Reader comments
Chaffetz leads fight against D.C. gay marriage law
197 comments | Read story
observing | 11:53 a.m. May 6, 2009
Rep. Chaffetz, I applaud your strength and valor in speaking your mind and for
standing up for what you know is right and true. Too many are sitting on the
sidelines. Choose The Right. Open your mouths and don't sit the fence.
It seems as if every deviant organization in the world stands up and marches and
makes their voices heard. It's true that the meek will inherit the earth,
but the children of the meek will have to live with what happens NOW.
The time has come... | 11:55 a.m. May 6, 2009
for each of us to stand up for what we believe and hold dear.
If you believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, let your voice be heard.
If you feel otherwise, do the same.
If we do not speak up NOW, we will not be heard!!!
If you believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, let your voice be heard.
If you feel otherwise, do the same.
If we do not speak up NOW, we will not be heard!!!
Why | 11:55 a.m. May 6, 2009
Why dont they send it to the people in D.C and let them decide. elected people
always think they are smarter than voters, and act like they are little kids.
They need to let the voters be heard for a change. I have heard both parties and
it gets old on both sides.
Comments continue below
Kevin | 11:56 a.m. May 6, 2009
No Chaffetz, this is your team's favorite issue. And that's why your
team is losing.
Marion Barry?? Crack-head convicted criminal Marion Barry?? To his civil war, I say, "bring it on."
Marion Barry?? Crack-head convicted criminal Marion Barry?? To his civil war, I say, "bring it on."
Geezer | 11:59 a.m. May 6, 2009
The DC ordinance doesn't hurt my marriage, and it doesn't hurt yours.
Let the residents of our nation's capital enjoy the right to marry.
How about that Maine? | 12:01 p.m. May 6, 2009
Congratulations to Maine. 5th state to grant same sex marriage
Brandon Burt | 12:03 p.m. May 6, 2009
Why are Republicans so obsessed with gay marriage? Don't they have bigger
issues to worry about?
No wonder it's the minority party.
No wonder it's the minority party.
A Strong Judiciary | 12:03 p.m. May 6, 2009
Because of people like Chaffetz, we must rely on the courts for justice.
Chaffetz believes he respresents the will of the majority, and perhaps he does.
Yet as a lawmaker, he must protect the rights of the minority.
"Will of the majority" often ignores the Constitution.
"Will of the majority" often ignores the Constitution.
Bill | 12:07 p.m. May 6, 2009
The team that will lose in the long run will be those who favor same sex
marriage. It is against the rules of nature and against the nature of God.
Until those who are proponents of same sex marriage understand this simple
fact.
Go has defined marriage between man and woman. Marriage is gender driven and should remain as such.
Go has defined marriage between man and woman. Marriage is gender driven and should remain as such.
by the end of the week.... | 12:20 p.m. May 6, 2009
there could be six states that allow same sex CIVIL marriage. New York just
like DC recognizes marriages performed out of state. Mr Chaffetz, you've
already lost the tide favors same sex CIVIL marriage. Equality for same sex
couples
Crawfish | 12:21 p.m. May 6, 2009
@ observing...
Shout as loud as you want in your church. Keep your religion out of my government.
Shout as loud as you want in your church. Keep your religion out of my government.
Legal Status | 12:23 p.m. May 6, 2009
Marriage is, like it or not, a LEGAL status. You don't get a marriage
license from a church. It is inequitable to deny some citizens a legal right
while conferring it to others. And please don't get started with all the
slippery slope arguments.
Lloyd | 12:26 p.m. May 6, 2009
Thank goodness I voted for Jason. Cannon wouldn't have had the guts!
Marriage, and it's definition wasn't an issue until the G/L's
made it an issue by trying to undermine a centuries old moral mandate. The last
time this happened is recorded in the story of Sodom and Gomora (sp).
Unfortunately, with our present president and liberal congress, Jason and his
backers will have a tough time saving this nation.
"Go defined marriage?" | 12:27 p.m. May 6, 2009
...and the right of two men to register at Pottery Barn threatens your marriage
how?
Sam | 12:30 p.m. May 6, 2009
Everyone in DC already has the same right to marry... someone of the opposite
sex. Why do we need SPECIAL rights for people who just want to be different?
