Reader comments
Chaffetz targets D.C. same-sex marriage bill
175 comments | Read story
chaffetz | 11:25 a.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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.
Vote on Who? | 11:27 a.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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.
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.
VBfriend | 11:29 a.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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.
Comments continue below
Chaffetz | 11:53 a.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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.
Andrew Wiggin | 12:00 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
I like this guy more and more. Go Chaffetz!
Sin | 12:09 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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?
Anonymous | 12:17 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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.
@11:53am | 12:33 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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 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?
Anonymous | 12:34 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
"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.
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.
Anonymous | 12:35 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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.
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.
@Chaffetz | 11:53 a.m. | 12:37 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
"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.
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.
@Sin | 12:09 p.m. | 12:39 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
"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?
Then why are you advocating passing laws to restrict that free agency?
Dee | 12:40 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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.
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.
Thank you Congressman! | 12:55 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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!
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 | 12:59 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
@@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.
Anonymous | 1:02 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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.
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.
Not Gay (NTTAWWT) | 1:08 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
@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.
"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.
Linus | 1:30 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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.
Matt | 1:37 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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 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.
Great! | 1:41 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
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.
VBfriend | 1:46 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
To Anonymous: I seems OK to you that you have forced your version of marriage on
the country. Maybe it offends others that you feel that marriage is only to be
by the rules you set. Since you are in the majority, you feel it is your right
to say what is right and wrong. What is moral and what is not moral.
I say that if I love someone and want to commit to them, why should you or anyone else dictate whether or not I can. As I said before, calling it marriage seems to be your hangup. Why not allow civil unions then. Why not call it something else. We do not care what it is called, just that we have a chance to have the rights associated with making the commitment to another.
I say that if I love someone and want to commit to them, why should you or anyone else dictate whether or not I can. As I said before, calling it marriage seems to be your hangup. Why not allow civil unions then. Why not call it something else. We do not care what it is called, just that we have a chance to have the rights associated with making the commitment to another.
Molly | 1:51 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
Chaffetz:
"But the Democrats have the House, the Senate and the White House. We're outnumbered." Thank God.
People of any persuasion, as long as they are not breaking the law should not be excluded from anything. Who are we to judge?
All these Mormons who actually DO judge, and act in a way Christ would denounce are in for a big surprise when they get to meet their maker. Hint: Dress lightly.
MW
"But the Democrats have the House, the Senate and the White House. We're outnumbered." Thank God.
People of any persuasion, as long as they are not breaking the law should not be excluded from anything. Who are we to judge?
All these Mormons who actually DO judge, and act in a way Christ would denounce are in for a big surprise when they get to meet their maker. Hint: Dress lightly.
MW
Anonymous | 1:58 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
SIN cannot be used to pass laws. It is a religious word that means disobeying
God's laws.
We live in a secular society.
Do we want to pass laws that all women must wear a burka? It is someone's god's law...
There are no laws against homosexuality that are legal in the United States (Lawrence v. Texas). All gays are law abiding citizens of this country.
To pass laws that limit them because you believe that they are "sinful" is against everything we believe in in America. Remember the 14th amendment?
Where do you people come from? Don't you read the constitution? Don't you understand why we do not pass laws that impose our morality upon all? When we have, they have been found to be unconstitutional or later reversed, ie, sodomy laws, prohibition, etc.
We live in a secular society.
Do we want to pass laws that all women must wear a burka? It is someone's god's law...
There are no laws against homosexuality that are legal in the United States (Lawrence v. Texas). All gays are law abiding citizens of this country.
To pass laws that limit them because you believe that they are "sinful" is against everything we believe in in America. Remember the 14th amendment?
Where do you people come from? Don't you read the constitution? Don't you understand why we do not pass laws that impose our morality upon all? When we have, they have been found to be unconstitutional or later reversed, ie, sodomy laws, prohibition, etc.
Anonymous | 2:02 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
Massachusetts has had gay marriage for over 5 years.
Have all the LDS church members that live in MA been forced to change their beliefs and now don't believe that homosexual behavior is a sin? No.
Have they had their rights to believe and worship as they desire been abridged? No.
It looks like gay marriage allows Americans to believe and act as they believe WITHOUT causing harm or suspension of the other sides belief.
Not allowing gay marriage does not.
Have all the LDS church members that live in MA been forced to change their beliefs and now don't believe that homosexual behavior is a sin? No.
Have they had their rights to believe and worship as they desire been abridged? No.
It looks like gay marriage allows Americans to believe and act as they believe WITHOUT causing harm or suspension of the other sides belief.
Not allowing gay marriage does not.
Anonymous | 2:04 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
"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."
You need to read the Iowa Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage. It will open your eyes to the legal arguments on gay marriage.
You need to read the Iowa Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage. It will open your eyes to the legal arguments on gay marriage.
To Great! | 2:07 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
"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."
This is exactly what DC is doing. Chaffetz wants to reverse the DC lawmakers!
Are you in favor of him overriding their votes?
This is exactly what DC is doing. Chaffetz wants to reverse the DC lawmakers!
Are you in favor of him overriding their votes?
@1:02 | 2:09 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
No one is forcing you to say its right. They are forcing you to stop
discriminating. You can still say whatever you want. You can still believe
whatever you want. You just can't tell other to believe the same as you.
@Linus | 2:11 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
The people of D.C. are very much represented by the 13 Councilmembers that are
democratically elected. The citizens of D.C. did not vote for Chaffetz and he
should not be trying to intervene on 'morals' that Utahns believe. And
gay marriage is not about sodomy, it's about marriage.
@Great | 2:19 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
First problem with your argument, the people who are voting doing this are
elected by the people of DC. The second problem with that is even when an
elected body does pass legislation allowing for Gay Marriage, you will still
whine saying they took it away from the people. Look at Vermont and New
Hampshire. Their legislators passed the bills, and you still reject it.
Chaffetz is right | 2:19 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
Go Chaffetz! Marriage needs protection from being expanded and redefined in such
a way so as to render it meaningless. It also needs to retain its institutional
protections and uniqueness so that children in our society are better served.
Our nation's capital should pay more attention to advocating the importance of marriage and follow the wishes of the American people, who in their respective states, have voted overwhelmingly to protect this societal foundation. Redefining the time-tested institution of marriage in D.C. to accommodate a small contingent of loud marital revisionists is to elevate appeasement to a virtue at the cost of future generations.
As G.K. Chesterton wrote, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
Our nation's capital should pay more attention to advocating the importance of marriage and follow the wishes of the American people, who in their respective states, have voted overwhelmingly to protect this societal foundation. Redefining the time-tested institution of marriage in D.C. to accommodate a small contingent of loud marital revisionists is to elevate appeasement to a virtue at the cost of future generations.
As G.K. Chesterton wrote, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
Mark | 2:20 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
I am a member of Bishop Jackson's church and attend the church he planted
in D.C. I can testify to the fact that he is definitely a D.C. resident. The
people of D.C. should be given the right to vote on this issue. I applaud Rep.
Chaffetz's efforts to bring this to a vote in congress. Federal DOMA is
still the law of the land. D.C. is a federal city and therefore should follow
federal law.
Sin | 2:24 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
@not gay: You are mistaken if you don't believe that religious belief is
what keeps the moral values of a country in check. Without religion, this world
would be destroyed by men seeking power and dominion over people.
I for one have no problem if you want to be gay. Again that is your free agency to do so, which by the way, is a God given right. You want the right of free agency but you don't want to believe in religion as part of society. Interesting reasoning.
Marriage is about a union of man and woman as set up in the beginning. It wasn't Adam and Adam, it was Adam and Eve. You for one have no right to ask for a law that calls for sin. The majority of us do not want that in our country. If more politians stood up for right, we would be a much better country and world.
I for one have no problem if you want to be gay. Again that is your free agency to do so, which by the way, is a God given right. You want the right of free agency but you don't want to believe in religion as part of society. Interesting reasoning.
Marriage is about a union of man and woman as set up in the beginning. It wasn't Adam and Adam, it was Adam and Eve. You for one have no right to ask for a law that calls for sin. The majority of us do not want that in our country. If more politians stood up for right, we would be a much better country and world.
Libs only like Democracy... | 2:42 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
when it suits their agenda. Letting the people vote is terribly inconvenient
when the results would conflict with the liberal-politically-correct-agenda.
Libs really don't care what the people want. They care only about what
they want and this issue is absolute proof of that fact.
Yeah Chaffetz! | 2:48 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
I really like him more and more. It is good that Congress can overide
democratically elected councils in Washington DC because when a people is not
intelligent enough to make good and righteous laws, it is our obligation to put
a stop to that.
Also, Congress is the government of the entire USA. Therefore, they have the right to direct the laws of American citizens.
America - Love it or leave it!
Also, Congress is the government of the entire USA. Therefore, they have the right to direct the laws of American citizens.
America - Love it or leave it!
To "SIN @ 2:24 pm': WOW! | 3:05 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
Wow! You stated:
"You are mistaken if you don't believe that religious belief is what keeps the moral values of a country in check. Without religion, this world would be destroyed by men seeking power and dominion over people. "
I feel sorry for you. Apparently, fear of Godly retribution is the only thing keeping you from robbing your neighbor and plundering the local mall?
I'm an agnostic (and former LDS). I am glad (for society's sake) that you believe in your religion and that it keeps the rest of us safe. However, I can vouch that I and my friends don't refrain from pillaging and plundering due to your religious beliefs.
If I were a malicious person (which I try not to be, in spite of the fact that I don't have a religion), I might discuss the major destruction wrought by people IN THE NAME OF various religions during the past 8 years (including W's actions taken based on his Christian beliefs; also google affidavits noting that Blackwater's founder feels like he is a modern day Crusader eradicating Islam).
But I'm not, so I won't.
"You are mistaken if you don't believe that religious belief is what keeps the moral values of a country in check. Without religion, this world would be destroyed by men seeking power and dominion over people. "
I feel sorry for you. Apparently, fear of Godly retribution is the only thing keeping you from robbing your neighbor and plundering the local mall?
I'm an agnostic (and former LDS). I am glad (for society's sake) that you believe in your religion and that it keeps the rest of us safe. However, I can vouch that I and my friends don't refrain from pillaging and plundering due to your religious beliefs.
If I were a malicious person (which I try not to be, in spite of the fact that I don't have a religion), I might discuss the major destruction wrought by people IN THE NAME OF various religions during the past 8 years (including W's actions taken based on his Christian beliefs; also google affidavits noting that Blackwater's founder feels like he is a modern day Crusader eradicating Islam).
But I'm not, so I won't.
We live in a Republic! | 3:08 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
"Libs only like Democracy... "
That is why we live in a Republic!
That is why we have a constitution that trumphs all votes of the majority if they are supressing the minority.
You would have to amend the constitution to get rid of the 14th amendment first. Read it.
That is why we live in a Republic!
That is why we have a constitution that trumphs all votes of the majority if they are supressing the minority.
You would have to amend the constitution to get rid of the 14th amendment first. Read it.
@Mark | 3:08 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
And the Federal DOMA is unconstitional. The Constitution states that a legal
marriage performed in one state, is legal in any other state (abridged) It is
why when you get married you can move to another state and still be legally
married w/o getting remarried.
DOMA states that States can ignore that clause of the Constitution when it comes to gay marriage.
DOMA states that States can ignore that clause of the Constitution when it comes to gay marriage.
