Alan Abrahamson: Vidmar's resignation as U.S. Olympic team leader disappoints


Return To Article
  • grip Meridian, ID
    May 20, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    "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.

  • fromSTL Saint Louis, MO
    May 13, 2011 2:10 p.m.

    Mr. Abrahamson has written a wonderful commentary.

  • Question Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 13, 2011 12:29 p.m.

    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.

  • jmort SLO, CA
    May 12, 2011 8:31 p.m.

    @ procuradorfiscal and JSB

    With 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.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    May 12, 2011 6:53 p.m.

    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?

  • jetpilot Coto de Caza, CA
    May 12, 2011 3:53 p.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 12, 2011 3:50 p.m.

    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 organizations.

  • jmort SLO, CA
    May 12, 2011 1:35 p.m.

    Past 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?

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2011 1:27 p.m.

    I, for one, am not disappointed that Vidmar resigned.

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    May 12, 2011 1:22 p.m.

    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.

  • Martin Pal Los Angeles, CA
    May 12, 2011 1:18 p.m.

    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?"

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    May 12, 2011 11:23 a.m.

    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 a thought.

  • jetpilot Coto de Caza, CA
    May 12, 2011 10:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 12, 2011 9:49 a.m.

    "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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 12, 2011 8:41 a.m.

    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.

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    May 12, 2011 6:48 a.m.

    @JSB & Bomar
    Same-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"?

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    May 11, 2011 9:56 p.m.

    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 society.

  • bigv56 Cottonwood, CA
    May 11, 2011 6:06 p.m.

    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.

  • Bomar Roberts, ID
    May 11, 2011 5:51 p.m.

    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.

  • junkgeek Agua Dulce, TX
    May 11, 2011 4:49 p.m.

    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".

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    May 11, 2011 4:39 p.m.

    @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 arguments.

  • cougarsare1 Las Vegas, NV
    May 11, 2011 4:22 p.m.

    Am not! Are too! Boring. I just wasted time reading the whining back and forth. Silly me.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    May 11, 2011 4:10 p.m.

    "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 on stilts!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 11, 2011 3:34 p.m.

    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.

  • hagar Doylestown, PA
    May 11, 2011 3:00 p.m.

    There is nothing more intolerant than a group demanding tolerance.

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    May 11, 2011 2:52 p.m.

    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.

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    May 11, 2011 2:50 p.m.

    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 materials.

  • ScottCA Yorba Linda, CA
    May 11, 2011 2:49 p.m.


    If "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?

  • mkSdd3 Ogden, UT
    May 11, 2011 2:41 p.m.

    @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.

  • Eichendorff Olathe, Kansas
    May 11, 2011 2:16 p.m.


    The 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.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    May 11, 2011 2:03 p.m.

    @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.

  • Tami Herriman, UT
    May 11, 2011 1:48 p.m.

    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.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2011 1:46 p.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 11, 2011 1:13 p.m.

    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.

  • Consciously Speaking Kailua-Kona, HI
    May 11, 2011 12:28 p.m.

    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!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 11, 2011 12:23 p.m.

    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!

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    May 11, 2011 12:09 p.m.

    @the_narrator 11:03

    Your 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.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2011 12:02 p.m.

    "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.

  • Martin Pal Los Angeles, CA
    May 11, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    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.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    May 11, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    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?

  • Moracle Blackshear, GA
    May 11, 2011 11:56 a.m.

    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!

  • Eichendorff Olathe, Kansas
    May 11, 2011 11:29 a.m.

    @David in Houston

    My 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.

  • BU52 Provo, ut
    May 11, 2011 11:29 a.m.

    A great example of reverse discrimination.

  • Mahnahvu Vancouver, Washington
    May 11, 2011 10:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    May 11, 2011 10:33 a.m.

    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 friends.

  • David in Houston Houston, TX
    May 11, 2011 10:24 a.m.

    @ 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 the privilege.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 11, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    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 "inevitably followed".

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    May 11, 2011 10:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Kimball Bakersfield, CA
    May 11, 2011 9:52 a.m.

    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.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    May 11, 2011 9:48 a.m.

