Quantcast
Utah

Congressman Jason Chaffetz, family differ on gay marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • wandrew
    May 31, 2010 3:09 p.m.

    Makes me all the more glad that we have a Libertarian candidate in that race. You can still vote for conservative economic principles and stand uyp for individual rights. Traditional marriage? Is that something that the government should have a say in? Why, then, do we allow divorce?

  • Gregory Jones
    Feb. 26, 2010 8:16 p.m.

    I find it ironic that Mormons would have the gall to be against Gay Marriage. After all, for years and years (and even now) Mormons were reviled and hated because of Polygamy and other affronts against "nature." Mormons were also considered to be thieves and gypsies. I grew up with Mormon friends and I don't think they are all intolerant. But you cannot be against Big Govt. and then be for Big Govt. At least you can't and expect to be respected.

    Gays don't demoralize society any more or any less than any other group.

    As a close relative to the Rev Jim Jones, I know first hand what happens when thinking people allow organized and shall we say "timely" religions too much control over society. Bottom line: the pendulum swings back and forth. Right now its in your court haters of real freedom. But it is finally changing! Next stop: elimination of tax exempt status for so-called houses of God that interfere in politics.

  • Abe Lincoln
    Jan. 5, 2010 4:55 p.m.

    to: Steve | 12:49 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    your right to marry already exists. nobody asks you if you're gay when you apply for a marriage license. that would be discrminatory. it is not discrminatory to define what marriage is just because you don't like it. no rights are being denied by defining marriage as between a man and a woman instaed as between any two people. even your defintion of marriage is discrminatory to someone. what about brothers and sisters? or those who want to marry two people? we all know that gays object to these and call them disgusting, well, that is where the rest of us stand on your definition. we are no more haters then you are for being appalled at these unions. the law is created to protect individuals, not groups. as individuals, you are just as protected as a straight person. straights can't marry someone from the same sex either. the law applies equally to both gays and straights. there is no discrimination.

  • LDS4gaymarriage
    Dec. 28, 2009 10:06 p.m.

    Anonymous | 4:22 p.m. Dec. 23, 2009
    "If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage."

    Please! The assult on marriage occurred with the easy divorce.

    LDS - Amen. In 2004, a study, conducted by Ellison Research (which has done several studies on clergy, religion and society) among a representative sample of 695 Protestant church ministers nationwide, asked pastors of several denominations to identify the three strongest threats to families in their own community.

    The three most commonly named threats were divorce (listed as one of the top three by 43% of all ministers), negative influences from the media (38%), and materialism (36%). These were followed by absentee fathers (24%) and families that lack a stay-at-home parent (22%). Co-habitation before marriage (18%). Pornography (17%). Morality not being taught in schools (14%)
    Poverty, unemployment, and/or a poor economy (13%)
    Parental alcohol use/abuse (12%)
    Parental drug use/abuse (11%)
    Drug use/abuse among teens or children (8%) Teen sexual involvement/activity (8%)
    Adultery (5%), etc.. Same-sex marriage didn't make it into the top 20 threats to the family.

  • LDS4gaymarriage
    Dec. 28, 2009 9:16 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert | 12:46 p.m. Dec. 23, 2009
    "To Jim,
    The positive social goods have to do with added stability for the raising of children,.."

    Giving gays marriage likewise adds stability when they are raising children

    "..and the positive outcomes for children raised in intact homes with both their biological parents, "

    So I guess adopted kids are out of luck.

    "..which is more likely when the parents are married, which requires a connection of marriage and child-rearing, which can only exist in the man/woman marriage formula."

    If there needs be a connection between marriage and child rearing, why do straight couples unable or unwilling to have children need/deserve marriage?

    Same-sex marriage opponents need to be consistant. If marriage is about birthing and rearing kids, then the infertile, sterile, aged, etc... have no need of marriage. If marriage is about raising kids, gays with kids need/deserve marriage far more than childless straights. Be consistant.

  • Larry
    Dec. 28, 2009 8:13 p.m.

    Think of the CHILDREN!
    We teach most by example, by the way we live our lives.
    How on earth can our little children ever learn the necessary skills of parenting, raising and nurturing their own children, without the God given role models of a man and a woman, using their unique God given talents and traits, in raising their family?
    This one man and one woman format is, and has always been, the only form for a successful marriage. It is also typical of the entire animal kingdom.

  • LDS4gaymarriage
    Dec. 28, 2009 6:48 p.m.

    What about France??? | 12:51 p.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    "Children come from the union of a man and a woman. History and contemporary studies have shown that marriage of a husband and a wife, with both contributing their distinctive natural traits to the family, provides the ideal context within which to rear children."

    LDS - Agreed (all other things being equal), but that doesn't make the kids in single-parent homes and same-sex homes go away. The enemy of the good isn't the bad. The enemy of the good is the "ideal". Think about it.

  • Mr. Jwn
    Dec. 28, 2009 6:45 p.m.

    PS: Utahns need to stay out of the business of other states unless they are for positive reinforcement of the rights of all humankind and the equality that is sought by those very people. Stay out of DC, and let it set a true example for our country. Anyone who believes that their neo-conservative values should be the frontline of the future are sorely mistaken.

  • Mr. Jwn
    Dec. 28, 2009 6:42 p.m.

    Gay marriage cannot be equated with population decline. That makes as much sense as saying that women refuse to assist in procreating in Japan because the fish market is unsteady due to toxicity in the waters, not because women are taking over research and business positions in the country (Japan).

    Why does it even have to be gay marriage vs. straight marriage? Albeit, straight marriage might seem primitive if it's main purpose if for procreation. Think, people, or you will lose many loved ones because you chose to stand in the way of their love, even though they were there for your weddings.

  • LDS4gaymarriage
    Dec. 28, 2009 6:37 p.m.

    Chad | 10:54 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    "For most of us, our religious beliefs are an intrical part of our lives and cannot be separated
    from our daily thinking. Our Founding Fathers were very religious men and injected their beliefs into their great constitutional work. It was their religious beliefs that led to the creation of our Constitution."

    LDS - I have no problem with that as long as you "don't allow your religious opinions to prompt you to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others" (D&C 134:4)

  • LDS4gaymarriage
    Dec. 28, 2009 6:36 p.m.

    Makenna | 10:49 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    "And it is incorrect to compare race with sexual orientation. One can choose to act upon, or not act upon, their sexual orientation... it is a behavior."

    LDS - Oh, choosing one's religion and political party are also choices. Should the majority be able to outlaw those behavioral choices? We need to outlaw only objectively harmful behaviors and maximize the freedom of others.

