Comments about ‘Gay-rights advocates begin media blitz’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 4 2009 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ed Clinch

I see this going as the next Constitutional Amendment. Whether it defines traditional marriage or not as Mitt Romney has suggested as presidential candidate, I think a fair ruling would be for an adult to claim any other adult legally as a co-dependent, but not "married".

Civil union if you like, I think a man or woman should be able to claim another adult: father, sibling, child, same sex partner, even intimate friend (non-family) who claims both state and federal tax breaks, exemptions, privileges, etc. that all legally married couple are now entitled to per state and our nation.

The crux of the issue is moral and economic, and I think such a law would provide closure for all sides.

Marriage is defined excusively as a union as a man and a woman; anything else is subject to large and beneficial economic rewards.

Stalwart Sentinel 5:59 a.m.

"Please, tell me if there are any more 'challenges' you can muster."

You seem to be under the impression that you've refuted any of the challenges. Should I simplify them for you or do you prefer the broken record approach of pontificating on how unjust the law is because gay marriage bans are constitutional?

As to your final question, I think another poster at 6:49 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009 sufficiently addressed your claim.


I can't understand why a state like Utah that has such gorgeous scenery would allow billboards to block the beautiful vistas that abound there. City councils can eliminate billboards. That's what our city did in my state and it is wonderful. Billboards are ugly, no matter what they are advertising.

Re: Stalwart Sentinel

In regards to your four part series on Feb. 7 at 1:33, 1:33, 1:34 and 1:35 you once again fail to acknowledge (or perhaps realize) that these cases prevent gay marriage, yes legally. I know that you would love to find some way to dismiss them, but please do yourself a favor a make peace with the fact that those are in fact the law.

As an aside, it appears that my 9:46 and 10:02 p.m. posts did not include the Re: at the beginning, which is likely to cause some confusion. Those posts are addressed to Stalwart Sentinel's posts from those times, not from Stalwart Sentinel.

Re: Stalwart Sentinel

Apparently the 10:14 p.m. didn't include the Re: before Stalwart Sentinel either. It to is directed to Stalwart Sentinel, not from him.


"I can't understand why a state like Utah that has such gorgeous scenery would allow billboards to block the beautiful vistas that abound there"

Gorgeous scenery along I15??? You have obviously never been on I15 in depression valley. The "scenery" all marred by architural disasters called "Temples". Jehova & Elohim - oh my mistake ... Mormon Inc. are building a multi billion shopping mall on sacred ground though, to block the worst "scenery". All led by a profit who lead the Values Institute, while his accomplices put electrodes on the genitals of young men attending BYU, while showing them porn in an attempt to cure homosexuality. Quite a scenery!

Why posting an official statement from the LDS Church on 2 billboards is so upsetting to disobidient LDS members beats me. They dont follow the profit at all! The LDS Church loves their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. They want to give them equal protection under the law. Only mrSS Gay(le) Ruzika and the Sutherland Institute fighting against what the LDS Church CLAIM they stand for is not questioned. Lying for the Lord is an artform for the those given the second endowment. Still enjoying the gorgeus scenery?


To Ads aren't always the truth | 4:01 p.m. Feb. 3, 2009

We need to look at the content of the ads --- not ads in general ---

to say that 'ads aren't always the truth' is a very broad statement and to use the example of cigarrette smoking is only using an anti-example.

We need to examine why, if for any reason, the ads are not telling the truth.

Else, could we say the same about the Church ads? "Families: It's about time"

I, for one, say, let LDS families be what they may.

But let gay families be gay families.

Enough of the "we are better because we are nuclear families"


I'm not so sure that extending further rights to gays would essentially demean or infringe on "the integrity of the constitutional right of churches"

I believe that when Reynolds says that the Church's statement was mis-construed there is nothing to be mis-construed about.

If it were so, has the Church, for example, lost its constitutional right in Canada, Massachusetts, or Connecticut?

I believe there are deep-seated phobias when it comes to letting gays have their say ---

Inevitably, someone will say I'm off the mark and I'm misquoting facts ---

Show me.


Re: And most LDS are opposed to gay marriage (as is the rest of the country).

With the first comment, I agree completely ---

With the second comment, I disagree completely --- focusing in California, specifically ---

Going from the history of Prop 22 to Prop 8, I'm not so sure you can say that that will ever change --- society's views are changing.


RE: SS | 6:49 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

You also have to agree that civil rights take time ---

If you will cite the 14th Amendment, for example, how long did it take to fully implement the 14th Amendment, for example? Methinks about 100 years. From the end of the Civil War to Jim Crow laws, to separate but equal statues, to ending "separate but equal."

And were the courts specially swift to end "separate but equal?"

The court was divided.

The only reason why it went to a unanimous vote was because several Supreme Court Judges were swayed to forego their personal biases and opinions so that the court would make a historical mark of unity for such a historical landmark decision.


To al | 5:14 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Comment was: "Sodomy is not even related to the civil rights movement. It's more related to bleeding hemorrhoids."

How little people know.

I will forego the way the comment was written and say that the only reason why such a notion as gay rights and why we pursue equal protection under the law is because not that gay rights are apart and different than universal rights --- true --- they shouldn't be --- but to lack the term of "gay rights" prevents homophobes from discriminating against gays.

Gay rights are no different than universal human rights ---


Re: Re: JD | 10:47 a.m. Feb. 4, 2009

You wrote: "If being homosexual is as inherent as being black, why were there not higher suicide rates among those who were treated far, far worse than anything the homosexual community has ever experienced?"

I believe that sometimes it takes having a similar frame by which to understand why some gays attempt suicide or undergo depression.

