Reader comments
Gay couples in Utah urged not to sue
428 comments | Read story
Unfortunate | 12:30 a.m. June 18, 2008
This whole topic is unfortunate.
Eye Dee Ten Tee | 12:40 a.m. June 18, 2008
When has urging someone not to sue worked? What about the church in New Jersey
that lost its tax exemption status because they refused to allow a gay ceremony
in front of its building. Not IN its building. In FRONT of it. (Granted, they
did charge a fee to allow people to use the front of their building) How about
the New Mexican wedding photographer that has to pay thousands in legal fees
because she refused to photograph a gay ceremony?
How soon will it be until the LDS church is sued for not allowing gay ceremonies in its chapels and Temples? I don't worry about the church loosing its tax exempt status as it does not charge a fee for temple or chapel weddings, unless somehow the being a full tithe payer to qualify for a temple recommend can be brought into play)
For a group of people that claim to love diversity and differences, the gay community sure is quick to sue those who they disagree with. Please respect the differences of others and honor the request of this congressman.
(NOTE: No bashing occured in this comment. Count how many times I will be accused of bashing.)
How soon will it be until the LDS church is sued for not allowing gay ceremonies in its chapels and Temples? I don't worry about the church loosing its tax exempt status as it does not charge a fee for temple or chapel weddings, unless somehow the being a full tithe payer to qualify for a temple recommend can be brought into play)
For a group of people that claim to love diversity and differences, the gay community sure is quick to sue those who they disagree with. Please respect the differences of others and honor the request of this congressman.
(NOTE: No bashing occured in this comment. Count how many times I will be accused of bashing.)
Comments continue below
Betty | 1:04 a.m. June 18, 2008
Times change, people. The question is, will you become a dinosaur with outdated
views?
John C. | 1:10 a.m. June 18, 2008
To the first. The whole thing is to distroy what marrage is. To distroy what a
family is. Once you do that you then change completly what a society is and
what it stands for. We will move from "One Nation under God" To a
nation with out God. As they said their tactic is very clear and they are smart
and determind.
You look at history of fallon nations such as Rome. When it lost its moral base it started down the decline. Did it happen all at once. No. Those who sought power were patiant. Once infedelity in marrage was common. Then it became easier to start all the socialist programs and intitalments every one thought they deserved. I know everyone is going to say I'm wrong, but I'm not you just have to study it yourself.
You look at history of fallon nations such as Rome. When it lost its moral base it started down the decline. Did it happen all at once. No. Those who sought power were patiant. Once infedelity in marrage was common. Then it became easier to start all the socialist programs and intitalments every one thought they deserved. I know everyone is going to say I'm wrong, but I'm not you just have to study it yourself.
Congratulations | 1:14 a.m. June 18, 2008
Congratulations to those who are now able to marry in California. Marriage is
about love and commitment - those couples who have shown love and commitment to
one another for decades, waiting for the time when they could legally marry one
another are an inspiration. They have endured more in the name of love than the
vast majority of heterosexuals (including me) could even imagine. May love live
long and prosper - no matter the gender of those who are in love. It's my
firm belief that love makes the world a better place. Come on people, rejoice in
the love! Don't hate on it! If marriage and love is so wonderful (which I
believe it is) then why on earth would you want - or feel entitled - to deprive
others of knowing its joy???
Also, might I remind those who are so "disgusted" by the California court's ruling - it was not so many decades ago that people became irate when anti-miscegenation laws (laws banning interracial marriage) were taken off the books.
Also, might I remind those who are so "disgusted" by the California court's ruling - it was not so many decades ago that people became irate when anti-miscegenation laws (laws banning interracial marriage) were taken off the books.
Lawrence | 1:21 a.m. June 18, 2008
You know, the religious right has no one to blame but themselves. The instant
that they combined church and state by giving legal privileges to married
couples, they opened up this debate. If church and state were truly kept
separate, this would not be an issue. All the judgmental moral monitors can
choke on it.
The Constitution, not the Bible, is the document that we are all bound to. For example, a muslim is not bound to the Bible, he or she is bound to the Koran Not everyone is Catholic or Christian. It's great that you feel so strongly about your religion, but it is not your right to impose your religious views on others. This is not about religious recognition of a union, it is about legal recognition; Equal recognition as Straight couples and we all know by now the SEPERATE institutions (civil union advocates) is NOT equal!
guess what, I don't read the Bible, I don't believe in it, I don't care what it says. And I don't have to because we DO NOT LIVE IN A THEOCRACY. We make our laws according to the Constitution, not a religious book.