  • LDS4gaymarriage
    Dec. 28, 2009 6:26 p.m.

    j | 10:09 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009 D&C 101:76-80
    "I think you all should admit it’s a moral issue. Trying to make it into a racial issue etc, is
    deceptive. Without morality all societies crumble."

    LDS - whose morality? Liberal Christianity's?, conservative Christianity's?, the Taliban's? Whose?

    "Legislators have a moral responsibility to protect citizens from attack, and also to promote healthy traditional marriages, which help children and society."

    LDS - So how is allowing gays to marry harm children or traditional marriage? My traditional Marriage isn't harmed. Forbidding it weakens the bonds of gay families and OBJECTIVELY harms children raised in such homes. The weakening of those families and the harming of those kids harms society. How hard is that to understand?

  • LDS4gaymarriage
    Dec. 28, 2009 6:23 p.m.

    j | 10:09 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    "I’m not sure how we define “harmful,” but gayness can be just as harmful as those things that gays seem to think are immoral and they are above (smoking, prostitution, polygamy, etc"

    LDS - If you can't define whether something is "harmful" or not, how in the world can you
    declare anything harmful. My definition of "harmful" is any activity that objectively destroys, harms, restricts the person, property or rights of another (murder, arson, fraud, etc... )

    "Homosexuality doesn’t help society."

    LDS - Neither do double bacon cheeseburgers. What happened to individual choice and freedom?

    " And, yes, most legislation is, when you look into it, a legislation of morality, even controlling speeding. "

    LDS - Speed limits are not a matter of morality. They are negotiated and based upon the local environment. There is no objectively right or wrong decision. On the other hand, objectively harming the person, property, or rights of others IS immoral.

  • LDS4gaymarriage
    Dec. 28, 2009 6:19 p.m.

    where is the story? | 9:51 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    "So yet another republican shows their true color. "we are all about local control, unless of
    course local control means doing something I don’t agree with" and "government should stay out of peoples lives, as long as its big business and the rich’s life government is getting out of." I repeat where is the story? we have heard this time and again, there is nothing new here. "

    LDS - Agreed. Republicans don't want government out of the bedroom. They opposed the Lawrence decision legalizing gay sex. The oppose repealing bans on "toys", etc...

    The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former wants you guns and your money while the latter wants your soul and obedience.

  • LDS4gaymarriage
    Dec. 28, 2009 6:17 p.m.

    "RE: Ah, Conflict | 9:47 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    You're conflating libertarian values (more accurately libertine values) with conservatism. "

    LDS - Being a libertarian, I take offense at that "libertine" reference. Libertines want

    freedom but no responsibility for their acts. Libertarians fully believe in accepting the

    consequences of one's choices.

    "Libertarians who mistakenly feel that the only principle of any importance to human

    happiness is liberty, believe that the government should serve liberty and liberty only,

    principally by getting out of the way of all human activities."

    No, we DON'T believe that personal liberty
    is the only key to happiness. We simply believe that government should maximize freedom

    and responsibility and only outlaw behaviors that are -objectively- harmful to others (murder,

    rape, theft, fraud, etc...). Giving gays equal freedom to marry -objectively- harms no one.

  • Mary Louise Mortensen
    Dec. 28, 2009 4:08 p.m.

    Jason, I am so very proud of you. Please hang in there. Know that we in Utah love you for your moral integrity. Keep it up and you will always stand tall in what really matters in this life--a nation of families with "real" fathers and a "real" mothers.

  • Ruel
    Dec. 28, 2009 8:47 a.m.

    Kudos to Jason. This is a "protect marriage between one man and one woman" issue that has been consistent since Adam and Eve. Marriage between a man and a woman was present prior to politics. Neither Jason nor the LDS Church made marriage a political issue. It seems that when individuals cannot reconcile their personal desires with religious beliefs, or if they seek for artificial elevation in status, they turn to the government (politicians and judges) in an attempt to use "force" to redefine that which they should not have. Same sex marriage partners can have most, if not all benefits accorded a married man and woman. They just need to establish them through laws and contracts other than long and well established marriage contracts. Earn your way if you can.

    Again Jason. Thank you.

  • Bill
    Dec. 28, 2009 8:44 a.m.

    One will find that a traditional family with a mother, father and children is the best for all. Sure, there are exceptions to all rules and some do meet the critieria but it is a proven fact that when there is a true mother, father in the family the children are better off. Anything else is not going to pay the same fruits. The fact is that the family is ordained of God and marriage of a man and woman is ordained of God. I don't really care if you believe this or not. It is the ultimate truth that stands as a warning to us. There are many single parent families across the world as well as many others. Just because there are doesn't make it any less significant than it is. Your eternal life is dependent upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. Anything else will not allow one to reach the ultimate goal of life to be able to return to the Father.

  • John
    Dec. 28, 2009 8:16 a.m.

    Good for you, I definitely do not agree with gay Marriage.
    However, I do think we should allow them an equivalent to Marriage,
    You could call it life partners as long as it is not called Marriage.
    For you see, the devil, is in the details. They should have an equivalent
    That would only be fair.

  • Really, Peggy?
    Dec. 27, 2009 2:30 p.m.

    Can you provide links to this "science?"

    Here's some actual science on the lives of children, from an article published in the NY Times on 05 Nov 2009 titled, "What’s Good for the Kids"

    “These children do just fine,” says Abbie E. Goldberg, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Clark University, who concedes there are some who will continue to believe that gay parents are a danger to their children, in spite of a growing web of psychological and sociological evidence to the contrary."

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay."

  • Really, Peggy?
    Dec. 27, 2009 1:29 p.m.

    Can you provide links to this "science?"

    Here's some actual science on the lives of children, from an article published in the NY Times on 05 Nov 2009 titled, "What’s Good for the Kids"

    “These children do just fine,” says Abbie E. Goldberg, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Clark University, who concedes there are some who will continue to believe that gay parents are a danger to their children, in spite of a growing web of psychological and sociological evidence to the contrary."

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay."

  • Peggy
    Dec. 27, 2009 11:12 a.m.

    It's not about being anti-gay--it's about being pro-traditional marriage--which is shown by science to best preserve society and children's lives.

  • @Re: Pagan | 11:49 am
    Dec. 27, 2009 6:50 a.m.

    Anti-Prop 8 funding? LOL - are you serious? Some people just see conspiracies everywhere!

  • Re: Pagan
    Dec. 26, 2009 11:49 a.m.

    Do you actually have a job? You spend more time writing about these articles than the actual reporters themselves. You are definitely free to do so but I find it interesting that anyone would have this much free time.

    I wouldn't be surprised if you and some of the other usual suspects on these blogs are receiving anti-Prop. 8 funding to do what you do.

