Reader comments
Gay-rights activist calls for D.C. march
340 comments | Read story
Andy | 2:23 p.m. June 8, 2009
Gay marriage will come to CA within a short time and throughout the whole of the
US in a decade or two. You can hear the shrill desperation in the voices of
fundamental "christians" whose hearts and minds frozen by hatred of
fellow American citizens who are gay. They KNOW they are being hypocrits by
cherry picking which parts of the bible they want to believe and resent gay
people for exposing the desire to force all Americans to live by THEIR fairytale
(which is unconstitutional). Historical precedence, the Constitution and an
overwhelmingly supportive younger generation will be the death knell to their
bigotry - after which, they're sure to find another target because some
christians only feel 'alive' while they're persecuting
minorities. Sad, sad people.
Anonymous | 2:24 p.m. June 8, 2009
To: Anonymous | 1:47 p.m. June 8, 2009
"THIS IS NOT TRUE. Check with your legislator. S/He will tell you that gays have NEVER been allowed to be added to any discrimination group in Utah. They CAN be fired for being gay without having any legal recourse for the action. They CAN be kicked out of their apartment because their landlord finds out they are gay with any legal recourse. Go find out the truth."
This is a lie. Stop lying in this forum. Tell me ONE LEGISLATOR that will tell you that. Even Scott McCoy (D-Salt Lake City), Utah's only openly gay congressman, has not made such a claim.
Nor am I aware of any such claims being made on the national scene. If any such thing were to happen, gays rights people would be all over the media making a scene.
You need to stop making claims without substance to back them up. Otherwise, you're lying.
You need to apologize and take back those comments if you do not have substance to support them.
Stop lying and making things up. You do not bring credibility to your argument when you do that.
"THIS IS NOT TRUE. Check with your legislator. S/He will tell you that gays have NEVER been allowed to be added to any discrimination group in Utah. They CAN be fired for being gay without having any legal recourse for the action. They CAN be kicked out of their apartment because their landlord finds out they are gay with any legal recourse. Go find out the truth."
This is a lie. Stop lying in this forum. Tell me ONE LEGISLATOR that will tell you that. Even Scott McCoy (D-Salt Lake City), Utah's only openly gay congressman, has not made such a claim.
Nor am I aware of any such claims being made on the national scene. If any such thing were to happen, gays rights people would be all over the media making a scene.
You need to stop making claims without substance to back them up. Otherwise, you're lying.
You need to apologize and take back those comments if you do not have substance to support them.
Stop lying and making things up. You do not bring credibility to your argument when you do that.
Anonymous | 2:24 p.m. June 8, 2009
Disagreement becomes hate when you what to codify your disagreement.
Comments continue below
Please get it right | 2:26 p.m. June 8, 2009
For all of you who are posting in favor of traditional marriage, please note
that the LDS church advocated FOR Proposition 8, not against it.
Vince | 2:28 p.m. June 8, 2009
About the children ---
And the argument that children need a mother and a father.
By that logic, single parents would be denied parenthood. Your logic is an argument to target gays.
What really hurts children is dysfunctional households.
And the argument that children need a mother and a father.
By that logic, single parents would be denied parenthood. Your logic is an argument to target gays.
What really hurts children is dysfunctional households.
Their logic is cause for revolts | 2:28 p.m. June 8, 2009
Wilden,
"I am having trouble understanding from the gay lobby why Mormons can't vote their conscience like everyone else."
They take issue with the fact that Mormons vote and participate based on their beliefs just like they do but in the case of Mormons they believe in a higher power. This offends those who don't share the same belief. As an atheist I have no problem with Mormons voting based on their beliefs.
That is what this country is about. We don't get to deny a person the right to vote or hold office based on a religious test.
The fact that Mormons agree with me because of their belief in an imaginary being is irrelevant. The idea that a person can or should not have a say in their government based solely on the origin of their belief is a violation of the Constitution. To say that all opinions are legitimate and can be voted into law unless those opinions are religious in nature is to single out one source as not being allowed to participate in a free society and if Mormons wanted to revolt over that I would agree with them.
"I am having trouble understanding from the gay lobby why Mormons can't vote their conscience like everyone else."
They take issue with the fact that Mormons vote and participate based on their beliefs just like they do but in the case of Mormons they believe in a higher power. This offends those who don't share the same belief. As an atheist I have no problem with Mormons voting based on their beliefs.
That is what this country is about. We don't get to deny a person the right to vote or hold office based on a religious test.
The fact that Mormons agree with me because of their belief in an imaginary being is irrelevant. The idea that a person can or should not have a say in their government based solely on the origin of their belief is a violation of the Constitution. To say that all opinions are legitimate and can be voted into law unless those opinions are religious in nature is to single out one source as not being allowed to participate in a free society and if Mormons wanted to revolt over that I would agree with them.
RedShirt | 2:31 p.m. June 8, 2009
To "To gays cannot marry | 1:52 p.m. " you should read the Defense of
Marriage act. It defines the marriage for the US federal government as between
one mand and one woman. Some states may define it otherwise, but anything they
do is against federal law if they define marriage in a way that is against the
Federal government definition.
Think of it like legalizing marijuana, just because a state says it is ok does not make it Ok with the federal governmnet. Federal DEA officers can still make drug busts.