If you have no close friends who are gay and who have gone through this ordeal, there must not be a point of view by which you can frame this ---

Depression --- and many times --- suicide attempts are caused by self-loathing because people ask themselves ---

* why am I this way?
* What's wrong with me?
* why can't I change?
* If it's wrong, why can't I be cured?

And these thoughts are persistent and go on as long as there is a conflict with theology versus personal identity ---


RE: Stalwart Sentinel | 3:02 p.m. Feb. 4, 2009

You wrote: "Since the beginning of time Mariiage has always reserved only vetween a man and a women,"

Before I comment on that --- just a few words on your four spelling errors --- sorry, I can't stand misspellings --- I believe you meant to say,

"Since the beginning of time, Marriage has always reserved only between a man and a woman,"

Now, as to the historical accuracy of that statement, it is wrong ---

If you define "beginning of time" as being Biblical time, we'll start there ---

1. The patriarchs of the Old Testament had multiple wives as did King David and Salomon.

That alone shows that marriage has not always been between one man and one woman.

but I will continue,

2. Many Old Testament prophets and other Biblical figures also practiced having concubines --- less than a wife, but still legal --- again, debunking your view of one man and one woman kind of marriage.

3. The practice of polygamy itself existed in the Church from 1830 to 1890 --- and even after that, the Church did not formally excommunicate members from practicing it until fourteen years later.



Many religious sects, outside of the United Statesboth in history and in the present, still practice polygamy --- and they call it marriage.

Just be careful when you say, "Since the beginning of time, marriage has always been between one man and one woman."

Re: Vince 4:18 p.m.

"Sometimes it takes having a similar frame by which to understand why some gays attempt suicide or undergo depression. If you have no close friends who are gay and who have gone through this ordeal, there must not be a point of view by which you can frame this"

What on earth are you trying to say Vince? You have to have "close friends" who are gay to understand why gays commit suicide? The tragedy of a close friend's suicide may shed light on their particular circumstance, but it is absurd to suggest you would gain some special insight into the root cause of suicide for an entire demographic based on the heartbreaking experience of one individual.

Stalwart Sentinel

@RE: SS | 6:49 p.m.

Looks like you were working out your Wikipedia muscles over the weekend, eh?

First - If the 14th applied, then it would be a federal issue....

Truth: the 14th amendment applies. All your cases cite it and consider it. Difference being, as stated over and over again: they didnt view marriage as it is defined or understood legally today. They even cited Blacks law dictionary which defined marriage as between a man and wife then. Now, Blacks cites marriage existing between two parties and (t)he essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law.

Read your own cases.

Things, they are a changing! Its a guaranteed failure to use yesterdays knowledge for todays issues.

Second, marriage was fundamental long before loving (see skinner v state of Oklahoma (1942), but using old dictionary definition (see above). Now, it is fundamental using new understanding of the word marriage. Finally understand?

Stalwart Sentinel

Third, see SLCSKP | 8:39 p.m. adequate?

@ I Smell a Rat | 7:02 p.m

Im somewhat new around here but doesnt Mr Lambert further the exact opposite I espouse?

@Re: Stalwart Sentinel 5:20 a.m. | 9:00 p.m.

First, I dont drink coffee.

Second, your interpretation of my post belies your ability to comprehend anything correctly, which helps me understand how you are such a mess now. Parsimonious terms: Baker is crumbling, everyone knows it but you. Cases like Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health are gaining momentum. LexNex: Citing Refs. With Analysis Available. Keycite: Case has some history all positive. Im sorry I figured you could manage your own case search. I vested too much in your own capabilities. Apparently not on Wikipedia?

It must be terribly frustrating

Not really, the way I see it: youre stance is mortally wounded vermin and, while you kick and scream, the cat is free to stay and play with its victim or leave. Either way, youre dead soon enough. Its only a matter of time.

Stalwart Sentinel

@ Re: Stalwart Sentinel 5:27 a.m. | 9:20 p.m

the rearview mirror analogy. It's so odd, I could've sworn I remember hearing something about stare decisis

Ah yes, the inability to appreciate a sentence in its entirety. I referred to your incapacity to both look in the rearview and watch the road in front. Youre all rearview.

Marriage fundamental right issue see above post. Marriage has always been a fundamental right but, as many other fundamental rights which I make an effort not to invoke re: gay marriage b/c those rights are not at issue, it sometimes takes a while for the right to come to full fruition. IE people like you are slow to catch on.

CT and MA are now judicial bellwethers?

Yes, so is CA. why all the religious zealotry to combat these few states if that were not true?

Stalwart Sentinel

@re Stalwart Sentinel 5:29 a.m., 5:39 & 5:59
you should consider that you have still failed to refute that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Perhaps that would be a good place to start before you resume beating the 14th amendment and strict scrutiny horses to death.
Uhm, the 14th Amendment is the place to start. That is what makes gay marriage bans unconstitutional. It has been throughout this entire conversation. It works in my favor, which is why you continue to sidestep the issue every instance it is mentioned.
Your inability to conceptualize an entire sentence, let alone a paragraph is unnerving. where were the peaceful protests every day this week? the list I provided clearly stated at the beginning that it was comprised of my first result of my first internet search, which took me a whole 0.000027694 seconds according to google. In other words, that was the tip of the iceberg re: the numerous and various peaceful protests that do occur every single day of every single week. Are you that dense to not understand such a simple concept? Im being sincere here.

Stalwart Sentinel

@re Stalwart Sentinel 5:59

Re: the 4 part series are you satisfied w/ tertiary simplifications of issues? I quote the holdings of the cases, and you still want them to mean something they do not. I understand your reality is crumbling, but maintain some dignity!

Finally, As to your final question, I think another poster at 6:49 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009 sufficiently addressed your claim.

the inability for some to read something in its entirety never fails. Please see the response to that below it (among others) posted by SLCSKP | 8:39 p.m

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments