Published: Thursday, June 2 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT
We also must be brave enough to protect the rights of those we do not agree with
and even if they are in the minority.
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect against the tyranny
of the majority. Frank wants to enforce the tyranny of the majority. Sad.
RE: Furry1993You are confrontational. Frank said NOTHING about enforcing
anything. What he said was actually just the opposite--that we need to learn to
disagree without your type of comment.
There is an enormous difference between "agreeing to disagree" and
voting AWAY the rights of your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying American
Citizens.How would you feel if 98% of the population voted that you
couldn't be equal to everyone else because you were "icky"?
To "RanchHand | 10:29 a.m." how are gays "not equal to everyone
else"?A gay man can get married to any woman that will have
him, the same as a straight man. So, tell us, how are they not equal. If
anything, gay marriage makes them unequal or "more equal" than others.
@Redshirt1701;Nay sir, more equal it would not be. YOU would also
be able to marry someone of the same sex, therefore, perfectly equal.And no, the system currently is not equal. You can marry the person you LOVE,
Frank likes that 98% can talk down to the minor 2% and make them less than equal
simply because they are a majority.I would like to remind him - that
we "Mormons" make up about less >1% [even less than the gay
population].The beauty of our Constitution is that it protects the
"one" -- no matter how much the majority wants them silienced, shunned
and ignored.I believe in Karma -- you take away the rights of
others...one day it will be yours that is taken away.If you want
Freedom and equality - you must give freedom and equality.
If I remember correctly, the Nazi's were the majority against a variety of
minorities including homosexuals. Where are they now? And where are those they
persecuted.And as far as Peter Vidmar, I honestly believe that nobody
around here would care at all about his being asked to step down if he weren't
LDS. If he really wanted the job he should have fought back harder against the
few who opposed him. He wouldn't have won a medal, but maybe he would have
prooved a point or even worked to make things better for both sides.
NEWSFLASH!! He's not a martyr!
LDS Liberal,How do you justify your position with the statements the
leaders of your church have made?
To "RanchHand | 12:06 p.m" and if I love more than 1 person, are you
going to welcome that too. What if I am part of a group of 10 bisexuals that
all love eachother and want to be married, are you willing to accept that also.
"Peter Vidmar is a sad example of what pressures can be brought to bear
when one stands up for principle in a meaningful democratic way. We must be able
to agree to disagree without fear of retribution on either side."I was so happy to hear that Frank has this view. It is so nice to
know that he supports anti-discrimination in housing and employment policies
that protect LGBT individuals and that he supports their rights to demonstrate
and march in Pride parades.Now, if we could just get him to be more
verbal in his support....
Re:CHS 85"We also must be brave enough to protect the rights of
those we do not agree with and even if they are in the minority."Marriage is NOT a right and never has been. We can debate rather homosexuals
should be able to marry a person of the same sex but legal marriage is not a
human right or a civil right. Human rights are rights which are inherent in a
person at birth which means that marriage (or a certificate from a government)
isn't a human right. Gay marriage isn't a civil right either since no one can
marry a person of the same sex. It's a civil right for a homosexual to do the
same thing as a heterosexual under current laws which is marry someone of the
opposite sex.Now that this is settled we can move on to debate
rather we want to change the law so that any two persons (regardless of sexual
orientation) may marry one another regardless of gender. In other words do we
change the laws so that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can do the same thing
and marry someone of the same sex?
Freedom of Religion: The ninth amendment to the Constitution points out that
there are rights that we are entitled to not listed in the Bill of Rights. It
can be easily argued that marriage is among those rights or the ability to
choose one's job, sell their property, move about the country etc.
"Marriage is NOT a right and never has been."The Supreme
Court says otherwise...
So if marriage isn't a civil or human right what exactly IS it then? A legal
tax write off? Or maybe, just maybe it's an expression of love and commitment.
Officer Coolguy | 1:47 p.m. June 2, 2011 Highland, UT LDS
Liberal,How do you justify your position with the statements the
leaders of your church have made? ---Are your leaders
now infallable? I thought LDS members were supposed to evaluate the situation
and decide for themselves; or has that changed?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments