"Small people shoot at big targets". Peter Vidmar is a large target
because of his decency. If small people have difficulty in measuring up to
decency, so be it. Perhaps their myopic vision make it necessary to shoot at
big targets because of limited vision in recognizing "small" and
destructive details over-ridden by political correctness.
Mr. Abrahamson has written a wonderful commentary.
Why does this topic always generate more comments than any other?From reading the opinions expressed, there are a lot of presumptions on both
sides. If we didn't make so many assumptions about each other, and project our
stereotypes of their thoughts and opinions based one something they said (but
didn't really say)... I think we would have less partisan bickering.
@ procuradorfiscal and JSBWith gay marriage and civil unions so
prevalent in the world for so many years in so many countries, it is sad you
cannot come up with one example (as you have been challenged repeatedly to do)
of it becoming acceptable for "fathers to marry daughters" or any of
your other ridiculous claims. "Clearly the world is slippery" is not
at all clear if you can't provide one example. Truly a lie repeated over and
over does not become less of a lie.I will not try (nor do I hope) to
convince you. I will not address you again. However, I am confident that
reasonable people viewing this board will note that you are good at making wild
claims but can't back a single one up with real-world observances. A lie
repeated over and over does not become less of a lie.
Re. The taxman:If we allow gay marriage we do not know where it will
lead. But the door would be opened for all sorts of strange relaionships.
Then, if a father wants to marry his daughter or son how can it be stopped? If
brothers want to marry each other, how can it be legally prevented. If
polyamorous familiies want to legalize their relationships, what can stop it?
Using the same arguments homosexuals have used to legalize gay marriage, these
people can have their relationships legalized too. Do you really think kids will
be better off in a polyamorous family rather than a family with a father and
mother? My concern in all of this isn't about civil rights; it's about in what
kind of a society will our children be raised?
Of course, pro-gay marriage people are happy that Vidmar resigned. But the rest
of us are not too impressed with his lack of committment.
Re: "Past behavior/experience is the best predictor of the future. . .
Bottom line is the LGBT community doesn't owe fearmongers anything."That's it? That's the best you've got?Well, if you were
hoping that would convince me, sorry.Clearly, the slope is slippery.
And clearly, for those of us who are still concerned, the only intelligent path
ahead is to refuse to accept or agree to any activist proposal, because we can
rest assured it's just one more milepost on the road to an ultimate goal of
forcing the LGBT agenda on the rest of us, including our religious
re:procuradorfiscalPast behavior/experience is the best predictor of the
future. If you multiply the number of years same-sex marriage/unions has been
legal in each jurisdiction where it's legal times the number of jurisdictions,
you would come up with it being legal for at least 100 "equivalent
years". And you can't cite any of the abuses you are afraid of as every
occuring anywhere. Bottom line is the LGBT community doesn't owe
fearmongers anything. It would be more reasonable to ask gun owners to sign a
statement saying they won't shoot anybody (because at least people have been
shot by guns), but I don't think you would support that, would you?
I, for one, am not disappointed that Vidmar resigned.
To Weber State Graduate | 8:13 a.m. May 11, 2011 I like your idea.
I've long said that I would like to see that type of arrangement put in place.
bigv56 says: "To liberals, diversity is great when you agree with them.
This is religous bigotry."I suspect, first, you have some idea
that only liberals are gay. LOL! There are religions that have no problem with
gay people. Read the Prop 8 trial transcripts or watch the video of it when
it's released--the only evidence offered by people against this issue was either
animus based or "because I said so." When the judge asked for some
evidence, they replied, "We don't need any evidence." TRUE!Marriage is a good thing, most of you'd agree with. And gay people have been
taught that by their straight parents. Then you want to deny it to them. And
you expect gay people to think that isn't hateful? Especially when there's no
evidence gay people marrying is harmful? Call it something else? Why, unless
you don't feel it's as valid? Which means animus. Seems you can only offer up
scare tactics about harming children or any number of other falsehoods. "How many gay people must God continue to make, before you get the
idea he likes having them around?"
Of course - all of these arguments might have been moot had those who entered
into the marriage covenant truly kept the covenant, keeping it sacred, rather
than treating it as a convenience. Sometimes it is easier (and take less effort)
to focus on the here and now issues rather than going back and really admitting
what went wrong that allowed these discussions to get where they are today. Just
The merits of gay marriage is not really the issue.I am disappointed
that Peter Vidmar did not stand up for what he believes in.
re:procuradorfiscal"it will never thereafter use this legislation to
force or coerce religious organizations to change doctrinal positions or to
offer rites and sacrments to LGBT in violation of their beliefs."The LDS Church denied the priesthood to blacks until 1978, 10 yrs beyond the
Civil Rights Act. The LDS Church denies women the priesthood today. Appparently
the U.S. govt. tolerates discrimination within Churches.
To The Taxman:Please cite a credible, official pronouncement by any
LGBT activist or advocacy group that it will be forever content with legislative
re-engineering of marriage to cover same-sex couples, and, if granted that
"freedom," it will never thereafter use this legislation to force or
coerce religious organizations to change doctrinal positions or to offer rites
and sacrments to LGBT in violation of their beliefs.In other words,
you're the ones asking us to agree to the change. The burden's on you. Show us
there's no slippery slope.BTW, ridicule and demagoguery are dull
tools, indeed, if you really want to convince us.
@JSB & BomarSame-sex marriage is not new; it has been legal for many
years in many countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden) with millions of people and
disparate customs. It is also legal in 5 U.S. states. If your slippery slope
arguments are valid, then you should easily be able to point to many instances
in these places where incestuous relationships or relationships with animals are
legal or accepted. Please enlighten us.And JSB, please show where
"social chaos" has resulted. Merely repeating scary scenarios
does not make them true or believable when so much evidence exists to the
contrary, so please supply real world examples to back up your claims. In
the meantime. Bomar, are you advocating vandalism and other forms of illegal
behavior in your above post when you say "it is time to take action and
fight back using their tactics"?
Loving vs Virginia in 1967 was refering to marriage as it was defined in 1967
which was a heterosexual relationship. It had nothing to do with gay marriage
and changing the meaning of the word marriage in order to sneak in is playing
games with the law. In time the word marriage will have nothing to do with its
original meaning. Look what's happened to the word "gay" for example.
