Comments about ‘Chaffetz targets D.C. same-sex marriage bill’

Chaffetz supposedly represents Utah--why doesn't he try to legislate laws that will assist those he represents and mind his business in the affairs in other parts of the Nation. Chaffetz--if you don't want to marry a man, then don't! Otherwise, keep your mouth shut about things that don't concern you.

Jason,
Let's vote on the person who has received the most attention by having a tantrum going through Airport Security! I wonder who would get the most votes??
When good, kind, decent people are just trying to have a life, that should not require a vote.

It would be nice if Rep Chaffetz would be the first one to give rights to a group, instead of picking a popular target to limit rights. Gay marriage hurts nobody and makes others happy. Calling it marriage seems to be the thing that makes most people unhappy. If domestic partnerships are OK then why not allow them in Utah.

We are behind you 100%. Marriage is between a man and a woman and has been since the begining of time. Government should only recognize marriage as it has been recognized since the begining of time.

I like this guy more and more. Go Chaffetz!

Sin only brings calamities upon nations. Chaffetz is doing the right thing for his country. If you choose to live in sin, then that is your free agency. Chaffetz has the right to represent his State and is doing so by voting against sinful behavior. Turning your back on sinful behavior does not make it right. Good for Chaffetz. A man who is willing to stand up for good. Where are all the other good men?

Just another way the federal govt has legislation without representation. The people DC don't really get an option. If something is passed the federal govt can strike it down, but D.C. doesn't have any legislators or senators.

So you think we should only recognize marriage as property ownership of woman. Where only white people can marry white people, or blacks marry blacks.

We should get our wives for what they are worth, a couple of cows and a bushel of apples. Sounds great to me. Where do I sign up?

"We are behind you 100%. Marriage is between a man and a woman and has been since the begining of time. Government should only recognize marriage as it has been recognized since the begining of time."

When did time begin? Was it with the Neanderthals? Did they have marriage?

What about stone age man?

Oh, yea. The world is only 6,000 years old.

To VBfriend,
You pointed out the basic difference here in your comment: "Gay marriage hurts nobody...".
Not everyone believes that. Ask any historian. Moral issues affect the fall of nations. They matter a great deal, and this is a moral issue that affects the whole country.
You certainly have the right to choose what you do, but when you try to force others to legitimize those actions you are trodding on the morals of everyone around you.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman and has been since the begining of time."

What about the Old Testament prophets who practiced polygamy? What about the early LDS Church practicing polygamy? Apparently, the definition of marriage is not as cut and dry as you would like to believe.

"If you choose to live in sin, then that is your free agency."

Then why are you advocating passing laws to restrict that free agency?

Chaffertz goal to block same-sex marriage improves nothing, helps no one, and only imposes the Federal government over local legislation.

If you "conservatives" and "Republicans" are for Freedom of Religion and limited Federal involvement in the lives of private citizens, then you should be absolutely against Chaffertz imposing his personal viewpoint on the citizens of DC.

10 out of 13 publicly elected DC City Councilmembers -- of all different races, sexes, backgrounds and interests -- already signed on as supporters; 2 more have not taken a final stance; and the only person opposed to gay marriage in the District is ... ta-dah! Marion Barry.

So, siding with Chaffertz = siding with Marion Barry!

Congratulations, you must be proud.

For doing your job, and doing it well.

Let's get Mr. Reid to do his job.

Call Sentors and Reps. you disagree with and tell them you are sending money to their opponents, no matter where they live.

Let's vote with our pocketbooks!

@@Sin:You can still sin all you would like. Just like you can rob, steal, murder but we do not need to pass laws to tell you it is OK to do so. Use your free agency however you would like, but don't ask me to change laws to make it OK. Society is already messed up enough. Laws are in place to protect society against its own self. Sin away if it makes you happy. But keep the laws for the sake of society.

This is not about the right you have to (in your words) live in sin. It is about forcing other to legitimize that sin. That is to recognize it as an accepted set of values that the majority of the world accepts as normal. It is to force others to accept this as 'right'. Moral 'rightness' is believed by many to have no standard, or no concrete definition. It is believed to be a floating standard... however others (maybe still the majority of the world???) believe it is not a moving target, but a standard set in stone.
The polygamy questions does touch on this definition of moral rightness. The world believes polygamy crosses that line of moral rightness... and correctly so. Thos who practiced it anciently only violated that law when God commanded. So they recognized Gods right to change the moral basis of the world. Which is only a good reason if you truly believe God can speak to prophets. If you don't believe that, then there is no excuse for polygamy - according to the rule of law, or the majority accepted Moral Standard.

@Anonymous | 12:35 p.m.
"When you try to force others to legitimize those actions you are trodding on the morals of everyone around you."

And when you try to force your religious beliefs on everyone else through legislation, you are trampling on the Constitutional Rights of all Americans. No one is forcing you into a gay marriage. No one is even asking you to accept homosexuality as "good" (whatever that means). We are arguing that the government should not have the power to prohibit a loving couple from formalizing their union and obtaining the same rights and benefits that other couples receive.

Re @Sin: Rep. Chaffetz is NOT in favor of legislation affecting a person's "free" agency. Sodomites can still practice sodomy so long as they don't practice their perversions in public. Rep. Chaffetz simply wants to protect the institution of marriage for ALL of us by preserving its definition. A minority want to redefine the word for EVERYONE, which would cheapen and despoil a possession and an institution sacred to the majority. Rep. Chaffetz believes the citizens of Washington D.C., who are without representation, need and want him to represent their views of decency.

As a conservative republican, I think that the representative should allow states to set their own rules, espcially rules set by an elected legislature.

I don't understand why a representative from Utah is meddling in the local affairs of a city across the country. His job is to represent his constutients.

I like Chaffetz! Let's see the vote! I would love to see Congress have to stand up and be counted rather than slink around with their wishy-washy double-speak.

Rather than have all of this be done back-door through the courts and judges legislating from the bench, let's have the elected lawmakers stand up and pass or not pass a law. Then they can be accountable to their constituents instead of insulated judges.

You want gay marriage, fine, get a bill in congress and have it voted on fair and square. Let's see if it passes and how many of those who vote for it stay in office come the next election. Then we will all know if the American people want it or not.

Those in favor should not be afraid to let the citizens of this country make the decision.

I would abide by the decision of the people.