  • he is right
    Dec. 25, 2009 2:35 p.m.

    Yea for a man that will stand for what is right. We see so little of that any more. Go man stand for the right I wish you were President instead of the some who waffles so much. Hang in there!!!!!

  • Oliver
    Dec. 25, 2009 12:57 a.m.

    @Re: | 9:59 p.m. Dec. 24, 2009. Then what exactly is the supreme source of morality and ethics? Diety and religion? You mean, your diety and your religion! That is pretty arrogant, I have to say. How has homosexuality personally hurt you or your family? Not at all? Well, then stop justifying discrimination of homosexual people. By the way, your views on APA or AMA don't matter, since you seem to see everything through your prejudiced world view, anyways. There is no proof for your assertions, am I right?

    @j: Did you make all this stuff up? So much ignorance in our supposed educated day and age, it is unbelievable. It's the middle ages all over again.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 24, 2009 11:07 p.m.

    The church didn't tell Chaffetz what to do.

  • Re:
    Dec. 24, 2009 9:59 p.m.

    "When America’s premier child and mental health associations and their expert panels endorse marriage equality, there is no moral or ethical reason to discriminate against gay people and their children, except ignorance or bigotry"

    The APA and the AMA are not immune to the influence and power of the politically powerfull and uber rich and their social engineering. The APA changed its position on homosexualty due to political pressure, and since that time has squelched and blackballed any researchers that dare defy the APA's politically derived DSM changes. The AMA started out as a way of creating a monopoly on the then budding pharmacuetical business by John D Rockefellar. To be able to prescribe and dispense Rockefeller and assciates manufactured and marketed drugs, a doctor had to be a dues paying member of the AMA. These two bodies are not pure scientific entities and they have betrayed the scientific method and its principles from their early formation.

    ..."there is no moral or ethical reason to discriminate"....

    The APA, the AMA and their likes have no credibility or authority to tell us what is moral and ethical, doing so falsely grants them the status of diety and religion.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 24, 2009 6:02 p.m.

    Two points, did I ever say anything about voting. The First Presidency did not specifically urge people to vote, it urged them to give every effort in time and money they could expend to support Prop 8. The opposite I speak of is proactively working to defeat Prop 8. That is more than just voting.
    There are many gradations of behavior.
    This issue was brought up by people trying to claim that Chaffetz stand was differnet than the LDS Church. The LDS Church has never in any way, shape, means or form done otherwise than opposed same-gender marriage. Chaffetz stand on this issue is 100% in line with the Church, even if the Church has not specifically weighed in on this issue.
    While some political issues are not directly tied to Church doctrine, the Church has clearly and unequivocably supported the Federal Marriage Admendment and other such things. In fact, if you follow what the Church has stated on this issue they have clearly sided with federal mandating of a unified man/woman marriage over state attempts to destroy the institution.
    Chaffetz position on this issue is clearly because of and not inspite of his religion.

  • re: lambert
    Dec. 24, 2009 3:46 p.m.

    "I am still wondering how it makes you a good member to be urged to do one thing by the First Presidency and to do the opposite. I have not said that anything should happen to you for doing such, I am just asking if you can be called a good member if you do such."

    Do you think the lds newsroom quote was disingenuous? Having read your hundreds and hundreds of posts here during prop 8, I understand you are a hardline member of the church. Compassion is not your strongpoint. The only way you would understand the reason why the church included an olive branch to the members who voted differently is to have the life experiences of the people they are talking about. That isn't going to happen, so you will never understand. I live that different perspective they are talking about. No amount of talk will persuade you how a good member would have voted otherwise so I'm not going to try.

  • Christy
    Dec. 24, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    To: Re: @Impact on our civilization | 1:37 a.m. Dec. 24, 2009

    "Your extremely limited sampling both in the size of your sample of gay marriages and in the complete lack of objective long term studies means very little in the context of the world population."

    I told you what I know. What my personal experiences are, which I think means a lot more than random, cherry-picked studies about NAMBLA which has absolutely NOTHING to do with gay rights, and I'm wondering why you keep bringing it up. Pedophilia is an appalling offense to any rational, sane person, gay or straight.

    Merry Christmas. God Bless us, everyone! :)

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 24, 2009 1:29 p.m.

    To Pagan,
    The APA and other closed, professional societies respond to political pressure differently than people at large.
    Secondly, defining homosexuality as not a psychological deviation and instiuttionalizing genderless marriage are two totally different issues.
    One involves the toleration of behaviors as something that does not represent a pathological deviation from stable mental development. It has as much to do with issues of what is just different behvatior and what is unacceptably deviant behavior that needs medical attention.
    The other has to do with whether the state will radically alter the social institution of marriage.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 24, 2009 1:24 p.m.

    My point that was countered by a quote from a Church release may have been a bit strong. However, it is clearly the LDS position to oppose same-gender marriage, and this is the position Chaffetz is taking. It is CLEARLY the position endorsed by the leaders of the Church without question.
    Otterson emphasized that this is STILL the position of the Church in his statement to the Salt Lake City Council.
    This is the position of the Church, and any attempt to claim it is anything else is false.
    I am still wondering how it makes you a good member to be urged to do one thing by the First Presidency and to do the opposite. I have not said that anything should happen to you for doing such, I am just asking if you can be called a good member if you do such.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 24, 2009 9:35 a.m.

    Oh, and The American Psychological Association (Or 'APA') declared on 08/05/09 that attempts at 're-orientation' are less than 1% effective and often 'harmful' to it's patient.

    That seems like an about-face from an organization that called homosexuality a 'mental disorder' 30+ years ago.

    And if (And that's a big 'IF') it WAS preassure from the gay community for the APA to change that, wouldn't it have been changed back in 3 decades?

    I think so.

    So, two questions:

    1) How many homosexuals should we torture to make a person's 'morals' happy?

    2) If they gay community had SUCH politcal clout 30years ago, to change the APA, it should have ruled the world by now.

    The far 'right' doth protest too much.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 24, 2009 9:06 a.m.

    'Sorry but the laws of God over rule the laws of man.'

    Which God? Kali? Odin? Jehova?

    And if I am supposed to 'belive' in this god, why should I change my life because of something you cannot prove? I mean, it's belief, right?

    Might as well say 'the laws of the boggie man rule over the laws of man.'

  • Pagan
    Dec. 24, 2009 9:04 a.m.

    'Also, as has been noted it isn't medical but politics that has played the part.' - 8:23 a.m.