It meant happy when I was a boy. The slipery slope concern is very
real. If gay marriages are legalized, then using the same arguments, incestuous
relationships can also be legalized. Also, polyamouous relationships can be
legalized for the same reasons. Then we will have the social chaos I and a lot
of other people fear. It's not being bigoted to want a civilized
To liberals, diversity is great when you agree with them. This is religous
bigotry. Members of the LDS church are entitled to our beliefs also.
To Blue,So let me get this straight(that might be the wrong term)where
does all this stop? Next we will have people wanting to marry their pets or
their mother or father, after all we must honor their wishes no matter how
deviant. Next we will have these activists finding out who people voted for and
taking action against them if they support the wrong candidate. There have been
cases of vandalism against people because of a political sign or to a car
because of a bumper sticker. Also, we already have these Leftists taking action
against businesses who do not support their cause.It is time to take
action and fight back using their tactics.
1. The bit about SLC and the 2002 games is a strawman. Times were different
then. This debate wasn't being held then. Rest assured, SLC will never come
close to hosting anything like the Olympics, ever again.2. He chose
to resign, he was not fired. His organization was prepared to stand by him.
This smacks of "publicity stunt persecution".
@procuradorfiscal "Many advocate....many advocate" Thank you for making my point that you people who put forth the slippery slope
argument do not have one iota of tangible evidence to support your theory. The
fact is gay marriage is legal in many states and countries (and has been for
many years), yet nobody can come up with one real-world example of legalized gay
marriage leading to [insert scare tactic].When it came time to give
examples in court, or to demonstrate how same-sex marriage has negatively
impacted heterosexual marriage in any country on earth, the proponents
scattered. Unfortunately (because I do not support gay marriage) there is much
real-world evidence that Prop 8 proponents were making false and unsupportable
Am not! Are too! Boring. I just wasted time reading the whining back and
forth. Silly me.
"Just because you take a position against gay marriage does not mean you're
anti-gay."Just like Boggs' signing the "Extermination
Order" did not mean he was anti-Mormon, right?That is nonsense
Re: "Those making slippery slope . . . arguments need to do your
homework."Driving Mr. Vidmar from public service IS part of our
homework.Intolerant advocates of "tolerance" repeatedly
demonstrate they are willing to push as far as they are permitted. This is
merely the latest illustration.There is nothing in the record of
LGBT activism to indicate we should trust activists to go "this far, no
farther."Many advocate forcing individuals and churches to
abandon contrary [they call them "hateful"] beliefs. Many advocate
forcing religion, on pain of unconstitutional monetary, and other sanctions, to
perform rituals and sacraments for LGBT, though to do so would violate the
organization's dogma, and the cleric's conscience.This
notwithstanding, activists answer our justified alarm with nothing but ridicule
or meaningless platitudes."Slippery slope" is the very
basis of our objection. LGBT activists have never properly addressed the
creeping, incremental approach applied to this controversy. We simply can't
tell how far they intend to go.Until we get an answer, opposing all
LGBT initiatives is the only logical approach.
There is nothing more intolerant than a group demanding tolerance.
Those making slippery slope (where does it all end) arguments need to do your
homework. Same-gender marriage is legal in many countries and U.S. states, and
people are not forced to use the same bathrooms, marrying animals, is not legal,
etc. When the time came to make such arguments and present evidence (under
oath in California court) defending some of the wild campaign claims, the
Pro-Prop 8 proponents who had made such claims ran for the hills and chose not
to testify. The fact that the Pro-Prop 8 side had their chance in court to
present evidence supporting their claims (some of which are being repeated on
this Board) and nobody came forward to do so seems to be unknown by many of you.
Those not living here in California in late 2008 (and who did not experience the
negative, disrespectful, and sometimes untruthful Prop 8 campaign), are
absolutely unqualified to comment on the Prop 8 campaign. I believe the LDS
church was duped into participating (without control of campaign messaging) and,
because of the conspicuous participation of its members, now faces the brunt of
the backlash in many subtle and some not-so-subtle ways.I have never
(before or since) seen unloving, disrespectful, or untrue messages come from the
Church; this is why I am sure they did not control the advertising and campaign
@EichendorffIf "evidence" that God instituted marriage is
in the Bible, then why in the world didn't the Prop 8 defenders introduce that
into evidence at the federal trial?
@Consciously Speaking | 12:28 p.m. May 11, 2011 "Proposition 8 would
have passed at all had it NOT been for the HUGE financial and political activism
of the LDS Church"The sum total of the contributions of the LDS
church was under $200K. That is pittance compared to all of total contributions.
@GroverThe supporters of Proposition 8 said themselves that they
wanted to preserve the definition of marriage and prevent it from being
redefined. Certainly Latter-day Saints who participated in the efforts to pass
Proposition 8 expressed this as the reason for their position, and many if not
most of their allies agreed with them.Evidence that God instituted
marriage is in the Bible and has been confirmed by his prophets throughout the
ages. For the whole of the history of mankind, marriage has been only between a
man and a woman. No one except God has the authority to change that definition.
@Consciously Speaking 12:28 You said, "Peter is a GREAT man and
did what he was told to do... and is now paying the price."I
see, so in other words, freedom of express in this country is now null and void
unless the person agrees with you? Tell me this then, where does
the "paying the price" end? Should companies be allowed to
fire people for supporting political candidates and causes the boss personally
opposes? Should couples whose politics don't agree with yours be denied the
chance to adopt or be foster parents? Should people have to explain their
political and social beliefs before they can apply for a car loan or buy a
house?I'm not saying people don't have the right to criticize
someone like Vidmar, or even say harsh things about them online. That's what
freedom of speech is all about.But when people are forced to resign
from their jobs or perhaps denied a livelihood because you don't agree with
their politics, then we no longer live in a free country. Tyranny of
one is tyranny of all.
Sorry folks, being gay 30 years ago was a perversion that you hid. It still is
and should be. Hugh Hefner may be a very good, nice man in many ways, but I
wouldn't want him as a neighbor and I don't want him anywhere near my
children!Same for gays.
The dictionary always gets new word additions to it because of new words being
made up by the different generations. I don't believe in marriage between gay
couples however, I believe they have a right to be together and be united in
their own way. So if marriage is between man and woman why can't Webster's
Dictionary include a word called "pairrage" for gay couples they would
be united and recieve the same benefits as a man and woman ( health care etc.) I
think it's a simple and easy solution to an never ending battle. Different
words describe and mean different things.I am LDS and I believe they have the
right to choose to be together. . . under the new word "pairrage"
which describes two of the same kind united.
