Quantcast
Utah

Guv draws scrutiny over stance on civil unions

Comments

Return To Article
  • Vince
    April 29, 2009 1:18 p.m.

    What if? | 7:59 a.m. April 28, 2009

    What a terribly insensitive and bigoted statement.

    You should be ashamed.

    When you make the statement, "It offers nothing" you are ignorant of the fact that many many gays contributed many good things to society, in history, culture, the arts, science, medicine.

    Your statement is absurd.

    Moreover, when you make the statement about anyone group "not offering anything" --- are you referring to children?

    Many segments of society don't offer children ---

    Granted, you are against homosexuality. If you are a Christian, your words are burning with hate and blatant ignorance.

    Like I said, many segments of society depend on society for their existence --- the extremely invalid, those in hospices, etc. etc.

    That was a sorry excuse to spread hate as I have ever heard.

  • Lasting happiness
    April 28, 2009 2:55 p.m.

    Dear homosexual brothers and sisters: I am happy for you that you have found satisfaction in a homosexual relationship. But I am sad because I know your happiness cannot last. When I vote against homosexual marriage it isn't out of hate. It is out of love, knowing that I want you to be truly happy, not temporarily happy. It isn't about limiting homosexuals rights or even about God sending you to hell. It is about a true path to happiness that God has shown, and knowing if we don't follow it, our happiness will be less than it could have been. As a believer in God, I cannot in good conscience vote for something that will in the end limit your happiness. Because I love you! And I don't want to see you hurt or dissapointed. Of course I am not the judge. God will do that and he will be merciful taking into account all circumstances of this life. So I invite you, as Michael Glatze did, to sincerely talk to God and see if He can show you an even happier path than the one you're on. He did for me. Try it!

  • What if?
    April 28, 2009 7:59 a.m.

    My professor at the U asked the question, "If there were a magic button that if pushed would kill all the homosexuals in the world, would you push it? He then posed the same question regarding a heterosexual button. The conclusion is that the homosexual button would kill about 10 percent of the population, however the heterosexual button would end mankind. In those kinds of questions you can better see which arguments are false. Homosexuality is a parasite on humanity. It offers nothing, but damages its host- the thing it relies on for its very existence.

  • Vince
    April 26, 2009 12:42 a.m.

    @re: Sally | 3:38 p.m. April 24, 2009

    "speaking about nature preferring heteros" ---

    It's not quite the line you want to give an infertile heterosexual couple.

    Nonetheless,

    when you make the argument about children in same-sex families.

    And the number of children who go to foster homes because they are not adopted.

    Makes you kind of think? Are you really doing it for their best interest?

    Children from same gender families grow up just as well as children from heterosexual parents.

  • Un-Truth
    April 25, 2009 9:46 p.m.

    Truth 7:38

    So all those couples who didn't enter into a covenant with God don't actually have a "marriage?" Presumably that includes anyone who isn't a Mormon, right, since only Mormons have valid priesthood authority to covenant with God.

    Even if you are willing to make some excuse as to how other groups can have authority, anyone who didn't think they were entering a covenant with God when they were joined (secularists, non-religious, and the average Joe) only have a "fake marriage" - because you can't enter into a contract/covenant without knowing that you have.

    Good luck telling the world that only Mormons are married! And they say the gays have an agenda!

  • Truth
    April 25, 2009 7:38 p.m.

    Marraige is about making a covenant with God, for a man and a woman to become one. Even if gays think they can get states to allow the country to give them the term, they will never get the recognition they want. Why? Because they can't make the covenant with God. Homosexuality will never be normal. Thats not to be mean or hateful and its not hateful, its the truth. If gays want civil rights for them and their partners let them do it let them have it, but beyond that sorry. There are plenty of people who will stand up for their God and will stand up for the covenants that they make with God or hope to make with God when they find their wife or husband.

  • Vince
    April 25, 2009 6:48 p.m.

    Re: How long

    From the APA -

    What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

    There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

    Further, you wrote,

    "There are studies on this, but they are swept under the rug by the politically correct mind police."

    What studies are these?

    There have been movements and studies submitted, but they are typically anecdotal studies, studies that are meant to repair and make gays - which they classify as "a confused heterosexual," and studies that are published in places where the ultimate goal is to save people spiritually.

    Where are the professional scientific studies when they are masked with a layer of 'you need to be saved?"

  • Vince
    April 25, 2009 6:39 p.m.

    You wrote,

    "To the day I die, I will never believe all gays were born that way. Too many friends who think they are gay now who were abused as teenagers by older gay men. There are studies on this, but they are swept under the rug by the politically correct mind police."

    What studies are these?

    For as long as we have talking about this topic I keep hearing about "there are studies."

    When I ask for the evidence. No one puts it forth.

    Usually the topic reverts back to anecdotal stories.

    "I have a friend who was abused" etc.

    There are gays who were abused. Yes.

    There are gays who were not abused. How do you explain that?

    There are heterosexuals who were abused, and they are not gay. How do you explain that?

    The APA continues to publish articles that refute the very idea. In fact, time after time, the research shows the contrary, that there is no single reason or cause as to what makes people be gay.

    Granted, that anyone was abused is a terrible thing. I am not dismissing that, but we also have to look at the scientific evidence and research.

  • @ 5:07
    April 25, 2009 6:33 p.m.

    5:07 - How have you been persecuted? Maybe you have, but I suspect heckling, teasing, and even derogatory comments form "persecution" in your mind. Please. That is the hyper-sensitivity LDS people have fallen into. Yeah, people say jokes about me, some even nasty, but that's not persecution.

    Furthermore, I didn't say the church was responsible for 52% of CA voters' opinions. I expressly said it amounted to the 5% that made the difference, pushing it from a narrow loss to a narrow win.

    Finally, I did acknowledge a coalition - but I stand by my comparison of that to the coalition formed before the Iraq war. The other parties were inconsequential. Our church provide more funding, man power, and logistical support than the other organizations combineed! Coalition indeed, Mr. Bush!

  • Vince
    April 25, 2009 6:28 p.m.



    No civil unions | 11:25 a.m. April 25, 2009

    You wrote,

    "If you let people have civil unions, they will not stop at that.

    They will want more and more rights until heterosexuals have no rights."

    You seriously believe that?

    That is just too amazing.

    I have not seen a movement to ban heterosexual marriage.

    Have you?

    Is there a movement to ban heterosexual marriage or religious freedom, for that matter, in places where same sex marriage is legal?

    You are so paranoid - the reason exactly why campaigns are sold to entice you and people like you to believe things such as "if we allow gay marriage, look what might happen next"


  • Vince
    April 25, 2009 6:21 p.m.

    How long 9:14

    "But they are on here comparing themselves to the civil rights fight for African Americans and I just can't stomach that. Everyone wants to play the victim."

    Seems like a number of people want to compare themselves to the civil rights movements.

    I think to some degree, this issue will have to be won on its merits - the gay equality cause.

    However, civil rights leaders have always borrowed from past leaders.

    Martin Luther King quoted Ghandi, Ghandi quoted someone else, etc.

    However, LDS leaders have also compared religious causes to civil rights causes. Elder Ballard quoted,

    As M. J. Sobran recently wrote: A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it. (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 5859.)

    So you're right, if people like to play victim.

    But if they enter the political play, they cannot say, "the California voters did it."

    The justification sometimes is a play with semantics.

    "The Mormon Church did not enter into it. The members did."

    When people say "The Mormons entered into it" the finger points at voters.

  • Vince
    April 25, 2009 6:09 p.m.

    You wrote,

    "I used to be open to gay marriage but with all of the hateful posts (and actions) against the LDS Church, I will do everything I can to oppose gay rights now."

    Conversely, the aftermath, the rallies, the opinions, the talks people with each other, were those in every way legal?

    "yes" as well.

    What is the best way to address these "differences?"

    Civilly.

    Sometimes flat-out denying some of the data defeats the purpose of engagement.

    As it is, it seems more political than rational because the age issue comes into play -

    Is it possible that younger people see the issue for what it is?

    Is it possible that we let religious beliefs dictate a political decision, because - when we take a side and say "it's a moral issue" --- there are lots and lots of moral decisions (from a religious perspective) --- and we don't put those on the ballot.

  • Vince
    April 25, 2009 6:03 p.m.

    Liberals 9:09

    You wrote,

    "I used to be open to gay marriage but with all of the hateful posts (and actions) against the LDS Church, I will do everything I can to oppose gay rights now."

    It stands to being questioned, are we open to entertaining the notion of same sex marriage because it is the right thing to do, or are we guilty of the very same generalizations that people make about anyone group?

    Everyone has biases and prejudices based on experiences about anyone group.

    The Mormons are (fill in the blank)
    gays are (fill in the blank)

    and so on and so forth.

    When you stand back and think, who did the crimes against the Churches? Is it possible that all gay people stood up and committed property damage against the Church?

    True, there have been things which have been said --- by both camps, but political opinions are one thing, legal property damage is a whole different ball game.

    During the height of Prop 8, people were taking to the streets and asking,

    "Is what the Mormon Church did legal?"

    The answer they were looking for was "yes."

  • Vince
    April 25, 2009 5:56 p.m.

    Re Polygamy
    I seriously doubt polygamy will come up again.

    The FLDS have trouble enough with it as it is. Other communities may have as well. The number of people who want polygamy are secluded and they seldom make an effort to become part of mainstream America. They want to remain outside.

    Other 19th century polygamous organizations, not just LDS, were also secluded and they were short-lived. They also lived outside the main commune of American society.

    Why would mainstream America want to give 'polygamous activists' rights to marriage when those groups don't want to be part of main culture.

    In fact, they live cult status lives.

    Further, with the recent FLDS stories in the media, the LDS Church has tried extremely hard to distance itself from cults who want to promote polygamy.

  • Vince
    April 25, 2009 5:43 p.m.

    Re: 1:46 | 5:07 p.m. April 25, 2009

    You are dismissing the power of a campaign.

    Of course the people did not vote because "the LDS Church said so" but people did vote, and the campaign was begun, from the ground up, knowing, that if the LDS Church did not join the coalition, it was doomed to fail.

    The strategizing, the marketing of the campaign, the financing of the campaign --- it's all strategic and sold as a total package "to protect traditional marriages."

    Protect them from what, exactly?

    That's the big vague nebolous idea that no one can understand.

    It's selling the idea that traditional values are under attack.

    A number of unrelated ideas were put together and the public is told "look, here, see!, this is what will happen if gays are allowed their special rights"

    And the people fall for it. Why? Because the fancy stories and the make believe that those stories hold validity when in fact, when you research, they are hollow and disingenuous.

    As to "sending the missionaries over there" you are confusing the topic again, meddling religion with politics.

  • Re: 1:46
    April 25, 2009 5:07 p.m.

    We haven't been persecuted since the early days of Salt Lake? That's not true - happens all the time where I live. Maybe not tarring and feathering. But other ways.

    As far as your claim that the LDS were primarily responsible for the passage of Prop 8, if you believe that, please contact me about a bridge I have listed on eBay.

    MANY churches and other groups led the effort to pass Prop 8. Yes, the church was one of those groups. But if you believe 52% of Californians did what they did because the "Mormons said so," we'd better send more missionaries there asap.

  • Zeus
    April 25, 2009 3:30 p.m.

    2:27 re: anonymous - I get the conspiratorial mechanism you think they'll use, but what rights will they take away?

    Are they going to push to take away marriage from you? Will they push to ban you from having children? Will they push to take away your right to vote? Will they push to make you slaves? Will they push to enact laws that ____________(any other absurdity will work - you choose!)?

    I'm not sure what you are afraid they will take, and what agenda they would have to do so?

    I'm intrigued because your idea is far more conspiracy theory, alien abduction, illuminati, than most of what is on this board. "Illuminate" me!

  • The Fifth Wife
    April 25, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    Polygamy will be a hot topic in the near future. If gay marriage is allowed, polygamy will be on its heels. Still, there are definately differences. The question will be if the state can show that polygamy has more adverse effects than same-sex marriage, identifying valid state interests that will be protected by banning it. (They currently haven't been able to show that with same-sex marriage).

    Does anyone else think it's hilarious that the very moment the LDS Church finally denounces polygamy, essentially saying their early leaders were adulterous just to get modern approval, it may actually become legal?! How funny is that! Think they'll flipflop back and support polygamy to vindicate their early leaders? I doubt it now that they've made such a strong stance against the fundamentalists and made such a fuss of marriage being between 1 man / 1 woman.

  • generation gap
    April 25, 2009 3:00 p.m.

    Geezers hating on gays as usual. So embarrassing, so last century.

  • re: anonymous
    April 25, 2009 2:27 p.m.

    Sure... homosexuals will accomplish the feat of taking away rights from straight people the same way they have pushed their agenda so far- through well-funded legal action and activist judges.

  • Zeus
    April 25, 2009 2:24 p.m.

    11:25 - How does giving any rights to homosexuals take anything away from heterosexuals?

    I've hear that one alot. "Give them rights and they'll take ours." I don't know of one gay person that has ever wanted to take rights away from straight people. This is typical of the unfounded fear people using to fight this issue. This isn't a zero sum game.

  • Huntsman the hypocrite...
    April 25, 2009 2:18 p.m.

    the perfect slogan for his presidential campaign. Why would he "come out" and support civil unions for homosexuals but not civil unions for polygamists? Does he not care about the thousands and thousands of otherwise law-abiding polygamists in his state that live in constant fear of their families being torn apart? It seems like polygamists have been through much more recent and violent persecution than homosexuals (i.e. last summer in Texas).

    Why the selective alternative lifestyle support Johnny boy? Are you afraid of standing up for an unpopular group that deserves more support than homosexuals because they're actually benefiting society through procreation?

    Huntsman, if you don't support polygamist "rights" with as much conviction as you do homosexual "rights" then you are just an opportunistic coward.

  • @ Re: 10:19 - 12;48
    April 25, 2009 1:46 p.m.

    I do live outside Utah. We haven't been persecuted since the early days of Salt Lake. Furthermore, while we like to trumpet our ancestors' persecution, we casually forget to mention our own faults and contributions to our persecution. It wasn't so lopsided as we pretend. Nevertheless, that persectution was unjustified, but it was many years ago.

    Why are we an easy target? Because we lead the battle cry! The primary influence in Prop 8 was our church's involvment. The MAJORITY of CA residents would have voted down Prop 8 according to all opinion polls. Then our church got involved. Through our campaigning, contributions, and labor, we single-handedly altered about 5% of the vote. Please, don't insult other church members and the gay community by claiming their was a "Coalition on Marriage." It was no more a coalition than the one the U.S. had entering Iraq.

    The truth is, I understand why our church did what it did - even if I personally disagree. But we should at least own up to our role and be prepared for the backlash. All I see is our church once again claiming persecution for something we instigated.

  • Anonymous
    April 25, 2009 1:19 p.m.

    No civil unionsThat is some slippery slope youre preachin there... care to show exactly how the all powerful gays will accomplish this miraculous feat???

    talk about

  • Re: 10:19
    April 25, 2009 12:48 p.m.