The Constitution, not the Bible, is the document that we are all bound to. For example, a muslim is not bound to the Bible, he or she is bound to the Koran Not everyone is Catholic or Christian. It's great that you feel so strongly about your religion, but it is not your right to impose your religious views on others. This is not about religious recognition of a union, it is about legal recognition; Equal recognition as Straight couples and we all know by now the SEPERATE institutions (civil union advocates) is NOT equal!
guess what, I don't read the Bible, I don't believe in it, I don't care what it says. And I don't have to because we DO NOT LIVE IN A THEOCRACY. We make our laws according to the Constitution, not a religious book.
LawrenceAgain | 1:24 a.m. June 18, 2008
For those who are opposed: Do you believe in the freedom of religion in this
country? If so, then who are you to push your religious beliefs on others? Who
are you to say that YOUR RELIGION should govern our country more so than
another? I have yet to hear a ligitimate reason NOT BASED IN RELGION that says
we shouldn't allow this. PLEASE someone give me a reason?
Anonymous | 1:28 a.m. June 18, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court will eventually rule in favor of gay marriage.
Considering how badly Republicans have screwed up, the Democrats will be
occupying the White House and running Congress for the next twelve years. That
will be enough time for them to get control of the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, a Supreme Court that's liberal enough to rule in favor of gay marriage will be liberal enough to rule against gun ownership, and Americans should be far more worried about that than these silly fears about "gay marriage destroying the marriages of straight couples".
Unfortunately, a Supreme Court that's liberal enough to rule in favor of gay marriage will be liberal enough to rule against gun ownership, and Americans should be far more worried about that than these silly fears about "gay marriage destroying the marriages of straight couples".
Jiminy | 2:21 a.m. June 18, 2008
This issue will be THE issue in our nation's history. Do you realize what
is at stake with how our courts rule (and how we vote) over the next few years
as gay marriage is pushed through the states?
Among other things, BYU could lose it's tax exempt status if it discriminates too much on admissions (meaning, refusing to allow a gay couple to attend).
LDS college students (especially those at BYU) could lose their federal Pell Grants and federally backed student loans and professors could lose their grant money.
The LDS Church could lose its tax exempt status for not recognizing a gay couple's constitutional marriage. Because what if they convert to the LDS Church after they get married? Are they supposed to divorce before they get baptized or just never make it to the temple?
Tax deductions for charitable contributions could be nixed.
Regardless, the federal government has wide powers on tax enforcement laws including power to arrest for non-compliance to federal laws.
This is the big time, people.
Among other things, BYU could lose it's tax exempt status if it discriminates too much on admissions (meaning, refusing to allow a gay couple to attend).
LDS college students (especially those at BYU) could lose their federal Pell Grants and federally backed student loans and professors could lose their grant money.
The LDS Church could lose its tax exempt status for not recognizing a gay couple's constitutional marriage. Because what if they convert to the LDS Church after they get married? Are they supposed to divorce before they get baptized or just never make it to the temple?
Tax deductions for charitable contributions could be nixed.
Regardless, the federal government has wide powers on tax enforcement laws including power to arrest for non-compliance to federal laws.
This is the big time, people.
Anonymous | 2:22 a.m. June 18, 2008
Soon to follow....
California to allow Gay divorce...
California to allow Gay divorce...
re: Gus | 2:44 a.m. June 18, 2008
Homosexual couples wish for marriage because "separate but equal" is
not actually equal.
Terrible | 3:23 a.m. June 18, 2008
All of this is terrible. It is NOT Natural or Normal for a "marriage".
A marriage is between a man and a woman ONLY. If this McCoy is so for it, well
he should go and be a senator in California! And if it ever is considered to
become legalized here in the state where I live I would do everything to prevent
it. The last thing I would want is for my children to even think that all this
nonsense is CORRECT or NORMAL. And if the schools ever starting to talk about it
or teach such a immoral practice I would pull them out so fast!
awesomeron | 4:07 a.m. June 18, 2008
I can wrap my mind around the Civil Union concept. However Marriage Is Between A
Man and A Women. Hopefully that are in Love with each other. Marriage is the
only way to have Moral Heterosexual Sex. Some people wait a large part of their
lives in order to properly marry and fulfill their 1st Estate. Most Homosexuals
believe in God. A persons Sexual Desires and Attractions do not interfere with
their belief in God. Religion is a different issue, then a belief in God. I
believed in God, long before I joined any Church and Decades before joining the
LDS Church. Homosexuals are Married by Clergy all the time. Many Faith Groups
are very tolerant and accepting of Homosexuals. Some Homosexuals are Clergy both
male and female. Right now speed seems to be a vital concern. If I was invited
to a Civil Union, I would attend, a Marriage not so much because it goes against
a core belief. However I would still be friends, fellow worker etc. Plus my kids
would play with their Kids. Many Homosexuals have Kids. Natural, Adopted, Step,
Foster, etc. I know two nice ladies who adopted a little girl from China.
rvalens2 | 4:14 a.m. June 18, 2008
Re: Gus
As strange as it may seem, many Gays do want to get married in a church with all the religious overtones.
Why? Because Gays want acceptance. Gays do not want to be seen as deviants or weirdos.
Gays consider the "marriage versus civil union" argument in the same vein as the "separate but equal" argument whites used during the 40s, 50s and 60s to justify separating blacks from whites.
To Gays, "separate but equal" is NOT equal. That is why many despise Civil Unions.
Because of the Equal Protection clause in the U.S. Constitution I believe all states, including Utah, will eventually be forced to accept gay marriage.
Amendment XIV states:
... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection means that governments, whether Federal, State or local cannot treat you any differently than your neighbors. That's why I believe the U.S. Supreme court will eventually interpret equal protection to mean gays can marry.
As strange as it may seem, many Gays do want to get married in a church with all the religious overtones.
Why? Because Gays want acceptance. Gays do not want to be seen as deviants or weirdos.
Gays consider the "marriage versus civil union" argument in the same vein as the "separate but equal" argument whites used during the 40s, 50s and 60s to justify separating blacks from whites.
To Gays, "separate but equal" is NOT equal. That is why many despise Civil Unions.
Because of the Equal Protection clause in the U.S. Constitution I believe all states, including Utah, will eventually be forced to accept gay marriage.
Amendment XIV states:
... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection means that governments, whether Federal, State or local cannot treat you any differently than your neighbors. That's why I believe the U.S. Supreme court will eventually interpret equal protection to mean gays can marry.
Anon | 4:15 a.m. June 18, 2008
The true purpose of homosexual "marriage" isn't marriage per se
(since you can't change the nature of the thing) but in using it as a legal
stepping-stone to criminalize vocal dissent from it, by engaging the so-called
"hate-speech" codes against those who would teach that homosexual
conduct is unacceptable to God. They've already pulled this in Canada,
and, to a lesser degree, Massachusetts, and are seeking to criminalize any
public expression of Christianity.
That's what's at stake here.
That's what's at stake here.
Ronald A. Young | 4:18 a.m. June 18, 2008
If I was a Homosexual in Utah or Idaho, I would stay in the Closet. Homosexual
Bashing as repugnant as it is, remains a hobby among some people. No one knows
what two people who live together do in private, and some keep it that way. Many
Heterosexuals do the same, its called modesty and good social behavior.
RE: Eye Dee Ten Tee | 4:24 a.m. June 18, 2008
I wasn't aware of those instances in New Mexico and New Jersey. Thanks for
the information.
A band I liked as a teenager had a song with the line, "The world has turned and left me here." That's what I feel like. The world has turned--away from sanity--and has left the majority wondering what is happening and what will happen next.
When I say "majority," I'm referring to every time U.S. states, including California, have voted on so-called gay marriage. Has any state approved it by vote of the people? Not that I'm aware (maybe Vermont, but I'm too lazy to check).
This goes back to activist judges nominated for life, which points out again the importance of electing John McCain.
A band I liked as a teenager had a song with the line, "The world has turned and left me here." That's what I feel like. The world has turned--away from sanity--and has left the majority wondering what is happening and what will happen next.
When I say "majority," I'm referring to every time U.S. states, including California, have voted on so-called gay marriage. Has any state approved it by vote of the people? Not that I'm aware (maybe Vermont, but I'm too lazy to check).
This goes back to activist judges nominated for life, which points out again the importance of electing John McCain.
Tony | 4:37 a.m. June 18, 2008
Eye Dee Ten Tee: I did not see any bashing; just a little ignorance and faulty
logic.
The gay community may sue to gain/maintain/protect civil rights. A lawsuit does not mean that they don't respect diversity. A lawsuit does not attempt to get others to agree. A lawsuit IS an attempt to right a perceived wrong. But the plaintiff has the burden of proof: the plaintiff must convince the court that s/he has not been treated fairly.
Will the LDS ever be sued to allow gay marriage? Maybe. But it would be a difficult case to prove because the church is a private organization.
The gay community may sue to gain/maintain/protect civil rights. A lawsuit does not mean that they don't respect diversity. A lawsuit does not attempt to get others to agree. A lawsuit IS an attempt to right a perceived wrong. But the plaintiff has the burden of proof: the plaintiff must convince the court that s/he has not been treated fairly.
Will the LDS ever be sued to allow gay marriage? Maybe. But it would be a difficult case to prove because the church is a private organization.
Paul | 5:38 a.m. June 18, 2008
We must not accept this practice of gay union at any cost.
financial? | 5:53 a.m. June 18, 2008
Is this whole issue about economics? Is it about benefits and retirement and
dependents? If so, isn't there a better way to go about it?
I have learned that most battles (over any issue) fought throughout history are economic at the core. It seems to me this gay marriage fight, too, is strictly fiscal.
If I'm wrong, please tell me.
I have learned that most battles (over any issue) fought throughout history are economic at the core. It seems to me this gay marriage fight, too, is strictly fiscal.
If I'm wrong, please tell me.
Re: Eye Dee Ten Tee | 6:03 a.m. June 18, 2008
Your comment about allowing these ceremonies in LDS chapels and temple. You
already understand the LDS view that marriage is union of husband and wife. With
that said and the stance from the church being that that type of life style is
to not be acted upon, I highly doubt ()the church would allow that marriage to
take place 99.999in a chapel, and for positive, there is NO WAY that would ever
take place in the temple.
Re: Gus | 6:11 a.m. June 18, 2008
Although for some people marriage is a religious ceremony, there are many that
their marriage is their way of be bonded together in every way possible. Many
people opt to be married civilly, not by religious leaders. If you begin to
define marriage as a religious union you our bring up all kinds of difficulties
with those that as atheist or agnostic. On the flip side there are many gays
that are religious. Try looking at the number of congregations that welcome gays
and lesbians.
Try not to judge all homosexuals as anti-religious, and all heterosexuals as religious. We are all individuals.
All that being said. I am happily married, in the temple, with children. I am not gay. But I have friends who are. I don't know where I stand on the marriage issue. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I understand and empathize with those that live with their partners and wish to extend benefits to their partner or children. It is a difficult issue, and I do not have the answer.
Try not to judge all homosexuals as anti-religious, and all heterosexuals as religious. We are all individuals.
All that being said. I am happily married, in the temple, with children. I am not gay. But I have friends who are. I don't know where I stand on the marriage issue. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I understand and empathize with those that live with their partners and wish to extend benefits to their partner or children. It is a difficult issue, and I do not have the answer.
Jimmy | 6:19 a.m. June 18, 2008
Gus: Why would an atheist want to get married? Are you suggesting a religion
test before a marriage license is granted?
You are grasping at straws.
You are grasping at straws.
Dixie Dan | 6:22 a.m. June 18, 2008
I think this will be a major confrontation in California if two faithful members
of the LDS church want to use their chapel for a wedding and/or reception. How
is the bishop or stake president going to denied them the use of the building?
If they did, then all weddings or receptions would have to be stopped from using
the building. I will be interested in seeing what position the church takes on
this subject.
Mom in MO | 6:28 a.m. June 18, 2008
It seems that when a group fails at the ballot box, the answer is to try an
end-run around the election by going to the courts. The same sex marriage act
was defeated in 11 states in the 2006 election by huge margins. None were
close. This isn't the way it's supposed to be. Voters begin to feel
like their voices don't count for anything, boycott elections, and the few
once again have total power over the many. I don't care a whit about a
persons sexual orientation, but I do care about the Constitution. What do you
care about, Utah?
R Biddulph | 6:40 a.m. June 18, 2008
Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two
sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not
alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral
and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social
anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations,
any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called
"expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's
will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has
loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the rise of homosexuality.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the rise of homosexuality.
God's law | 7:08 a.m. June 18, 2008
God has never changed his first commandment to Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam
and not Eve and Eve, to multiply and replenish the earth. He also said a man is
to leave his parents and cleave unto his wife. He did not say a man is to leave
his parents and cleave unto a man, nor did he say a woman is to leave her
parents and cleave unto a woman.
All of our laws are judeo christian based and anyone who would disagree simply doesn't understand history.
How anyone who claims to believe in God and Jesus can honestly say that the scriptures approve of homosexuality simply does not understand scriptures and is believing in the God of the world.
All of our laws are judeo christian based and anyone who would disagree simply doesn't understand history.
How anyone who claims to believe in God and Jesus can honestly say that the scriptures approve of homosexuality simply does not understand scriptures and is believing in the God of the world.
Still waiting | 7:13 a.m. June 18, 2008
I'm still waiting for someone to come forward and show that his or her
marriage has been harmed by someone else's gay union/marriage.
Mike | 7:13 a.m. June 18, 2008
Bash it, hate it, call us naive and ignorant and religious zealots and make your demands for proof and yet you refuse to look at the simplest truth of all in the biological make-up of a man and a women. In a world that is screaming don't destroy nature, leave it alone, we certainly do not have a problem destroying mankind...the family. God help us!
Helga | 7:18 a.m. June 18, 2008
I think Marriage should only be between MAN and WOMAN.If same Sex Couples can
leagally be joyned in Union, but not Married, I think I might be able to tolerat
it, because they are already doing something most People are not comfortable
with. And thath way they might be left in peace. They should not insist on
something that is morrally unaceptable to most People.
Anonymous | 7:20 a.m. June 18, 2008
I'm impressed that this discussion has been so civil. Perhaps Deseret News
is monitoring the comments more closely.
In response to Lawrence, it is true that we believe in separation of church and state and not imposing religion on anyone, but it is not true that we believe the government has no place dictating morals. That's the whole concept of law--an imposed set of morals and rules. Do you believe the government is justified in prohibiting incestuous marriages? I don't believe anyone is arguing that issue. There is a rational basis for the government to make such moral decisions and impose them on its people. If gay marriage is about equality, then shouldn't two brothers be able to marry each other? What about a father and son? Saying it's different because the idea is repulsive doesn't cut it; we must apply the same standard if we argue that we cannot appeal to our sense of morality or decency.
Furthermore, studies have shown that children raised in two-parent homes are far less at risk for drug use and criminal involvement. We should not worsen the problem by sanctioning families based on gay marriage as an equal alternative.
In response to Lawrence, it is true that we believe in separation of church and state and not imposing religion on anyone, but it is not true that we believe the government has no place dictating morals. That's the whole concept of law--an imposed set of morals and rules. Do you believe the government is justified in prohibiting incestuous marriages? I don't believe anyone is arguing that issue. There is a rational basis for the government to make such moral decisions and impose them on its people. If gay marriage is about equality, then shouldn't two brothers be able to marry each other? What about a father and son? Saying it's different because the idea is repulsive doesn't cut it; we must apply the same standard if we argue that we cannot appeal to our sense of morality or decency.
Furthermore, studies have shown that children raised in two-parent homes are far less at risk for drug use and criminal involvement. We should not worsen the problem by sanctioning families based on gay marriage as an equal alternative.
uncannygunman | 7:23 a.m. June 18, 2008
I think there should be lawsuits. They may not be successful, but they may give
the courts the opportunity to say that the hateful Amendment 3 conflicts with
equal protection principles. There is little to lose and much to gain.
history lesson | 7:26 a.m. June 18, 2008
It is amazing to me how quickly people forget about our founding fathers vision
of America. You call for separation of religion and state. I agree, but
everyone's moral judgment is influenced by something.
Would those that call upon states to legalize marriage between man and man (woman and woman) also call upon states to legalize marriage between man and animal?
You very passionately state that love is the most important thing....well, I love nature, can I marry it? I protect, serve and love my pets, can I please be allowed to extend my health benefits to them? I'm sure there are people that very quickly state that's ridiculous....really? So, who all of a sudden gave you the right to tell me that states shouldn't recognize my right to marry my dog or my pet grasshopper?
The line must be drawn someplace; if not, we are lawless and nothing more than animals. Regardless of what you believe, your moral agency is influenced by religious overtones.
Would those that call upon states to legalize marriage between man and man (woman and woman) also call upon states to legalize marriage between man and animal?