Consciously Speaking | 12:28 p.m.So... now if "Law Firms"
see the light... everybody must change their opinion???I know law
firms that have taken cases that I don't agree with. When we start using
"LAW FIRMS" as our barometer of what we must accept... it's over. Law
firms will represent ANYBODY who pays.===P.S. Anybody
who claims to know what "All intelligent people" think. Or that ALL
INTELLIGENT PEOPLE think the same... is not being open-minded or honest. They
are ASSUMING their AGENDA is gospel. And just THINK that ALL intelligent people
agree with them. A classic technique both sides us when rhetoric mongering.
Assuming all intelligent people agree with them.Don't get caught in
this trap. Intelligent people are ALL OVER the place on moral issues like this.
Not of one mind.
First... Please get one fact straight! I lived in CA when Prop 8 was on the
ballot. NO intelligent person believes that Proposition 8 would have passed at
all had it NOT been for the HUGE financial and political activism of the LDS
Church and people outside CA! Quit claiming a major victory in 52.2% of the
votes! That 2.3% of votes given the massive push in UT is an embarrassment,
barely a victory! 2/3's of the calls I got from "Neighbors" urging me
to vote for 8 came from UTAH!Second... Peter is a GREAT man and did what
he was told to do... and is now paying the price.Third... Many, many
people and law firms are starting to see the light, get used to it!Forth
and finally, Same sex couples have done WONDERS for kids nobody else wanted.
They have proven themselves Good Parents, Neighbors and overall productive
citizens. It's about LOVE not SEX. Please think about it. I don't agree
with ALL aspects of most "groups /sectors" of life, but I can accept
them and not allow it to effect my choices or life! LOVE!
Blue and others bristle at the thought that you could not support Gay
marriage... and still not be "Anti_Gay".Blue says,
"How do you figure that"?I think I fit in that category.
I'm not FOR gay_marriage. I'm for the more traditional definition of
"marriage" with accommodations for other relationships, call them
Civil Unions, even call them "Marriage" if you want. It really
doesn't bother me much... but don't expect me to support it or I'm
"Anti".I can be against it... for religious reasons,
personal standards, defending tradition, etc... and still not be
"ANTI_Gay".I'm not FOR gay_marriage. But I don't think
the "ANTI-Gay" label fits me.I have many gay friends.
Friends at work, in my neighborhood, in my church, in some groups I socialize
in. They are ALL my "Friends". So I don't see how I am automatically
"ANTI-Gay"... just because I don't SUPPORT Gay_Marriage, or some other
part of the agenda. Must I support EVERY ASPECT of the GLBT agenda... or be
labeled "ANTI-Gay"?The assumption that if you don't
support EVERYTHING... You are "ANTI" gay... is just silly logic!
@the_narrator 11:03Your argument assumes Peter Vidmar was
continually bullying gay and lesbians athletes, and/or he was using his position
with US gymnastics to attack the LGBT community. From everything I've read, I
seriously doubt this was the case.You said - "Imagine, instead,
that someone was actively campaigning to prevent Mormons from building temples
anywhere, with the claim that he "is not Anti-Mormon, but simply believes
that Mormons building temples is a threat to society."The LDS
Church faces this all the time, especially in places such as the south and New
England. And if I had a penny for everytime I've read or heard a phrase like,
"I think Mormons are racist, brainwashed, nut jobs... but I'm not
anti-Mormon," I'd have quite a bit of money in the bank. You
might say no one is trying to silence or discrimate against Mormons. If you
believe that, go on Facebook sometime and count how many groups there are of
people petitioning the IRS to punish the LDS Church. Better still, listen to
Lawrence O'Donnell or Bill Maher whenever they talk about the LDS Church.
"The intention of Proposition 8 supporters was to preserve the definition
of marriage and the family". Says who? "God is the author of
marriage". Again, by what authority do you say so? If the law of averages
holds (and it does), there were people who voted both ways on the issue because
they believe in God and don't. There were those who voted with the purest and
most noble of intention and those that voted with meanness, prejudice and hate
in their heart. So please refrain from pontificating on what others did and why.
How many more gay people must God make before you guys get the idea that he
wants them around? Gay people are not a new phenomenon. They have always been
around. They always will be around. Just imagine if all of you were
continually attacked for just being you. Gay people are just being uppity, I
guess. Reading these comments from many here sounds just like the comments
being written about "negroes" during their civil rights era. And
imagine if you were black and gay and a woman? Three strikes, I guess. Gay
people are everywhere. They aren't just "angry liberals" as many
suggest here. Gay people come in all political persuasions and all religions.
They are all races, colors and creeds. Think about why you don't want your
sons, daughters, neighbors, friends, family and fellow citizens who are gay to
get married. Is it a selfish reason. Is we've always done it that way a good
reason? A valid reason. We've always had slaves or we've always denied women
to own property or we've always denied women the right to vote could have been
said at one time...think.
There are many of us who adamantly believe that marriage should not be redefined
but at the same time believe the law should provide for civil unions/domestic
partnerships. Gay couples should be entitled to formalize their relationship
and have similar benefits etc. But if for no other reason than the sake of
clarity the definition of marriage should maintain the definition it has always
had.But this isn't really about civil rights. It's about making
homosexuality mainstream and blurring differences between the sexes. I don't
want my young son taught that at school, i.e. that he can grow up and marry a
man or a woman -- and that would inevitably happen. There is nothing wrong with
a societal institution reflecting the notion that heterosexuality is the norm.
If activist judges continue to decide that gender is irrelevant to
marriage, how can there be a legal basis for ANY kind of legal distinction
between the sexes? Good-bye separate bathrooms and locker rooms. It would have
to be considered segregation. Why not, if youre making the argument that
discrimination based on race and gender are the same thing?
Now it's time for the Olympics Committee to shed the appearance of weakness,
step up to the plate and show its mettle by rejecting Vidmar's offer to
withdraw.The Olympics contests are supposed to be a show of
strength, not one of weakness, which in my view, the Committee demonstrated by
not standing up for what is right and decent. For someone to have to relinquish
a position in the Olympics because of his support for, and the way he votes on
social issues is a sham and a disgrace. The Olympics Organization should not
allow itself to be defeated by the complaints of a few, who are disappointed in
the way an election turned out!Olympics Committee, stand up and
fight like a winner! Recall Vidmar, rise above weakness, and show that you too,
are an Olympics Champion!