    I don't think anyone needs to be "cured," nor do I think everyone needs to think the way I do. In fact, it's better to have "checks and balances" with both liberals and conservatives. My point is that many liberals in Utah just want to be contrarian. Many of those who post on here come knowing they will find LDS and conservatives and want to stir the pot.

    I think any abuse or vandalism against homosexuals is wrong and as far as I'm aware, little or none of that abuse was done by members of the LDS Church and if it was, they were certainly acting against the teaching of the Church.

    On the other hand, I know for a fact that homosexuals have done damage to church buildings and take out their frustration on the LDS. Their problem is not Mormons. 60%+ of Americans oppose their right to marry. But why worry about that? Why not take it out on an easy target?

    And 40 years of persecution is regrettable, but nothing compared to the persecution heaped on the Church and its members. Come live outside of Utah for a while.

  • No civil unions
    April 25, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    If you let people have civil unions, they will not stop at that.

    They will want more and more rights until heterosexuals have no rights.

  • @ re: liberals 9:09
    April 25, 2009 10:19 a.m.

    You - "There are a few liberals in Utah (my brother is one) who just like to go against the grain."

    Your rationale is impeccable! There can't be any genuine disagreements or valid points by liberals, they just want to go against the grain. Eventually you'll cure them liberals right? Once they figure out how to conform the world will be better right? Yup, I'm LDS and apparently I'm liberal by your definition. Glad you explained my condition.


    You - "I used to be open to gay marriage but with all of the hateful posts (and actions) against the LDS Church, I will do everything I can to oppose gay rights now."

    Again, impeccable! Dismiss the merits of gay marriage because a few people opposed our church, or even did hateful things. Never mind the physical assualts, verbal abuse, and vandalism committed over the past 40 YEARS against homosexual. Does that mean all mormons are bad? In the end, you'll probably cure those gays too, huh? I'll bet your answer is that they just need to listen to the missionaries huh! Priceless!


  • Dallin
    April 25, 2009 9:52 a.m.

    @9:09 - All the hateful posts against the LDS Church? Are you kidding? People who are not LDS are rightly concerned that the LDS Church is trying to legislate how they can live, but nobody is making general attacks against the LDS Church.

    LDS people get hyper-sensitive when anyone else says they don't accept their views as a standard for all of society. But those same LDS people will go on to call homosexuals sinnners, abnormal, disgusting, destructive to society, even criminals. I swear, I will never understand your selective mindset. LDS people have beaten that "persecution" card to death, conventiently pulling it out when anyone opposes them. You use it as a sword, not a shield.

    @9:14 - Whether it is a choice or a condition is irrelevant. Everyone should take a note from the Iowa Supreme Court decision. There is NO valid state interest served by denying marriage to same-sex couples. That's the bottom line. All attempts to demonstrate any harm to society have failed, both on this board and in courts, time after time.

  • Re: How long?
    April 25, 2009 9:14 a.m.

    If all gays wanted is their "dues," and they'd get out of the way, I think we'd all be able to agree on that and move on.

    But they are on here comparing themselves to the civil rights fight for African Americans and I just can't stomach that. Everyone wants to play the victim.

    To the day I die, I will never believe all gays were born that way. Too many friends who think they are gay now who were abused as teenagers by older gay men. There are studies on this, but they are swept under the rug by the politically correct mind police. Just as there are studies that prove same sex encounters in the animal kingdom have to do with domination not attraction. Those are also quelled. Heck, DN probably won't even post this! Wouldn't want to upset anyone with the facts!

  • Re: liberals
    April 25, 2009 9:09 a.m.

    Liberals know this is an easily-accessible place to debate Mormons and conservatives. There are a few liberals in Utah (my brother is one) who just like to go against the grain. I doubt any mind or heart has ever been changed on here.

    I know I used to be closer to the middle and am now much more hardened in my position. I used to be open to gay marriage but with all of the hateful posts (and actions) against the LDS Church, I will do everything I can to oppose gay rights now.

  • How long?
    April 24, 2009 10:19 p.m.

    How long are we going to keep puzzling about the gay problem? Some of us don't care whether the problem is ever solved. Give gays their dues and get them out of the way. Lets concentrate on the important issues.

  • Justification
    April 24, 2009 8:45 p.m.

    @ re: Vince 7:51

    You illustrate the disconnect that is taking place.

    Marriage and procreation are completely autonomous! Each can exist without the other. Heterosexual marriages can and do exist without having children. People can and do have children without forming a hetersexual marriage.

    As Vince stated, "family" is the building block of society, not heterosexual marriage. Families exist in a variety of forms. Some have children, some don't. Some families have opposite-sex couples and some have same-sex couples. Within each of those subsets of families, some have children and some do not. But in each case, marriage adds stability to the family structure. As such, it should be available to each family, without respect to the presence of children or the sexuality of the couple.

    Authorizing same-sex marriage will only have one major impact on society. Families with same-sex couples, with or without children, will be strenthened.

  • re: Vince
    April 24, 2009 7:51 p.m.

    Hi, it's me. I'll keep this simple. I admit that I didn't refer to any textbook or history book to make my assertion that heterosexual marriage is the basic building tool of society. I based it off the observation that it takes a man and a woman, in other words a heterosexual union, to produce a child.

  • Justification
    April 24, 2009 7:20 p.m.

    Re @ 6:35

    You don't read well.

    1 - I never said same-sex and opposite sex families are "equally stable." I said marriage would be a stabilizer for both.

    2 - Your contention about my Swedish example is unfounded. I presented it as an "interesting factoid," not as proof for any argument. Neverthess, your (il)logical inference isn't sound. It would only work if I had also said that Swedish marriages were less likely to succeed than Swedish unions - but I didn't say that did I.

    3 - By debunking your (il)logical inference in #2, I need not further address your concern as to how banning marriage destabilizes same-sex families. (Even you must admit that this is self-evident.)

    4 - You did NOT say that marriage is "primarily" about children. Even so, I again refute that. Posterity can continue with ZERO marriages! Again, people can procreate without marriage! Again, yes, marriage IS a great institution for children, regardless of their parents' sexuality - but it is EQUALLY IMPORTANT for social stability when no children are involved! Therefore, "marriage is not about children."

    Ironically, I am the only one here arguing ALL children should have access to marriage!

  • Vince
    April 24, 2009 6:39 p.m.

    Re: Justification

    You wrote,

    "Bottom line: heterosexual marriage is the basic building tool of society"

    Every time I have read in sociology books what the building tool of society is, the books mention "family," never "heterosexual marriage."

    What textbook or history book did you use as a source for that?

    To that effect, sociologists then divide families into different categories, out of which "a nuclear heterosexual family" is only a subset, not the only one.

  • re: Justification
    April 24, 2009 6:35 p.m.

    What is the source for your statement that same-sex and opposite sex families are equally stable?

    How does banning marriage to same-sex couples with children destabilize those children, especially if non-marital relationships with children in Sweden are 6 times more likely to last than marriages with children in the U.S.? If that Sweedish statistic is true, wouldn't that make unmarried homosexual relationships 6 times more likely to last? It makes the argument to ban homosexual marriage even stronger.

    I stand by my word- marriage is PRIMARILY about children and all of the additional well-being/economic benefits are afterthoughts. Society cannot continue without posterity, but it can continue without everyone being 100% happy about the status quo.

  • Justification
    April 24, 2009 5:57 p.m.

    @ 5:13 - "Marriage is about children"

    Children are NOT a derivative of marriage, they are a derivative of sex / conception. Children can / are born every day around the world outside "marriage." Marriage has NEVER been needed before one could conceive and have children. Despite marriage's desirability when having children, it is certainly not required.

    To the contrary, marriage IS about STABILITY. Yes, it is a stabilizer for children, but that is the same whether it is a same-sex or opposite-sex family unit. (Interesting factoid: Non-marital relationships w/ children in Sweden, for example, are 6 times more likely to last than marriages w/ children in the U.S.!)Banning marriage to same-sex couples actually destabilizes children already in legal, lawful same-sex family units.

    But the stability of marriage need not be only for children. Couples without children, regardless of sexuality, are more likely to stay together, find happiness, receive economic efficiencies, foster good health, and actively participate in society. Each of these are well within the valid (indeed compelling) state interests related to general health and welfare.

    I stand by my word - marriage is NOT about children, even though they are beneficiaries of the institution.

  • re: Justification
    April 24, 2009 5:13 p.m.

    OK Justification, debunk the "marriage is about children" argument if it's so easy to do. Are homosexuals (without external intervention) able to procreate now?

  • Harms
    April 24, 2009 4:58 p.m.

    Speaking of harm to society, I can think of an overwhelming amount of damage religions have inflicted on society. Religions has promoted wars, discrimination and sexism, all while fighting against science, secular progress and eqaultiy. Yet I can't think of one way homosexuality has harmed society.

    Perhaps we are looking to ban the wrong thing!

  • @Reality Check
    April 24, 2009 4:55 p.m.

    You are right on one count, I am a construction worker. I happen to know alot of Bubbas too. Did you say you were a pig farmer or did I infer that.
    Take care R.C. and take care of the gays. I am signing off.

  • Justification
    April 24, 2009 4:28 p.m.

    The crusaders against same-sex marriage are similar to extremists that want death to the infidel. Both have no real idea what is really wrong with their enemis (the gay or infidel), they just know they have been told to fight them, to eradicate them, to cure them. They try any way they can to justify the course their leaders have mapped out, because inside they see the course is patently inconsistent with other fundamental truths. Nevertheless, they form their rationalizations and persist.

    The sad part is, if homophobes and extremists would actually go meet their enemies (the gays and the infidels), they would find that there is nothing to fear. They would find that God is more pleased with their enemies than them. They would see that their leaders have led them astray.

  • liberals?
    April 24, 2009 4:26 p.m.

    I thought that this was supposed to be a mormon paper.. What's with all the liberals?

  • Veni, vidi, vici.
    April 24, 2009 4:17 p.m.

    "I don't think many people want to deny gays their equal rights. I think the problem is that gays want society to see them as exactly the same as straight couples and it just isn't going to happen."

    First of all you want to deny them their right to marry... I have a co-worker who is gay; he and his partner adopted three children. This is a wonderful family full of love and happiness... I don't act/think that my family is any *better* then theirs, and I certainly wouldn't legislate that my family is better then theirs... Why do you? People don't understand why, just because they don't want gays to get married, they are called bigots... this is why. Gay couples are just like a straight couples. Kinda like like a white person is just like a black person.

  • Justification
    April 24, 2009 4:12 p.m.

    The whole "marriage is about children" argument is easily debunked. Furthermore, its not inconsistent with same-sex marriage.

    Non of the opponents really believe this argument, they just have nothing better. They know they can't just rely on the "God said so" argument because 1) many religious people disagree that god said so, and 2) many gay people don't care what the gods of other religions say. So, they appeal to hollow arguments that they know don't hold water. But what else can they do - admit they are wrong? Heaven forbid!

  • @re: Sally
    April 24, 2009 3:38 p.m.

    "there are many dysfunctional families with heterosexual parents." True, but nature still apparently prefers those situations to giving children to homosexuals."

    So nature prefers abusers, neglectors, and dysfuntional parents than give a child to my wonderful nephew and niece? They cannot have children. I guess nature has spoken.

    But nature has also taught scientists how to perform in vitro fertilization and surrogacy. I guess nature changed her mind and WILL allow my nephew and niece to have a child - along with any gay that also wants one.

  • Limited
    April 24, 2009 3:26 p.m.

    Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

    Also,

    A snake, is still a snake.

  • re: Sally
    April 24, 2009 3:04 p.m.

    As far as society is concerned, the primary goal of marriage is to create a stable, optimal (according to nature because nature doesn't give children to homosexuals) environment for the bearing and raising (or adopting) of children. It isn't a question of fertility. You'll say, "there are many dysfunctional families with heterosexual parents." True, but nature still apparently prefers those situations to giving children to homosexuals.

  • realitycheck
    April 24, 2009 2:49 p.m.

    TO - re: Justification | 12:37 p.m
    ["doesn't necessarily satisfy the sexual desires of "straight" people either because most of them naturally have urges to procreate with many members of the opposite sex."]

    it appears your problem is you think sex is about procreation. It's not. As a matter of fact, half of your "procreation" is accidental... people like sex, as they should, and that desire has very little to do with wanting to make babies. Items are sold specifically to prevent that (condoms, the pill, etc.) Marriage and procreation are two TOTALLY separate things - and in this day and age, actually have very little in common. Perhaps THAT's what has the religious community up in arms. That mant have babies without getting married, and many get married and don't have babies...

    welcome to the 21st century...

  • Justification @ 12:37
    April 24, 2009 2:12 p.m.

    That blathering attempt at 12:37 to justify banning same-sex marriage is exactly what I was talking about - you proved my point. Thank you! Consider yourseld OWNED!

    Any simpleton can dissect your arguments. For example, the state has many other reasons to recognize marriage, each of which are fundamental to a strong society, outside procreation (e.g. happiness of citizenry, economic stability, health issues, community cohesiveness, and on and on and on).

    You are correct in saying that heterosexual marriage should be protected. It will be protected. Allowing same-sex marriage will not stop or discourage any heterosexual marriage from occuring. Your point is moot.

    Your statement that marriage doesn't guaranty "love," "sexual satisfaction," or "the right to be with one's chosen partner" is irrelevant and fallacious on too many levels to discuss in 200 words! Assuming you have a spouse, what criteria did you use to get married?

    As I pointed out earlier, I suspect you are attempting to justify your position because your religion has suggested a course that you know doesn't jive with your god's character. I get it! The problem is, your arguments don't hold water!

  • realitycheck
    April 24, 2009 12:55 p.m.

    to - Re: Sally | 12:33 p.m

    has it occurred to you that your gay co-workers feel the same way when you talk about kissing your husband?

    I personally like hearing about two girls kissing - and would much rather hear about that than hear about you and your husband... of course two guys kissing gives me the heebie-jeebies, but since it's none of my business, I'm adult enough to ignore it. Or I say "dude - pls - I don't want to hear about that...." and they'll stop talking about it.

    that's certainly no reason to deny them rights...

  • realitycheck
    April 24, 2009 12:37 p.m.

    TO - RE Reality Check | 6:34 p.m

    ["I do not believe you when you say you are straight. You are at minimum a closet gay. Perhaps legalizing "Gay Marriage" will help you come out. It takes one to know one."]

    and you got all that from my posts, that since I'm not a religious zealot like you, trying to force everyone to be just like you - that makes me gay? I suggest you not quit your day job (in construction), and I would say you are at a minimum a closet FLDS mormon. It takes one to know one...

    since you haven't figured it out yet, let me explain in simple words you will understand -
    a person doesn't have to be gay to believe in equality - but a person has to be a bigot to not believe in equality....

    so what does that make you?

  • re: Justification
    April 24, 2009 12:37 p.m.