Think of it like legalizing marijuana, just because a state says it is ok does not make it Ok with the federal governmnet. Federal DEA officers can still make drug busts.
I have a question? | 2:32 p.m. June 8, 2009
Some gays on this thread have let us know that they are gay and Mormon. I know a
little about the Mormon philosophy. How do you reconcile the fact that Mormons
do not believe in gay marriage or even being gay and yet you say you are a
member. Don't you have to square with the Mormon philosophy or do you have
"selective memberships?"
M & M | 2:34 p.m. June 8, 2009
It is ridiculous to say that homosexuality is a choice and that gays are asking
for special treatment. All they want is equal treatment. The right to be able to
be with their partner on their death bed. The right to keep the family together
if one parent dies. And the right to love their partner the same way straight
people do!!! Equality!!!!!!!
France | 2:35 p.m. June 8, 2009
France voted to ban gay marriage, because it took away the rights of the
children to have a mother and a father in the home.
France, people, FRANCE!
There is no gayer place than France, and they turned it down.
France, people, FRANCE!
There is no gayer place than France, and they turned it down.
Change happens | 2:37 p.m. June 8, 2009
It used to be against the law for a black man to marry a white woman. To do so
was proclaimed as "immoral" and participants were often harassed,
jailed or beaten.
It used to be against the LDS doctrine to ordain a black man with the priesthood.
Gays will be given the right to marry in the future.
Things change folks, whether you like it or not.
It used to be against the LDS doctrine to ordain a black man with the priesthood.
Gays will be given the right to marry in the future.
Things change folks, whether you like it or not.
anonymous | 2:38 p.m. June 8, 2009
Gay people make it so easy to make fun of them, shirtless men dancing in the
street, and women with mullets riding motorcycles together. Maybe act normal and
people will take you seriously.
D Clark | 2:39 p.m. June 8, 2009
I will stand up more my morals at taught through the scriptures.
Morally, homosexuality is wrong. That is what is taught in the scriptures. Now I will defend my faith, and not try to let others push their personal beliefs into it.
Many believe homosexuality is ok, and even more believe it is not.
When the majority ceases to vote and act righteously, that will be a sad day.
Morally, homosexuality is wrong. That is what is taught in the scriptures. Now I will defend my faith, and not try to let others push their personal beliefs into it.
Many believe homosexuality is ok, and even more believe it is not.
When the majority ceases to vote and act righteously, that will be a sad day.
To a man 10:10 | 2:41 p.m. June 8, 2009
Excuse me, but are you totally out of the loop? What do you call it when gays
take lists of contributors from the Prop 8 incident and target their jos or
companies for a boycott. What do you call it everytime some gay on these threads
more or less says because of the momentum of the gay movement Mormons are going
to get to observe gays recieving full rights to marry. Not maybe that
doesn't qualify as hatred in your mind, but rest assured that it amounts to
that in minds of others.
Polygamy | 2:42 p.m. June 8, 2009
One of the most real-life examples we have of non-traditional marriage in this
country was Mormon polygamy.
Here was a group of people, living what they believed, and it included marrying multiple wives. They were persecuted for it. Prominent leaders had to go into hiding because of it.
The US eventually outlawed it, stating that marriage could only be between one man and one woman. Fortunately, the time came when the Lord also manifested to his Prophet that the practice should discontinue.
Even the Mormons came around to "obey the laws of the land". They didn't get angry or hold marches or boycott other groups.
Here was a group of people, living what they believed, and it included marrying multiple wives. They were persecuted for it. Prominent leaders had to go into hiding because of it.
The US eventually outlawed it, stating that marriage could only be between one man and one woman. Fortunately, the time came when the Lord also manifested to his Prophet that the practice should discontinue.
Even the Mormons came around to "obey the laws of the land". They didn't get angry or hold marches or boycott other groups.
Anonymous | 2:44 p.m. June 8, 2009
"Just the url's please!!"
URL's are not permitted on the Deseret News comment pages. Google it yourself. Stay away from right or left wing sites and head towards studies done by academic associations. Some left and right wing sites will quote studies by professionals but twist the results to their liking.
Try studies done by universities. UCLA had an extensive study and came to the conclusion that there is no difference between children raised by gays and children raised by heterosexuals. It is not hard to find.
URL's are not permitted on the Deseret News comment pages. Google it yourself. Stay away from right or left wing sites and head towards studies done by academic associations. Some left and right wing sites will quote studies by professionals but twist the results to their liking.
Try studies done by universities. UCLA had an extensive study and came to the conclusion that there is no difference between children raised by gays and children raised by heterosexuals. It is not hard to find.
The Deuce | 2:46 p.m. June 8, 2009
First, let's be clear as to what rights we are talking about. California
already provides all of the civil rights in Domestic Partnerships that are also
afforded heterosexual marriages. Therefore, we are not fighting about civil
rights, rather, we are trying to fight and redefine the word marriage. When will
this foolishness end? Both sides have their rights. These two types of
relationships are physically different. They may be equal but they are
different. Not better, not worse. If on the other hand the Gay/Lesbian group is
not fighting for equal rights but rather seeking for something else, this
ridiculous fight will continue and more money and time will be wasted.
Let's get on the same page and realize that the civil rights issue has been
settled in Domestic Partnerships in California and start focusing on bigger
issues.