Gay Marriage Not Constitutional | 12:32 p.m. May 6, 2009
Marriage has always been defined for thousands of years as between man and
woman. It's only in the last few years that the issue has become a tool of
the agressive gay agenda trying to "normalize" and
"legitimize" their lifestyle choices. And to ram it down the rest of
society's throats. Marriage has legal rammifcations; and gay marriage can
and will lead to legal off-shoots that are highly destructive to our society and
the family. And that is not being homophobic, it's a reality. What's
next, legitimize Polygamy? Same legal footing. What about Polyandry? What
about man-boy love association relationships? Marry a nephew or neice? Pandora
is laughing; her box is wide-open.
zippy | 12:42 p.m. May 6, 2009
The real solution is to abolish government-sanctioned marriage altogether. Any
two individuals should be able to enter into a legal contract that would
guarantee the protections that gays are pushing for in demanding marriage. They
could still be "married" through a religious ceremony if they choose.
SLC gal | 12:48 p.m. May 6, 2009
to "Go.."
Marriage is not about registering at the Pottery Barn. Marriage is about a man and a woman entering into what is essentially a religious rite that has been hijacked by the federal govt. This could lead to relgions being forced to recognize marriages that to some are seen as mocking God.
You want your union legally recognized. Fine! That's what civil unions are for. Leave God out of it!
Marriage is not about registering at the Pottery Barn. Marriage is about a man and a woman entering into what is essentially a religious rite that has been hijacked by the federal govt. This could lead to relgions being forced to recognize marriages that to some are seen as mocking God.
You want your union legally recognized. Fine! That's what civil unions are for. Leave God out of it!
STEVE-O | 12:56 p.m. May 6, 2009
Zippy...
You're right, but I don't know if that is going to be good enough for gay people. That want what they want and they're going to push until they get it!
You're right, but I don't know if that is going to be good enough for gay people. That want what they want and they're going to push until they get it!
Bigotry | 1:23 p.m. May 6, 2009
Why do Utahns keep electing these bigots?
What's next? Will Jason will try to make interracial marriages illegal? Then reinstate segregation? Take the right to vote away from women? Make the LDS Church the official Church of Utah, which we will all be required to join or face deportation to Colorado?
I am giving Adolph Buttars some good ideas for next year. I better stop.
What's next? Will Jason will try to make interracial marriages illegal? Then reinstate segregation? Take the right to vote away from women? Make the LDS Church the official Church of Utah, which we will all be required to join or face deportation to Colorado?
I am giving Adolph Buttars some good ideas for next year. I better stop.
Chuckles55 | 1:48 p.m. May 6, 2009
The problem is that government and religion are juxtaposed together in the whole
thing about marriage. Government gives certain rights to married folks that it
does not give to un-married ones (i.e., tax advantages). If the government
wants to give the same rights to same-sex unions as to heterosexual ones, there
needs to be a way to do so. Civil unions seems to be the answer. Let marriage
be defined by religious organizations. Let civil unions be defined by the
government. We are pretty much pretty well there, since all candidates for
marriage have to purchase a license from the government to be married. Let the
governments issue licenses for civil unions that can be performed by civil
authorities. Let marriages be performed by religious authorities, with both
ceremonies carrying equal weight in the eyes of the law. Heaven forbid that we
set up the situation where same-sex couples have to take relgious organizations
to court to have their unions recognized legally.
Former DC colonial subject | 1:48 p.m. May 6, 2009
This is outrageous. Legally, sure, Jason Chaffetz has a right to try to pull
this. Morally, this is indefensible.
I'm a former DC resident. I paid federal taxes and was subject to anything Congress did or didn't do as much as anyone in the US.
Yet, I effectively had ZERO representation in Congress. None. I had a single delegate with a _non-binding_ vote in Congress. To make this worse, the Congress as we can see here, can at any time take away our right to self-determination in DC if it so chose.
Even if DC wanted, it couldn't be more self-sustaining, because the Congress limits the scope of what it can do raise revenues even though millions of commuters and tourists pour into the city every year and use its services.
Utahns, including those in UT-3 wouldn't put up with this. Why do some expect any different of the residents of our nation's capitol?
I'm a former DC resident. I paid federal taxes and was subject to anything Congress did or didn't do as much as anyone in the US.
Yet, I effectively had ZERO representation in Congress. None. I had a single delegate with a _non-binding_ vote in Congress. To make this worse, the Congress as we can see here, can at any time take away our right to self-determination in DC if it so chose.
Even if DC wanted, it couldn't be more self-sustaining, because the Congress limits the scope of what it can do raise revenues even though millions of commuters and tourists pour into the city every year and use its services.