    Sorry Bill, but on Nov 10, 2009 the The American Medical Association came out AGAINST the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy as it promotes people to LIE to they're doctors and not give full disclosure about they're lives as any who admit to homosexuality in the military can be discharged from a 20year military career.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 24, 2009 9:01 a.m.

    'Also, studies indicate that promoting homosexuality may also increase violence, addiction, pedophilia, domestic violence, smoking, mental disorders, attacks and hate on religious persons (no studies on that yet, personal experience), etc, etc.' - 2:22 a.m.

    J, your logic is SO faulty as, according to your logic, promoting homosexuality can lead to an increase in car theft!

    When you try and associate homosexuality to drug addiction you start loosing credibility.

    As, do you have any studies (and I mean ANY) that tie in any other sexuality.

    Or are you just making things up again?

    To say 'X' sexuality creates problems you need to look at OTHER sexuality.

    Bisexuality, heterosexuality, etc.

    Since you have not done that (and many research studies with you) I can only assume that you TARGET the ONE sexuality you quote.

    Or would you like to present anything besides your 'personal experience'.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 24, 2009 8:51 a.m.

    'A marriage between a man and a woman then becomes part of the social institution of genderless marriage and man/woman marriage ceases to exist.' - 11:24 a.m.

    John, marriage is ALREADY part of a social institution. And it has changed many, many times. (Interacial marriage?)

    And the idea that a man/woman marriage would cease to EXIST once gay marriage passes (more) is foolish.

    Or can you give me one example?

    I dare you.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 24, 2009 8:48 a.m.

    ' I have seen the tears, felt the anguish, and know the broken homes.'

    J, perhaps then we should support the 'homes' (families) that people want for themselves and therefore have better odds of enduring?

    But no, no, your 'morality' trumps a person's right to a family.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 24, 2009 8:43 a.m.

    'Assuming that you are old enough to consent, you, too can be married, even if you're gay.' - 7:56 p.m.

    I guess if you want to take one's sexuality OUT of marriage, I can agree with your faulty logic.

    But then again Jeff, if your a straight man you cannot marry a gay man, right?

  • Bill
    Dec. 24, 2009 8:23 a.m.

    To Anonymous: There are also studies that differs with your so call experts that states the opposite of what you have stated. Also, as has been noted it isn't medical but politics that has played the part.

    I will take the word of a prophet of God over any man on earth regardless of profession. When the word of God states it is an abomination it is just that. The Word of God is more valid than anything man can say. As it has been said along time ago, the natural man is an enemy to God. It is unnatural by God himself for man to lay with man or woman to lay with woman. God has defined marriage as between man and woman. Sorry but the laws of God over rule the laws of man.

  • @j | 2:22am
    Dec. 24, 2009 7:50 a.m.

    You always see posts that include "studies indicate" and yet there is no information on the studies included. Well, here's some study information for you that counters many of your points and shows you are just spouting your personal views.

    From an article published in the NY Times on 05 Nov 2009 titled, "What’s Good for the Kids"

    “These children do just fine,” says Abbie E. Goldberg, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Clark University, who concedes there are some who will continue to believe that gay parents are a danger to their children, in spite of a growing web of psychological and sociological evidence to the contrary."

    In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay."

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 24, 2009 6:05 a.m.

    Research published in the National Library of Medicine has confirmed that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned and bearing no relation to an individual’s ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

    The American Psychological Association states that homosexuality is normal and that homosexual relationships are normal.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens the mental and physical health and the longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

    When America’s premier child and mental health associations and their expert panels endorse marriage equality, there is no moral or ethical reason to discriminate against gay people and their children, except ignorance or bigotry. Think of what you would want for yourself or your your family.

  • j
    Dec. 24, 2009 2:22 a.m.


    Homosexuality does impact society.
    Also, studies indicate that promoting homosexuality may also increase violence, addiction, pedophilia, domestic violence, smoking, mental disorders, attacks and hate on religious persons (no studies on that yet, personal experience), etc, etc.


    Most of us inherently know homosexual behavior is wrong, just as we know violence, anger, and pedophilia, are wrong (even if these run in families, like genetic nicotine-addiction etc).

    Many of us feel it’s morally wrong to attack anyone, or prevent some from working and living in peace because of self-harming poor choices. Many gays, including Pagan, argue that morality should be done away. This would destroy all of us.

    There are, thus, difficult, but crucial, decisions to be made. Compassion loves all, and this love requires that we protect and do not promote or legally enforce homosexuality, or allow teachers to promote or display it in front of children, etc.

    This increases homosexuality, which destroys lives and traditional families.

  • j
    Dec. 24, 2009 2:19 a.m.

    Hi Christy, you always seem angry at me. But name calling doesn't change the truth.

  • Re: @Impact on our civilization
    Dec. 24, 2009 1:37 a.m.

    Your extremely limited sampling both in the size of your sample of gay marriages and in the complete lack of objective long term studies means very little in the context of the world population.

    NAMBLA which has shared both leadership (David Thorstead for example) and platforms with the gay activist movement is watching the gay marriage situation with a great deal of interest becuase they have, are, and will continue to use the same arguments that the gay activits have used to make their love relationships of choice to be legal and to force society into accepting their "intergenrational love relationships (a PC term for adults having sexual relationsips with minors) as being normal and not deviant sexual behavior.

    Also, from the very early stages of the gay activist movement that started with Stonewall, the gay activists have called for lowering the age of sexual consent and polygamy, and gay activist articles written in this decade have continued to call for legalizing poligamy so that homosexual marriages can produce offspring and accomodate bi sexual partners. This is well documented for any one who cares to really look among the gay culture academic journals.

  • Re: Anonymous | 4:26 p.m
    Dec. 24, 2009 1:22 a.m.

    "The APA change occurred in the 1970's. They have had 30 years to change it. It hasn't even been considered"

    Yes it is correct that the intimidation, harrassment, and threatening of the APA took place in the early 70's, and 73 was the apex of the harrasment by the gay activists. Had the DN PC police allowed my previous post to be included on this thread, my second post would have made more sense.

    However, it is none the less a fact that key gay activists bragged about changing the APA position on homosexualty and that it was a political change NOT a scientific paradigm change. It is also a fact that anyone can and will find if they want to engage in objective truth finding non PC research that much less than 50% of the total APA voting membership voted on DSM changes on homosexuality. It is also well documented that a gay activist obtianed APA membership lists and sent deceptive letters urging members to change their postion.

    The key fact here is that this change was made due to intimidation, threats and harrasment and NOT due to mountains of research that founded the change.

  • @Impact on our civilization
    Dec. 23, 2009 10:55 p.m.

    BALONEY.

    Healthy gay marriages are 100% more beneficial for society than toxic traditional marriages. I personally know examples of both. Do you?

    My daughter's best friend has 2 moms. Whereas a relative of mine has been an abysmal failure at 3 hetero marriages, and father of 4 children.

    I trust my gay friends with my daughter's life when she's at their home. If only more parents were like these 2 women - warm, loving, nurturing, ensuring their children feel safe and secure, teaching them expectations - to be good and kind and respectful, and always to try your best in any and every endeavor.

    The thing is, this world moves forward. It's called progress. Intelligent, forward-thinking people help propel things forward. They always have. You can't stop progress no matter how hard and deep you dig your heals in, no matter how much you invoke God, no matter how much fear and hate you put out there into the world in order to keep people ignorant and fearful of change.

    Gays EXIST! Whether you validate them or not, they're not going away. Let's do the RIGHT thing by our fellow brothers and sisters.

  • John
    Dec. 23, 2009 5:09 p.m.

    It is interesting that Conservatives in their hearts know that their philosophy and worldview is evil: "My younger brother Alex is about as conservative as it gets, other than maybe Attila the Hun," said Chaffetz.

    The inverse comment would be, "My sister is about as liberal as it gets, other than maybe Jesus Christ."

    It's interesting that Mormons and so-called Christians seem to align more with Attila the Hun than Jesus Christ.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 23, 2009 4:26 p.m.

    The APA change occurred in the 1970's. They have had 30 years to change it. It hasn't even been considered.

    I think you have a few "facts" mistaken.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 23, 2009 4:24 p.m.

    APA bow down cont :

    Citations needed for your post. Where did you get your information? An anti-gay website?

    Please let us know...

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 23, 2009 4:22 p.m.

    "If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage."

    Please! The assult on marriage occurred with the easy divorce.

    Repeal divorce laws if you really want to protect families. I do not see a great swelling of support for that. Otherwise you are merely putting a bandage on cancer by banning gay marriage.

  • APA bow down cont
    Dec. 23, 2009 4:20 p.m.

    In addition to outright threats, intimidation, and harrassment, the gay activists pulled off a quasi coup within the voting ranks of the APA. By means of deception, the gay activists obtained APA membership roles and sent out letters requesting that APA members no longer consider homosexuality as a mental illness. This was done without disclosing who was actually behind these letters.

    Gay activists at the time admitted that the APA's position change regarding homosexuality was a political change and not a scientific change. This is well documented for any who care to study what really took place.

    Since the APA's position change, as a body they as well as the Journals that their members frequently publish in have rejected any study that portrays homosexualty in any kind of a non PC light. This is a direct VIOLATION of the scientific method as the politically dervived APA postion on homosexulaity has dictated what research is published, what is an acceptable research conclusion and what research has been rejected and its authors get blackballed.


    The intimidation of the APA illustrates just how much politics dictates what is valid science and what is not valid science.

  • Impact on Our Civilization?
    Dec. 23, 2009 4:00 p.m.

    Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 23, 2009 3:47 p.m.

    to Anonymous | 2:54 p.m. | 3:16 p.m. Dec. 23, 2009
    Maintaining a healthy definition of the word "marriage" in no way suppresses gay people. They are free to live their lives however they see fit.

    Granted, they are missing some of the rights that married people have, but those can easily be granted without devaluing the word "marriage."

    ------------

    Where were you in 2001? That is when the first gay marriage law passed in the Netherlands. As soon as it passed, the word marriage changed forever.

    The toothpaste is out of the tube. It is too late to think that you can protect a word.

    In Utah, you would need to repeal section 2 of amendment 3 to allow the rights and privileges of marriage to gays.

    Not an easy process at all.

  • re: Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 3:24 p.m.

    Lambert says above:

    "Did you miss the whole Prop 8 thing? How can you be a member in full standing and yet go against the counsel of the prophet? "

    The following is from lds.org, the official church website, the day after the Prop 8 election.

    "Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society."

    So, John, if the church can be understanding of members voting differently, I'm thinking you should be as well.

  • @1:15 pm dec 22
    Dec. 23, 2009 3:24 p.m.

    really? are you new to these threads this lame argument has been argued to death, if you are still not convinced of why this is such a poor argument against gay marriage we will be forced to assume your are simply willfully ignorant at this point.

  • to Anonymous | 2:54 p.m.
    Dec. 23, 2009 3:16 p.m.

    Maintaining a healthy definition of the word "marriage" in no way suppresses gay people. They are free to live their lives however they see fit.

    Granted, they are missing some of the rights that married people have, but those can easily be granted without devaluing the word "marriage."

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 23, 2009 2:54 p.m.

    Dear Invasion.

    Love your post and of course it scares me. The only problem I have with it is that it pits US against THEM. It is not that way at all and we all need to stop demonizing gays. Most of them live lives pretty much like ours: They go to work, they pay bills, they raise children, they pay their taxes.

    We are ALL AMERICANS. No one is trying to bring down marriage or society. They just want to partake in the privileges and benefits that we enjoy.

    Where are all the LDS people clammoring for equity? I cannot believe that we would suppress a minority just because we believe that we are more worthy and less sinful than they are. This is NOT what I was taught about in school and church.

    Where are you thinkers?

  • Invasion of the Brain Snatchers
    Dec. 23, 2009 2:24 p.m.

    The sequel is coming out. It will be all about how the next generation borg (a sexless extraterrestrial) started invading people's minds one by one. It hatched a virus that went from person to person convincing them to lay down their walls of distinction between the genders and all be assimilated. There is no right or wrong, they taught. Only perceived right or wrong. If we stop perceiving it as wrong it will no longer be wrong. Soon we will get everyone to believe there is no harm. In the meantime we raise others to believe there is no right and wrong. Gay man's disease will just disappear because we will no longer believe it. Then it will be too late for the planet and we can fulfil the movie prophecies of the end of the world. Just desolation. Nothingness.

    Come on people. See the demon. Scream. Save what you can of life as we know it. I am glad one congressman is willing to stand tall. Who else can resist the Sirens call? Look out Ulysses. Aren't those dangerous rocks ahead? There on the left. See them? No, all is well.

  • Jason For President
    Dec. 23, 2009 2:11 p.m.

    I like what Chaffetz is doing. I like keeping gender oriented. I am sorry people are discriminated against for actions and beliefs. We need to foster stronger marriages between men and women and bring children to earth within the confines of those marriages and teach those children to be responsible adults who also have strong families. A Fatherless America is taking it's toll. Just read the 500 posts to see my point. Fathers, consider your ways. Your families are becoming more and more confused.

  • Eastern Observer
    Dec. 23, 2009 2:06 p.m.