@David in HoustonMy example of incest was not a red herring. Two
brothers having sex is just as incestuous as a brother and sister having sex. My
contention is that there are several kinds of potential unions that are excluded
from the definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years. Neither
the Constitution, nor the Supreme Court, nor any other man-made body or document
originally defined marriage. God is the author of marriage and he alone can
change its definition (not likely).Marriage is not a right. The
Supreme Court erred when it used that term in Loving vs Virginia. I suspect the
Justices were not thinking about same-sex marriage when they authored that
opinion. The issue at hand was that a MAN and a WOMAN could not be barred from
getting married because of their race, not that their proposed union did not
fall under the definition of marriage.The intention of Proposition 8
supporters was to preserve of the definition of marriage and the family that has
existed for centuries. That's it.
A great example of reverse discrimination.
Serenity Now, the study from the Netherlands was not intended to reflect the
relationship parameters of gay people in general. It deliberately studied
sexually active frequenters of STD clinics. Monogamous people were expressly
omitted from the study. What you are suggesting would be like taking a study of
people who participate in a needle exchange and extrapolating that everyone in
the general population does inter-veinous drug use once a day.
Blue thinks that he's so smart. His agenda is obvious. Inalienable rights , of
which marriage is one, come from God. The founding fathers recognized that.
The courts don't give rights to anyone. Marriage is not a civil right. Vidmar
got hosed by the very people who are screaming for their "rights" but
are unwilling to let Vidmar have any rights of his own. The usual
homosexual/progressive playbook. Hound someone that doesn't agree with you and
make their lives difficult. Sorry Blue, that is not the American Way. You can
be anti-homosexual marriage, but not be anti-homosexual. I have many homosexual
friends and they know what my position on their being married is. We are still
@ Serenity Now:No one is opposing laws such as no-fault divorce. It
is an accepted practice in our society, even though before 1970 the so-called
"sanctity of marriage" didn't include it. One might even say that
no-fault divorce "redefined marriage". The fact that you've got people
like Newt Gingrich (John McCain, Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh) opposing same-sex
marriage speaks volumes about the utter hypocrisy of their position. All of them
have been married multiple times. (What ever happen to "till death do us
part"?) Some of them have cheated on their wives. But, because they're
heterosexual, they have some sort of innate privilege to spit on the sanctity of
marriage while at the same time condemning gay people for wanting the right to
even get married once. You can't treat marriage like an all-you-can-eat buffet,
then tell the next customer that they can't have a meal because they might abuse
JSB | 10:12 a.m. May 11, 2011 Sugar City, ID "...the
terrible social chaos that will inevitably follow if gay marriage is legalized.
"---What "chaos" would that be? Please, pray tell
(including references, proof, etc.)So far, GLBT Marriage is legal in
5 states and the District of Columbia, several foreign countries and yet, I have
not heard of one single "terrible social chaotic" event that
Where does the gay marriage issue end? If gays are allowed to marry, what's to
prevent a brother to marry his brother or sister; or a sister to marry her
sister or brother; or a father to marry his son or daughter; or a mother to
marry her son or daughter; or polyamorous relationships in which there are two
or more people of each sex cohabitating? What will happen to children in these
situations? How much more will the taxpayers have to pay to combat the social
problems assoiciated with children coming from these strange relationships? How
much more will it cost our society to pay for the treatment of the increased
spread of STDs? Maybe we will be much better off as a society to keep marriage
as it is and has been for centuries. It's not perfect but it's better than the
terrible social chaos that will inevitably follow if gay marriage is legalized.
The disgrace is that the olympics was supposed to be a place where politics were
set aside and all nations or people could come together to compete without
regard to philosophical, religious, or political differences. Making
accusations, hurling insults, and discriminating against people we don't agree
with ruins the venue and makes it just another battlefield. He resigned
therefore who won? That fact remains that he expressed acceptance of the right
each person has to make his or her own choices. The tolerance is not
reciprocated because of religious discrimination. Don't write back in response
because I'm not entertaining any more insults and accusations.
This comment board shows exactly why the LDS Church will be cleaning up after
the Prop 8 aftermath for decades. It speaks volumes when your best
proof of gay oppression of religion is an out of context National Review comment
from 2008, or a tired list of dis-proven grievances about wedding pavilions,
voluntary resignations, and tax payer supported adoption charities that grow
more sensational and dire with each retelling.If religious
expression (which unlike sexual orientation is protected by countless local,
state and federal laws) is so persecuted, and religious adherents have been so
egregiously victimized and discriminated against, then why hasn't there been a
flood of legal challenges?
When a man of Vidmar's caliber enacts his God-given civil right and
participates in the political world, resigns because of it, yet gays and
lesbians demands something that has been decided by popular sovereignty,
continues shouting,there is something fundamentally wrong with this picture. I
find it fascinating that we live in a society where one individual has every
right to stand on the roof tops and shout their beliefs, and we are not only
forced to accept them, but we are to applaud them. On the other hand, other
individuals simply go about their lives standing up for what they believe in,
have always believed in, and will continue to believe in, are ostracized for it.
Thousands of years ago, wise men said that in the last days "evil shall be
called good, and good shall be called evil". Fools mock....
Peter did not try to force his beliefs on gays. No more than gays tried to force
their beliefs on him. There was a vote to be taken and he voiced his opinion
just like all the gays did. He donated money to help educate people as to how he
felt things should be. Just like the gays did.The argument that he
was forcing his beliefs on others, and that he should have shut up and lived his
religion are total hypocrites.
@ Blue:Yes, it is possible to oppose same-sex marriage and not be
anti-gay. Consider a person's feelings toward divorce and the couples who get
divorced as a useful analogy. We all have many friends who, unfortunately for
their children and society in general, become divorced---One can certainly love
those divorcees while at the same time oppose laws, like no-fault divorce, that
make it easy or even encourage divorce when the going gets tough. Peter Vidmar's stance on same-same marriage likely stems from a well-founded
concern about the long-term, detrimental effects of such unions--such as the
unstability and sexual "openness" of same-sex relationships. A 2003
AIDS study in the Netherlands (the most gay-friendly nation on earth) found: (1)
the average duration of gay "steady partner" relations was only 1.5
years; and (2) gay men with steady partners had 8 other sex partners
("casual partners") per year, on average. Is it possible
that those opposing same-sex marriage are not bigoted but simply do not want
same-sex relationships to set a new, minimum standard of unstability and sexual
infidelity for marital relations?