Utahns, including those in UT-3 wouldn't put up with this. Why do some expect any different of the residents of our nation's capitol?
Kudos | 1:55 p.m. May 6, 2009
to Congressman Chaffetz! I applaud your efforts to keep marriage between a man
and a woman. Right now the gay marriage crowd is doing everything it can to
convince govts. to validate their lifestyle. Utah isn't the only state to
refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. I'm sure there
will be others in Congress who feel the same way, the question is: will they be
afraid to speak up?
Mikey | 1:56 p.m. May 6, 2009
Oh yes lets applaud Jason for blatantly supporting discrimination. No matter
what way you swing it, it is wrong to tell one group of people they can do
something and the other they can't. So fight it all you want, but
eventually the government will realize that denying same sex couples the rights
of marriage is wrong. This is the new civil war, and just like the last one,
the side that supports freedom for all will win. I promise.
Scoot | 2:02 p.m. May 6, 2009
That's fine Mr. Chaffetz that you don't believe in marriage between
gay-people, but I don't see you doing anything else to see that gay-people
have rights whatsoever. We are all created equal and we should all have equal
rights even the same rights as married people. I should be entitled to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, WE have the right to love who I want and
the right to be legally recognize in a partnership of some kind; either in a
domestic partnership or a civil union with my partner. You should be
representing ALL your constituents as a congressman.
to SLC gal | 2:06 p.m. May 6, 2009
Question for you,
Where is God in civil marriages?
Or are they not marriages?
Where is God in civil marriages?
Or are they not marriages?
Out Of State | 2:08 p.m. May 6, 2009
Glad someone has a person in government that has a spine and does not go with
what is politically correct but with what is correct. I have gay friends and
respect them, work with them and have them over to my home and and wish them
their rights but not marriage that is between a man and a woman period. Just
like a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Are we going to redefine that too?
I know some sure try. So what is next? Someone that wants to marry their dog?
Or worse? Met them too. Funny how what is right and wrong changes over time.
Anonymous | 2:15 p.m. May 6, 2009
If gays stopped at gay marriage that would be one thing, but once they get gay
marriage, then they will start a myriad of lawsuits against anyone who refuses
to marry them. There is already another bill making its way through congress to
give them special "hate crime" legislation. In effect, if someone
preaches against homosexuality and then something is done to a gay person, they
can go back and sue the person that preached against it. Their wanting gay
marriage is just the beginning, and people better take a stand. I don't
care if they choose that lifestyle but quit ramming it down everyone's
throats and trying to make people believe this is normal behavior. It is
perverted behavior, it is against all of the laws of God and nature.
Anonymous | 2:15 p.m. May 6, 2009
Hate and bigotry are the devil tool. Jason, you are the devil servant when you
try to promote hate and bigotry
No Surprise | 2:20 p.m. May 6, 2009
Jason is a populist. He puts his finger in the wind and rides in that
direction.
Isn't funny so many people call him "Jason"? Like he's a little kid or something.
Isn't funny so many people call him "Jason"? Like he's a little kid or something.
Elizabeth | 2:22 p.m. May 6, 2009
Aren't Republicans supposed to support Federalism and small and local
government? As a DC resident, who pays full federal and city taxes, but has not
representation in Congress, it is simply enraging that some freshman Congressman
can come into my city and overturn the laws passed by the only elected officials
I have.
DC is one of the most liberal constituencies in the country. We don't want religious conservatives from Utah coming in and overturning our laws. How would Rep. Chaffetz and his constituents feel if the roles were reveresed?
DC is one of the most liberal constituencies in the country. We don't want religious conservatives from Utah coming in and overturning our laws. How would Rep. Chaffetz and his constituents feel if the roles were reveresed?
Cougar Blue | 2:22 p.m. May 6, 2009
SLC Gal needs to go back and read how marriages were arranged and carried out
throughout history and then she won't make such blatantly silly arguments
about how marriage should be like it always has. Congratulations to
Maine----and Jason, go back to kicking the ball.
religion versus state | 2:26 p.m. May 6, 2009
Zippy and Chuckles55 and Scoot have it right. Marriage is a religious word.
For there to be equality it needs to be taken out of the government. Rights for
everyone, marriage for religion. And, if Chaffetz is going to fight for
marriage to be off limits to gays, he needs to fill the space that is left from
that-he needs to fill th hole created by the taking away the rights that
government has attached to marriage.