Anonymous | 2:46 p.m. June 8, 2009
" People in states such as California and Arizona are amending their state
constitutions to PROTECT marriage."
People are amending their state constitutions because they cannot discriminate against gay marriage unless they do so. It is not illegal for gays to marry UNLESS these amendments are passed and it makes some people very uncomfortable unless their beliefs are the law. Tell the truth.
People are amending their state constitutions because they cannot discriminate against gay marriage unless they do so. It is not illegal for gays to marry UNLESS these amendments are passed and it makes some people very uncomfortable unless their beliefs are the law. Tell the truth.
Anonymous | 2:49 p.m. June 8, 2009
"People in states such as California and Arizona are amending their state
constitutions to PROTECT marriage. Over 35 states have such protection today.
You site places such as Mass, Conn and Sweden... good grief what do you expect
from such places? Everything else is legal in Sweden too including drugs!!!
"
Canada has had gay marriage for over 5 years. No church member has lost their faith and divorced because of it. No gays are clammoring to be married in the Alberta temple. No one is trying to marry their house plant. Talk to someone you know in Canada. It turned out to be a big, "DUH!" No big deal at all.
Canada has had gay marriage for over 5 years. No church member has lost their faith and divorced because of it. No gays are clammoring to be married in the Alberta temple. No one is trying to marry their house plant. Talk to someone you know in Canada. It turned out to be a big, "DUH!" No big deal at all.
To self-righteous religious nut | 2:50 p.m. June 8, 2009
Anonymous @ 10:10 a.m.
"I don't understand why Mormons still don't understand why the gay community was angry about the passage of proposition 8, and specifically angry at the church for the helping of that passage."
For the same reason those of us who aren't Mormon don't understand why bigots are angry. I'm atheist and liberal and I see right through the petty jerks who are angry that Mormons and LDS Church exercised their rights individually and collectively.
These are the same people who don't have a problem with the tax exempt Human Rights Campaign being involved.
"The tactics were disgraceful in California with church money going to patently false claims like the teaching of kids in schools homosexuality."
Please check your facts.
"If you think yourself a Christian isn't it much easier just to hate than accept Christ's teachings of love, compassion, and acceptance. But I guess the ego boost from declaring what is and what is not an abomination is irresistible."
You are a self-righteous religious nut.
"I don't understand why Mormons still don't understand why the gay community was angry about the passage of proposition 8, and specifically angry at the church for the helping of that passage."
For the same reason those of us who aren't Mormon don't understand why bigots are angry. I'm atheist and liberal and I see right through the petty jerks who are angry that Mormons and LDS Church exercised their rights individually and collectively.
These are the same people who don't have a problem with the tax exempt Human Rights Campaign being involved.
"The tactics were disgraceful in California with church money going to patently false claims like the teaching of kids in schools homosexuality."
Please check your facts.
"If you think yourself a Christian isn't it much easier just to hate than accept Christ's teachings of love, compassion, and acceptance. But I guess the ego boost from declaring what is and what is not an abomination is irresistible."
You are a self-righteous religious nut.
Well Done Troy W | 2:51 p.m. June 8, 2009
Stay hopeful and strong.
and a good respectful | 2:52 p.m. June 8, 2009
time was had by all..you have to live with these people no matter what ..that is
the law..heck you don't know they might just be might be working in your
favorite restaurant..school whatever..if you don't particpate you
don't have to hate that is all. just a thought for you all!
Anonymous | 2:52 p.m. June 8, 2009
"I'm sorry to have to inform you of this but only one of the people in
a gay relationship is the parent of any child in that relationship unless both
of them chose to adopt a child together (they have the same rights) or one of
them chose to adopt the child of the other partner (both parents of that child
agree to allow the other partner to adopt their child or one of the child's
parents had their parental rights taken away by a court)."
Happens all the time in California. Both gays adopt the child. You need to get the facts.
Do you care about these children? Or do you want to discriminate against their parents? Which is more important to you?
Happens all the time in California. Both gays adopt the child. You need to get the facts.
Do you care about these children? Or do you want to discriminate against their parents? Which is more important to you?
Anonymous | 2:54 p.m. June 8, 2009
"Then let them adopt like single people, grandparents and other relatives,
etc but legal marriage grants protections that shouldn't be extended to
non-biological parents."
WHAT?
My nephew and his wife should not be married because they had to adopt their son? What are you talking about? Remember, we have a 14th amendment that states that the law must be applied equally to all Americans, not just those that you want it to.
WHAT?
My nephew and his wife should not be married because they had to adopt their son? What are you talking about? Remember, we have a 14th amendment that states that the law must be applied equally to all Americans, not just those that you want it to.
The Deuce | 2:55 p.m. June 8, 2009
To Andy @ 2:23pm: CA already supports Domestic Partnerships with all of the
equal rights as that for heterosexual marriages. Therefore, which rights are you
attempting to discuss? While I am not advocating any particular religious
argument, I am trying to figure out which part of the bible are you confused
about? Having read through this book and actually spent time studying it, I am
not quite sure where the confusion is regarding stated beliefs. I am not passing
any judgement or opinion on any group. I am simply pointing out the fact that
there does not appear to be any confusion in biblical writings about this topic.
Whether or not anyone believes this is up to them. I am looking at this from an
academic view only.