Peter was trying to avoid causing pain to the Olympic movement. This is a noble,
selfless and good thing on his part. However there was a greater good that could
have been served by standing and fighting.It has been over 2 years
since Prop 8 was voted on, and those that lost the battle are still trying to
destroy those that opposed them. Gay people everywhere appear to have declared
war. So far everyone that they have gone after has backed away from the
fight.Everyone should make a stand for what is right. We should all
be offended by what is happening, and support those that have done nothing
wrong. The LGBT community is only exercising their rights to express themselves,
but when we do not exercise our own rights to defend our thought, and express
our opposing view, we are loosing those rights. Stand up and speak out is the
only way we can keep our rights to do so.
Peter Vidmar chooses to resign rather than cause a problem for the Olympic
committee. Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical
Theatre resigned after boycotts were called for.This is a quote from
the National Review Online (Nov. 24, 20-08)"The outbreak of attacks
on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling:
envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in
Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en-masse to intimidate Mormon
small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to
identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting
the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other
Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even
called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah."The radical
left is bitter and hateful. The LGBT community should be ASHAMED of the way they
Again, living here in the Bay area I've seen the least amount of tolerance
coming from the gay community. You are either with them or you are the enemy
who needs to be destroyed. It is the most selfish group I have ever witnessed
and that is saying something living here amidst political correctness at its
finest. I applaud Vidmar for standing up for his beliefs in a "tolerant'
way. He didn't discriminate, he reached out to everyone just as many who voted
for prop 8 here do. The people who felt discriminated against are the ones who
show real discrimination and intolerance.
Unanimous Supreme Court decision, Loving vs. Virginia, 1967"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental
freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the
State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment
requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious
racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not
marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be
infringed by the State."
Eichendorff wrote: "The idea that same-sex marriage is a right is
ridiculous and is a red herring. Marriage between brother and sister, mother and
son, father and daughter is prohibited. Marriage to more than one wife is
prohibited. Marriage between those of the same sex can also be justifiably
prohibited just like the others I mentioned."--------------------Talk about red herrings. Incest and polygamy are both practiced by
heterosexuals ONLY. If anything, we should ban straight marriage because a man
might want two or three wives if we let him marry one wife.So what
EXACTLY is the legal rational basis to prohibit two consenting adults the right
to a (secular) civil union? The Yes on 8 legal team failed to make a single
valid argument how same-sex marriage threatens or weakens opposite-sex marriage.
At the end of the trial the attorney simply said, "We don't need to present
a reason." In a court of law, you actually do need a reason. That's why
I believe that people are entitled to be happy, and to have love in their lives.
I do not believe, however, the marriage between two men or two women is right.
If you want a civil union, fine, but taking a religious ceremony and all that
God has joined together - as we are in his image and likeness - and making it
against His wishes is pure and simple wrong. If a gay person will
stand up to God and tell him to change his ways, and God will do it, that will
be the day when God ceases to be God. No one bosses God around.
To Blue-I know it now seems like the two issues are related (civil
rights and gay marriage), but they aren't. Before I boil anyone's blood, let me
first say that I think a) gay couples should have every civil right and perk
afforded to straight couples, and b) That married couples shouldn't get the
civil perks that they receive in this country (though I am married and
appreciate perks like tax breaks), because there will always be some people that
can't get married.The main argument that I have heard in favor of
gay marriage is that it will extend civil rights to gay individuals. Gay
marriage is not a civil right because marriage is not a civil right (or else all
people that want it would have it). Since the nation legislates and dictates
marriage, it has made this whole situation stickier than it needs to be, which
is the problem when congress gets involved in matters of the heart.I
resent people who think of me as anti-gay because I take this legal stance,
especially since my stance has more to do with the legal definition of marriage
When the Johnny Weir's of the world begin to determine the course of the Olympic
movement, it's goodbye to the Olympics we have known.
Love this level-headed article. Well done!
Is the push to legalize same-sex marriage an effort to secure equal rights for
homosexual partners, or a move to gain social and religious acceptance of an
alternative lifestyle?If this issue is about "equal
protection" under the law, it would be interesting to see if the
controversy would die down if "marriage" (and its subsequent
definition) was removed as a government sanctioned activity and left within a
religious context.With such a scenario, "marriage" would
no longer remain within the scope of government. Rather, government
responsibility would instead involve recognizing unions created through
contractual agreements between two parties (be they heterosexual or homosexual)
with the associated legal obligations and rights found within any legal
contract. Such "unions" would then obligate the government to protect
the rights of each party based upon the conditions of the contract. All
partnerships would subsequently enjoy equal protection under the law. Of course, if legal partners desire the religious "marriage"
sanction, they are certainly free to seek it privately within their own church.
Perhaps by removing the term and definition of "marriage"
from government nomenclature and leaving it within the context of religion, the
controversy may indeed end.
@Chachi#1 Same-sex marriage is NOT legal in New Jersey. The Ocean Grove
Camp Meeting was allowing the public to rent/use it's gazebo, then a gay couple
wanted to use it. Sorry, can't allow public use, get a tax exemption for the
gazebo and discriminate. #2 Catholic Adoption services, receiving
state funding in MA DID place at least 2 children with gay couples--until the
Church authorities found out. Can't receive state funding and
discriminate. LDS adoption services in MA is allowed to discriminate because it
doesn't receive state funding. #3 Same-sex marriage is not legal in
New York or New Mexico, yet. So what do those cases have to do with same-sex
marriage? Yeshiva University was classified as "non-sectarian" and so
received state and federal funding. Can't receive state and federal funding and
Dear Truthseeker: The Prop 8 campaign did NOT demonize gay people. It
supported traditional marriage and families. The gay political movement has
become very adept at demonizing anyone who disagrees with them as
"haters." No matter how much anyone tries to tell them they don't
hate them, they still continue to scream "hate" at anyone who doesn't
do everything they want. And...the Church is not at all concerned
about it's image in doing the right thing. The Church does not exist to make
men comfortable in their wickedness. The Church exists to spread the word of
God and do what He commands.And...Chachi's facts are ABSOLUTLEY
ACCURATE. Religious liberty is being encroached upon every day by the gay
agenda. Peter Vidmar is a man of courage, faith and character. He
did what is right. I have no doubt that he is perfectly happy in that
If you fire or force out someone from their job because of a position they took
in a legal election - you're un-American.