    Our society shouldn't ban homosexuals from practicing homosexual behavior or from living together, but it shouldn't incentivize those actions either. The only union/action that should be incentivized by society is heterosexual marriage because it's the only one that naturally produces offspring. Just as heterosexual marriage doesn't satisfy the sexual desires of "homosexuals" it doesn't necessarily satisfy the sexual desires of "straight" people either because most of them naturally have urges to procreate with many members of the opposite sex. Bottom line: heterosexual marriage is the basic building tool of society and should be treated as such because it is the only union that naturally is capable of producing offspring and it's a commitment that often requires sacrifice on a sexual level from all parties involved. Nowhere are "love," "sexual satisfaction," or "the right to be with one's chosen partner" guaranteed in heterosexual marriage, so to allow homosexual marriage in pursuit of those is unfair and deceitful. Homosexual marriage is harmful because it incentivizes behavior that is counterproductive to the promulgation of society because it precludes two potentially unproductive members of society from procreating, assuming they are not promiscuous.

  • Re: Sally
    April 24, 2009 12:33 p.m.

    I don't think many people want to deny gays their equal rights. I think the problem is that gays want society to see them as exactly the same as straight couples and it just isn't going to happen. I know I get pretty uneasy when a gay co-worker starts talking about making out with her girlfiend. I really don't want to hear about it and I think I have a right to feel that way. Inside gay circles, it's called the "ick" factor - and you all know what I'm talking about.

    It's none of my business what you do on your own time in your own home but I don't want it in my face and I don't want to pay for it. I think with gay marriage, it's an absence of trust. Your opponents do not trust you to do what you say and leave it at that. I think there is a lot of concern that we will see gays suing churches, trying to shut them down or take away tax exempt status, etc.

    You say one thing, your actions indicate another.

  • Justification
    April 24, 2009 11:18 a.m.

    All of these pathetic attempts to show social harm from homosexuality (as if homosexuality would stop even if gay marriage is formally prohibited) illustrate the senseless justification religionists use to overcome their inner knowledge that their gods would not ban same-sex marriage if they were here today.

    Deep down they all know that even if their gods disapprove of homosexuality, their gods also approve of free will, tolerance, and love. They know that their gods would never force someone into obedience. They know that their gods approve of secular governments, established "by the people, for the people," not for their gods. They know that their gods approve of equal treatment for all, regardless of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, or religion. They know that the only true threat to their marriages are themselves, through their own sexual deviancy and sin. They know that the only true threat to their children are the prejudices, habits, and vices they will hand them. They know that the only true threat to society is bigotry, division, and discrimination.

    But please, continue on with your justifications. They let the world know what you really are - scared and confused people who are out of touch.

  • Sally
    April 24, 2009 10:40 a.m.

    So we have now decided that there shouldn't be equal treatment for gay people by allowing them to marry because it harms society? The reason it "harms society" is because gay people can't have children? WRONG! There are plenty of gay men out there that can have children. All they have to do is have there sperm implanted in a women and she can give birth to the baby. Just because people are gay does not make them infertile. So... your argument that homosexuality harms society because gays can not reproduce now means nothing. Throw the next one at me, I have plenty of answers to all of your small minds!

  • Anonymous
    April 24, 2009 8:50 a.m.

    "Also, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who can adopt unwanted or orphaned children. Bottom line: homosexuality harms society."

    There are children waiting to be adopted because they are not cute little babies, the wrong color, born with AIDS, have birth defects or older children that have been abused by their parents.

    Gay couples and individuals have been adopting these unwanted children and raising them, giving them the home and love they desperately need.

    Is this not a boon to society?

  • dave
    April 24, 2009 7:26 a.m.

    The single most informative observation I've found on the characteristics of the far-right conservative thought processes, is that it has no tolerance for ambiguity. This idea demonstrates itself over and over in this discussion and many others.

    Marriage is not wholly owned by any church, nor is it wholly owned by the government. There is civil marriage - that's one thing - and there are any number of different versions of sacred marriage, in any number of different churches.

    The government recognizing homosexual couples' right to civil marriage:
    * has NO effect at all on any given church's definition, or any individual's personal definition
    * is not tantamount to 'forcing [anyone] to accept the "gay lifestyle" as normal'
    * will not change the civil rights and benefits of straight married couples one bit
    * does not change the institution of marriage as a whole one bit, other than to eliminate the EXCLUSIVITY straights have had so far; if this is important to you, consider that marriage is not a country club, and trying to keep 'undesirables' out is a matter of civil rights.

    Protecting any sanctity marriage may have can only be done personally, one marriage at a time.

  • Little Worker Drone
    April 23, 2009 6:48 p.m.

    Thanks for clearing up your position Little Worker Drone. Still, I think that your definition of 'harm' is unworkable. For example, procreation alone is insufficient to maintain society. Many additinoal productivity factors are essential to humity's survival (e.g. goods production, labor, innovation, scientific discovery, etc.). Therefore, it is easy to conceive of ways homosexuals can be productive even when not procreating.

    Problems with your definition, as it relates to heterosexuals, are also easily identifiable. Heterosexuals who choose not to procreate are necessarily 'harming' society under your definition. More difficult to determine, should people be required to "maximize" procreation to be fully productive? I'm not sure I can accept your Beehive Law!

  • RE Reality Check
    April 23, 2009 6:34 p.m.

    I do not believe you when you say you are straight. You are at minimum a closet gay. Perhaps legalizing "Gay Marriage" will help you come out. It takes one to know one.

  • re: Little Worker Drone
    April 23, 2009 6:05 p.m.

    Sorry for the subtlety but the harm that homosexuality causes society was implied. Society moves backwards (is harmed) when members do not help it survive. The ONLY way to assure society's survival is through procreating. For example, who is going to pay off Bush and Obama's enormous debt and keep you alive when you're old? Our posterity.

  • re 4:43pm
    April 23, 2009 5:03 p.m.

    "The world now has much more food than its inhabitants need"? What planet do you live on?

  • Little Worker Drone
    April 23, 2009 5:01 p.m.

    re: realitycheck | 4:43 p.m. - "Bottom line: homosexuality harms society."

    You may have described how homosexuality fails to 'benefit' society, but how does is 'harm' society?

    Banning 'unproductive' behavior is a dangerous thing Little Worker Drone!

  • Another bad argument
    April 23, 2009 4:53 p.m.

    Gay marriage harms society | 1:37 - Your ridiculous argument [as if homosexuals will choose to marry the opposite sex and have children without same-sex marriage] actually hints at an argument of the anti-same-sex group that has yet to be discussed.

    Their argument is as follows: "Offering same-sex marriage is giving a "special right" to gays, since they already have the choice of a heterosexual marriage."

    The fallacy of the argument is that it doesn't confer a special right on homosexuals. Yes, straight and gay people can currently choose an opposite-sex marriage. But same-sex marriage would also be equally available to straight and gay people!

    I always laugh when I rebut this argument as stated above, because heterosexual people get soooooo offended at the thought that they would ever enter a same-sex marriage (because it's not an option when your heterosexual right?). I quickly point out that maybe they should consider that gays currently feel the same about opposite sex marriage!

  • re: realitycheck
    April 23, 2009 4:43 p.m.

    Your Malthusian ideas have been proven wrong over and over again. Thanks to human innovation (one result of population growth) the world now has much more food than its inhabitants need. Case in point- is the world better or worse off now than it was 100 years ago? Society's best interest is to promulgate itself, not incentivise selfish, unproductive behavior (i.e. homosexuality). Also, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who can adopt unwanted or orphaned children. Bottom line: homosexuality harms society.

  • haha!
    April 23, 2009 4:29 p.m.

    The only reason they are even leaglizing gay marriage is so that they can put the gays into the FEMA deathcamps that they have all over the country. Our government is run by nazi sympathizers so what do you expect. Fema has over 600 deathcamps across the country waiting to hoard in undesirables. They are all currently fully staffed at the moment. Our government plans to reduce earths population by 80% so they can better control everyone.

  • Vince
    April 23, 2009 2:26 p.m.


    Gay marriage harms society | 1:37 p.m. April 23, 2009


    Please explain how gay marriage harms society.

    You're bringing in topics not related to gay marriage --- pornography and marriage.

    How does the marriage of Tom and Fred or Sally and Mary directly interfere with harming society?

    Are you saying that gays would be stable heterosexuals if they were to be kept from marrying each other.

    I do not think you would want a gay person marrying a heterosexual.

    Too many marriages are ruined and too many more will be ruined because of exactly that very idead.

    When we try to convert gays to and label them as "confused heterosexuals" and try to assimilate them to live heterosexual lives they are not happy and their spouses are not happy.

    True, there might be minor exceptions, very very few, in fact; but in large, most heterosexual/gay marriages are not stable.

  • realitycheck
    April 23, 2009 2:21 p.m.

    TO - Gay marriage harms society | 1:37 p.m

    ["Gay marriage keeps two people who could otherwise add children and stable families to society from doing that"]

    WHAT?!?! Are you kidding or just really really slow?

    Do you REALLY think more children need to be added to society? We can't feed all the children now and you want to make sure everyone is just like you and pumps out kids like there's no tomorrow?

    That has got to be one of the most ridiculous and asinine answers I have ever heard. In reality, gay couples can help raise some of the way-too-many children that need a home. We don't all need to be like the FLDS, pumping out little robots every 9 months...

    and to Obama Republican | 1:38 p.m

    who cares if it's a choice or not? It harms no one and should be none of your business. is there some reason you feel the need to push your idea of morals onto everyone else, and try to actually put them into laws we all must comply with? Keep your church policy in your church and out of public affairs...

  • Vince
    April 23, 2009 2:21 p.m.

    To Obama Republican

    However, when it comes to church policy, you're right.

    Church policy is what it is.

    Gays are not trying to change church policy.

    And Prop 8 is not about changing church policy.

    Gays do not intervene with matters pertaining to church policy.

    But many church members want to intervene with matters pertaining outside of church? outside of their own families --- outside of their marriages.

    Is there a double standard?

    You don't want the gays to intervene with the Church, and they are not. Legally, they cannot.

    But you want to intervene with gay affairs?



  • Vince
    April 23, 2009 2:17 p.m.

    To Obama Republican | 1:38 p.m. April 23, 2009

    You just mentioned that you have a spouse.

    Did you have a choice on whether you were attracted to your spouse?

    Obviously you're a heterosexual.

    This is the choice I'm talking about.

    If you say that being gay is a choice then you must, by implication, say that you are heterosexual by choice.

    I doubt that very seriously.

    I believe you are heterosexual because that is what comes natural to you.

    True, actions are choices.

    However, when it comes to gays, gays are told two things

    1. they are told by people that their sexual identity is a choice.
    2. further, they are told, that they cannot act on those impulses.

    However, heterosexuals can.

    Gays cannot.

    ??

    And homosexuality is legal, mind you.

    We're talking about legal action, here.

    Next, when we come to issuing rights based on their identity, even though the action is legal and American Psychological Association determines that gays are as healthy as heterosexuals, suddently it comes to a debate with people,

    and some heterosexuals - who do not share the experience want to vote on it?

    ??

    On something they do not understand.

  • Obama Republican
    April 23, 2009 1:38 p.m.

    If u have read my post u know I try not to be judgmental, but I do believe EVERYTHING is a choice!

    I have a choice to cheat on my spouse, I have a choice to booze it up, I have a choice to steal,lie, do drugs or have sex at all. Just because you like something is not reason enough that you have to have it!

    If someone wants to live according to church policy they need to abstain. Hard as it maybe, that is their choice. The church should not have to change to accommodate all actions. What change would be next?

  • Gay marriage harms society
    April 23, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    Gay marriage keeps two people who could otherwise add children and stable families to society from doing that. It's like pornography. People argue that it's harmless, but in reality, the least it does in terms of harm is objectify women.

  • Vince
    April 23, 2009 12:05 p.m.

    Gay gene?

    Seems like the gay gene question is the new question that is replacing the old debated question "is being gay a choice?"

    Because whether most people agree with it or not,

    Seems like we have put the choice of gay being a choice to rest. In an interview with Public Affairs, Elder Oaks said,

    ELDER OAKS: Thats where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions whether nature or nurture those are things the Church doesnt have a position on."

    As to the question of choice, most gays knew they were gay before they entertained the question of whether it was a choice.

    And now, most gays know that they are gay before we can determine if there is a gay gene.

    The debate, the absence of whether we find out does not preclude that there isn't one.

    The counter: We haven't found one, theremost there must not be one.

    Regardless of whether one is found, we're still gay.

    It's a core essence of being.

  • realitycheck
    April 23, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    it doesn't really matter whether it is genetic or not. What matters is that people want to marry who they want and since it harms no one, there's no reason to prohibit it. It doesn't really matter if you think it is moraly wrong. What matters is that is harms no one so there is NO REASON TO PROHIBIT IT.

    If it goes against your morals, then don't do a same-sex marriage. But don't try to push your morals onto others, nor try to put your morals into law.

    btw - I'm straight and married. Just don't see what all the commotion is about...

  • Obama Republican
    April 23, 2009 11:13 a.m.

    Wow the nutty on this board are out in force. Here is the simplicity of the Gospel, if you live your own life not Judging others, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor as yourself. It really will not matter if I die today or tomorrow! If I am caught up in some punishment God send then, he will judge me based on my heart!

    Those who should fear are those that Judge each other, that scam their neighbors, that live by the sword (gun in our day).

    The gospel is peaceful and should be full of love for the sinner. The last time I checked Jesus did not condemn the adulteress, so how could a man like myself full of errors condemn the Dudes?

  • Obama Republican
    April 23, 2009 10:50 a.m.

    @ 5:04 Wow the nutty on this board are out in force. Here is the simplicity of the Gospel, if you live your own life not Judging others, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor as yourself. It really will not matter if I die today or tomorrow! If I am caught up in some punishment God sends then he will judge me based on my heart!

    Those who should fear are those that Judge each other, that scam their neighbors, that live by the sword (gun in our day).

    The gospel is peaceful and should be full of love for the sinner. The last time I checked Jesus did not condemn the adulteress, so how could a man like myself full of errors condemn the Dudes?

  • @gay gene
    April 23, 2009 9:35 a.m.

    @gay gene | 6:19 p.m. April 22, 2009
    "So you have finally discovered the genetic link to homosexuality. That is incredible news!!! Everyone else on the planet says they can't find anything in DNA to support that. Get ready to be nominated for the Nobel Prize for your find! Great work!!!"

    Just because the gene(s?) have not been pinpointed yet, does not mean there is not a gene. Just because you are not up-to-date with the lastest research does not give you the right to attack me. Everyone else on the planet does NOT say that they can't find anything to support genetic causes for homosexuality. You just haven't researched it but took what someone else told you to be true.

    Are you aware that they just found a gene that causes left-handedness? After all these years, it IS genetic too!

  • To Ms. Mander
    April 23, 2009 9:28 a.m.

    Sally Mander
    "The Mormons for sure don't support gay civil unions. The statement was that the church doesn't oppose the same legal protections that are available to all people. Their president has never spoken on the current issue and what has been said doesn't support your disingenuous statement."

    Actually, you are the one with the disingenuous statement, Sally.

    Here's a little tidbit from Elder Whitney Clayton in the Nov. 6 Deseret News: He said in general, the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. That stand was outlined in a statement the church posted on its Web site early in the Prop 8 campaign.




  • Vince
    April 22, 2009 7:23 p.m.


    You wrote,

    "The crime is called, THE CRIME AGAINST NATURE."