Anonymous | 2:57 p.m. June 8, 2009
"Name a single fundamental or civil right which is denied based on sexual
orientation."
Marriage was declared a fundamental civil right by the US Supreme Court. Don't they know what they are talking about? Aren't they the interpretators of our constitution?
Marriage was declared a fundamental civil right by the US Supreme Court. Don't they know what they are talking about? Aren't they the interpretators of our constitution?
to to I hate marches | 2:58 p.m. June 8, 2009
I didn't say this was a march.I know this particular one was a parade with
the proper permits but it does say in the article "it is time to march
again" so it sounds like some marches will come and I think those are wrong
when they go down the road. If the permits are obtained for a parade then ok but
a protest march is not a parade and I hate marches(I don't really like
parades either so I don't go near them) but parades you know about and can
avoid easily. Protest marches are put together a few weeks or months in advance
and not always advertised to everyone so they are harder to avoid. All I am
saying is stay out of the middle of the road where people drive if you are doing
a march!!!! Parades are ok to be in the road but not a protest march!!!!
Anonymous | 2:59 p.m. June 8, 2009
"This is a lie. Stop lying in this forum. Tell me ONE LEGISLATOR that will
tell you that. Even Scott McCoy (D-Salt Lake City), Utah's only openly gay
congressman, has not made such a claim. "
What do you think the COMMON GROUNDS LEGISLATION was all about? Check into it. You'll find the truth.
What do you think the COMMON GROUNDS LEGISLATION was all about? Check into it. You'll find the truth.
to: Marriage is a Statute | 3:00 p.m. June 8, 2009
Hoorah for explaining what "rights" we have as Americans. I sure
didn't see marriage on that list.
I like how the gays freely use their freedom of speech, to which they are well entitled, but we straights are not supposed to use ours, or be allowed to vote our conscience, if our opinions disagree with theirs.
I like how the gays freely use their freedom of speech, to which they are well entitled, but we straights are not supposed to use ours, or be allowed to vote our conscience, if our opinions disagree with theirs.
Bigots will do anything to win | 3:01 p.m. June 8, 2009
Anonymous | 2:24 p.m.
"Disagreement becomes hate when you what to codify your disagreement."
This is why those who are supporting gay marriage as a right and who don't want to resort to the normal political process are filled with hate. They seek to codify their disagreement and to do so over the will of the majority since who the hell cares what anyone else thinks when they know that they are always right and that they could never be wrong. Every time these wonderful people go to vote they are okay with the outcome if it agrees with them but if it doesn't then they must show those idiots who don't worship at their feet that they are right.
To hell with our republic and democracy. To hell with the Constitution and the rights of others. It's all about them. Their posts seem intent on making this an issue of religion that they fail to understand that the real disagreement is with classical liberals who hate their attacks on every thing that liberalism stands for. Even some conservatives (except for the nuts) seem to take issue with their attacks on our freedoms and rights
"Disagreement becomes hate when you what to codify your disagreement."
This is why those who are supporting gay marriage as a right and who don't want to resort to the normal political process are filled with hate. They seek to codify their disagreement and to do so over the will of the majority since who the hell cares what anyone else thinks when they know that they are always right and that they could never be wrong. Every time these wonderful people go to vote they are okay with the outcome if it agrees with them but if it doesn't then they must show those idiots who don't worship at their feet that they are right.
To hell with our republic and democracy. To hell with the Constitution and the rights of others. It's all about them. Their posts seem intent on making this an issue of religion that they fail to understand that the real disagreement is with classical liberals who hate their attacks on every thing that liberalism stands for. Even some conservatives (except for the nuts) seem to take issue with their attacks on our freedoms and rights
Anonymous | 3:11 p.m. June 8, 2009
RedShirt | 2:31 p.m. June 8, 2009
"To "To gays cannot marry | 1:52 p.m. " you should read the Defense of Marriage act. It defines the marriage for the US federal government as between one mand and one woman. Some states may define it otherwise, but anything they do is against federal law if they define marriage in a way that is against the Federal government definition."
But the Doma goes against the full faith and credit section of the constitution and will be declared unconstitutional. The constitution trumps federal laws every time.
"To "To gays cannot marry | 1:52 p.m. " you should read the Defense of Marriage act. It defines the marriage for the US federal government as between one mand and one woman. Some states may define it otherwise, but anything they do is against federal law if they define marriage in a way that is against the Federal government definition."
But the Doma goes against the full faith and credit section of the constitution and will be declared unconstitutional. The constitution trumps federal laws every time.
GLBT Supporting Mormon | 3:11 p.m. June 8, 2009
Much love to everyone in the happy state of Utah! We're proud of our
bigotry! We're proud of our hatred! Let's reaffirm our concerted
fear through a chorus of subjective moral pronouncements!
Fortunately, it is only a matter of time before all 50 states recognize ALL civil-unions between consenting adults. Eventually society will recognize the institution of marriage to represent the the personal/religious side of nuptials; while civil-unions will be the legally recognized and law-binding definition.
I am a very happily married husband and father, and am a devout Mormon. My wife, kids and I have attended the pride parade for the last seven years and love it. It is a true expression of love and community. Being married in the temple is a sacred ordinance between my wife and I and the God we love...if the government didn't recognize our marriage it wouldn't matter. Just as now, with so few states formally recognizing gay marriage, it doesn't diminish the strength, power and beauty of those marriages. Stand tall and we will celebrate with you when gay marriages/civil-unions finally are formally recognized.