@Sin | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
First of all, it is a Religion that is pushing the whole Adam and Eve thing,
science tells a completely different story. The world is not 6000 years old as
your religion wants us to believe.
Secondly, it is Religion that is the cause of the vast majority wars this world has seen. Whose religion is right, versus whose is wrong. Why would say it is religion that keeps a nation in check when everyone is busy fighting over whose God is stronger?
Seems to me in a country that doesn't require you to be religious and will not sponser any religion, it should allow all people of any religion or no religion at all excerise their freedom of choice. We obviously have laws to prevent chaos, but Gay Marriage is a far cry from the chaos you think it is.
Secondly, it is Religion that is the cause of the vast majority wars this world has seen. Whose religion is right, versus whose is wrong. Why would say it is religion that keeps a nation in check when everyone is busy fighting over whose God is stronger?
Seems to me in a country that doesn't require you to be religious and will not sponser any religion, it should allow all people of any religion or no religion at all excerise their freedom of choice. We obviously have laws to prevent chaos, but Gay Marriage is a far cry from the chaos you think it is.
@Libs only like... | 3:13 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
And conseratives only likes non-government interference except when it comes to
things they do not like or do not understand... Like Gay marriage.
my slc | 3:14 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
In my opinion, you do not vote on citizen’s civil rights.
Go DC and I do not think that congress will get any where with stopping this.
Go DC and I do not think that congress will get any where with stopping this.
@Yeah Chaffetz | 3:15 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
RIGHTEOUS LAWS?! Are you serious, IT IS THE COURTS that decide whether a law is
valid or not (not righteous) and by valid I mean unconstitutional...
Righteousness has NOTHING to do with it. There are several religions that allow
practicing homosexuals to be full members of their congregation. So why is
their definition of righteous less than yours?
Privacy only for Chaffetz | 3:17 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
Chaffetz has no problem hassling government employees (who are just doing their
job) when he thinks his privacy is invaded. But he thinks other peoples'
private lives need regulation by the government.
Hypocrite!
Hypocrite!
Sarah | 3:20 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
It is kind of funny to listen to uneducated morons make statements about the god
& the bible.
If Heterosexuals do not hold OURSELVES legally accountable to biblical law, why should we expect that of others? Doesn't any heterosexual out there agree that if we are going to hold gay people to biblical law, we should probably be following that ourselves? Anyone??? No???? Q'uel surprise.
Perhaps because this isn't about god at all, but rather a way to use god and bible to project our disdain onto the very gay people WE created?
As usual, people and their hypocrisy speak out before taking a second to think.
It is, however, MUCH fun to watch the world pass you by.
If Heterosexuals do not hold OURSELVES legally accountable to biblical law, why should we expect that of others? Doesn't any heterosexual out there agree that if we are going to hold gay people to biblical law, we should probably be following that ourselves? Anyone??? No???? Q'uel surprise.
Perhaps because this isn't about god at all, but rather a way to use god and bible to project our disdain onto the very gay people WE created?
As usual, people and their hypocrisy speak out before taking a second to think.
It is, however, MUCH fun to watch the world pass you by.
Wrex | 3:21 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
"Judge not, lest thee be judged."
These might be good words for Mr. Chaffetz to remember.
These might be good words for Mr. Chaffetz to remember.
JB | 3:23 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
Gay marriage can repeat again and again that gay marriage would hurt no one and
that there is no agenda to impose that would hurt churches. But there is one
problem with that assertion. Too many gay people who disagree with that agenda
have come out and declared that the agenda does exist and plans have been laid
to eventually force their agenda down our throats. The consequences are
multitude.
Dixie Dan | 3:24 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
Why is Chaffetz opposing Romney in same sex marriages? Romney has a good chance
of being the GOP nominee in 2012 and will run on this issue since he signed the
first bill in the nation allowing same sex marriage. He can not reverse himself
now and oppose this without causing a major problem for his supporters. Go
Romney and support same sex marriage like you did in Massachusetts and a
universal health care system.