    If you define homosexuality as the crime against nature --- in any criminal law, crime, lawsuit, there must be a victim and an offender.

    You're saying, according to this, that gays are the offenders against nature.

    So, the victim, therefore is nature?

    By implication nature is going to file a lawsuit against the gays?

    I don't see where you're going with this.

  • @gay gene
    April 22, 2009 6:19 p.m.

    So you have finally discovered the genetic link to homosexuality. That is incredible news!!! Everyone else on the planet says they can't find anything in DNA to support that. Get ready to be nominated for the Nobel Prize for your find! Great work!!!

  • magnus
    April 22, 2009 6:02 p.m.

    Having homosexual relationships is wrong.

    That is a fairly unequivocal statement.

    Is it equivalent to saying "Being Black is wrong"?

    No, it isn't.

    Is it an equivalent statement to saying "interracial sexual relationships are wrong."

    Yes, it is.

    Marriage is a religious ceremony that was adopted into civil law. It has always represented the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of God and/or society for the purpose of creating a family, the traditional type.

    You can argue what it should be all you want but the fact is that is what it has been.

    I think the government needs to get out of the ordinance of marriage all together. Leave marrying people to the churches, and let everyone have the Civil Unions.

    You want to be legally united your father, brother, sister, neighbors wife?

    fine, just get a Civil Union license at the courthouse, they don't discriminate there.

  • @gay gene
    April 22, 2009 5:38 p.m.

    Maybe if you read a genetics textbook before you started typing you could answer your own question regarding the genetic or endocrinal origins of homosexuality (which exists in other species as well.)

    Recessive genes are activated only under certain conditions, so that gay people posses the activated version of a genomic sequence that is otherwise recessive. Research in Germany suggests that the genetic trigger for homosexuality might occur in utero as a result of edocrinal conditions.

    It is beyond dispute that homosexuality is a natural trait and not a "choice." It is sad that people refuse to accept this and continue to persecute people becuase of their genetic makeup.

  • @ 5:04 - The Warning!
    April 22, 2009 5:29 p.m.

    Questions to you, 5:04:

    Is that CRIME AGAINST NATURE malum in se, or malum prohibitum? Tell me, what has happened to these sexual "criminals" all throughout history? Has it been anything other than being persecuted by the religious in society? (Don't use Sodom and Gommorah as an example. Any historian and most religionists will confirm that sex had nothing to do with that story - it was lack of charity.) Why do you assume that advocates for same-sex marriage hate God? Is the current financial problem a punish from God? Do tell me, what else is coming?

  • Sally Mander
    April 22, 2009 5:12 p.m.

    The Mormons for sure don't support gay civil unions. The statement was that the church doesn't oppose the same legal protections that are available to all people. Their president has never spoken on the current issue and what has been said doesn't support your disingenuous statement. I'm not mormon, but I have gained huge respect for their willingness to stand up for their beliefs.

  • To gay gene?
    April 22, 2009 5:04 p.m.


    "I have a question for the GLBT's. If there is a gay gene, how did it get passed on to any of you? Aren't genes typically passed on through heterosexual sex? If evolution is real then any gay genes should have died out a long time ago... right?"

    Wrong. It could be a recessive gene or it could be that those that carry this gene must have it triggered before taking effect (my belief). It is called "penetrance" of the allele. That is why two identical twins may be different.

    A little more studying and you too will believe that this is probably genetic.

  • @Obama Republican
    April 22, 2009 5:04 p.m.

    You said, "It is not our place to decide how two grown adults spend their time,(as long as no crime is committed)" The crime is called, THE CRIME AGAINST NATURE. Throughout all recorded history those who indulge in this crime don't come out well. Do you think that somehow because four states have signed onto the crime that that will protect you from what's to come. If you think the almost instantaneous crash of the world economy is something, you haven't seen anything yet. Hide and watch as the arrogant haters of God are brought to their knees. And good luck with that.

  • To Sally
    April 22, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    The one thing YOU are forgetting is that despite that claim, the LDS church officially opposed Hawaii's recent attempt to grant even "civil unions," which would have granted same-sex couples truly equal rights to married couples. The bill failed to go to vote in the Hawaii legislature, thanks in part to the LDS Church's involvement. There are some good news reports on the web chronicling this issues.

    To put the story in context, the LDS Church fought to restrict the amount of "civil rights," not just the "title," homosexuals could have in California for over 10 years. The documentation proving this is all over the web. But that happened before their recent claim that they would support same-sex couples having equal civil rights if they would use a name other than "marriage." This incident in Hawaii, however, came AFTER that claim!

    Shameful, like so many times before.:-(

  • Gay gene?
    April 22, 2009 4:16 p.m.

    I have a question for the GLBT's. If there is a gay gene, how did it get passed on to any of you? Aren't genes typically passed on through heterosexual sex? If evolution is real then any gay genes should have died out a long time ago... right?

  • To GoManUReds
    April 22, 2009 4:16 p.m.

    Why would it exacerbate the problem. If you believe he talks to God, - it would not be a dig. If you don't, - maybe that is your problem.

    I was not offended by Sally. Obviously, she does not believe, but I do!

    Lighten up, Brother!

  • GoManUReds
    April 22, 2009 3:31 p.m.

    Sally - YOU are the problem. Your "comments" about our prophet "talking to God" are exactly they type of thing which exacerbates the "problems" between LDS and "Non-LDS" cultures. It seems there's always a dig to go along with No-Mos' claims that LDS are the intolerant group.

  • Milton
    April 22, 2009 3:27 p.m.

    People should be allowed to choose. We are fortunate in that way in this country. In fact the latitude of our choices is very great. My opinion is that someday we will have to account for our choices. Some in this country obviously do not believe in a higher power, I still think that there are more who do. I think one of the biggest things that we will account for is how we treated others. That is, in spite of how wrong or kinky we may think they are, we allow everyone to follow the path that they choose. No rocks being thrown from here. Peace to all.

  • Sally
    April 22, 2009 3:10 p.m.

    The one thing you are all forgetting is the LDS church has said that they are for civil unions! Hello! Your prophet, the one who "talks to God" said that gay people should recieve the same benefits as straight people, just not marriage? What is your problem?

  • To Obama Rep
    April 22, 2009 2:19 p.m.

    "It is not our place to decide how two grown adults spend their time,(as long as no crime is committed). "

    Funny, isn't that what the Supreme Court said in Lawrence v. Texas?

    I think a lot of these posters forget that homosexuality is NOT illegal anywhere in America. They are all law abiding citizens and should be treated equally under the law because of that.

  • Obama Republican
    April 22, 2009 2:06 p.m.

    Funny all the "true blue americans" out their get nervous when two dudes are sleeping together. I have always wondered why people care. Maybe those big trucks and the need to carry a gun, is a psychological matter.

    It is not our place to decide how two grown adults spend their time,(as long as no crime is committed). Should we limit their access to health care? Should we limit their access to wealth transfer? Etc.....

    As a practicing LDS I do not believe it is right behavior but it is not my place to judge or discriminate!

  • Obama Republican
    April 22, 2009 1:53 p.m.

    @10:23 If you are going to use my tag name please use an @ to show u are some one else.

  • Question
    April 22, 2009 12:37 p.m.

    Interesting question for fellow Mormons.

    If our proclamation is that "marriage is between 'a' man and 'a' woman," that means 1 man and 1 woman - correct? (I think this is corroberated by the church's recent denunciation of the Fundamentalists.)

    So, is that a "doctrine" = eternal?
    Or, is that a "principle" = can change with the times?

    This is interesting because if it is a doctrine, our early church leaders were violating that doctrine through polygamy. Accordingly, they must have been adulterers.

    On the other hand, if it is merely a principle, then one day in the future, the principle may change to include marriages between same-sex couples.

    Which is it?

  • Brooks
    April 22, 2009 12:34 p.m.

    It is regrettable that this paper is using "pro-marriage" to refer only to people on the side of prohibiting marriages.

    I am pro-marriage. I am pro-marriage for same-sex couples just as I am for opposite-sex ones. I resent that this is called "anti-marriage".

    Moreover, I believe that prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples is an act to destroy the institution of marriage. It is clear that same-sex couples will exist, and will act as married couples, and that this will become more and more a part of our culture. If legal marriage does not serve these couples, then they will find other ways of expressing social and legal coupleness -- ways that will work just as well for opposite-sex couples too. And so marriage will become an outdated irrelevant relic. I think that would be a terrible loss.

    For marriage to be preserved, it MUST be true that marriage is always "just what one does" if one wants a permanent committed relationship. And, for that to be true, marriage MUST be available for all who want that.

  • Hunstsman should change parties
    April 22, 2009 12:25 p.m.

    Huntsman should change parties. The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint is solidly against gay marriage as evidence from Prop 8 in California. The GOP is also against gay marriage. If Huntsman wants liberal values then join the democratic party for pete sake but stop trying to keep a foot in both camps.

  • @Obama Republican
    April 22, 2009 12:06 p.m.

    Yes @Obama Republican, let's ban all sinful conduct! The U.S. should prohibit all of the following

    1) Women can't uncover their heads - for the Muslims
    2) No shopping on Sunday - for most religions
    3) Re-enact prohibition - for the Mormons
    4) Ban pork - for the Jews
    5) Ban blood transfusions - for the Jehova's Witnesses

    You see, the anti-same-sex crowd accuses the gays of wanting more all the time, but it seems as though you are not content with just banning marriages. You want to ban their conduct! At least you admit it. I would encourage YOU to go to the U of U law library and read why we don't prohibt homosexuality in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 92003). Your proposal disgusts me because it shows a disregard for freedom, and I hope you never suffer from someone else choosing to ban your conduct simply because they think it's a sin.

    BTW - I'm not gay, and I'm LDS.

  • Vince
    April 22, 2009 12:04 p.m.


    Supporter 9:38

    You wrote,

    "the definition of sex is a man and a woman"

    I think you are alone on that one.

    Don't tell the gays that because they might in for a surprise.

    And you vote?

    Based on the assumption that only a man and a woman can have sex.

    Amazing.

  • Vince
    April 22, 2009 11:54 a.m.

    Re: DaveDate 9:49

    You wrote,

    "I am lds and can not understand how someone can be lds and oppose all of his leaders"

    Opposing the leaders means that you will go against Church doctrine, as in saying that a doctrine is not what it is. That's opposing the leaders.

    Opposing the leaders means to take a stand and say that someone in the Church is a false leader.

    That's opposing the leader.

    However, to take a political stand which is different than what most Church members take is not opposing the leaders.

    Example: Good faithful, tithe-paying, temple-attending members will not get excommunited for voting no on Prop 8. In fact, the question should not never come up, as in a temple interview or any kind of formal interview --- as in "how did you vote on Prop 8?"

    It's not part of Church membership that you have to vote on one side or the other on Prop 8.

  • to gov't sanction
    April 22, 2009 11:48 a.m.

    GS = "I see little upside to government sanction of relationships at all, unless the potential of children is involved."

    So if a couple has no potential for children through age, fertility issues, or desire - should the government not sanction that union?

    On the other hand, same-sex couples can currently adopt, so there is the potential for children in their family. So under your logic, the government should sanction their relationship?

    There are many reasons the government would sanction relationships that have no children: property rights, survivorship rights, support in old age (relieves government burden for social security), general health and welfare (happiness and care). The list is much greater.

    A question to all - why do so many people think marriage, even if only for a man and woman, is only about reproduction? Where did that come from? (Please dont' say the Bible!)

  • Matomand
    April 22, 2009 11:47 a.m.

    Thank you Straight Mormon Republican! This is what it ALL comes down to. Man can live "in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience" That is one of the most important things I remember from my time as a Mormon. We have each been given a conscience, and each person will be judged on how they lived in accordance with THEIR beliefs.

    I wish that members of the Church would give others the respect they demand.

    Legalize same sex marriage - gays and lesbians are no less loving than anyone else.

  • Winky
    April 22, 2009 11:22 a.m.

    Why do people not accept gays? They are not hurting anybody. We are a very small minority and any gains we make, the conservative Utahns try to shout down. News flash. We are not going away! We will stay and fight for our rights. We are not asking for anything that most of you don't already have. Whats you problem? We contribute to society in many ways. It just seems that through out history the majority has persecuted anything different from the norm. Just accept us and let us live our lives. We promise not to bother you. We will even invite you to picnics and easter egg hunts.

  • @Irony
    April 22, 2009 11:13 a.m.

    I'm not a mormon, but you do raise a very good point about the government banning polygamy. They did abandon it and it did go away, even though some mormons didn't like it and it perhaps caused the hardships you suggest, but it did go away. Now that's the plan for gay marriage. It may not make you guys happy, but it can go away just like polygamy... and it will.

  • @Obama Republican
    April 22, 2009 11:09 a.m.

    Slip on down the the law library at the U of U and take a peek at the multitude of laws that ban behavior and spell out the consequences. True you can't stop people from breaking the law that bans the behavior, but you can sure punish the behavior big time. That's why I'm sure you'll agree with me that we do need laws banning same sex behaviors just as we've banned incest, polygamy, peeping toms and other lewd and lascivious behavior. Can you work with me on that. Let's have lunch and get organized.

  • @Southerner
    April 22, 2009 11:02 a.m.

    You said: "Gee if we are going to allow same-sex marriage, why stop there? Let's put no restrictions on marriage. Lets let people marry each other regardless of gender, age, and the number of individuals involved. After all, it doesnt matter what other individuals choose to do....right?"

    Gender - I agree, lets let them do it!

    Age - No, there's that issue about "consent!"

    Number - Well, I seem to recall hearing about a religion that tried that once, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea! But wait, they're against it now, so maybe not!

  • Utah Resident
    April 22, 2009 10:57 a.m.

    This is about Civil Marriage, Not Religious Marriage. Tell me, do LDS people not find a big difference between a civil marriage officiated by a government worker, and an LDS Temple Marriage? Of course they do!

  • Government Sanction
    April 22, 2009 10:51 a.m.

    I see little upside to government sanction of relationships at all, unless the potential of children is involved.

  • Obama Republican
    April 22, 2009 10:23 a.m.

    You don't get it at all, do you? We cannot pass any law that bans behavior. We can't even ban murder. It happens every single day.

    All we can do is pass laws that impose penalties for behavior that we collectively agree is undesirable. People still can exercise their free agency to do whatever they want to do if they are willing to risk getting caught and paying the price.

    By the way, your last paragraph sounds like you have some specific and personal issues. You probably should be talking to a professional to get those resolved.

  • Southerner
    April 22, 2009 10:10 a.m.

    Gee if we are going to allow same-sex marriage, why stop there? Let's put no restrictions on marriage. Lets let people marry each other regardless of gender, age, and the number of individuals involved. After all, it doesnt matter what other individuals choose to do....right?

  • @ the facts
    April 22, 2009 10:02 a.m.

    How interesting 52-48%. That's about the margin that put Obama and the progressive liberls in control of the government. I am heartened that "It's only a matter of time" until the tide turns back and we can get a Constitutional amendment to shut down this same sex marriage foolishness once and for all.