Fortunately, it is only a matter of time before all 50 states recognize ALL civil-unions between consenting adults. Eventually society will recognize the institution of marriage to represent the the personal/religious side of nuptials; while civil-unions will be the legally recognized and law-binding definition.
I am a very happily married husband and father, and am a devout Mormon. My wife, kids and I have attended the pride parade for the last seven years and love it. It is a true expression of love and community. Being married in the temple is a sacred ordinance between my wife and I and the God we love...if the government didn't recognize our marriage it wouldn't matter. Just as now, with so few states formally recognizing gay marriage, it doesn't diminish the strength, power and beauty of those marriages. Stand tall and we will celebrate with you when gay marriages/civil-unions finally are formally recognized.
sydnielouwho | 3:22 p.m. June 8, 2009
Making fun of people in the pictures isn't a substantial argument...
Don't make break out pictures of "straight" Mardi Gras
Don't make break out pictures of "straight" Mardi Gras
Last I checked | 3:24 p.m. June 8, 2009
God did not vote in CA. The people did. Even if God or Muhammed or Allah,
Buddah, whoever, came down and made his/her pitch to the american people, I
believe it would still be the AMERICAN PEOPLE who would vote on this. And
that's the way it should be. Any right not included in the constitution of
the US should be left to the states. Therefore MA, Maine and Iowa are fine. So
is California, and any other state that votes for or against has a CONSTITUIONAL
right to do so. Despite what Perez Hilton or Carrie Prejean say. Marches or
protests or whatever cannot rule out the process of the democratic vote.
Anonymous | 3:29 p.m. June 8, 2009
"are you going to tell them that gay unions are more desirable than
straight unions?"
No. They will find who they are attracted to and it will be natural for them.
" Are you going to tell them the Bible is a fairy tale and God got it wrong when He placed Adam and Eve in the garden instead of Harvey and Cleve?"
We do not legislate what parents must teach their children re the bible, religion or beliefs. It would be the same for gays. They will teach them their beliefs, just like you teach yours to your children.
"Perhaps you are going to tell them that its okay to bunk up with the same sex and do unatural things?"
I am certainly going to teach them to respect themselves and to keep their personal lives away from those who would judge them without even knowing them.
"Are you going to tell them that happiness trumps Gods Laws?"
They will learn to love themselves and treat those around them as they would want to be treated. Love is the key - not judging others and placing yourself above them. Treat all equally - even those who have a religion controlling them.
No. They will find who they are attracted to and it will be natural for them.
" Are you going to tell them the Bible is a fairy tale and God got it wrong when He placed Adam and Eve in the garden instead of Harvey and Cleve?"
We do not legislate what parents must teach their children re the bible, religion or beliefs. It would be the same for gays. They will teach them their beliefs, just like you teach yours to your children.
"Perhaps you are going to tell them that its okay to bunk up with the same sex and do unatural things?"
I am certainly going to teach them to respect themselves and to keep their personal lives away from those who would judge them without even knowing them.
"Are you going to tell them that happiness trumps Gods Laws?"
They will learn to love themselves and treat those around them as they would want to be treated. Love is the key - not judging others and placing yourself above them. Treat all equally - even those who have a religion controlling them.
to: Aways... | 3:31 p.m. June 8, 2009
"No matter how much gays push for legalizing their unions, it won't
change the fact that they'll never fulfill God's greatest
commandment...replenish the earth."
So what about women who are barren? Men with low sperm counts? They must be bad people too since they won't replenish the earth. In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either since they can't have kids, and as so many are stating procreation is a very important part of marriage. In fact, when getting married people should be required to sign a contract promising they will have children, if a women enters menopause without children then her marriage in annulled.
So what about women who are barren? Men with low sperm counts? They must be bad people too since they won't replenish the earth. In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either since they can't have kids, and as so many are stating procreation is a very important part of marriage. In fact, when getting married people should be required to sign a contract promising they will have children, if a women enters menopause without children then her marriage in annulled.
Anonymous | 3:41 p.m. June 8, 2009
"The right to keep the family together if one parent dies."
"What the hell are you talking about? The biological father or mother of a child will still be a family at the death of their partners. The adopted parents of a child will still be the adoptive parent at the death of their partners. Marriage would not change that. If this is an attempt to do a run around the rights of the biological parents and relatives of a child when a parent dies it is wrong."
In Utah, a gay partner CANNOT adopt her/his partner's child. It is against the law. So if the biological parent dies, the partner who may have been the primary caretaker of this child has no legal claim to this child. The parents or brother or sister of deceased has more of a claim to the child than the partner who has raised this child has.
Jumbled, I know, but true.
"What the hell are you talking about? The biological father or mother of a child will still be a family at the death of their partners. The adopted parents of a child will still be the adoptive parent at the death of their partners. Marriage would not change that. If this is an attempt to do a run around the rights of the biological parents and relatives of a child when a parent dies it is wrong."
In Utah, a gay partner CANNOT adopt her/his partner's child. It is against the law. So if the biological parent dies, the partner who may have been the primary caretaker of this child has no legal claim to this child. The parents or brother or sister of deceased has more of a claim to the child than the partner who has raised this child has.
Jumbled, I know, but true.