Anonymous | 2:28 p.m. May 6, 2009
Scoot - We are all created equal. We all have the right to choose. If you want
to choose to live a perverted lifestyle, fine, just don't run it down
everyone's throat and make people change laws to fit your choice. You have
the right to love who you want, but that makes it legal. People can love their
pet but should they have legal rights to marry them? Live your lifestyle like
you want but quit complaining when others don't approve of your choices.
As my grandfather used to say, "You burn your a$$ you sit on the
blister." You make the choice to live a perverted lifestyle, live with the
consequences.
Edmunds-Tucker Act, Part II | 2:28 p.m. May 6, 2009
I strongly oppose gay marriage for a variety of reasons, not the least of which
is the entitlement that children should have to a loving father and mother who
are married to each other.
But perhaps even worse than gay marriage is excessive Congressional power over day-to-day life, like marriage.
A century ago, Congress passed (and the Supreme Court upheld) the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which severely punished the LDS Church for not conforming to the standard definition of marriage. Then, as now, Congress has far too much power to control our lives. I hope Mr. Chaffetz and other sensible members of Congress use restraint and wisdom as they pass more laws to define, regulate, and control American life.
But perhaps even worse than gay marriage is excessive Congressional power over day-to-day life, like marriage.
A century ago, Congress passed (and the Supreme Court upheld) the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which severely punished the LDS Church for not conforming to the standard definition of marriage. Then, as now, Congress has far too much power to control our lives. I hope Mr. Chaffetz and other sensible members of Congress use restraint and wisdom as they pass more laws to define, regulate, and control American life.
re: Mikey | 2:30 p.m. May 6, 2009
Here's the difference between the last Civil War and the one you claim has
started. That war was fought to protect rights granted for reasons beyond human
control. This current one is for rights based on choices that humans can
control. All Americans already have the same rights, and those who claim the
contrary regarding marriage are deceptive and simply seeking special privileges
based on sexual desires.
Shameful | 2:36 p.m. May 6, 2009
Your children and their children will look back and wonder why all of you hate
gay people so much. Just as I look back now and wonder how my grandfather could
have been so adamantly against interracial marriage.
Dude | 2:40 p.m. May 6, 2009
So the 1 issue guy is putting illegal immigration on the backburner while he
takes this on? Funny how the Republicans say they are for less government but
are constantly telling people how they should live their lives in a miromanaging
style.
You can't spell Chafffets without chaffe.
You can't spell Chafffets without chaffe.
realitycheck | 2:48 p.m. May 6, 2009
re - Why | 11:55 a.m
["Why dont they send it to the people in D.C and let them decide"]
too many old bible-thumpers in DC. They'll wait until the herd thins out and more rational younger people can vote.
This really is an old-school vs young people issue. Old stuck-in-the-mud congregations are against it but most young people are used to being around gays (since they don't hide in the closet like old times) and so they see there is no harm in letting them get married. The old crew is still freaking out that there are so many gays, much less let them get married, because they thought there were just a few of them (since they were all in the closet back in their day...)
I think that's the real issue with the old crew, too. Not that the gays want to get married, but where did they all come from? old preachers are saying "there weren't that many when I was a kid..." when actually there were, but they hid.
["Why dont they send it to the people in D.C and let them decide"]
too many old bible-thumpers in DC. They'll wait until the herd thins out and more rational younger people can vote.
This really is an old-school vs young people issue. Old stuck-in-the-mud congregations are against it but most young people are used to being around gays (since they don't hide in the closet like old times) and so they see there is no harm in letting them get married. The old crew is still freaking out that there are so many gays, much less let them get married, because they thought there were just a few of them (since they were all in the closet back in their day...)
I think that's the real issue with the old crew, too. Not that the gays want to get married, but where did they all come from? old preachers are saying "there weren't that many when I was a kid..." when actually there were, but they hid.
Rod | 2:50 p.m. May 6, 2009
SLC Gal needs to go back 100 or 1000 years. She could have her traditional (man
- woman) marriage. She could also be considered property of her husband.
Isn't that what marriage was all about? It had nothing to do with God and
everything to do with property and ownership. Try educating yourself.
Mikey | 2:52 p.m. May 6, 2009
to RE: Mikey
Being gay isn't just based on sexual desires. If you "claim the contrary" you are being deceptive. How do I know? Because I am gay! Also, don't even start with the whole "people chose to be gay" argument because I will tell you right now, you are wrong. How do I know? Because I am gay. You can say something else until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter, because you aren't gay and you don't understand. It is sad that there is all of this hatred because you people don't understand something. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one, but don't you dare take it away from me. This new civil war is to give rights to all Americans. It shouldn't even be an issue.