  • to: just me
    April 22, 2009 10:01 a.m.

    yeah, it is just you. name one right that gays do not have. they are not discriminated for being who they are. they are fired and evicted for wanting to display sexual conduct. gays can marry gays. as has been stated in other posts, sex is not a requirement for marriage so what do you care if they have to marry someone of the opposite sex? that is the definition of marriage. sorry, but the people have spoken it all over the country. aside from vermont, all the votes that allowed gay marriage were done by ten people at the most.

  • Irony
    April 22, 2009 10:01 a.m.

    I think it is highly ironic that just over a century ago the United States enacted anti-polygamy legislation, which forced the LDS people to abandon their most significant religious ordinance of the time. The LDS poeple's emotional agony, government resentment, family strain and spiritual strife from that time are all well documented. They could not understand how a vast majority of their fellow citizens could prevent them from their chosen form of marriage.

    Today, just over a century later, the LDS people are the most boisterous voices against other factions' choice of marriage. They are the first to condemn the Fundamentalists, who have merely perpetuated the polygamy the LDS Church started, and which still riddles their own doctrine. Now, they are the front-runners to ban same-sex marriage, even when it has no effect on their church whatsoever.

    Does all this mean that they publicly acknowledge that their prior polygamy was in fact wrong and the government was correct in saving them from themselves? Or, does it only mean that the LDS people are prone to engaging in the old "what comes around goes around" vengeance like everyone else?

  • Marty
    April 22, 2009 9:57 a.m.

    For those who say gays don't hate God- This from @what do they want:

    Where did God say that? The only express declaration of such a statement is through the Mormon Church. The rest of the world doesn't care what Mormons think God did or didn't say. Even if God did say that, the governments of the United States have no obligation to accept God's definition. If God has a problem with that, let Him talk to the U.S. Government! . . . Silently waiting . . . Until then, we'll do it our way!

  • What nature doesn't give???
    April 22, 2009 9:54 a.m.

    Your argument in which you include infertile and handicapped people is fallacious. The statement is that nature doesn't provide children to same sex people. Men and women who are handicapped and cannot have children or infertile are not same sex. The opposition always indulges in ad hom, strawman, and every other false logic device to further their unprofitable cause. They think they can wear everyone down. Personally I find greater strength every day to spend my money, talents, efforts and time to oppose them and I can promise them, WE WON"T GO AWAY!

  • to: davedave
    April 22, 2009 9:49 a.m.

    i have the same question. i am lds and can not understand how someone can be lds and oppose all of his leaders. what i must point out to you is this: civil unions were created to bridge this gap between those who support gay marriage and those who oppose. however, as you have seen, it is never enough for gays. once you give them civil unions or anything of the such, they will start saying they need marriage. i would be the first to support civil unions if it came with a gaurantee that it would not lead to marriage, but as we have seen at least four times, it does not. i am sure that when civil unions were proposed in these states, the gays swore that it would not lead to marriage. but they are the masters of decption. i went to hearing at the utah legislature and was appaled when gay senator mccoy sat there saying that the common ground bills would not lead to civil unions and marriage, when one of those bills specifically lifted the civil unions ban.

  • to: supporter
    April 22, 2009 9:38 a.m.

    you have been brainwashed by the homosexual movement. you are a walking contradiction. you say you want recognition of your sex life when in reality, you don't even have sex! the definition of sex is a man and a woman buddy. you gays are all the same. when you lose in religion, you claim science, but you fail to realize, scientifically, you lose even worse.

  • Obama Republican
    April 22, 2009 8:12 a.m.

    It is funny how most of you on this board would gadly force people to obey your moral laws. You rant and rave that Democrats are forcing the loss of free agency. Look in the mirror people, every law you agree to pass banning behaivor is a ban of free agency.

    If a couple of dudes want to live their life together who am I to judge or you for that matter. If you have a hint of faith you will know the Lord will be their judge for good or bad. He is the only one who knows their heart.

    I submit I would rather have two dudes as neighbors who are honest, LOAN PAYING and kind. Then to have a so called mormon who is now figuring out how to stick it to the bank, who is walking away from their house and making my neighborhood worthless.

  • @The Facts
    April 21, 2009 11:22 p.m.

    You must live in California! Yes, the people have voted it down, but only by a 52-48% votes, which is much closer than last time! The tide is turning, as opposed to your claim that the "sentiment is growing."

    The youth in America (including those associated with religions)overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage = It's only a matter of time!

    Them's the facts!

  • Vince
    April 21, 2009 10:59 p.m.

    The Facts | 10:29 p.m. April 21, 2009

    The vast majority of Americans did not spearhead the Prop 8 campaign. Really, who are we kidding?

    If given a choice, do you think the majority of Americans would have taken up Prop 8?

    A resounding no.

    The Prop 8 campaign members knew from the start that without the experience of the Mormom members the Prop 8 would have certainly failed.

    The compromise was to launch it as a coalition.

    Did it work?

    NOT.

    Always trying to evade responsibility.

    As to the facts, more Americans, more and more, are favoring same sex marriage every year.

    That's also a fact.

  • The Facts
    April 21, 2009 10:29 p.m.

    The vast majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. For some reason, the LDS Church and Utah keep getting dragged into this.

    I don't live in Utah, I live in a very liberal state and the majority here has voted down gay marriage every time.

    Ten years ago, all the liberals in Hollywood kept saying marriage was obsolete and going to go away. "I don't need a piece of paper to tell me I'm in love," they said.

    But now all those blowhards are suddenly pro-marriage (for gays, still against it for straights apparently).

    Do you want to listen to middle American talking or some high school dropout who makes a couple of movies a year and takes home millions of dollars?

    Don't be fooled. Most Americans are against gay marriage and if anything, that sentiment is growing, not fading.

  • Davedave
    April 21, 2009 10:07 p.m.

    Thanks for the information, Vince and the other person responding to my comments. I admit I am more informed thanks to you. However the crux of the argument is this in the LDS church the idea of marriage is sacred between a man and a woman. I think that Gays and Lesbians deserve the rights of civil unions (i.e financial and health decisions) the same basic rights between married couples. But why can't we leave it at that! Civil Unions can work just call it something else. In think the word "marriage" is the line in the sand between Gay activists and the evangelicals (I guess I'll lump the LDS church in this category, but for the most part we differ in many other aspects). To my responder that is active LDS why are you arguing for gay marriage when you know your eclesiastical leaders are so against it? Just curious?!

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 9:58 p.m.

    I'm concerned by some of the language in this article. To refer to those who are opposed to gay marriage as "pro marriage" is just confusing and seems like a cheap trick.

  • To rb:
    April 21, 2009 9:46 p.m.

    You don't understand the principle of free agency at all. A person can choose to do exactly what they want but you want to remove the consequences. What if a person wants to commit murder? Are you taking his free agency away when you legislate against it?

    Your hyperbolic claim earlier that you would gladly die for freedom shows that you don't understand freedom as well. Are you limiting a person's freedom if you legislate against drug abuse? I have a son who was a drug abuser and, believe me, he is anything but free.

    Drug abuse (especially alcohol) and homsexuality have a lot of similarities. Practicers claim that it is inherent or genetic. The claim there are no victims. They claim it is an infringement of their rights to limit their opportunity to practice their lifestyle. Yet each bring with it a host of social ills that cannot just be shouted down by those who refuse to hear or see the truth. Each takes a terrible toll on our society. Indeed, each costs lives.

    Freedom and agency have nothing to do with open permissiveness that leads an individual and a society to destruction.

  • rb
    April 21, 2009 7:34 p.m.

    Free Agency is simply freedom to choose
    [right AND wrong]

    Taking away "Free Agency" is the ultimate sin.
    lying, cheating, stealing, and murder each take away another person's freedom.

    Forcing another person to choose right is as morally binding as forcing someone to choose wrong.

    "...teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves."

  • Frustrated in Washington
    April 21, 2009 6:56 p.m.

    Who says being Gay is good? Gays, socialogist, Hollywood, etc? Since when did they have a real grasp of what is best for society.

    I don't hate or fear Gays, so don't call me hateful or a homophobe. I beleive that homosexuality is a moral sin just as adultry, premarital sex, rape, incest, beastiality, pornography, etc. They are called perversions. Society may convence itself that they have been enlightened. Look at all the good that has come from them. At the rate the world is spiraling into the toilet, it won't be long until the Lord and Judge of what is right will come to tell us what is right. Until then I will follow what I know to be right. Read the writtings of Moses, Paul, and current prophets. There is no wiggle room on this.



  • realitycheck
    April 21, 2009 6:02 p.m.

    to - @Reality check | 5:36 p.m

    I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to say. Where did I say that I was a moral authority? how does a green monkey stock someone? (what exactly is "stocking" anyway?) we know morality doesn't equal legality because laws are written and morals are an individual choice...

    you're making no sense, grand poobah.

    you need to stay off the pipe - it's messing with your head..

  • @Reality check
    April 21, 2009 5:36 p.m.

    You apparently think you are the highest moral authority. Perhaps the Grand Poobah or something like that. Legality does not equate with morality. Lets just agree to see how it all turns out. In the meantime, enjoy your "warm fuzzy feeling" and watch out for the Green Monkey, he is always stocking you.

  • John
    April 21, 2009 5:34 p.m.

    John Hunstman: A lowest common denominator kind of guy.

  • @Marty
    April 21, 2009 5:31 p.m.

    nice try at twisting my words but as a therapist I can assure you that there is a clinical diagnosis for what you are suffering with and its not being "gay" per say but rather sexual dissidence, being gay is not a disorder and does not require treatment however having said that I have no doubt your pain and feelings are very real and I really do thing their is help for you if your feelings are causing you distress.

  • @@What do they want?
    April 21, 2009 5:29 p.m.

    I think you have already described your stand. You said,"Until then we'll do it our way." Don't you really mean that you will do it your way no matter what God, church leaders or really anyone else says? For some of us what God says is most meaningful of all. Just because you say something enough times does not change whether its moral or not. Sometimes the louder people shout only speaks to the guilt that they are trying to cover up. Is that You?

  • @marty
    April 21, 2009 5:27 p.m.

    It sounds more like you choose you friends about as well as you choose your arguments maybe the problem is not so much others as your own short comings.

  • realitycheck
    April 21, 2009 5:25 p.m.

    TO - How does it look? | 4:15 p.m

    i found your post amusing, since most people think it's stranger to be mormon than it is to be gay....

    people used to be "repulsed" by interracial marriages (and perhaps you still are) but that doesn't make banning them right, now does it?

    keep your excessive morals in your church and out of public policy...

    by the way - how do you know there was an adam and eve? did you read that in a book? if you weren't there, you are just assuming it is true. faith might give you a warm fuzzy, but don't pretend it's fact in a secular discussion...

  • to: bro joseph
    April 21, 2009 5:05 p.m.

    do you really think that huntsman represents the view of the people of utah? don't beleive the poll that equality utah conducted, they are completely false. if 83% of utah supported the so-called common ground bills, they would not have killed all of them on the grounds that the representatives got so many calls to do so. and for all of you who keep saying let them have civil unions, let me say that i would be the first to compromise on that, but if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk. all the states that the courts gave marriage to gays did so because they figured that if you are going to give them the benifits, you need to give them marriage. civil unions are a red herring, a backdoor to marriage.

  • RB
    April 21, 2009 4:42 p.m.

    2 plans -
    1. Free Agency
    2. Everyone is Christ-like and Celestial.

    Plan number one was selected.

    Although I have my own personal morals and make my own choices, I will GLADY lay down my life defending Freedom.

  • to DMH
    April 21, 2009 4:33 p.m.

    "just because I do not have children, does not make my marriage invalid, but it does give me one more right, called adoption, that unwed couples do not have the right to have."

    I hate to point out the obvious, but you are wrong. Single people CAN adopt---even here in Utah! You are mistaken to think that you must be married to adopt.

  • @what do they want?
    April 21, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    What do they want? | 3:51 p.m. April 21, 2009

    You said: " Marriage is between a man and a woman. God defined that, not me. You can give all kind of reasons, evidence or anything you will, but the definition of marriage is still the same, between a man and a woman. . . . If you have a problem with that, talk to God!"

    Where did God say that? The only express declaration of such a statement is through the Mormon Church. The rest of the world doesn't care what Mormons think God did or didn't say. Even if God did say that, the governments of the United States have no obligation to accept God's definition. If God has a problem with that, let Him talk to the U.S. Government! . . . Silently waiting . . . Until then, we'll do it our way!

  • @ How does it look?
    April 21, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    "God created Adam and Eve, not Wilford and Steve."

    Actually God created ALL of us and it is our responsibility to learn to love everyone. How are you doing on this journey?

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 4:22 p.m.

    "My problem is ever calling the unions of gays "Marriage." It is not marriage."

    LUCKY YOU. You do not live in Massachusetts or Vermont or Iowa or Connecticutt. They all have gay unions and legally it is called a marriage. You can call it whatever you want to, but it doesn't change what it legally is.

  • DMH
    April 21, 2009 4:19 p.m.

    I am a married woman with no children, and I am so disappointed with the governor's stand on civil unions. From where I sit, I feel that any kind of so called union is the same as marriage, and not everyone is entitled to it. I had to get married to have any say in medical treatment for my spouse, to cover him with my insurance, or for him to do the same for me. These are for married people only, and not for any couple that just wants to live together, gay or straight. If you want to be able to make medical decisions for an ailing parent, or other family member, the law already allows for you to get a medical power of attorney. We do not need to change our laws one bit. Also, just because I do not have children, does not make my marriage invalid, but it does give me one more right, called adoption, that unwed couples do not have the right to have.

  • How does it look?
    April 21, 2009 4:15 p.m.

    God created Adam and Eve, not Wilford and Steve. it seems that because a group gets involved in something that is repulsive to most of us, if they yell loud enough and long enough, it gets some attention. The attention it deserves is the pronouncement that gayness is immoral, it isn't right, not normal etc. It is a deviant lifestyle. Those who are yelling for recognition will likely next want marriage extended to humans and animals. As repulsive as that thought is, unions between two like sex humans, is just as repulsive to most of us.
    I don't think recognition will ever be enough for gays, they will next try to say that gayness is normal, even try to legislate it. No matter, it isn't normal or moral.

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 3:58 p.m.

    "You don't seem to realize that equality does much more to bring people down that to raise anybody up. By its very nature, in order to create equality, you have to reduce everything to the lowest levels.

    Is everyone treated equally here in America? No. Those with lots of money are treated differently. Sometimes those with a different color of skin are also treated differently. It does not mean that we shouldn't strive to treat all equally.

    To have inequality written into our laws is an abomination. We are putting ourselve above others and believe that we deserve rights and privileges that other law abiding citizens do not.

    Where are the true Americans? Why did we allow Amendment 3 to pass? Who taught us to discriminate and place ourselves above other citizens because they are different?



  • What do they want?
    April 21, 2009 3:51 p.m.

    I believe in everyones right to pursue happiness. I am all for the tax advantage to be fair for everyone. The Governor may stand where he will. My problem is ever calling the unions of gays "Marriage." It is not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. God defined that, not me. You can give all kind of reasons, evidence or anything you will, but the definition of marriage is still the same, between a man and a woman. If you have a problem with that, talk to God!