    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?

  • Focusedonlife Spanish Fork, UT
    May 11, 2011 9:41 a.m.

    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.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2011 9:38 a.m.

    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....

  • mkSdd3 Ogden, UT
    May 11, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Serenity Now American Fork, UT
    May 11, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    @ 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?

  • WhatsGoingOnHere Ogden, UT
    May 11, 2011 9:27 a.m.

    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.

  • mkSdd3 Ogden, UT
    May 11, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    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 are acting.

  • Big R La Palma, CA
    May 11, 2011 9:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 11, 2011 8:43 a.m.

    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."

  • David in Houston Houston, TX
    May 11, 2011 8:35 a.m.

    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 they lost.

  • washcomom Beaverton, OR
    May 11, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    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.

  • BP Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2011 8:24 a.m.

    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 than homosexuality.

  • Sandy Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2011 8:24 a.m.

    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.

  • Melanie Alpine, UT
    May 11, 2011 8:21 a.m.

    Love this level-headed article. Well done!

  • Weber State Graduate Clearfield, UT
    May 11, 2011 8:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 11, 2011 8:06 a.m.

    #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 discriminate.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    May 11, 2011 8:05 a.m.

    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 knowledge.

  • Idaho.Aggie Idaho Falls, ID
    May 11, 2011 8:01 a.m.

    If you fire or force out someone from their job because of a position they took in a legal election - you're un-American.

  • A_Chinese_American Cedar Hills, UT
    May 11, 2011 7:53 a.m.

    I have donated to U.S. Olympic Committe for over ten years. I will stop doing that.

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    May 11, 2011 7:51 a.m.

    [ ... 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.

  • Andrew J. Marksen Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2011 7:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2011 7:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Eichendorff Olathe, Kansas
    May 11, 2011 7:27 a.m.

    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 rights.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 11, 2011 7:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Gregory Johnson Rifle, CO
    May 11, 2011 7:16 a.m.

    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.

  • GAmom Athens, GA
    May 11, 2011 7:15 a.m.

    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!

  • David in Houston Houston, TX
    May 11, 2011 7:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Chachi Charlottesville, VA
    May 11, 2011 6:54 a.m.

    @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.

  • David in Houston Houston, TX
    May 11, 2011 6:49 a.m.

    "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?

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    May 11, 2011 6:48 a.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 11, 2011 6:40 a.m.

    "... 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.

  • Mahnahvu Vancouver, Washington
    May 11, 2011 1:46 a.m.

    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?

  • runfan Vacaville, CA
    May 11, 2011 1:22 a.m.

    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 world.

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    May 11, 2011 12:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    May 10, 2011 11:54 p.m.

    "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".

  • Go West Kearns, UT
    May 10, 2011 11:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    May 10, 2011 11:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 10, 2011 11:04 p.m.

    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.

  • the_narrator claremont, ca
    May 10, 2011 11:03 p.m.

    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.

  • jeffsepi salt lake city, UT
    May 10, 2011 10:57 p.m.

    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.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    May 10, 2011 10:33 p.m.

    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?

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 10, 2011 10:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    May 10, 2011 10:03 p.m.

    A gay relationship is a physiologically incompatible relationship. Period. End of story. The United States government shouldn't sanction it!

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    May 10, 2011 9:33 p.m.

    Chachi | 8:32 p.m. May 10, 2011

    No 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, 2011

    Your 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.

  • Unbelievable West Jordan, Utah
    May 10, 2011 9:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2011 9:18 p.m.

    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 contests.

  • Jeanie b. Orem, UT
    May 10, 2011 9:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Quayle Dallas, TX
    May 10, 2011 8:59 p.m.

    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?

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2011 8:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Chachi Charlottesville, VA
    May 10, 2011 8:32 p.m.

    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.

  • What Yeah Centerville, UT
    May 10, 2011 8:26 p.m.

    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 "marriages."

  • Plee Midvale, UT
    May 10, 2011 7:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2011 7:35 p.m.

    Even as a catholic I applaud mormons like peter. Well done! Wrong is wrong

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2011 7:16 p.m.

    "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?