I have donated to U.S. Olympic Committe for over ten years. I will stop doing
[ ... is it really discriminatory to hold a position in line with some 7 million
other registered voters? ]Yes. The 7 M registered voters in
California voted for discrimination. So, yes. Their vote was disgraceful too.
The campaign and advertising for Proposition 8 was utterly disgraceful. Mr.
Vidmar made the right decision to resign.
There is hatred and vitriol being spewed by the alleged pro-gay rights crowd
daily. Churches are coming under assault through lawsuits and defamation for
even daring to take a stand on a moral issue that they have every right to take
a stand on. The realization that the pro-gay agenda must be accepted or else is
only now being realized across the nation. The damage this is doing is
irreparable to society and the nation. The fallacy of gay rights is it is based
on illusion. No gay person is denied the right to vote, to own land, to have a
job, to travel, or even to own a gun. There have been horrendous violations via
violence, but to claim denial of civil rights is disingenuous. We now live in a
society that has a litmus test and if you fail to meet the test you are
automatically labeled and demonized. Soon NO straight athlete or coach will be
allowed to participate in the Olympics without a muzzle. The day is coming when
only homosexuals will get to say who may participate and who is disqualified.
Coming together is more than my way or the highway.
As times change the old ways do not change as easily. Holding onto the word
"marriage" is a hollow empty task that will satisfy not at all. I am
married and that is that. Whatever anyone else does, does nothing to my
marriage. Peter Vidmar, likewise will not be harmed by what has happened...he
already a hero for his Olympic exploits and now he will be a hero for his stand.
It's actually very easy and a morally honest position to be a supporter of
Proposition 8 in California and not to be "anti-gay" at the same
time.The idea that same-sex marriage is a right is ridiculous and is
a red herring. Marriage between brother and sister, mother and son, father and
daughter is prohibited. Marriage to more than one wife is prohibited. Marriage
between those of the same sex can also be justifiably prohibited just like the
others I mentioned.The case of Loving vs Virginia struck down the
idea that the state could prevent a MAN and a WOMAN from getting married purely
based on race. This case is utterly irrelevant to the question of same-sex
marriage.Marriage was instituted by God. Human beings do not have
the authority to change its definition. This has nothing whatsoever to do with
The Prop 8 campaign demonized gay people. Can't get away from that fact.
Instead of using a positive, loving message as I would expect from the Church,
the Campaign used the politics of fear. It was very disappointing and I feel,
tarnished the "image" of the Church. And so, Peter is a
causality of that campaign. And life goes on in Iowa, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire and other places where same-sex marriage is legal. And many
residents of those states haven't noticed any difference in their lives.
I am against gay marriage as well, but I do treat all people like human beings.
There are other lifestyles that the IOC frowns upon such as drugs, etc and
rightly so. I am not comparing the gay lifestyle to doing drugs by any means but
using that as an example.
Peter Vidmar is a wonderful man. My daughter and I have had dealing with him in
various situations because of our involvement in gymnastics. He is always kind,
understanding and fair. I think that what many posters (for and against him)
have forgotten is he was not asked to step down or fired or anything like
that--he chose to step aside so as not to be a distractions to the Olympics.
The Olympic committee was planning to be support his staying on because of what
he has always given to the games over the years. Knowing everything that has
happened would he have changed his stance on Prop 8. No because he is a man of
his conviction and is true to that. You should respect that even if you don't
agree. One of Peter's sayings to himself and to young gymnasts has always been
"you are only as good as you are on your bad days". Peter, this may be
one of your bad days but your character is shining through in my book and this
is also one of your really good days!
Go West wrote: The "Silent Majority" that believes in
traditional family values must truly be silenced. They are not allowed to have
any freedom of speech.-----------When you say "traditional
family values", you actually mean "white heterosexual religious
families", don't you? There are (religious) gay couples raising children in
this country. Do you think your sexual orientation makes you superior to them?
So every straight family is automatically better than every gay family at
raising children? I find that hard to believe.-----------"It is
sad that in Massachussetts where same-sex marriage is allowed, elementary
schools, teachers discuss homosexual lifestyles with the children. It's
sensitivity training for them."-----------100% false:
Politifact has already stated that NOM is lying when they say that in their
commercials.-----------"I'm not against homosexuals, but I
won't celebrate the homosexual lifestyle that brings disease, drug abuse,
suicide, and mental/emotional pain."-----------100% false: I've
been in a same-sex relationship for 16 years. Legally married 2 years ago. No
disease, no drug abuse, no suicide, no mental/emotional pain. All those things
are created by outside sources... namely from people like you, demonizing and
ostracizing gay people.
@Blue: That logic doesn't go anywhere. Are you suggesting that anyone who
advocates a policy position with which others disagree is affirming that his
opinions are the more valid?@Vince here: Check your
"facts"! Take the case of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting
Association, a Methodist organization in New Jersey that was forced to allow its
facilities to be used for gay marriage or have its tax-exempt status revoked.
Or Catholic Charities, which had to abandon its adoption services in
Massachusetts because it did not want to place children with gay couples. Or Yeshiva University, which was forced to allow same-sex couples in its
dormitories. Or Elane Photography in New Mexico, which was found
guilty of discrimination because its Christian owners refused to shoot a gay
couple's wedding.And there are many more cases, from all over the
country. The gay rights movement's position is clear: Anyone who disapproves of
homosexual relations should be treated as a bigot. That will neutralize their
societal influence so that they can't create an environment hostile to gay
people. Their rhetoric of tolerance doesn't include tolerance for those who
believe homosexual relations are immoral.
"As a matter of logic, though, isn't it worth asking the question: is it
really discriminatory to hold a position in line with some 7 million other
registered voters?"Yes it is. At one time, a majority of
citizens thought it was perfectly acceptable to own slaves. At one time, a
majority of citizens didn't want women to have the right to vote. At one time, a
majority of citizens were against interracial marriages. Does the author
honestly belief that majorities are always right when it comes to civil rights
issues? When, in the history of our country, has that ever occurred?