  • Vince
    April 21, 2009 3:50 p.m.

    Dave Dave ---

    Same sex marriage will not stop churches from having those rights. Those are rights they have long held.

    If we are to say, that the lawsuits could happen in the future, and the gays would win, it is fair to say that in countries where same sex marriage is legal the lawsuits would have happened already.

    Lawsuits have not happened in Canada, Spain, Massachusetts, etc.

  • Vince
    April 21, 2009 3:46 p.m.

    Davedave | 2:58 p.m. April 21, 2009

    You wrote,

    "Okay right there that would be against our doctorine to "marry to men or women civily by a Bishop. So if the church syas we can not marry gays or lesbians civily and the sate says otherwise what happens then?"

    I hope you're not thinking that because same sex marriage might become legal in several more states the possibility will exist that Churches will lose their ability to marry whom they will.

    If that is indeed, what you're thinking, it's off.

    That rumor started way off and it has no legal standing.

    Here is the reason.

    Churches have the right to marry whom they will and they always have.

    Examples:

    Churches today can deny someone marriage based on whether someone is of the same faith. And people, gays included, cannot sue them because of it.

    Churches can deny someone marriage if someone is not an active participant in the Church. You should know that because as LDS bishops, they can deny someone marriage in an LDS chapel depending on their religious standing.

    Churches can also deny someone marriage depending on whether the person is divorced.

  • BigDave
    April 21, 2009 3:34 p.m.

    What is wrong with a civil marriage for consenting adults to address the "secular" laws/rights and a church marriage for the "spiritual" laws/rights for members of that church.

    Neither side recognizes the other.

  • Thank You Governor
    April 21, 2009 3:31 p.m.

    As a straight former Republican I appreciate your stance on this issue.
    I will vote for you again.

    What do Utahn's do when their very popular Republican Governor is leaning more to the left than the right? He is a cultured Utahn, world traveler, and knows this is a good stance for our state -even when most here disagree. I hope he stays in office for many years, he sheds a more tolerant light on all of Utah.

  • What nature doesn't give them?
    April 21, 2009 3:31 p.m.

    Anonymous just said: "Nature doesnt give male-male or female-female relationships children and neither should we."

    I guess that means that heterosexuals who are infertile should be banned from adoption since "nature doesn't give them children."

    I guess we should't give equal protections to the handicapped since "nature didn't give them the same physical prowess."

    This could go on and on and on . . . . Nice argument A!

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 3:29 p.m.

    "The only place I draw the line on this has to do with adoption. Nature doesnt give male-male or female-female relationships children and neither should we."

    This has never been about gay adoption.

    Gays adopt all the time LEGALLY. In Utah, gays may adopt if they are single. Imagine. Gays in California may adopt and cannot, by law, be discriminated against by public adoption agencies. There is nothing stopping a gay from adopting or having their own child by in vitro fertilization or surragacy.

    The only thing that stopping gay marriage does is make those children growing up in gay homes less secure and stable.

    If you thought that stopping gay marriage stopped gay adoption, you were wrong. Some one has mislead you.

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 3:27 p.m.

    Equality is over-rated. If all of us were equal, there never would have been a Leonardo Da Vinci or a George Washington, an Albert Einstein, or a Mother Teresa. The greatest things ever accomplished by human beings have been done by superior people, not equal people.

    You don't seem to realize that equality does much more to bring people down that to raise anybody up. By its very nature, in order to create equality, you have to reduce everything to the lowest levels.

    Having the word marriage will not make same-sex unions equal. They will still be inferior. All it will do is further tarnish and diminish the sacred union that is currently called marriage.

  • @Davedave
    April 21, 2009 3:24 p.m.

    I AM an LDS member - active too! The U.S. government isn't bound by the LDS Church's view of marriage. Religions don't have an inalienable "right" to perform civil marriages. Why should any religion be able to bind the U.S. or state governments? The state governments, at present, choose to authorize churches to perform marital cerimonies. In the future, if they wish to perform marriages for the states, they must comply with laws on equality. Otherwise, they can stop performing them. But this would have no effect on churches performing their own internally recognized marital cerimonies.

    Obtaining a religious marriage would grant people the rights and privileges a religion can offer: internal recognition, salvation, eternal life, god's favor, etc.

    On the other hand, civil marriages would grant you the rights and privileges a government can offer: survivorship, property rights, insurance, etc.

    Members would still have several options. They could go to a government agency to get a civil marriage, and then go to the temple for a sealing. Or, they could just opt to go to the temple for a sealing, but have no recognition or rights from the U.S government.

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 3:12 p.m.

    This article seems to bring up a lot of issues. First there is a lot of speculation as to why Gov. Huntsman would support such an issue. The only way that we could possibly know the answer to that would be to know his thoughts. Im guessing if we knew the thoughts and motives of most politicians we would not vote for them. On the gay issue, I keep reading that the government should get out of the bedroom and that two consenting adults have the right to love each other and marry, even if they are the same sex. I believe that same logic holds true to multiple consenting adults, same sex or not, and if we are going to change the way the law is written lets make it for multiple partners at the same time. The only place I draw the line on this has to do with adoption. Nature doesnt give male-male or female-female relationships children and neither should we. Yes, if these changes are in our best interest and the best interest of our children, we should support them. Otherwise we should not support them.

  • Davedave
    April 21, 2009 2:58 p.m.

    you are right I am not an attorney. But you sir or maddam could not be a member of the LDS church. First the idea of marriage is sacred to LDS people. If you are familiar with the Proclomation of the Family states that "marriage is sacred and between a man and a woman". Okay right there that would be against our doctorine to "marry to men or women civily by a Bishop. So if the church syas we can not marry gays or lesbians civily and the sate says otherwise what happens then? I think it is so funny when people want to keep religion out of intervening with government but you have no problem letting the govt dictate how we prefrom civil marriages and who we perform them for. I know you'll say hey why not stop performing marriages civilly altogether then. The simple response to that is why should we?

  • Thanks Vince
    April 21, 2009 2:54 p.m.

    for helping me understand. I don't pretend to be typical in any way. I don't hang out with gays and I do call us homosexuals. I don't know if I can overcome my feelings, but I don't know if that's necessary. What is necessary for me is to accept Christ as my personal Savior and live the way I believe he wants me to live. The assumed way he wants us to live is up to personal interpretation, however, that's what I mean when I say gays I've know in my church claim for Christ positions he has never espoused, but magically do now so they can live their lifestyle. The God that existed for them up until a few years ago didn't work for them, so they now have a new God or no God at all. For them, God is a changing God who only loves unconditionally and believes in "equality" for all people. That is a God not to be found in His Bible. There has always been wheat and chaff and the chaff was always been burned in the furnace or blown to the wind.

  • @ To concerned
    April 21, 2009 2:29 p.m.

    I'm skeptical of your study for obvious reasons. However, I won't discount it entirely without reading it and searching for contrary peer-reviewed articles.

    Nevertheless, is it possible, and even likely, that disease and cheating are functions ones place in society? When one is treated as a bain to society, a sinner, an outcast, an abnormality, one seeks acceptance in the underbelly of sociey - which includes drug use, promiscuity, etc. I tend to think that once homosexuals overcome these negative social stigma, they are clean, committed citizens (perhaps better than heterosexuals). But I'm not a "conservative" UofU professor with a study to back up my view!:-)

  • Vince
    April 21, 2009 2:15 p.m.

    Marty | 1:27 p.m. April 21, 2009

    Most gays that "are not practicing" do not call themselves gay.

    They call themselves ex-gay or someone who thought he was gay but is somehow reformed.

    If that is indeed who are you, great.

    Some people do stay "not gay."

    Most ex-gay eventually become gay again.

    Also, gay people do not use the label "homosexual."

    You are very atypical. Nonetheless, if you are for real, you deserve your right.

    However, I do have to take issue, regardless on how you take the approach of "us gays know that we stand wrong before God."

    I think you need to separate your gay identity from your religious persuasion. The two are not synonymous.

    There are atheist gays. True.

    There are also Christian gays. That is also true.

    If you say that gays make God into something else that they are comfortable with, then you are denying history.

    There have been gays much through Christendom.

  • Vince
    April 21, 2009 2:04 p.m.

    Anonymous 1:19pm | 1:37 p.m. April 21, 2009

    50 years ago - that was the end of the 1960s.

    What did people do back then ---

    * Women did not have an equal place in the workplace.
    * Civil rights in relation to race were just beginning to take shape
    * Education was not yet open to all, in relation to equal treatment -

  • @Davedave
    April 21, 2009 2:02 p.m.

    Davedave said: "1) It opens these chruches who choose not to recognize gay marriages for law suits (Faster thatn you could say ACLU!)"

    You can't be an attorney! This is absolutely false. There is vast precedent (outside the actually equal marriage cases themselves, which reject your concern) that private organizations have the first amendment right of freedom of association. Perhaps if Bishops refuse to perform civil marriages, "as a state actor," there could be a problem. Simple answer, quit performing civil marriages!

    Davedave said: "2) Church's have tax-exempt status and if they don't follow the law of the land, say we don't recognize your marriage eventhough it is recognized by the government, they may loose that tax-exempt status."

    Easy answer, follow the law of the land! Why wouldn't you recognize their marriage? What effect would they have on the LDS Church? They certainly wouldn't require the Church to grant a further, private temple ceremony. The government has no interest in forcing the LDS Church to sanction civil marriages (for straights or gays) for "time and all eternity."

  • To concerned
    April 21, 2009 1:57 p.m.

    Long term commitments are wonderful, but for only a handful of gays, they don't stay together. Nearly 90 percent cheat on their partner within the first year. The disease rate is through the roof and stability doesn't exist. All of those statistics are easily found in the UofU sociology dept in the research and writtings of a liberal professor who concluded that the gay lifestyle offers nothing of value to society, but tears it down.

  • To Marty
    April 21, 2009 1:55 p.m.


    "Just for fun, go tell your gay friends that you are going straight and then prepare yourself for a hell of a beating. You'll be called a poser and told to get out of the way."

    Not every gay is as mean as your friends. I have a couple of friends that have become celebate rather than endure the family trouble that they endured. My friends still consider them good people, just sad that they can't be accepted by those that are suppose to love them.

    "Thank you also for acknowledging that gay isn't inherent."

    I did not such thing! I merely stated that you may have learned your "gayness" and since you hate it so much, have some reparative therapy and get rid of it.

    Reparative Therapy for those born with this trait has about a .04% success rate. Not very good. In fact, if you were really gay and were trying to get rid of this, you would know about these dismal results.

    Again, you look like a poser.

  • Concerned about my church
    April 21, 2009 1:47 p.m.

    First: Will someone explain why the state should have a valid reason to prohibit same-sex marriages? Stopping homosexuality is not the answer. Gays will have gay sex with or without marriage. Besides, marriage does not require sex - many of you straight married people should know that by now!

    Second: Those that claim animal marriage, marriage to children, and polygamy are inevitable results truly don't understand law or reality. Neither animals nor minors are able to "CONSENT." The host of additional justifications to ban these are unecessary. As for polygamy, there are issues with commitment, stability, property rights, survivorship, family law, etc. (I admit that good arguments may eventually overcome some of these issues. Wouldn't that be precious, polygamy becoming legal after the LDS Church has officially denounced it!)

    Third: Banning same-sex marriage does NOT help families! Rather, it hurts them! Gays can already adopt and form families. All the prohibition does is ensure that the two parents may not make a long-term commitment to each other. How does that help their child or family? And I dare any of you to claim these aren't "families."

    The biggest myth = Mormons care about the "family."

  • Obama Republican
    April 21, 2009 1:38 p.m.

    reading all these post reminds me how the republican party is really the party, that would take away free agency, all in the name of morality!

  • Anonymous 1:19pm
    April 21, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    I think this whole debate would have seemed silly 50 years ago when people still had an ounce of moral fiber and could recognize the difference between right and wrong.

    Today's generation of gutless cowards is willing to trample all other virtues under the feet of the most modern of gods - "tolerance." And what gets lost in this mindless worship of tolerance?

    Honesty
    Integrity
    Virtue
    Civility
    Discipline

    Indeed, the list of forgotten virtues can go on and on and on - all sacrificed on the altar of tolerance.

  • Davedave
    April 21, 2009 1:36 p.m.

    The problem with the idea of allowing gay marriage and then leaving up to the churches to decide whether to recognize them or not is problematic. 1) It opens these chruches who choose not to recognize gay marriages for law suits (Faster thatn you could say ACLU!) 2) Church's have tax-exempt status and if they don't follow the law of the land, say we don't recognize your marriage eventhough it is recognized by the government, they may loose that tax-exempt status. (This was the main argument of the LDS church compating for Prop 8). I agree with Gov Hunstamn however, we may be opening oursevles up for more porblems down the road.

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 1:35 p.m.

    "And the demand for legal support means that anything considered by them to be opposition of their life choice will be a serious hate crime. Goodby good neighbors. Goodby parental teachings. Goodby children when the children slip and say something considered bad, for they must be taken away from such cruel parents. Goodby Bible. Goodby religious teachings. Goodby religious rights"

    Show me this in Sweden, Norway, or even Canada.

    You are fear mongering. This has not occurred anywhere gay marriage is legal.

    Parental rights are allowed to flourish. You are allowed to teach your children that homosexuals will bring the ruin of our society. That makes them look at me with a wary eye. I do not like it, but this is America.

  • To Marty
    April 21, 2009 1:33 p.m.

    You go boy. I don't understand gays for one nano second, but you are a hero for standing up for yourself.

  • John
    April 21, 2009 1:30 p.m.

    Huntsman is just another politician that says things for his own political gain, he wouldn't of said this before the election!!! He is just looking out for his own political future. Self serving politician, Repbulican by name Democrat by actions.

  • Marty
    April 21, 2009 1:27 p.m.

    I am gay, but not a practicing gay. I'm an evangelical and every gay that I've known in my faith has either rejected God or recreated Him into something that accepts them. So I'm not a stereotypical gay? Go figure. Just for fun, go tell your gay friends that you are going straight and then prepare yourself for a hell of a beating. You'll be called a poser and told to get out of the way. Most gays don't talk like me? Thanks for acknowledging that SOME gays talk like me. Thank you also for acknowledging that gay isn't inherent. It's great advice to all of us that we can.. "go and get the therapy to help you become the person you believe you are suppose to be..."

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 1:25 p.m.

    "Governor Huntsman is sworn to uphold the Utah Constitution, which recognizes only true marriage. He has sadly and disappointingly failed to do so by speaking in favor of other relationships."

    So, if Abraham Lincoln spoke against slavery, he was not upholding the constitution? Slavery was a legal right in the constitution.

    What say you?

  • To Marty
    April 21, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    "Another claims I'm a lair as he dissected my comment, simply because I'm not on his band wagon. I don't know how many gays don't want to be gay, but I'm one of them. Unfortunately the vitriol and hate we endure from fellow gays is even greater than what they inflict on traditional marriage folks. From my experience, most gays DO hate God, unless they can restructure him into something that is accepting of them. We gays know in our hearts that we are wrong with God and society, so the militants who won't accept that are bent on forcing everyone to call them good."


    Marty, Marty.