You very passionately state that love is the most important thing....well, I love nature, can I marry it? I protect, serve and love my pets, can I please be allowed to extend my health benefits to them? I'm sure there are people that very quickly state that's ridiculous....really? So, who all of a sudden gave you the right to tell me that states shouldn't recognize my right to marry my dog or my pet grasshopper?
The line must be drawn someplace; if not, we are lawless and nothing more than animals. Regardless of what you believe, your moral agency is influenced by religious overtones.
Anonymous | 7:29 a.m. June 18, 2008
This is simple Gus and I am not sure why people like you are so confused. You go
down to the city clerks (government not religious) office you pay your money and
they give you a license, you take that license and have someone approved by the
government perform the marriage (this person may or may not be a religious
leader) you are then entitled to certain governmental benefits and protections
based on this license. The license also serves as a legal contract between two
people and grievances can be brought before a civil judge. None of which has
anything to do with religion. If you choose to have a religious leader perform
your ceremony and make it a religious as well as civil contract you can do so
(as long as they are sanctioned by the state to do so) but religion is not a
requirement of marriage. If I am wrong please show me the laws that say it is
strictly in the realm religion to support your claim.
Mike | 7:36 a.m. June 18, 2008
Isn't it interesting that every "progressive advance" such as gay
marriage, striking down of Sodomy laws, aproval of Abortion, losing of property
rights have been done by the courts. Not one has been done by a legislature.
On the other hand, the PEOPLE of Kalifornia approved a law defining marriage which was struck down by an unelected court.
These things are better handled by the legislative branches of the government. The courts ought to stick to settling constitutional quesions instead of making law.
Ps. What people do in their bedrooms where I don't have to watch, is none of my business.
On the other hand, the PEOPLE of Kalifornia approved a law defining marriage which was struck down by an unelected court.
These things are better handled by the legislative branches of the government. The courts ought to stick to settling constitutional quesions instead of making law.
Ps. What people do in their bedrooms where I don't have to watch, is none of my business.
Dave | 7:35 a.m. June 18, 2008
Re Lawrence. I applaud you enthusiasm but even though there should be a
seperation between as you suggest, this country was founded by religious people.
There is going to be a hint of not just religion in just about everything but
what people define an issue to be.
Kevin | 7:37 a.m. June 18, 2008
Gus,
I respect your question. The truth is - much to my chagrin - that homosexuals are "people of faith" in nearly the same proportions as heterosexuals.
On top of that, there already exist several denominations of Christianity that marry homosexuals. For example, Quakers in Utah have apparently held their version of marriage for same-sex couples since, I believe, as long ago as 1989.
I make no bones about my opposition to religion. I believe in freedom, which includes religious freedom. Religious freedom doesn't mean wingnuts should get their way at regulating my life. It means religious wingnuts have to tolerate minority religions too. Imagine that.
I respect your question. The truth is - much to my chagrin - that homosexuals are "people of faith" in nearly the same proportions as heterosexuals.
On top of that, there already exist several denominations of Christianity that marry homosexuals. For example, Quakers in Utah have apparently held their version of marriage for same-sex couples since, I believe, as long ago as 1989.
I make no bones about my opposition to religion. I believe in freedom, which includes religious freedom. Religious freedom doesn't mean wingnuts should get their way at regulating my life. It means religious wingnuts have to tolerate minority religions too. Imagine that.
Penelope | 7:39 a.m. June 18, 2008
This whole issue makes me sick.
Terrible, addressing your comment. "And if the schools ever starting to talk about it or teach such a immoral practice I would pull them out so fast!" You'd better be pulling them out soon because "normalization" of homosexuality in the schools has been happening little by little in the schools for a long time. Maybe not so obviously here in Utah, but it is happening anywhere the NEA has a say.
What people do in their bedrooms is a private matter, but the gays and lesbians have made it a public issue. Shame on them for trying to destroy something that is sacred and has been the very foundation of our society from the beginning.
Terrible, addressing your comment. "And if the schools ever starting to talk about it or teach such a immoral practice I would pull them out so fast!" You'd better be pulling them out soon because "normalization" of homosexuality in the schools has been happening little by little in the schools for a long time. Maybe not so obviously here in Utah, but it is happening anywhere the NEA has a say.
What people do in their bedrooms is a private matter, but the gays and lesbians have made it a public issue. Shame on them for trying to destroy something that is sacred and has been the very foundation of our society from the beginning.
Debbie | 7:40 a.m. June 18, 2008
I hope this country is prepared for the fallout. This shortsighted change will
result in long-term disaster. Marriage will no longer be something that is
restricted in any way because how can you accept this without also allowing
polygamy. Once marriage is redefined by the law to mean only love and
commitment between ANYONE, regardless of gender, they must also allow other
types of marriage. You can marry your sister, you can have several wives, or
several husbands. Those of you so quick to condemn the FLDS because polygamy is
against the law (not those who opposed because of concern for child welfare),
are likely some of the same people who are saying gays should be allow to
legally marry.
Don't expect the government to be able to enforce anti-bigamy laws once marriage is no longer sacred or restricted to a union between one man and one women.
The governments role in giving preference to marriage is to protect families - our basic moral institution, proven to be best for raising children - is based on benefits that can be changed with universal health care, flat taxes, and recognition of self-appointed "next of kin." The institution needn't die.
Don't expect the government to be able to enforce anti-bigamy laws once marriage is no longer sacred or restricted to a union between one man and one women.
The governments role in giving preference to marriage is to protect families - our basic moral institution, proven to be best for raising children - is based on benefits that can be changed with universal health care, flat taxes, and recognition of self-appointed "next of kin." The institution needn't die.
jac | 7:46 a.m. June 18, 2008
Gay marriage proponents are utterly confused. Marriage is many things. Indeed,
many good things, including love and devotion; but at its very core, marriage is
undeniably about sex. It is about loyal sex, protected sex, procreative sex.
Ultimately, it is sex that is socially and religously accepted. Let's
understand this clearly: Gay marriage participants and their sappy heterosexual
advocates are promoting the pentration of the anus of one man by the penis of
another man, as well as equally appalling sex acts between woman. Any so-called
straight person who promotes gay marriage on the grounds of love and equality is
a sap and a fool who has lost his or her mind and morality, and has become a
dupe to the homosexual activist agenda. Frankly, the word "sick"
comes to mind. Wake up, America!
Needs to stop | 7:49 a.m. June 18, 2008
I agree with Paul, we must not allow this practice! Have we forgotten that God
created Adam and Eve and NOT Adam and STEVE?
Anonymous | 7:57 a.m. June 18, 2008
�R Biddulph� I assume you have read
enough by and about Pitirim Sorokin to know that he refused to use scientific
research methods instead leaning heavily on his on thoughts and observations. I
can state the world is flat, it does not make it true and the evidence does not
support such a claim. To claim that the fall of past cultures is based solely or
even partly on the decline of �Nuclear
family� as people on these forums often do only shows the
lack of cultural history being taught in public schools. A short lesion my help
those that actually want to know, the term nuclear family did not exist prior to
the end of First World War, it was a result of the push to move people from city
centered life to suburban life, pushed by an economic need to stimulate the
economy in a post war era. The point is because of his lack of the use of a
scientific method Sorokin was largely a product of his time not his research or
lack there of.
Ed H | 7:58 a.m. June 18, 2008
I wholeheartedly agree that a marriage is religious ceremony. Therefore, I
believe it would be in the State's best interest to get out of the marriage
business. If a couple wants rights that a State has contractual authority over,
then enter into a civil union (contract) sanctioned by the State. If you want a
religious ceremony, go to your church. If you want a religious ceremony and the
rights granted by a contract, do both. All the arguments in the world will not
change anyones mind regarding who they love or should love. Let the State do
it's job and churches do their job.
Democracy & Republic | 8:01 a.m. June 18, 2008
Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to
that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to
desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your
law�to do your business by the voice of the people.
And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
An Honest Look | 8:07 a.m. June 18, 2008
Perversion is perversion is perverison. God judges, we only try to follow his
word. End of discussion
Serious Question | 8:08 a.m. June 18, 2008
My comment is not meant to be funny, but the next question to be asked in the
process of gay marriage. My question is, if the states are going to allow gay
marriage, is the next step then to legalize polygamy or plural marriage. When I
say that most will say, "NO!! That is wrong." To be be open, I am
totally against that too, but think about it. If a state says that two
consenting men or women can marry, then why shouldn't one consenting man be
able to marry multiple consenting women. For those against gay marriage, they
would use the same arguments (ie it is immoral and so on) against polygamy and
so their positions would not really change. However, I am curious as to what
pro-gay marriage people would say to allowing legalized plural marriage. I
mean, if a pro-gay marriage person says legalized plural marriage is immoral or
wrong, then they are only using anti-gay marriage arguements, however against
another group of people. I just think that if you are pro-gay marriage then you
have to be for legalized plural marriage or you are a hypocrite.