This is another example of how our civilization has sunk to a depth that may be
irretrevable at this point. When someone of great character and faith is
persecuted for his faith in protecting marriage that has stood for thousands of
years, there is not much more time left for us.
"... his Mormon faith teaches him that marriage is between a man and a
woman ..."---Then if that is his belief he should
live it, but to attempt to enforce others, not of his belief to live HIS way is
what is wrong here. You have the right to live YOUR religious beliefs as YOU
see fit. You do not have the right to require others to live YOUR beliefs as
well.The answer here, and Peter should have thought of this, is to
live his beliefs and worry about his own life and the good/ill he, himself does.
Religious freedom does not give you the right to take away the
freedoms of others. Proposition-8 was all about taking away the rights of other
American Citizens. Peter, along with his religious leaders forgot
the teachings of Jesus; the Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you.
Rocket Science made the observation that homosexual relationships are
statistically not usual, and that "[t]he norm for ages has been
marriage." And this is the crux of the problem for lesbian and
gay people. The infrastructure of society was built around what was
statistically common, traditional marriage. Everything from health insurance to
spousal immigration regulations are based on the marriage model that has been
the norm for centuries. But now we observe that a statistically small portion of
society are intrinsically and fundamentally incompatible with
"traditional" opposite-sex marriage, yet are otherwise fully capable
of functioning and participating in society. What's more, this small group is
similarly situated to heterosexual society in nearly every other way, such that
they pair bond and form families, raise children, plant gardens and pay
taxes.So the question to the statistical "norm" is
"what is the place of lesbians and gays in society? How can their families
be more fully integrated into the infrastructure of a society based upon
traditional marriage?"Furthermore, if Peter Vidmar publicly
campaigned to deny gays and lesbians from participating fully in society, should
we be surprised that some complained?
Alan, Thank you for your insight and respectful viewpoint into the mix of
facts, politics and personal emotion of this issue. The few times I've
had occasion to meet and be around Mr. Vidmar have given me the highest regard
for him. He deserves no less respect or value for his character and position as
a proven athlete and gifted mentor and leader than what is demanded by opposing
voices. It is a pathetic and terrible loss to the Olympic and Sports
Blue, it means what it says, he is against gay marriage, because he follows his
church's teachings. He says he is not against gay people doing whatever it is
that gay people do, but believes marriage is reserved only for a man and a
woman. Why do gays want to redefine mnarriage. If they want to enter into a
civil union, so be it, but it shouldn't be called a marriage. A gay couple
cannot consummate a marriage the way a heterosexual couple can, so their union
is not a marriage. End of story.
"Just because you take a position against gay marriage does not mean you're
anti-gay." Really? So in the aftermath of California's Prop 8
and Utah's Amendment Three, exactly where is the line in the sand between
tolerance of gays and the persecution of gays because it seems to keep moving
with every LDS Conference talk, BYU Symposium, and Deseret News Editorial about
the loss of religious liberty, and how gays are bullies (despite how many are
the victims of hate crimes and assaults), and how the gays are destroying
heterosexual marriage.If it was just about "marriage" then
why are the same anti-gay people denying gay families civil unions, basic legal
protections,equal pay, health benefits, or even the use of the word
"family" to describe their relationships.Nope, this has
never been only about protecting "marriage".
Marriage is not a right, it's a responsiblity.I think the great
Peter Vidmar, being a gentleman, stepped down from the leadership position
because he does care about the Olympics so much. He must have figured that with
the way things are nowadays, there would be controversy over this issue in 2012.
And he wanted to protect the 2012 Olympics from any controversy within his
power.It's very unfortunate that it has come to this. The
"Silent Majority" that believes in traditional family values must
truly be silenced. They are not allowed to have any freedom of speech.It is sad that in Massachussetts where same-sex marriage is allowed,
elementary schools, teachers discuss homosexual lifestyles with the children.
It's sensitivity training for them. I'm not against homosexuals,
but I won't celebrate the homosexual lifestyle that brings disease, drug abuse,
suicide, and mental/emotional pain. I have dear friends who choose that
lifestyle. But, people want to give credence to a perversion by calling it a
"marriage," it defies reason.
Blue said:"When you support denying people a civil right that
you claim for yourself, based on irrational prejudice and ignorance, that's
bigotry."I agree. When you deny people the civil
right to vote as they choose (a civil, and constitutional right), through
intimidation, threats, forcing them out of their jobs, that's bigotry.
In terms of statistics a homosexual relationship is abnormal. It does not fit
in portion of the statistical curve that is considered the norm. The norm for
ages has been marriage.
Imagine, instead, that someone was actively campaigning to prevent Mormons from
building temples anywhere, with the claim that he "is not Anti-Mormon, but
simply believes that Mormons building temples is a threat to society."
Would you want him as a team leader for a team you were on? What if he was
actively using his free-speech to promote racism? Of course he has his free
speech--however, speech and actions comes with social consequences. You have all
the free speech you want if you wanted to call me names or be rude to me.
However, you can't be surprised if I no longer want to be your friend.
I'm surprised that the gay and Mormon communities haven't found common ground on
this issue. Mormons once supported polygamous marriages in this life and
presently support such marriages in the putative life to come. Though I support
both, assuming informed, mutual consent, it's hard to say which falls outside
our societal norms more than the other. If I had politically and financially
supported an anti polygamy statute (for this life and the next) and there were
several Mormons on the Olympic team I too would resign.
Words have meanings and definitions are important to avoid miscommunication and
confusion. If we change the meaning of a word, then what word will be used for
the original meanning of the word? The word "marriage" used to mean
"the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their
decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitment, religious ceremonies,
etc." This meaning of marriage goes back for centuries and is found in
scriptues, poetry, literature, etc. If the definition is changed to include
people in homosexual relationships then what word or term will be used if we are
talking about the original meaning of the word? What word should be used to
refer to heterosexual marriage exclusively? In the future, when teachers are
teaching literature will they have to explain that the word marriage before 2011
meant heterosexual marriage? Or will we clean up literature like some people
have tried to do with Huck Finn and substitute another word in order not to
offend? Will the Catholics have to change the word for marriage in their bible
to another word like they changed "booty?" Isn't "Civil
Union" a perfectly good term?