You are correct | 3:41 p.m. June 8, 2009
Re: to: Marriage is a Statute,
"Hoorah for explaining what "rights" we have as Americans. I sure didn't see marriage on that list."
That's because marriage isn't a right and any real liberal would understand that. The idea marriage is a right is idiotic at face value since government can't grant or take away rights. Legal marriage is something the government grants and therefore can't be considered a fundamental right.
This wouldn't necessarily mean that marriage wasn't a civil right but it also doesn't fit the definition of a civil right either since civil rights are the rights we possess as related to our right to be involved in our own government (i.e., the right to vote, right to hold office, the right to assemble, etc). But even those rights can be regulated by the majority.
"I like how the gays freely use their freedom of speech, to which they are well entitled, but we straights are not supposed to use ours, or be allowed to vote our conscience, if our opinions disagree with theirs."
This has nothing to do with straight or gay. It has to do with freedom.
"Hoorah for explaining what "rights" we have as Americans. I sure didn't see marriage on that list."
That's because marriage isn't a right and any real liberal would understand that. The idea marriage is a right is idiotic at face value since government can't grant or take away rights. Legal marriage is something the government grants and therefore can't be considered a fundamental right.
This wouldn't necessarily mean that marriage wasn't a civil right but it also doesn't fit the definition of a civil right either since civil rights are the rights we possess as related to our right to be involved in our own government (i.e., the right to vote, right to hold office, the right to assemble, etc). But even those rights can be regulated by the majority.
"I like how the gays freely use their freedom of speech, to which they are well entitled, but we straights are not supposed to use ours, or be allowed to vote our conscience, if our opinions disagree with theirs."
This has nothing to do with straight or gay. It has to do with freedom.
Anonymous | 3:45 p.m. June 8, 2009
To: Anonymous | 2:59 p.m. June 8, 2009
"What do you think the COMMON GROUNDS LEGISLATION was all about? Check into it. You'll find the truth."
COMMON GROUNDS INITIATIVE was voted down in 2008.
You haven't told me anything more about it, but I can tell you who sponsored the legislation and what was behind it.
It was sponsored by Congressman Scott McCoy (D-SLC), a series of initiatives allowing someone to name an unmarried partner as a designee in case of a wrongful death.
It also proposed a statewide domestic-partner registry, health benefits for gay couples and a partial repeal of the Utah State consitutional ban on same-sex marriage and other unions.
Eagle Mountain forum president Gayle Ruzicka was among a number of concerned citizens that lined up to convince the committee not to pass it.
Those are the facts, the TRUTH. Check into it YOURSELF.
I want everyone to understand that there are some in the gay rights movement that claim to have the truth, but don't.
The TRUTH is they have an agenda, to usurp our rights in the name of THEIRS.
Do not be fooled by their deceptive tactics.
"What do you think the COMMON GROUNDS LEGISLATION was all about? Check into it. You'll find the truth."
COMMON GROUNDS INITIATIVE was voted down in 2008.
You haven't told me anything more about it, but I can tell you who sponsored the legislation and what was behind it.
It was sponsored by Congressman Scott McCoy (D-SLC), a series of initiatives allowing someone to name an unmarried partner as a designee in case of a wrongful death.
It also proposed a statewide domestic-partner registry, health benefits for gay couples and a partial repeal of the Utah State consitutional ban on same-sex marriage and other unions.
Eagle Mountain forum president Gayle Ruzicka was among a number of concerned citizens that lined up to convince the committee not to pass it.
Those are the facts, the TRUTH. Check into it YOURSELF.
I want everyone to understand that there are some in the gay rights movement that claim to have the truth, but don't.
The TRUTH is they have an agenda, to usurp our rights in the name of THEIRS.
Do not be fooled by their deceptive tactics.
Gay in Utah | 3:46 p.m. June 8, 2009
If you're gay, why would you WANT to live in Utah anyways? Go to
Massachusetts or somewhere more gay-friendly.
Vince | 3:48 p.m. June 8, 2009
I have a question? | 2:32 p.m. June 8, 2009
Answer to your questions.
1. Being gay is an identity, just as heterosexuality is. It is part of who you are.
Granted, the Church has certain policies about those who would act on "those tendencies."
Gays are permitted in the Church as long as "they do not act on those tendencies" so to speak.
2. The Church's policy is clear when it comes where it stands to "protecting traditional marriages." However, there is nothing in the code of belief that asks a good-standing member about his/her political views about same-sex marriage. In other words, no one will ask all members, did you or did you not vote for same-sex marriage?
Some Heterosexual, tithe-paying, temple-attending members of the Church do stand against a ban on same-sex marriage.
The Church judges action, not belief or vote for that matter, when it comes to this issue.
It is clearly and distinctly, a separation of church and state.
Answer to your questions.
1. Being gay is an identity, just as heterosexuality is. It is part of who you are.
Granted, the Church has certain policies about those who would act on "those tendencies."
Gays are permitted in the Church as long as "they do not act on those tendencies" so to speak.
2. The Church's policy is clear when it comes where it stands to "protecting traditional marriages." However, there is nothing in the code of belief that asks a good-standing member about his/her political views about same-sex marriage. In other words, no one will ask all members, did you or did you not vote for same-sex marriage?