Why stop here? | 8:11 a.m. June 18, 2008
This opens the door to Polygamy. If a man can marry a man, why can't a man
marry two men.
If it is all about love and commitment, why can't 3 men get married? Why can't a man marry his dog, if they truly love each other. Why can't one woman one man and one dog get married?
Oh what a slippery slope we are on...
If it is all about love and commitment, why can't 3 men get married? Why can't a man marry his dog, if they truly love each other. Why can't one woman one man and one dog get married?
Oh what a slippery slope we are on...
RockOn | 8:13 a.m. June 18, 2008
Just one little question:
California lets "Party A" marry "Party B" without question, is it okay if "Parties C-Z" are added and is it okay with all you "broad minded" progressives that say you have to get with the times if Party B is my favorite sheep or a 10 year old boy? After all, someone somewhere doing research things that it is in my DNA to feel this way. I can't help it. Why discriminate against me?
California lets "Party A" marry "Party B" without question, is it okay if "Parties C-Z" are added and is it okay with all you "broad minded" progressives that say you have to get with the times if Party B is my favorite sheep or a 10 year old boy? After all, someone somewhere doing research things that it is in my DNA to feel this way. I can't help it. Why discriminate against me?
re: Betty | 8:21 a.m. June 18, 2008
Betty | 1:04 a.m. June 18, 2008
Times change, people. The question is, will you become a dinosaur with outdated views?
Times may change and people may change. Morality stays the same. Somethings are just not acceptable. Gay/Lesbian Marriages should not be allowed. As stated before the marriage ceremony does have religious undertones and you can't legislate religion.That's my opinion and I am sticking to it. If someone calls me a homophob, the likely hood is that they are a heterophob.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Utah state Sen. Scott McCoy talks during a domestic partner registry debate in February.
- Utah Utes softball: Five recruits sign 12:57 a.m.
- T-Bird D fine without star player 12:32 a.m.
- Musicians leave audience in awe 12:23 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:06 a.m.
- LDS families let TLC into home, business 12:05 a.m.
- Kehl represents faith in different blue 12:05 a.m.
- Why music lessons matter 12:04 a.m.
- Editorial: Trying to catch the wind 12:04 a.m.
- Gov't-run health-care system 12:04 a.m.
- Emotional intelligence is key to success 12:04 a.m.
- MWC expand? Get rid of deadweight
- Relieved Cougs prep for Falcons
- Wounded Utes limp home
- Jazz rookies had to grow up quickly
- Big games keep UHSAA coffers full
- Barzee is expected to plead guilty
- Sloan misses practice
- Low in vit. D? Beware heart disease
- RSL surprised by Chicago's Fire
- Jazz notes: Young bigs ride bench
- TCU creams U.
233 - BYU happy to escape with victory232
- Editorial: Mormons and gay rights226
- Will state consider gay rights law?162
- RSL heads to MLS title game134
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?133
- MWC expand? Get rid of deadweight124
- TCU stays 4th in AP; Y. 19th, U. 23rd115
- 5A: Bingham rolls to title game108
- Bennett at center of GOP storm89
The Gateway, 400 W. 200 South, will kick off the holiday shopping season...
I was a bit under the weather last week, which gave me some time to...
Advertisement
Latest comments
and no child should have to put up with sexual abuse. I know. I was abused...
So.. Government would run health care. Government option would keep others...
Good luck boys, take state for the south. Let it all go on the cold field....
I have been involved with Scouting for over 40 years and still believe it is...
To another quiz: I just took the quiz, it is very informative. I am pretty...
is long long over due...playoff between the top 8 in the league, and no silly...
That was not very good to say. Cant spell Hurricane becouse you dont live...
But did you notice Joanna did the same thing last week and still received...
Funny- Fox sports top 25 power rankings Week 11. #4 TCU #9 Boise State...
Boy, are we working hard to sell this or what? THe 45,000 homes thing is a...
Advertisements
Why would a gay couple want to be married when "marriage" (at its roots) is a religious union that takes place between a man and a woman?
Instead, why wouldn't they seek a "civil union" that would grant similar rights that marriage does, without the religious overtones? Because let's face it, not many gay couples are being married by religious leaders, so why call it "marriage".
Call me shallow, but I would be much happier if gays entered "civil unions" rather than marriages.