    Looks like Jason has actually seen the affects from all kinds of lifestyles and various ideologies so he's probably in a solid position to see which styles are more effective and positive. Come on folks deep down most of us who have seen people living their various like styles & choices actually know that tradition marriage bodes for a better structured and happier society. Flame on Flamers.

  • The citizens of DC
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:52 p.m.

    For all those who claim that Chaffetz is at conflict with the ideal that government should stay out of the lives of private citizens, you need to remember this simple fact. The decision to legalize gay marriage in DC was NOT done by the will and vote of the people. It was done by goverment leaders acting on their own accord becuase they have the power to do so and no one is holind them accountable for not leaving this matter to the citizens of DC.

    Chaffetz is given the authority to act in the matters of goverment of DC by the Constitution and Federal statutes.

    Taking away the people of DC's right to vote on an issue such as gay marriage is advocating unauthorized government control over the people and thus Chaffetz is stading up for the citizens of DC

  • Re: Consensus
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:34 p.m.

    "because the people of Utah when it comes to Gay Marriage do not care what the LDS Leadership has to say on the matter"

    Please show us an authrorised statement by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 stating that the the Lord has determined that HE will now condone and accept gay marriage and that all LDS church members need to follow suit.

    Until this happens, your statments have no validity and show an ignorance of the issue at hand.

  • to Davis
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:24 p.m.

    Race and gender are two very different things, Davis. Society always has, always will, and always should discriminate (in certain situations) based on gender, and never should discriminate based on race.

    For example, my sons should not play on a girls' soccer team, nor should they use the girls' locker room. It's as simple as that.

  • Christy
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:13 p.m.

    "Pagan seems to hate any morality."

    And you j, clearly hate reality. And lucidity. And sanity. Since you're utterly lacking in all 3.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:11 p.m.

    Denise | 12:43 p.m. Dec. 23, 2009
    Marriage has varied according to time and place, but it has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman (or a man and several women, or a woman and several men).

    ----------

    In Ancient China and Rome, there were same sex marriages. It has happened before and it is happening now.

    Nothing to fight. It is already here.

  • Christy
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:09 p.m.

    What? I think you're confused. Since I'm already married, I don't want to marry 'my boyfriend' in the temple. You're crossing posts.

  • I appreciate!
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:07 p.m.

    I am grateful for Chaffetz' stand on this legislation. I see that alot of "kinkers" want to justify their deviant behavior and call it fair, equitable and not against societal norms. But, trying to influence people that something is right when it is very wrong shows a tremendous lack of integrity. Gay's want to call it marriage, which it is not. It is an abnormal relationship between a couple of "kinkers."

  • Davis
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:03 p.m.

    Connie

    Yes the people may have voted down same-sex marriage. And I'm sure the people of Alabama and Mississippi would have voted down integration had they been given the chance. What's your point?

    Surely it isn't that majority rule is best!

  • Samuel
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:55 p.m.

    I'm under the same law that gays are under. I can't marry a man either. My wife can't marry a woman.

    Quit your whining. Engage in your abberant and unnatural behavior all you want. We are not about to condone your behavior by changing the long-standing traditional laws for marriage.

    Keep up the good work, Jason.

  • To Christy
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:50 p.m.

    You CAN marry your boyfriend in the Salt Lake Temple! Become a worthy member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you can have your temple marriage. Who is stopping you? Only you!

    If you don't agree with church doctrine, why would you want to be married in one of its temples?

  • Connie
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:47 p.m.

    In EVERY state where the people were allowed to vote for or against same-sex marriage, it was defeated. When the people are allowed to speak, the are clearly against same-sex marriage.

    The good people of the United States need to rise up and be heard!

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:46 p.m.

    To Jim,
    It is good to see someone engaging the social institutions arrgument. It also shows that I am finally making some headway because those who attack it have resorted to straw-man arguments.
    As I may have not been clear enough it is the "positive social goods" I am speaking about. Did I ever explain what they are? Has anyone ever claimed that people who have children out of wedlock have a higher rate of cannibalism?
    The positive social goods have to do with added stability for the raising of children, and the positive outcomes for children raised in intact homes with both their biological parents, which is more likely when the parents are married, which requires a connection of marriage and child-rearing, which can only exist in the man/woman marriage formula.
    I am not sure I am explaining this well enough, but I am trying to be brief so as not to become an offender for a word.
    Lastly, social institutions are not made by individuals but by society, so individual actions do not effect the social institution, but governmental definitions do.

  • Denise
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:43 p.m.

    Marriage has varied according to time and place, but it has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman (or a man and several women, or a woman and several men).

    This has been the case for over five thousand years. Why do we want to change it now!

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. You can have sex with whomever, I guess, but... marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:38 p.m.

    To the 10:08 commentator,
    That is what they said in Maine, New York and New Jersey. Well, same-sex marriage has been defeated in all three states. Man/woman marriage is on the rebound. There are those seeking in New Hampshire to follow the example of Maine, Prop 8 has held for over a year and it looks to be unlikely that an overturn will be on next years California ballot.
    The voice of the people of DC has been crushed, but it will be heard in some way and they will get back man/woman marriage.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:34 p.m.

    To Brandon,
    Maybe among you and your white Yuppie associates same-sex marriage is supported. However the Afrian-Americans who are a majority in the district itself oppose it, they wanted to put it to a vote of the people but were denied that right. So much for Democrats being for allowing African-Americans to vote.
    This is the one time I have been sad that so many African-Americans moved east from DC into the Virginia suburbs. If they had not they might have avoided the no good councilmen who threw the poor of DC under the bus, driving out Catholic Social services with their advancing of special rights for a small but vocal group.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:23 p.m.

    To the 3:02 commentator,
    In 1972 the Supreme Court specifically ruled that there was nothing in the 14th Admendment that prevented governments from specifically recognizing only man/woman marriages.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:22 p.m.

    To the 2:41 commentator,
    In 2002 sodomy was illegal in Texas, Utah, Alabama and several other states. The North American Man Boy Love Association is following the same tactics as the homosexuals once followed to try and gain legitimacy.
    It is odd that those who seek to defend the institution of marriage understand that societal definitions are fluid but those who seek to destroy man/woman marriage act as if social institutions are fixed, and as if someting being illegal preempts it ever being recognized. How soon do we forget? It has not even been seven years since Lawrence v Texas and yet people act as if homosexual relations were never illegal at times, and at others act as if the government is doing something that prevents homosexuals from being with eachother.

  • j
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:09 p.m.

    STD’s were discussed, studies indicate that promoting homosexuality may also increase violence, addiction, pedophilia, domestic violence, smoking, mental disorders, attacks and hate on religious persons (no studies on that yet, personal experience), etc, etc.

