce offspring, doesn't defeat the general policy of the law to institutionalize such unions given that that the vast majority of such DO produce children. You don't defeat the argument that marriage rationally addresses the GENERAL tendancy for heterosexual unions to produce children, just by pointing out exceptions to that general tendency. The tendency is still there, exceptions notwithstanding. With gay couples on the other hand, marriage and the off-spring protecting aspect of marriage have no meaning whatsoever for gay unions, because gay unions are 100% guaranteed not to produce offsrping, by their very nature. It comes down to the difference between heterosexual unions, which GENERALLY produce offspring, and gay unions which NEVER produce offspring. There may be exceptions to the general tendency of heterosexual unions to produce offspring, but there are no exceptions to the absolute inability of gay unions to produce offspring (which is sort of Darwinian response to the whole dynamic anyway). The law recognizes the GENERAL NATURE of heterosexual unions to produce offspring and institutionalizes them without getting hung up over the fact that some lesser percentage of such unions will not produce children. The law does this with a view toward the fact that the vast majority of hetersexual unions can and do produce children.
jackhp | 12:29 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
It's nice to see people buying the media spin that Rocky said mothers
shouldn't be politicians.
Rocky said he would be concerned about ANY parent, mother OR father, that had young children and was running for mayor. He was simply trying to convey, in a private conversation with Jenny's father mind you, the demands of the job. He didn't say anything demeaning to women. Ted Wilson himself said last night that he didn't think Rocky was a sexist.
Rocky said he would be concerned about ANY parent, mother OR father, that had young children and was running for mayor. He was simply trying to convey, in a private conversation with Jenny's father mind you, the demands of the job. He didn't say anything demeaning to women. Ted Wilson himself said last night that he didn't think Rocky was a sexist.
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.
Related content
- Aggies beat Spartans in snowy Logan 11:43 p.m.
- Jazz hope D-Will returns soon 11:40 p.m.
- 1A championship: Rich undefeated 11:34 p.m.
- 1A: Rich defense rises to occasion 11:31 p.m.
- Pacquiao stops Cotto to win 7th title 11:26 p.m.
- NFL Sunday 11:25 p.m.
- 9/11 trial - parable of right, wrong 11:24 p.m.
- Gitmo detaines headed to the U.S. 11:23 p.m.
- Utah Grizzlies win 11:19 p.m.
- Around the NFL 11:18 p.m.
- Apostle's wife felt comfort in attack
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?
- Short-handed Jazz fly past Sixers
- D-Will home for daughter
- Bench proves fruitful for Y.
- Utes excited for 'dream' game
- Crash on snowy road kills woman
- Born of water and the spirit
- GameDay in Fort Worth
- BYU happy to escape with victory
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
358 - Editorial: Mormons and gay rights200
- BYU happy to escape with victory192
- Senators want food tax restored165
- Will state consider gay rights law?148
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?130
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah129
- TCU plows past Utes, 55-28121
- Utes remain silent about BCS120
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections113
If you are looking for a bird on the cheap, the following specials from...
How do you handle kids and contests? Our oldest daughter, 7, is of the...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Wow. Nice work TCU. Maybe Utah fans will be a little less obnoxious ... at...
EVERYONE BYU OR UTAH FAN ALIKE NEEDS TO UNITE AND MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD FOR...
The sad reality is that Utah hasn't won a big road game in years. Can anyone...
TCU= cure for Ute arrogance! But hey, humility is a great character trait!
All of you Ute fans.....NOT!
All the kewgs talkin smack is great. TCU is a great team that will represent...
I can say one thing for certain. I love watching the Utes lose. I love it I...
The Utes were down 35-7 with eight minutes left in the FIRST HALF and they...
Great job TCU for killing my Utes. You guys are a great team. Enjoy this...
"Further, the only man who qualifies for the Melchizedek priesthood is Jesus...
Advertisements