Some Heterosexual, tithe-paying, temple-attending members of the Church do stand against a ban on same-sex marriage.
The Church judges action, not belief or vote for that matter, when it comes to this issue.
It is clearly and distinctly, a separation of church and state.
Anonymous | 3:48 p.m. June 8, 2009
"It seems to me that you don't care if you are a liar and that you
will post anything you feel and you don't care about the rights of other
voters because you are always right and to hell with our system of government.
To hell with freedom, to hell with the rights of others and to hell with the
Constitution which you will only refer to in an attempt to get your way. Never
mind that the fundamental principle of our government is that the will of the
majority must prevail."
I thought that the constitution was put in place to make sure that the tyrany of the majority did NOT overrun the minority? Am I wrong? Isn't the constitution in place so that the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority?
Please help me. All I learned is wrong?
I thought that the constitution was put in place to make sure that the tyrany of the majority did NOT overrun the minority? Am I wrong? Isn't the constitution in place so that the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority?
Please help me. All I learned is wrong?
Re: to: Always | 3:49 p.m. June 8, 2009
"So what about women who are barren? Men with low sperm counts? They must
be bad people too since they won't replenish the earth."
I will answer for him. Since he didn't say anything about people who are barren or anyone who is unable or unwilling to have a child being bed people your argument is what is referred to as a straw man. He didn't address that points and it has nothing to do with his argument which is patently absurd but for a different reason than the idiotic straw man that you are putting forward.
"In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either since they can't have kids, and as so many are stating procreation is a very important part of marriage."
That's an absurd argument and an attempt to twist what he has said.
"In fact, when getting married people should be required to sign a contract promising they will have children, if a women enters menopause without children then her marriage in annulled."
You can argue that but that isn't the argument of those who correctly understand that the primary objective of marriage is to promote procreation
I will answer for him. Since he didn't say anything about people who are barren or anyone who is unable or unwilling to have a child being bed people your argument is what is referred to as a straw man. He didn't address that points and it has nothing to do with his argument which is patently absurd but for a different reason than the idiotic straw man that you are putting forward.
"In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either since they can't have kids, and as so many are stating procreation is a very important part of marriage."
That's an absurd argument and an attempt to twist what he has said.
"In fact, when getting married people should be required to sign a contract promising they will have children, if a women enters menopause without children then her marriage in annulled."
You can argue that but that isn't the argument of those who correctly understand that the primary objective of marriage is to promote procreation
I SEE | 4:05 p.m. June 8, 2009
I am not a gay activist, but some of the religious based comments on here have
me thinking.
Many religious folks quote "love the sinner, not the sin." I agree with that, however, many of you are saying that as if you've perfected it. Like you do love every person. None of us are capable of perfection but we could do better to TRUELY LOVE everybody, including homosexual people.
Did Christ not stand and condemn the Pharasies, while coming to the defense of a prostitude! Surely her actions were as immoral as homosexuals today. Yet he loved her, forgave her, and asked her to go and sin no more. He really did Love the sinner while not showing allowance for the sin. I hope we can all do better at loving those around us no matter how they choose to live. Myself included.
Many religious folks quote "love the sinner, not the sin." I agree with that, however, many of you are saying that as if you've perfected it. Like you do love every person. None of us are capable of perfection but we could do better to TRUELY LOVE everybody, including homosexual people.
Did Christ not stand and condemn the Pharasies, while coming to the defense of a prostitude! Surely her actions were as immoral as homosexuals today. Yet he loved her, forgave her, and asked her to go and sin no more. He really did Love the sinner while not showing allowance for the sin. I hope we can all do better at loving those around us no matter how they choose to live. Myself included.
Anonymous | 4:29 p.m. June 8, 2009
RE: I SEE
I agree with the above statement.
God will not destroy this nation because of people being gay, he will destroy it because of Pride, Greed, and Wrath. 3 of the deadly sins. Don't even start in about Lust. Being gay doesn't have anything to do with it. Lust is as prevalent among heterosexuals as it is among homosexuals.
I agree with the above statement.
God will not destroy this nation because of people being gay, he will destroy it because of Pride, Greed, and Wrath. 3 of the deadly sins. Don't even start in about Lust. Being gay doesn't have anything to do with it. Lust is as prevalent among heterosexuals as it is among homosexuals.
Anonymous | 4:29 p.m. June 8, 2009
""In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either since they
can't have kids, and as so many are stating procreation is a very important
part of marriage."
That's an absurd argument and an attempt to twist what he has said."
That is not an absurd argument. The Iowa Supreme Court said the same. If you ban gays from marrying because they cannot reproduce, you must ban all others that cannot reproduce. (14th amendment says the same thing and of couse, you believe it is given by god to us, don't you?)
That's an absurd argument and an attempt to twist what he has said."
That is not an absurd argument. The Iowa Supreme Court said the same. If you ban gays from marrying because they cannot reproduce, you must ban all others that cannot reproduce. (14th amendment says the same thing and of couse, you believe it is given by god to us, don't you?)
Kevin | 5:05 p.m. June 8, 2009
@Gay in Utah | 3:46 p.m. June 8, 2009
"If you're gay, why would you WANT to live in Utah anyways? Go to Massachusetts or somewhere more gay-friendly."
Well, it's like this... the skiing is just that good... But I am beginning to think my tax dollars should not be supporting the Utah government and people. Maybe a vacation rental here is better. I should take my job telecommuting job to a financial firm back east to a more gay-friendly state.