Blue: Marriage: the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.Wife:
a woman married to a man. Husband a man married to a woman. By tried and true,
old as time definition Marriage is a heterosexual union. It does not take away
anyone's civil rights when the very definition is what it is. just about all of
the "rights" of the married can be obtained by other legal means, just
don't insist on imposing a change in definition to call marriage what it is not.
A gay relationship is a physiologically incompatible relationship. Period. End
of story. The United States government shouldn't sanction it!
Chachi | 8:32 p.m. May 10, 2011No one can convince you of anything
is your mind is already made up, regardless of the fact.Fact:
Religious liberties have not been compromised where same-sex marriage is
legal.Plee | 7:59 p.m. May 10, 2011Your quote,
"marriage is a privilege" - how do you figure that? Is there legal
precedence you have for that statement?If you make a distinction
between a right and a privilege I think you have legal precedence going back
better than a hundred years - to put it in modern perspective, where Marriage -
by definition - and right - has been more inclusive, more encompassing--not just
to gays, but to many groups in modern history.Also - I do not
believe anyone is questioning Vidmar's celebration of the olympic spirit - the
issue is dragging a political issue into the global arena of an event that is
meant to be inclusive and apolitical.I think he is a great
representative for the olympic spirit. The politics is where the distinction is
made. No one should have to be aliendated at the expense of a political agenda.
We live in a world anymore that 'slowly' seems to be slipping away.I
believe that a union between two people of the same gender sends a message that
will eventually lead to the downfall of society. Peter Vidmar voiced his belief
and the left voiced its displeasure. I wish he could/would have held firm in
his belief. Sometmes the right thing to do isn't always the most popular. It's
the vocal minority that seems to shout louder than the majority anymore. Maybe
he just didn't want to subject his family to the adversity thrust upon him by
the left.I watched as a young family walked through a movie theatre
the other day, mom and dad, with yougsters in tow. I marveled at how much the
children resembeled their parents. I senced that this family was a product of
everything that's good in society. Man and woman were commanded to procreate
and to continue on with the species. This family had done a wonderful job in
fullfilling Heaven's expectation of them.
Plee: "Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege."No, the _right_ to marry has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court in multiple
cases, most importantly a unanimous ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, 1967.What Yeah: "So, if it's not possible for a gay couple to create a
family, there's no possible way these relationships are 'marriages.'"That's quite a stretch. Are post-menopausal women and impotent men thus
prohibited from marriage? Do you know how many gay couples already have
children? Chachi: "I oppose gay marriage."Fine - don't have one. Others, however, disagree with you. Are their opinions
less valid than yours?"For that, do I deserve to be slapped
with the label "bigot" and equated with a racist?"When you support denying people a civil right that you claim for yourself,
based on irrational prejudice and ignorance, that's bigotry. samhill: "...corrupt judges who seek to overturn the will of the
people"It is the obligation of a federal court to rule on the
constitutionality of a law, regardless of how popular that law is. That's not
corruption, it's duty.Civil rights are not subject to popularity
Blue - you CAN be anti-gay marriage and not anti-gay. When I was
younger the Equal Rights Amendment movement was in full swing. Women were
demanding to be treated exactly as men - by law - in all regards. My mother
fought hard against it because of the possible ramification to mothers and
families. She was not anti-woman or anti-woman's rights, just
anti-ERA amendment because of all it included that would become law.If a person is anti-gay marriage it is because they see the possible negative
ramification to the traditional family, not because they hate gay people. I am sorry for Peter. This was not fair.
He didn't have an issue with gays being on the team. So why, exactly, did gays
have a problem with him being where he was?
I REEEALLLLlllly wish he had NOT stepped down.He had ABSOLUTELY NO
reason to be ashamed or apologetic for expressing and supporting his view that
marriage is and should remain a joining of, expressly, a man and woman.Likewise, those who clamor for his withdrawal have ABSOLUTELY every right to
do so. They can also shamelessly and unapologetically express their view that
the institution of marriage should be changed from its thousands of year-old
tradition to include people of the same sex.In fact, they had and
exercised that right, along with those who thought oppositely, during the
opposing campaigns before the Prop. 8 elections. So, after all the votes were
counted and everyone who chose to vote had their choice represented, Prop. 8
PASSED.But, like corrupt judges who seek to overturn the will of the
people in attempting to overrule the outcome and the law, these immature and
hypocritical critics seek to ostracize this person for exercising the same
rights of expression that they also exercised.I say, shame on them.
I oppose gay marriage. For that, do I deserve to be slapped with the label
"bigot" and equated with a racist? To be relegated to the status of
despised social outcast for holding views that are seen as intolerable?If the answer is yes, then consider: Advocates of gay marriage say that unless
they can marry, they'll be seen as second-class citizens. They don't want to be
despised as perverts or misfits. They want to be accepted, not judged.Attention, GLBT activists: Convince me that once gay marriage is legal,
religious conservatives will not be persecuted for their moral beliefs. Convince
me that gay people will say, "That guy thinks homosexual relations are
immoral, but he keeps it to himself, and he treats me no differently just
because we disagree. I respect his right to think that, just like he respects my
right to disagree." Convince me of that, and I will not oppose gay
marriage.So why do I oppose gay marriage? For the same reason that
others support it: Because I don't want to be a second-class citizen.
By definition, a family is "a basic social unit consisting of parents and
their children"Offspring cannot be created with two men or two
women. Therefore, even if the two men or two women live under the same roof,
they do not constitute a family.So, if it's not possible for a gay
couple to create a family, there's no possible way these relationships are
This is unfortunate. As a missionary, I served in Bishop Vidmar's ward. He is
indeed the nicest guy you could ever meet. He was, and presumably still is,
extremely passionate about the U.S. olympic team. He was proud and honored to
have been an olympian. There could not possibly be a better person for the
position. So it is a shame that things turned out this way. Even still, he
will no doubt continue to be the single biggest supporter of the United States
olympic team.To the many people who will say he is anti-gay, my
response is this: marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege. You can be
against gay marriage, but not against gay rights.
Even as a catholic I applaud mormons like peter. Well done! Wrong is wrong
"Just because you take a position against gay marriage does not mean you're
anti-gay."How do you figure that?If you take a
position against the equal protection of civil rights based on a person's sexual
orientation how can you possibly claim you're not anti-gay?Would
anyone take you seriously if you said that you took a position against Jewish
marriage but that you're not anti-Jewish?