    If you became gay because of being abused, that is a learned trait. It can be unlearned by reparative therapy. Remember Pavlov's dogs.

    If you are born with this trait, it cannot be trained out of you. You can use your right hand, but all left handed people will naturally want to use their left hand. That is inborn (there is a gene that they have found, btw) and will never leave.

    You spoke about what ALL GAYS feel. The vast majority do not feel that.

  • to Rich 9:49
    April 21, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    "My gay friend says that civil unions are not enough. He and his pals want their partnerships to be called marriages by the government because only then can they demand equal treatment and respect as well as legal support for their lifestyle."

    Right ON! And the demand for legal support means that anything considered by them to be opposition of their life choice will be a serious hate crime. Goodby good neighbors. Goodby parental teachings. Goodby children when the children slip and say something considered bad, for they must be taken away from such cruel parents. Goodby Bible. Goodby religious teachings. Goodby religious rights, PERIOD.

    This is a personal CHOICE of life style issue, NOT a circumstance of nature. This is an issue of POPULARITY, not a rational opposition to constitutional principle.

    Which means that facts are not acceptable to those maintaining such an emotional commitment and is not allowed in any rational discourse. The only response to such argument is a simple NO. Only then are the real colors of the proponents seen and a witness of the level of selfishness and degree of violence to be used against whomever they view as their opponents.



  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 1:19 p.m.

    I think that this whole debate over gay marriage will seem really silly 50 years from now. Just like it's hard to fathom how people could have been so awful to the African-American community during and before the Civil Rights Movement. I wish that people would stop seeing same-sex marriage as such a personal attack on the family. Just let the LGBT community alone. They are people just like us and deserve the same freedoms that we have. I feel that we should stop holding their liberties and free agency from them.

  • BigDave
    April 21, 2009 1:09 p.m.

    Here is how it is written in the Utah Constitution.

    Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
    (1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
    (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

    Huntsman can talk all he wants about equality - its a JOKE! The civil union option was taken away with the passing of this amendment. Not only can GLBT people not marry they may also have nothing that resembles marriage.

    Its discriminatory - plain and simple.

  • Patrick A.
    April 21, 2009 1:08 p.m.

    I think the thing that alot of people in this country forget is that "Marriage" is a religious term not a legal term. Civil union is the legal backing of "Marriage". I for one agree completely with dave4197! All I want is equality, I don't want a big white church wedding because I do not belong to a church. I simply ask for an opportunity to be commited to my partner legally so that some of the luxuries that heterosexual couples take for granted can be extended to me and my partner. Health insurance, tax breaks, financial dependancy, hospital rights, inheritance rights, and many more are being denied to me and all LGBT citizens because people can't seem to distinguish a separation between their religious beliefs and law making.

  • deserteye
    April 21, 2009 12:55 p.m.

    Huntsman is smart and shows great courage.

  • Greg
    April 21, 2009 12:54 p.m.

    Governor Huntsman is sworn to uphold the Utah Constitution, which recognizes only true marriage. He has sadly and disappointingly failed to do so by speaking in favor of other relationships. Governor Huntsman has been praised as "courageous" for his comments. I disagree. Courage would have been to publicize his views on this important issue before the election, not after, when the Republican party and the electorate in general couldn't do anything about it. Some argue that he didn't hide his views before the election. I strongly disagree. He has betrayed the confidence that I and many others placed in him with our votes. If he had made his views clearly known before the election, he would not be governor today.

  • Vince
    April 21, 2009 12:50 p.m.

    Marty | 12:35 p.m. April 21, 2009

    Marty,

    I have to take issue with the things you are saying.

    Most gays hate God?

    Really?

    I do not hate God. As a matter of fact, I believe in God.

    It seems to me, if your story were true, and you are "not a practicing gay" how would you then know so many gays?

    If your circle of gays only includes atheists that is a matter of anectodal reference, not based on demographic data.

    I will have to say that if you are indeed, gay, you come across as not genuine.

    "We gays know in our hearts?"

    Really?

    Your tone is indicative of someone posing as gay.

    Sorry.

    Most gays do not talk like that.

  • @Marty
    April 21, 2009 12:49 p.m.

    "We gays know in our hearts that we are wrong with God and society." and how exactly is this speaking only for yourself? it sounds a lot like you are trying to speak for the gay community to me. Look if you feel distress passed on your feelings of attraction towards the same sex then go and get the therapy to help you become the person you believe you are suppose to be but stop speaking for me.

  • re: MidwayGuy
    April 21, 2009 12:46 p.m.

    Ditto

  • Vince
    April 21, 2009 12:36 p.m.

    Equal | 9:46 p.m. April 20, 2009

    You wrote,

    "Marriage is between a man and a woman and it doesn't discriminate based on sexual preference. A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man. Leave the definition of marriage as it is. No rights are being denied here."

    Your definition of equality only takes into account the heterosexuals. There is a great percentage of other humans, who have been around as long as people have been around, who are also just as equally deserve fair and equal treatment.

    By your definition - "a man is not a woman" is already troublesome.

    What about hermaphrodites?

    What are they?

    Are they man/woman?

    Other?

    Man?

    Woman?

    It boggles the mind.

    That biological perspective shows that biology alone cannot determine identity.

    Sometimes, for those people, their identity is chosen by their parents and they are raised with a certain identity.

    At other times, the person later chooses which identity they want to grow up to have.

  • Marty
    April 21, 2009 12:35 p.m.

    My how the militant homosexuals rail against their own when they don't accept the gay life and agenda. I was admonished here to speak for myself, which I was. Another claims I'm a lair as he dissected my comment, simply because I'm not on his band wagon. I don't know how many gays don't want to be gay, but I'm one of them. Unfortunately the vitriol and hate we endure from fellow gays is even greater than what they inflict on traditional marriage folks. From my experience, most gays DO hate God, unless they can restructure him into something that is accepting of them. We gays know in our hearts that we are wrong with God and society, so the militants who won't accept that are bent on forcing everyone to call them good and Gov Huntsman wants their political clout to advance his political hopes, being the politician that he is.

  • Vince
    April 21, 2009 12:31 p.m.

    You wrote,

    my opinion | 8:19 p.m. April 20, 2009
    "Under the constitution equal rights are to be given to every individual, so civil unions should be given. Civil unions are not the question. The real question is the same as it has always been...homosexual men and women want to be accepted as "normal" so that is why they won't concede to only have equal rights given under civil unions. THAT is why there is such a great push for Gay marriage...to be accepted as a normal lifestyle."

    You beg the question --- what is normal?

    Is heterosexual normal?

    By implication, therefore, you are saying, that gays are abnormal.

    I do not buy it.

    Different, yes.

    Abnormal, no.

    Difference does not equate abnormality. As long as we keep thinking that way we will hold to a certain paradigm of the heteronormative and exclude people from being fully certified human beings, capable of loving and living committed lives.

    We have lived too long in the country by labeling people "not normal" that when we take a look and try to define, what really is normal.

    Guess what --- no one is normal.

    Everyone is different.

  • Vince
    April 21, 2009 12:24 p.m.

    observing canuck | 7:04 p.m. April 20, 2009

    If you want to make the comparison of Canada to Sodom and Gomorrah, as the thought seems to imply ---

    According to your definition of Sodom and Gomorrah, the people were destroyed because of homosexuality, but that's another topic.

    Let's say they did, for the sake of argument.

    Remember, the Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah has the story where Abraham asks "Peradventure I find one hundred..." and

    "Peradventure I find fifty" and

    "Peradventure I find twenty" and so on...

    How many LDS and other Christians are in Canada, exactly?

    Are any of them in danger of your definition of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, per your definition and interpretation of the Genesis account?

  • Doug Van Duker
    April 21, 2009 12:20 p.m.

    Fool all of the people some of the time; and, some of the peoples all the time; but, you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

    The Governor & Sen. Hatch both demonstrate that you only have to fool most of the people during the Republican Nominating Convention. For a six month period leading up to the convention, "moderates and centrist," like Sen. Hatch, Gov. Huntsman; and yes, Mitt Romney, sound slightly to the right of Ronald Reagan.

    Once past the convention, they go back to pushing their RINO agendas of amnesty/taxpayer subsidized benefits for illegal-aliens; higher taxes & earmarks; special bills for friends and campaign contributors; support for civil unions; national socialized healthcare; pandering to environmentalist with carbon-taxes, prohibitions to gas/oil drilling, and the promotion of roping off even more land in Utah-- so our great-grand children will not be able to see or visit it either.

    If anyone is actually surprised by the position of our Governor on civil unions; it only shows that they have not been paying attention for the last several years.

    Unfortunately,people generally get the kind of government they deserve.

  • Vince
    April 21, 2009 12:18 p.m.

    Just a thought | 7:43 p.m. April 20, 2009
    You wrote,

    "I am for giving "equal treatment in law." However, to what extent? Are we to allow civil unions regardless of gender, number of partners, and/or age for instance?"

    This has been discussed several times.

    If you look at countries like Canada and Spain, did the polygamists all of a sudden come out of their closets and want their rights pertaining to having more than one wife?

    Or for that matter, have polyandry women come out and asked for their right to have more than one husband?

    I haven't seen it.

    Has anyone?

    Have courts anywhere in the country or have any groups made a stance that they want to be married to minors?

    If no one has asked for these "rights" why are you bringing this to the table?

    Do you know anyone who does?

    It seems merely more of "what if" speculation ---

    True --- what if ---

    * What if someone wants to marry their pet?
    * Or have Ted and Mary marry Joe and Sophia?

    Purely speculative --- based on nothing, but fears used to clutter the issue.


  • MidwayGuy
    April 21, 2009 12:03 p.m.

    I could care less about "gay rights." But I strongly favor "liberty and justice" for all and I understand the strong difference between a Temple Marriage and a Civil Marriage. If we purport to care so strongly about the institution of marriage, why are so many Mormons divorced? Why not ban divorce? Ireland's done it. What a wonderful world it can be when we consciously choose to stop seeing inequality among God's children. Utah's shame is that its statutory rape age was 14 until the Olympics came to town in 2002, the nation's lowest age and Utah still refuses to prosecute widespread polygamy in Utah Valley. Its shame is that it leads the nation in teen suicide, teen homelessness, personal bankruptcies and the use of "mommy's little helpers" per capita and is on the very low end of sending its children into our military organizations. In short, its shame is that it is guilty of the sin mentioned more than any other in the Bible...hypocrisy. All these facts in a State that pretends to be all about family values. Ironic...and sad.

  • @gay marriage argument
    April 21, 2009 12:00 p.m.

    Do you really think two gay people will choose a heterosexual marriage if they can't have a same-sex marriage? Seriously?

    Do you think the state's only interest in marriage is to produce children? Seriously?

    No, you aren't guaranteed the right to marry who you love, but you aren't prohibited either! I suspect the enormous divorce rate is partially due to the attitude you propose: people marrying for children, not for love. Seriously!

  • just me
    April 21, 2009 11:54 a.m.

    Marriage vs. Civil Unions

    God is on the side of equality... Separate is never equal.

  • Suuuuure....
    April 21, 2009 11:51 a.m.

    "The hate filled Right-wingers" are being told "Like it or not" you "have to accept" homosexuality. We are yelled at and called bigots. You think you are discrimiated against for being gay, try standing up for your belief that marriage is between a man and woman. I had to check to make sure I didn't ahve horns on my head! People acted like I was the devil for it!

  • just me
    April 21, 2009 11:46 a.m.

    Marriage Vs. Civil Unions,
    God is on the side of equality... Separate is never equal.

  • Doubting...
    April 21, 2009 11:46 a.m.

    ... that Orson Scott Card "represents the Church." If so, that is a bigger story than the Guv's support of civil unions. Please tell me the LDS church is not being represented by novelist/playrights who have joined the media circus as pseudo-journalist/film critic/editorialists. Hopefully this should have been written: "Mormon Times editorial writer, Orson Scott Card, is on the board."

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 11:42 a.m.

    "Heterosexual marriage is the only union that produces children and therefore should be the only union with incentives."

    Why do we allow infertile people to marry with all the benefits?

    Why do we allow older women to marry with all the benefits?

    Why do we allow couples who do not want children and will never have them, to marry with all the benefits?

    If you treat some people differently because they cannot have children, you must treat all people with the same condition alike. Read the ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court.

    This is America. Some day you are going to wake up and realize that prohibiting gays from marrying is against everything that we, as Americans, hold sacred in this great land.

  • To Chance
    April 21, 2009 11:15 a.m.


    "Civil unions??? Please. They don't want civil unions. The minute they get them, they will pronounce their dissatisfaction with the status quo and demand marriage. After all, civil unions are not "equal" with marriage. It is a slippery slope and they will not stop until they achieve what they perceive as equal marriage."

    Why shouldn't they be treated equally? They are Americans - just the same as you and me. They are not breaking any civil law. Why should we treat them differently? Tradition? It was tradition that a wife be considered property. It was tradition that blacks and whites could not marry. It was tradition that women could not vote. We know that all traditions do NOT come close to what our constitution says it correct.

    I have often wondered where all the LDS constitutional scholars went. They should absolutely know that discriminating based on religious beliefs is not to be allowed under our divinely inspired constitution. Where are they?

  • Msgr Scott West
    April 21, 2009 10:48 a.m.

    "Love the Lord your God above all others, and Love your neighbor as yourself"
    Each person and religion claiming to be a master of the Gospel of Jesus Christ interprets scripture with a different eye, and a different mind. Most do it through through the lens of fear of the unknown other. GLBT people have been forced to hide through fear, intimidation, economic hardship, and downright violence,, which I have seen with my own eyes.
    How long will you hold to hate?

  • oops
    April 21, 2009 10:46 a.m.

    The governor seems to be just positioning himself for national politics at Utah's expense.
    oops. Won't be voting for him next time, wherever that may be.
    I'm reading that some Republicans are talking about backing gay marriage to gather a large enough following. To those Republicans, be careful because for some of us it has never been about the party, rather it has been about the values and some values are not going to be compromised. The governor will put us to the test to find out if Utahns are committed Republicans, or committed to traditional marriage. I think it will show that a surprising number of Utahns will drop the Republican party in a blink.

  • Gay marriage argument...
    April 21, 2009 10:39 a.m.

    holds no water whatsoever. Heterosexual marriage guarantees nobody "the right to marry the person you love." Heterosexual marriage is the only union that produces children and therefore should be the only union with incentives. If gays want to be together, fine...but a gay relationship is a net negative on society (no children and 2 heterosexual unions are precluded), therefore, the government should treat it like it treats high school sweethearts- with no benefits.

  • Jenni
    April 21, 2009 10:38 a.m.

    Good to see that our governor supports equal treatment of all human beings. I would sure hate to think that equality is a partisan issue, and glad that Huntsman is proving that wrong. He's on the right side of history.

  • The Truth
    April 21, 2009 10:32 a.m.

    Governments within the U.S. are obligated to treat all, irrespective of religious views, equally under the law. The solution is simple. The U.S. government should no longer recognize anything other than a state sanctioned/performed civil marriage (I would say "unions," but I see no reason why religions have a monopoly on a sterile word like "marriage"). These civil marriages would provide all of the present rights and privileges granted to marriages; and, they would be equally available to all consenting adult couples, regardless of gender or sexuality.