"If you're gay, why would you WANT to live in Utah anyways? Go to Massachusetts or somewhere more gay-friendly."
Well, it's like this... the skiing is just that good... But I am beginning to think my tax dollars should not be supporting the Utah government and people. Maybe a vacation rental here is better. I should take my job telecommuting job to a financial firm back east to a more gay-friendly state.
Troy Williams | 5:30 p.m. June 8, 2009
Hey people. Why is everyone afraid to use their real name in the comment forum?
Does it make it easier to spew hate and venom? If you are gay, come out and
tell people who you are. If you are Mormon, then please come out and tell us
who you are.
I am very much a gay man, and am very proud of my Mormon heritage. I was gay every day I attended the Eugene 5th Ward in Oregon. I was gay when I served my mission in the England Bristol Mission. I was gay when I joined my friends at Pride this weekend.
All of you who fear gays, let me tell you, we are having a blast. Our lives are joyful, celebratory and exciting. We are part of civil right's movement. And we are here to change the world for the better.
Please join us in building a more peaceful, loving world!
Troy Williams
SLC
LIVING OUT LOUD!!
I am very much a gay man, and am very proud of my Mormon heritage. I was gay every day I attended the Eugene 5th Ward in Oregon. I was gay when I served my mission in the England Bristol Mission. I was gay when I joined my friends at Pride this weekend.
All of you who fear gays, let me tell you, we are having a blast. Our lives are joyful, celebratory and exciting. We are part of civil right's movement. And we are here to change the world for the better.
Please join us in building a more peaceful, loving world!
Troy Williams
SLC
LIVING OUT LOUD!!
Anonymous | 5:32 p.m. June 8, 2009
Membership in the LDS Church is WAAAY overrated! Being gay and Mormon is no big
deal. Mormons take themselves WAAAAY too seriously (kinda' like the
Taliban). If I was gay and Mormon, I would just live my life and mind my own
business. It is nobody's business who you spend your private time with and
what you do with them. As for civil marriage, I don't see the problem? Let
gays marry. Their marital status should be confidential just like other personal
information. The Church has no business invading and penetrating the personal,
private lives of its members. The more they try, the more totalitarian they
become.
@ D Clark | 5:44 p.m. June 8, 2009
My assumption is that you are LDS. If I am wrong so beit. I understand that
you believe the Bible proclaimed homosexuality is wrong. Where does it
SPECICALLY state this? Not what it has be translated or the "normal
interpretation" of what it means, but where it SAYS it. You cannot find it
because it doesn't exist. Also your articles of faith state that you
don't believe that the Bible is 100% accurate, so how can you make that
claim.
Next, The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Convenants do not even mention anything about homosexuality. My understanding is God repeats himself several times to get the point across because us as imperfect beings need to be reminded. If so, why was it not reminded to the Nephites or the Lamanites, or Joseph Smith?
Finally, Latter day prophets. They have slightly altered the stance on this subject over the last 3 decades. First it was, marry a woman you will be cured, and now it is, we don't know why people are gay, but they cannot act on it. If God is unchanging, why the change of stance?
Next, The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Convenants do not even mention anything about homosexuality. My understanding is God repeats himself several times to get the point across because us as imperfect beings need to be reminded. If so, why was it not reminded to the Nephites or the Lamanites, or Joseph Smith?
Finally, Latter day prophets. They have slightly altered the stance on this subject over the last 3 decades. First it was, marry a woman you will be cured, and now it is, we don't know why people are gay, but they cannot act on it. If God is unchanging, why the change of stance?
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.
- NFL: Week 12 recap 12:50 a.m.
- '12 Days' bill would top $87K 12:35 a.m.
- Study finds autism therapy works 12:35 a.m.
- Boy shot following traffic stop 12:35 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:24 a.m.
- Herbert builds his team of rivals 12:21 a.m.
- Corroon a step closer to governor 12:21 a.m.
- Monday on TV 12:18 a.m.
- Editorial: East, West and religion 12:17 a.m.
- A deficit commission? 12:17 a.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- BYU is champion of the state
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- Credit Coug defense for win
- Marriage definitions vary widely
- Field goals, penalties doomed Utes
- Cougar defense rose to occasion
- Banged up Jazz get best of Blazers
- Jones' joy for life remembered
- Fantasy is reality for BYU professor
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
869 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime473
- Max Hall issues apology145
- BYU is champion of the state137
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies117
- Cave to be sealed with body inside116
- Rivalry Week is highly profane90
- Hall's legacy measured today79
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal68
- Utes fall to Seattle U. at home65
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
I find it interesting that many of the same people who say that we can't...
None of these teams is going to be easy. They all have fine football...
Max, no apology was necessary, but the apology was polically correct. If...
Very good piece of writing, Amy. You summarized what many of us have been...
How is a top 25 finish make Utah a top twenty team? I think what the poster...
90% of the BYU & Utah fans have class, and Hall knows it. If you don't...
This might be my favorite article I've ever read from the Deseret News. Kudos.
Thank you for not giving up and don't give up now brother and sister...
Dr. Lois Lee's work with children who are victims of child sexual...
Look at the preview for Pixar's "Up". The whole move is summarized in...
Advertisements