    But studies aren’t how I decide right and wrong. It is felt, without giving into propaganda. That is the only way.

    Most of us inherently know homosexual behavior is wrong, just as we know violence, anger, and pedophilia, are wrong (even if these run in families, like genetic nicotine-addiction etc).

    Many of us feel it’s morally wrong to attack anyone, or prevent some from working and living in peace because of self-harming poor choices. Pagan seems to hate any morality.

    There are, thus, difficult, but crucial, decisions to be made. Compassion loves all, and this love requires that we protect and do not promote or legally enforce homosexuality, or allow teachers to promote or display it in front of children, etc.

    This increases homosexuality, which destroys lives and traditional families.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:06 p.m.

    This is my take on ENDA. As applied to homosexuals I think it is a workable law, which is possibly why it did not stop their. I figure that what people do in their private lives should not affect their employment in most cases. I would not support it if it did not clearly include the Title VII religious discrimination clause, but since it clearly states it is applying the same cause I support that.
    In fact, in some respects the law is even better than the Salt Lake Law, because it clearly defines sexual orientation to prevent its use by pedophiles or polygamists.
    However, I am not sure if the gender identity wording quite works. The exemption of showering and changing facilities is encoraging, so I think I would support it, but I am not fully decided.
    What I am sure of though is that the claims that this is a homosexual quota bill are false. The law specifically says there are no quotas, and bans the use of percentage of the population studies to determine claims of discrimination. This is good, becuase with bi-sexual defined as a sexual orientation a percentage study would be a nightmare.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 12:00 p.m.

    The 11:20 commentator makes some very good points. There may also be revisions in hospital visitation, inheritance and similar laws that could be worked out.
    The problem is that too few people on either side of the issue are willing to compromise. However, it does not help that when the LDS Church comes out in support of fair housing and employment laws, Affirmation uses it as a time to accuse the LDS Church of being responsible for many suicides.
    A good jesture is met by a bad. Than when Latter-day Saints support it they are called mindless sheep, and if they express misgiving about it they are called bigots.
    As long as the advocates for homosexual rights engage in such hate speech there will be little compromise, and those who do try to compromise will wonder if they are doing any good. Why try to make friends when it just leads to more vicious attacks?
    I would say there are those who oppose the issue on the other side who are far to vicious. I am not sure if I support ENDA or not, but I do know that some of the claims against it are inflamatory.

  • JIm
    Dec. 23, 2009 11:56 a.m.

    John Lambert - what strange logic!

    Is it your intent to say that in the states and countries where same sex marriage is already legal that hetero couples have started to kill and eat their children?

  • Jim
    Dec. 23, 2009 11:46 a.m.

    Marriage being only between a man and a woman was true at one time -- but no longer!

    As evidence: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont - Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Mexico City.

    Stop trying to use false arguements. Wake up to reality.

  • @James L. | 10:54am
    Dec. 23, 2009 11:40 a.m.

    James, why should your views and beliefs supersede the views and beliefs of all others?

    The founding fathers of the U.S. knew just how important it was that there should NOT be a sanctioned religion when setting down the principles of our government.

    There are religions that sanction and celebrate same-sex marriage. What about their beliefs? What about their right to practice their religion?

    I'm happy that you have found a core belief that works for you - just don't push those beliefs on others. After all, we all have free agency to choose what we believe and should not force those beliefs on others. Doing so would take away their free agency.

  • Alma Whiting
    Dec. 23, 2009 11:28 a.m.

    Way to Go Jason. I am proud and happy that you are standing tall on this moral issure.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 11:24 a.m.

    To Pagan,
    The social institutions theory tells us one word can only designate one social institution. Currently marriage means man/woman marriage. If we change the meaning, than it becomes genderless marriage. A marriage between a man and a woman then becomes part of the social institution of genderless marriage and man/woman marriage ceases to exist. This means that the positive goods associated with man/woman marriage die.
    Thus this debate is not about individual actions but the very meaning of marriage.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 11:16 a.m.

    To the 8:49 commentator,
    Which general authority supports same gender marriage. Name just one, I dare you.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 23, 2009 11:10 a.m.

    To the 4:37 commentator,
    Did you miss the whole Prop 8 thing? How can you be a member in full standing and yet go against the counsel of the prophet?

  • j
    Dec. 23, 2009 11:08 a.m.

    I applaud legislators who have moral sense and concern for humanity. Legally enforcing and mainstreaming homosexuality is uncompassionate and hurtful. Moral societies encourage traditional marriage and make laws against things that we believe are wrong: children smoking, siblings marrying, children marrying, polygamists marrying, etc. Studies show that homosexuality is unhealthy and many gays, if not most, aren’t born that way (if any), and exposure to homosexuality increases it. Keeping them legally free has allowed many to come back from it.

    60 years ago my mother personally knew none who left wives and children because they thought they were gay and couldn’t keep marriage vows. Now it is everywhere. You may argue that this is because society didn’t accept breaking homes back then; many feel this destruction of families shouldn’t be today. Gays are free to practice homosexuality, but it is wrong, and there is no need for us to legally enforce this lifestyle, and when you encourage and promote homosexuality you are hurting them, and all humanity. I have seen the tears, felt the anguish, and know the broken homes.

  • James L.
    Dec. 23, 2009 10:54 a.m.

    I'm a convert to The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints Also. The Church Teaches Us To follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and to look to his example as a pattern for our own life.
    The believe that marriage should be the union of one man and one woman is a commandment from God,the Eternal Father.It doesn't matter what one think about marriage, only what God thinks and has revealed matters.We have a free agency to think, believe and to act according to how we want to. It would be wise to make sure we do so in a way that would be pleasing to God, our Heavenly Father. This is how we show our love to God.It is my prayer that we all may find the peace and happeness that comes from following the teachings of our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ. I testify to you that what I have written is true, You can know for yourself if you would study the Scripture and give the Holt Ghost a chance to come into your life. May God Bless you in your efforts, I pray, Amen.

  • Don
    Dec. 23, 2009 10:26 a.m.

    The position taken by gay rights groups just shows how arrogant and intolerant they are. When Chaffetz and his family have difference of opinion, naturally they can't understand why Chaffetz can't just fall in line.

  • What a politician
    Dec. 23, 2009 10:08 a.m.

    Mr. Chaffetz knows very well that Gay Marriage rights in Washington DC is a done deal. Why all his bravado? because he knows simple minded people in his district will get all excited about his stand and noise. He is playing "you".
    I'm glad our congress in Washington DC represents a more liberal and open minded constituency than Mr. Chaffetz voters.
    Congratulations District of Columbia!