    Religions could then perform whatever additional unique marriage ceremonies they wish to perform, but none will be recognized by the United States as a substitute for a civil marriage. Mormons can go on claiming to have the only real eternal marriages, while Catholics can fight them back, and Born Agains can hate them both. The only people who will care are their members and prospective converts.

  • Chance
    April 21, 2009 10:23 a.m.

    Civil unions??? Please. They don't want civil unions. The minute they get them, they will pronounce their dissatisfaction with the status quo and demand marriage. After all, civil unions are not "equal" with marriage. It is a slippery slope and they will not stop until they achieve what they perceive as equal marriage.

  • Dallin
    April 21, 2009 10:21 a.m.

    The battle has already been won! A majority of youth all over this world are ready for equality. It's only a matter of time before enough of the older generation passes away and the youth come of voting age. The youth recognize the kind, loving, successful, committed, hardworking individuals who happend to be homosexual. Most importantly, they also recognized the hate, deceit, hypocricy, and fear spewed from the "religious right," particularly the LDS Church. They have weighed you in the balance and you have been found lacking!

    Think of it this way, "No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing!"

  • Redneck mormon from Utah
    April 21, 2009 10:19 a.m.

    I have a large family and although I don't approve I do accept that two on my children are gay. I have that about this many times, what choice do I have. I love my children, they are welcomed in my home, they both have life partners and they are welcome in my home. What I want is the word marriage. I want that to be my word meaning a heterosexual union.

    Gays and lesbians can have all the legal rights and commitment of a civil union, just not the work marriage.

  • RB
    April 21, 2009 9:42 a.m.

    The Government is not the church. This is exactly why there is a seperation of church and state. Now, Get over it.

    Furthermore, we're suppose to clease the inner vessel, judge not and do everything we can to better ourselves by showing love and kindness to everyone - especially those we don't come eye to eye with.

    He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

  • Homer
    April 21, 2009 9:17 a.m.

    If religious people are so interested in protecting "traditional" marriage (whatever that means), why aren't you demanding an end to divorce? When states start passing constitutional amendments banning divorce, then I will believe religious folks are actually interesting in saving marriages rather than punishing people because they are different.

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 9:14 a.m.

    "I can choose to live my life differently without feeling threatened on how they live theirs."

    This is where I have ended up too. Let them have their lives here in America and I will have mine. I am not threatened by them.

    Why were we ever threatened by them?

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 9:12 a.m.

    Marty | 7:56 a.m. April 21, 2009
    "I am homosexual. I have fought it ever since I was seduced by a trusted person as a teen."

    Mayabe you are not homosexual. Most homosexuals I know were NOT abused.

    "I understand the GLBT mind. We know we are wrong with God, so we reject and hate God."

    I do not believe you know the homosexual mind. Most gays do NOT hate God.

    "We know we are wrong with tradition, so we reject and hate tradition. We know we are wrong with history, so we reject that too. I choose not to reject those things one day and realized I can control my own life."

    I think you are posing as a homosexual. You do not sound like anyone I know and I have been around gays for at least 30 years.

    Lying for the Lord is still lying.

  • Grover
    April 21, 2009 9:09 a.m.

    Didn't read Lincoln's speech, but I am guessing he was talking about slavery. Are you sure that is the comparison you want to run in advancing your point of view on the civil union/marriage issue?

  • @Jettboy & Marty
    April 21, 2009 8:59 a.m.

    Huntsman is not planning another guv run, he has bigger ambitions.

    @Marty: Human beings are easily sexualized by their first encounters, they can become sexualized to a shoe. It takes meditation, prayer and rejection of habitual thinking to excape the bad habits. Keep working on it. You are honest with yourself and others, that the first step to freedom.

    If advocacy homosexuals get their way, the population will have more people who are sexualized to an aberrant behavior, more disease, more unhappiness, more inability to move ahead in life with the breath of God behind you.

    This is a fight society cannot afford to lose.

  • Supporter
    April 21, 2009 8:42 a.m.

    Marty, speak for yourself. Many gay people do not think like you do so you cannot speak for them or make the assumption that they're all guilt ridden.

    Balderdash. You have been brainwashed by the religious right.

  • Straight Mormon Republican
    April 21, 2009 8:34 a.m.

    Huntsman is right on! As Christians we should "do unto others as we would have done unto us" which means treating people with dignity and equality. We can love the sinner (and allow them their rights since all men are created equal) while hating the sin (and teaching our children to behave differently). I feel the same towards those who drink, smoke, and attend Sunday NBA games. They have their rights, they can still be my friend, and I can choose to live my life differently without feeling threatened on how they live theirs.

  • Jettboy
    April 21, 2009 8:11 a.m.

    John Huntsman doesn't know it yet, but he has lost his governorship and any chance at become a GOP hopeful for President. I will be very surprised if he wins another election.

  • Ad space for NOM
    April 21, 2009 7:56 a.m.

    This is not news. How did pointing out that someone's position favoring civil unions drew the ire of groups that are against them constitute meaningful information. Were there some readers out there who thought NOM would be supportive of Huntsman on this?

    Once again, DN providing some free ad space for organizations that support the LDS doctrine. I want my four minutes of time back.

  • Marty
    April 21, 2009 7:56 a.m.

    I am homosexual. I have fought it ever since I was seduced by a trusted person as a teen. I had all but given in. I understand the GLBT mind. We know we are wrong with God, so we reject and hate God. We know we are wrong with tradition, so we reject and hate tradition. We know we are wrong with history, so we reject that too. I choose not to reject those things one day and realized I can control my own life. I'm sorry the Gov is enabling this in a foolish political game.

  • Anonymous
    April 21, 2009 7:52 a.m.

    I think Professor George really doesn't know what he is talking about. Anything can happen in politics. Four years ago, President Obama was not considered a likely president in the near term. That being said, I'm LDS, not gay, but I think the Governor is correct. People should focus on their own marriages and their own lives, and leave others alone as to what they do in their personal lives, whether finances, bedroom activities or living arrangements. So what!

  • Costly
    April 21, 2009 7:23 a.m.

    I guess this means that Jon Huntsman can't be Miss USA, either.

  • Me
    April 21, 2009 6:20 a.m.

    I take offense at the statement, "The governor doesn't take a position in an effort to gain attention." How ludicrous a statement is this when all that he does is to get attention. He is two-faced meaning hypocritical or double-dealing; deceitful.

  • Miss Too
    April 21, 2009 5:57 a.m.

    I'm almost as old as Lincoln's address, and so I respectfully decline (on topic) reading his words, again. I prefer pondering the comments, here, enjoying the conversation.

    Let me remain hopeful that gospel-oriented folks stay true to their convictions--for themselves--and continue gifting others their Christian spirit to live similarly well without judgment.

  • Lincoln:
    April 21, 2009 1:02 a.m.

    Read Lincoln address:

    Speech at New Haven

    March 6, 1860

  • No One of Consequence
    April 21, 2009 12:14 a.m.

    It all sounds so reasonable. Religious marriage for the religious and civil unions for all. Not so different from what we have now; the religious ceremony only serves as witness to the license issued by the state, as far as the state is concerned. So suppose we change the license from husband and wife to partner and partner with no respect to sex. Then we can all get along.

    Until extremists demand that the churches sanction their legal union regardless of religious objections.

    Until the multiple-partner crowd demands equal treatment.

    Until they both demand that any agency licensed to arrange adoptions serve their same-sex or multiple-partner family regardless of religious objections.

    Until pedophiles demand an end to age-discrimination in civil unions.

    I'd rather appear unreasonable and draw the line where we are right now than fight those fights later on.

  • a few things
    April 21, 2009 12:07 a.m.

    First, the insurance-based arguments are bogus. I worked for a credit union in California that for many years has offered benefits to domestic partners. Places of employment make those policies. Hospitals set visitation rights. None of these institutions require the government to advocate same sex marriage to make this possible.

    Second, saying that Orson Scott Card is the LDS church representative on that board is like saying my participation in the PTA signifies that the church has placed their stake in that organization, or that my purchase of a Coke implies direct funding to Coca Cola corporation by the LDS church. It seems like willful ignorance when reporters equate individual church members with the church as a whole. Sure, the church and this group may share many similar values, but you can be sure that eventually that group will differ from the church on some stance and thus the church will never officially sanction it.

    Last, the marriage argument is not about equal rights. If so, those who receive all the legal privileges via civil unions would be satisfied. At the root, it's the homosexual community's attempt to have their lifestyle publicly legitimized.

  • Anonymous
    April 20, 2009 11:52 p.m.

    "Some things that are right legally are not right morally."

    Lincoln said this about slavery, although the comparison may fit.

    Speech at New Haven, March 6, 1860

  • Lincoln said,
    April 20, 2009 11:08 p.m.

    "Some things that are right legally are not right morally." I think this issue falls in that category. We are a country losing our moral values and sliding downhill fast.

  • Anonymous
    April 20, 2009 10:50 p.m.

    When we're born, we look to the state to certify it. When we want to buy a car, own a dog or a home or an aircraft, we look to the state to permit and certify. When we divorce, guess who's court we end up in? We need to recognise and regulate marriage for what it is, a civil union in society. A contract. You want the church veneer on it, fine, but fine if you don't, too. It's the slippery slope upward.

  • Everyone is Equal
    April 20, 2009 10:45 p.m.

    You should be able to marry the one person you love. Loving another human, male or female, is no threat to anyone. Never has been, never will be.

  • LS
    April 20, 2009 10:32 p.m.

    Great job Governor Huntsman by winning the praises of Frank Rich and the New York Times. Politically, you state that you are a Republican, but many of your liberal ideas are showing through. The result of these moves towards gay marriage, gay civil unions, or whatever you want to call them is on the slippery slope downward. The law of unintended (negative) consequences will very likely be the result, with the strongest negative effects being among young men, young women, and children.

  • Jon
    April 20, 2009 10:07 p.m.

    I wish that the government would get out of the marriage business. Have civil unions for everyone, straight or gay, and let churches decide who they want to marry. Problem solved.

  • Civil Unions only go so far!
    April 20, 2009 9:51 p.m.

    For all those who feel that civil unions would take care of this remember: DOMA! (Defense of Marriage Act. 1996)

    Federally, the US does not acknowledge same sex married couples for taxes. Few businesses, if any, recognize them for pensions. Estate planning is difficult (expensive) if not impossible.

    I agree with others, give every US citizen the civil marriage, then after that - the churches can decide who they will accept.

  • Rich
    April 20, 2009 9:49 p.m.

    My gay friend says that civil unions are not enough. He and his pals want their partnerships to be called marriages by the government because only then can they demand equal treatment and respect as well as legal support for their lifestyle.

  • Equal
    April 20, 2009 9:46 p.m.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman and it doesn't discriminate based on sexual preference. A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man. Leave the definition of marriage as it is. No rights are being denied here.

  • Trent
    April 20, 2009 9:10 p.m.

    Or one step beyond that...just get the state out of the marriage business all together. Couples (straight or gay) go to the state for their Civil Union license and then, if they so choose, go to whatever religious institution they want for a marriage. Gay couples can get married by regligions that don't see a problem with it and straight couples can get married by the religion of their choice. Or if you don't believe in religion you just call it good with your Civil Union.

    This prevents religions from having legal definitions forced on them by the state with which they don't agree. I honestly couldn't care less about the wedding license I got from the state beyond the rights it affords me. I care about my religious wedding much more.

    So provide the same civil liberties to couples of any kind under nationwide Civil Unions. And let religions own the marriage business.

    States should decide though on certain things like adoption. Honestly I'd have to see some good data to tell you my view on that. But survivorship, insurance, visitation, I'm comfortable with all of that. It makes sense.

  • MPE
    April 20, 2009 9:00 p.m.

    Please remeber that everyone should be treated equally by the state and allowed a civil union. The chruch is still free to choose whom should receive the marriage rights and who whould not.

  • my opinion
    April 20, 2009 8:19 p.m.

    Under the constitution equal rights are to be given to every individual, so civil unions should be given. Civil unions are not the question. The real question is the same as it has always been...homosexual men and women want to be accepted as "normal" so that is why they won't concede to only have equal rights given under civil unions. THAT is why there is such a great push for Gay marriage...to be accepted as a normal lifestyle.

  • Question
    April 20, 2009 8:06 p.m.

    Civil union is everything but the religious ceremony, isn't it? So what's the big deal if they stand up before their chosen clergy to say vows?

  • everyone can have their cake
    April 20, 2009 7:52 p.m.

    Why not have two forms and everyone should be happy. Let there be religious marriage (church, temple, mosque, synagogue, hall) and civil marriage (performed by minister, lay person, judge, person authorized by the state). There will be religious institutions that will allow marriage and there will be couples opposite sex that want a civil marriage.

  • Bro Joseph
    April 20, 2009 7:48 p.m.

    Gov. will be remembered for his desire to seek the will of the people. He is fufilling his role as an elected leader. He is an example to fellow Gov's throughout the land,"to serve the interests of the people". The people must be accountable fo their actions and decisions ultimately. But least he is honest and not self serving and self righteous like so many other politicians.
    Three cheers for Mr Huntsman.

  • Sangradouro
    April 20, 2009 7:44 p.m.

    This should be open for discussion.

  • Just a thought
    April 20, 2009 7:43 p.m.

    I am for giving "equal treatment in law." However, to what extent? Are we to allow civil unions regardless of gender, number of partners, and/or age for instance?

  • Anonymous
    April 20, 2009 7:18 p.m.

    Look, you open the same privileges up to gay couples and you're endorsing the principle of gay marriage. Pretty simple. Just call it what it is. Huntsman gets zero points on this one.

  • observing canuck
    April 20, 2009 7:04 p.m.

    As as a straight,and LDS Canadian who lives in a
    country which allows same sex marriages...all I can
    say is that this man does not wantto be governor any more of the reddest state of the union ,let
    alone be President.
    I don't agree with same sex relationships,never will.Also I agree with tthe 1995 proclamation from the church of what constitutes a family according
    to God.
    But I will say this that I was raised by a righteous,LDS mother who taught me tolerance to all
    of God's children and....also my great country of
    Canada has not become the Sodom and Gomorrha of the
    north!

  • Baja Joe
    April 20, 2009 6:40 p.m.

    Civil unions do not constitute marriages.
    People living in the same household should be entitled to equal protection and rights under the law.
    I should be able to provide insurance benefits and protections to my dependents regardless of whether they are my children, aged parents, common law wife, or committed partner.
    Families are more than just heterosexual couples with biological children.

  • Sally
    April 20, 2009 6:12 p.m.

    Thank God for our wonderful Governor Huntsman who supports equality for all human beings! Liberty and Justice for all! One day, all people will be treated equally! We as the LGBT community and our supporters will not surrender until we have won this hate filled war! We are not going away, get used to it!

  • dave4197
    April 20, 2009 5:46 p.m.

    Civil unions are the way to go, it's a no brainer. Let them have same sex unions, employee paid benefits, inheritances, and other "equal treatment in law", including make them responsible for each others' welfare, like married couples. But the last thing we need is to change marriage into something it's not.