Go away Chaffetz | 3:35 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
He has to get his BOM out of the way of his job.
We have all kinds of issues out there that require his participation, and all he wants to do is take rights away from gays.
Drop it Chaff. Do something IMPORTANT with OUR time.
You don't work for the church, you work for citizens of this country. Or did nobody give you a job description?
What a tool.
Jack in Sandy
We have all kinds of issues out there that require his participation, and all he wants to do is take rights away from gays.
Drop it Chaff. Do something IMPORTANT with OUR time.
You don't work for the church, you work for citizens of this country. Or did nobody give you a job description?
What a tool.
Jack in Sandy
Anonymous | 3:41 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
I don't live in DC and I feel for the people there. It is stupid that such
an action even deserves a vote. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman
period. I myself am tired of gay life styles being shuffed in my face. Being
hetrosexual (now theres a name for being straight) a name for being normal. What
has happend to society. Not only do I feel Gays shouldn't marry I believe
they should go back to the closet and this time lock the door.
Pagan | 3:42 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
Of COURSE Chaffetz wants to vote down gay marriage.
It would not affect him, right?
While we're at it, let's vote down inter-racial marriage. That injustice has gone on for too long. Women should go back to being property and shellfish should be outlawed.
Sarcasm off.
The only person who does not deserve your vote is Chaffetz.
It would not affect him, right?
While we're at it, let's vote down inter-racial marriage. That injustice has gone on for too long. Women should go back to being property and shellfish should be outlawed.
Sarcasm off.
The only person who does not deserve your vote is Chaffetz.
Backbone | 3:49 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009
Good to see a REAL representative with a backbone. Keep up the good work, Jason
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.
Jacquelyn Martin, Associated Press
Patricia Hawkins, 69, a psychologist, wipes a tear as the D.C. council introduces a bill allowing same-sex marriage.
- What's happening? Utah calendar 12:08 a.m.
- Portraits of the past: Liverpool docks 12:07 a.m.
- Seniors enjoy 70's Club dinner 12:07 a.m.
- NHL roundup: Savard gets 200th goal 11:49 p.m.
- WSU's Mahoney takes trey to bank 11:45 p.m.
- Civil lawyer named to judge post 11:34 p.m.
- Police video aim: safe holidays 11:33 p.m.
- Man who killed mom gets prison 11:32 p.m.
- Offices warned after anthrax claim 11:31 p.m.
- Semi catches fire inside shop 11:30 p.m.
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan
- Mitchell said to share LeBaron traits
- BCS just keeps dirty laundry on spin
- Teen girl killed in Kaysville crash
- Utahns growing tired of Bennett
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- Orem pair getting a rep for crime
- MWC awaits bowl destinations
- Simple candies for the holidays
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
913 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime483
- Hall reprimanded by MWC405
- Max Hall issues apology392
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal358
- Utes won't respond to Hall277
- BYU says Hall incident resolved244
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?237
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game178
- Religion in politics is tiresome154
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
As the TV cameras Tuesday night scanned the West Point audience during...
LDS Church publisher Deseret Book has some specials for the holidays.
Latest comments
Football is JUST A GAME!! People have the right to say and believe what they...
Notice how Hatch always talks about failure.... How about some success in...
Proud to be a Wildcat...proud of Randy Rahe, his staff and his team. Never...
But according to Dave Rose in an article earlier today, "we know who are...
keep them under controland have them "fixed" so they will not be picked up...
Can I get a WOOT YEAH?!
Playoffs are nice. . . but thats not what you play for. you want to win it...
I would not sympathize with him. He may of meant well in his own mind, but...
Re: BYU Fans- If your definition of "anything" is winning the national...
@John C. | 11:07 p.m. Dec. 2, 2009 Free Agency CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY ON...
Advertisements