Being gay isn't just based on sexual desires. If you "claim the contrary" you are being deceptive. How do I know? Because I am gay! Also, don't even start with the whole "people chose to be gay" argument because I will tell you right now, you are wrong. How do I know? Because I am gay. You can say something else until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter, because you aren't gay and you don't understand. It is sad that there is all of this hatred because you people don't understand something. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one, but don't you dare take it away from me. This new civil war is to give rights to all Americans. It shouldn't even be an issue.
More illumination | 3:13 p.m. May 6, 2009
Conservatives aren't seeking to grow government like liberals are. Keeping
gay marriage illegal doesn't cost anything. It's fighting radicals
that want rights based on sexual attraction and feelings and spending trillions
on worthless government programs (bailouts, welfare, socialized medicine, etc.)
that cost.
Anonymous | 3:21 p.m. May 6, 2009
"There is already another bill making its way through congress to give them
special "hate crime" legislation. In effect, if someone preaches
against homosexuality and then something is done to a gay person, they can go
back and sue the person that preached against it."
WRONG!
They have a caviat in it for religions and preaching.
Tell me another distortion, K?
WRONG!
They have a caviat in it for religions and preaching.
Tell me another distortion, K?
Anonymous | 3:26 p.m. May 6, 2009
"just don't run it down everyone's throat and make people change
laws to fit your choice. You have the right to love who you want, but that makes
it legal. People can love their pet but should they have legal rights to marry
them? Live your lifestyle like you want but quit complaining when others
don't approve of your choices."
The laws that have been accepted ACTUALLY change marriage to be a man and a woman, in effect, outlawing gay marriage. Those are the laws that have just been enacted. I could not care less if you approve of my choices. I do not approve of your choices. But this is America where everyone is considered equal - not equal if you approve of their choices.
The laws that have been accepted ACTUALLY change marriage to be a man and a woman, in effect, outlawing gay marriage. Those are the laws that have just been enacted. I could not care less if you approve of my choices. I do not approve of your choices. But this is America where everyone is considered equal - not equal if you approve of their choices.
This is such a hot topic | 3:27 p.m. May 6, 2009
It comes down to recognizing everyone as equals. That is perfectly fine if you
don't believe in gay marriage, "Than don't do it" but you
have NO right telling someone else who is of legal age whether they can get
married. I find it ironic that the Mormon population has such a hard time with
this concept. In the LDS Church's eyes a Civil Marriage is only binding
in this life time anyways. The one that counts for you guys is the Temple
Marriage, so why do you even care about who gets married civily? I know the
answer...it's CONTROL. People who think they know what GOD wants, tend to
want to force others into believing what they think other should do. When you
stand on a hill and look down upon the rest of us as "the poor people who
just don't get it" we tend to not like it. The article also points
out that most Americans don't believe in gay marriage, so it should not
exist. Most white people believed that slavery was good when it was happening,
but we now realize it was a horrible practice. Leave people alone.
marriage is not religious term | 3:28 p.m. May 6, 2009
can someone tell me where in the bible the actual word "marriage"
shows up? because I can't seem to find it.
for some reason, all the religious people seem to think marriage is a religious ceremony, yet it's not in any religious books (except new ones) and you can get married at city hall with no religion but can't get married in a church until you go to city hall...
makes no sense at all to call the word marriage a religious term...
for some reason, all the religious people seem to think marriage is a religious ceremony, yet it's not in any religious books (except new ones) and you can get married at city hall with no religion but can't get married in a church until you go to city hall...
makes no sense at all to call the word marriage a religious term...
Anonymous | 3:31 p.m. May 6, 2009
Mikey - you weren't born gay. The choices you made in your life make you
the way you are today. It is all about what you choose. And if you choose to
live that way, that is fine, but don't try and make the whole world bow
down to what you want by your choices. And the more the gays push their agenda
to make people let them have their way the more hatred and distaste they will
bring on themselves. That again is another choice they are making.
To Mikey | 3:36 p.m. May 6, 2009
What so many gays and lesbians fail to realize is that this has nothing to do
with hate. You call everyone that opposes your point of view as bigots, gay
haters, homophobias and etc. When in reality we don't hate you at all.
Our definition of marriage is between man and woman which has been defined
eternally by God. Those who oppose us on this say God should be left out of the
equation. However, God is very paramount in this. This is a moral issue and
has nothing to do with civil rights.
That is why the Former Mayor Barry opposses it and why most of the Blacks and Hispanics across this country does. It is not civil rights. You the GLBT has made it such and think it deals with equality and have convinced some liberals of such.
Do you really think the conservatives in this country is going to just sit down on this? The fact is God is on our side and when in the end we shall win the fight even though we loose a few wars along the way. When we win there will be no joy in it.
That is why the Former Mayor Barry opposses it and why most of the Blacks and Hispanics across this country does. It is not civil rights. You the GLBT has made it such and think it deals with equality and have convinced some liberals of such.
Do you really think the conservatives in this country is going to just sit down on this? The fact is God is on our side and when in the end we shall win the fight even though we loose a few wars along the way. When we win there will be no joy in it.
Dave | 3:40 p.m. May 6, 2009
Mikey:
How can something be taken away that you never had to begin with? Your logic is becoming circular.
For the record, you can file taxes as two men, or two women, as a single household. All the rights that are associated with marriage can be contracted for. The only thing that can't gained via contract is the title marriage.
I fully support the offering of this bundle of contracts to all consenting adults that wish to have them (be it 1 man & 1 woman, 2 men or 2 women, 1 woman & 3 men, 2 men & 15 women, 83 men and 56 women, etc). It is a set of contractual rights, we should allow people to contract freely. Call this group of rights whatever you want.
How can something be taken away that you never had to begin with? Your logic is becoming circular.
For the record, you can file taxes as two men, or two women, as a single household. All the rights that are associated with marriage can be contracted for. The only thing that can't gained via contract is the title marriage.
I fully support the offering of this bundle of contracts to all consenting adults that wish to have them (be it 1 man & 1 woman, 2 men or 2 women, 1 woman & 3 men, 2 men & 15 women, 83 men and 56 women, etc). It is a set of contractual rights, we should allow people to contract freely. Call this group of rights whatever you want.
Anonymous | 3:44 p.m. May 6, 2009
@More Illustration
"It's fighting radicals that want rights based on sexual attraction and feelings and spending trillions on worthless government programs (bailouts, welfare, socialized medicine, etc.) that cost."
You sound pretty er, um radical. I'm assuming then, that you were assigned your mate and have no feelings or attraction and feel the need to replicate out of duty?
"It's fighting radicals that want rights based on sexual attraction and feelings and spending trillions on worthless government programs (bailouts, welfare, socialized medicine, etc.) that cost."
You sound pretty er, um radical. I'm assuming then, that you were assigned your mate and have no feelings or attraction and feel the need to replicate out of duty?
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Busiest postal day will be Dec. 14 12:03 p.m.
- Westminster pres. joins lib ed group 12:01 p.m.
- Dr.: Mitchell deluded, incompetent 12:00 p.m.
- Arts survey finds drops in attendance 11:03 a.m.
- Palestinian files suit over 'Bruno' 11:01 a.m.
- Alexa Joel 'devastating heartbreak' 10:56 a.m.
- Actress got close to the president 10:55 a.m.
- Scuffle doesn't stop 'Wicked' in Ohio 10:54 a.m.
- Swine flu toll includes a few pets 10:52 a.m.
- Mistake vs. repeat affairs probed 10:49 a.m.
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- Psychologist: Mitchell schizophrenic
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- Few details on missing W.V. mom
- I-15 expansion barreling south
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Letters: Global warming a lie
239 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall188
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil148
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax140
- Palin signs books, chats with fans126
- Max Hall wants to look ahead122
- Revive full food tax?102
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill99
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Only in Utah. The "lewdness" all belongs to the deputies who went up there...
it is not the swine flu that hit the us before. it is h1n1 a much easier to...
"So BYU can't run their mouths because they haven't won in the tourney for...
I suspect the only way to stop smoking is to raise the taxes to much higher...
Totally Cluless!! You must be a zoobie troll. First of all it is NOT...
" "Sloanaholics" I think no one here blames Jerry completely for the loss, it...
I agree, GO! SARAH PALIN!!! Don't listen to the little minded crybabies that...
Jim Jones was a phenomenal talent. No one captured the southwest better than...
I have to correct you on one thing my "Friend" he didn't "TRIPLE THE DEFICIT"...
The Federal Reserve has the intrinsic self preservaton of the banking system....
Advertisements