  • No Surprise Here
    Dec. 23, 2009 9:15 a.m.

    Jason Chaffetz's family has some pro-gay members yet he is a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the pro-gay crowd is surprised that Chaffetz is taking a stand for traditional marriage?

    They shouldn't be.

    Go, Jason, go!

    Dan Maloy
    Enid, OK

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 23, 2009 9:04 a.m.

    This is all about a spoiled brat fighting against his fathers cause because Daddy didn't give him enough attention as a child. It's a great insight into the mind of a very disturbed individual who has conned an entire population into electing him into the government.

  • Keep going Chaffetz
    Dec. 23, 2009 8:42 a.m.

    At least Utah has one in US Congress & Senate worth keeping. We could use 4 more just like Chaffetz

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 23, 2009 8:39 a.m.

    AB | 8:04 p.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    To 6:56..... It is a known fact that homosexuality causes Hep C and B and many other know Diseases. FACT..... Look in all your medical books, talk to your doctors, you can even google it. It is usually caused by male to male sexual contact ..FACT, FACT, FACT. You can ignore this and push the blame elsewhere all you want but it is a known Fact. Homosexuality causes many illnesses and death.

    ------------

    It is caused by promiscuity. That means multiple partners whether hetero or homosexual. If the partners do not have the disease, it will not suddenly and spontaneously appear because it is homosexual act. Geesh!

  • Member of Jason's district
    Dec. 23, 2009 8:34 a.m.

    Jason Chaffetz is a good example of transparency in government. I love his fireside chats. They keep us informed of his views on a variety of issues. I actually know what he stands for. We need more like him.

    I say kick out the guys who make secret deals behind closed doors like this ridiculous Health Care compromise for Nebraska. I say to them "Get your filthy hands out of my pockets". I need the money for my family.

  • Um,
    Dec. 23, 2009 6:05 a.m.

    I guess the article is about is really about Chaffetz and what he stands for. I don't find it all surprising that he supports marriage between a man a woman. Family ties doen't necessarily have anything to do with your morals and political views. My father is gay, and I've loved lots and lots of gay people as a result. That said, I've voted for marriage between a man and a woman and will do so over and over, because any other kind of marriage is simply wrong.

  • Linguist
    Dec. 23, 2009 5:01 a.m.


    Anonymous | 8:13 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    linguist-"if you want others to be tolerant of you- you need to be tolerant of them. that means you need to respect people who believe differently than you do."

    With respect --and I do mean that-- the argument that opposing injustice is "intolerant" has been used many times, but doesn't strike me as legitimate.

    Gay people fighting for their rights are not being "intolerant" of you.

    Gay people are fighting for the right to marry. That denies you nothing. It isn't "intolerant" anymore than fighting for the right to vote or the right to worship or the right to own a gun is "intolerant" of those who are trying to prevent you from exercising those rights.

    On the other hand, I would fight for your right to express your VIEWS on this subject. You have the right to free speech. That's one of the marvelous things about this country.

    We get to disagree --sometimes vociferously. Disagreement is also not "intolerance."

    Peace,
    Linguist

  • Brandon in DC/NoVA
    Dec. 23, 2009 2:46 a.m.

    I am thankful that the current legislation to legalize gay marriage in DC is very unlikely to be overturned. The support for the law is too strong for it to be.

  • Philip Wester
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:48 a.m.

    How can people even take Mormons who enter the fray in regards to gay marriage seriously? Their religion supports polygamy!

  • Mykelb
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:08 a.m.

    Chaffetz is positioning himself to get conervative, religious donations for his campaign. End of story. Demonize the gays for pay.

  • Oliver
    Dec. 23, 2009 1:04 a.m.

    @Cammy. Don't underestimate your own children's intelligence. It will only take a short explanation from your side and their curious minds will be appeased. As for homosexuality being a fad- That's just conservative propaganda and lacks proof. Sounds more like someone who has made a rash decision about things, so their world view doesn't get out of balance. And so what if homosexuals decided not to get married after gay marriage was legalized. At least they would have the option, just like everybody else does.

    @AB. What you write is utter nonsense.

  • AB | 8:04pm
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:01 p.m.

    You need to check your facts. According to the CDC:
    "Sexual activities and practices were initially identified as potential sources of exposure to the hepatitis C virus. More recent studies question this route of transmission. Currently it is felt to be a means of rare transmission of hepatitis C infection."

    Identified means of transmission: injection drug use, atrogenic medical or dental exposure, blood transfusion and organ transplantation, occupational exposure to blood, body piercings and tattoos, shared personal care items.

    Stop pushing your personal views as fact.

  • Joe
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:26 p.m.

    "Regardless of whether I agree with him on this point or not, I respect Mr. Chaffetz for always fighting for what he feels is right and best for the people."

    Yes - and consequently, residents of Washington, DC will now have veto power over the laws of Mr. Chafetz's district in Utah. Let's see how they enjoy Washingtonians "fighting for what's best" for people they'll never meet.

  • Stephanie K.
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:08 p.m.

    If you don’t agree with marriage equality, don’t marry someone of the same sex! As a school teacher, I don’t ever recall reading/citing the words..."with liberty and justice for ALL” and seeing the word, “except.” Separate but equal does not, has not and should not work! We can not “eenie meenie miney moe” through our neighborhoods and point to who is allowed marriage or not. Many read the Bible more literally, others more metaphorically (or more emphasis on legalism rather than love), however each should be respected. We also need to take cultural, as well as historical, perspectives into consideration when reading the Bible. Yes our country was founded on Christianity, however many would argue it was also found on slavery and without woman’s rights. We are a Nation continually moving in the direction of Justice! Lastly, if we want “traditional” marriage we must be careful in using the Bible as a reference. In Biblical days men had multiple wives and usually treated them as property and baby bearers only. Lot had sex with his daughters. We cannot use the Bible (or certain parts of it that are convenient)

  • AB
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:04 p.m.

    To 6:56..... It is a known fact that homosexuality causes Hep C and B and many other know Diseases. FACT..... Look in all your medical books, talk to your doctors, you can even google it. It is usually caused by male to male sexual contact ..FACT, FACT, FACT. You can ignore this and push the blame elsewhere all you want but it is a known Fact. Homosexuality causes many illnesses and death.

  • Cammy
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:58 p.m.

    Gay marriage will probably be made legal in ten years time. It makes me sad to think of the confusion this will bring my children. As if the world isn't confusing enough. But after given this right it will only be a matter of time before gays no longer want to marry because they can. Just like more heterosexual couples are choosing not to marry. I am tired of the fad homosexuality has become.

  • Jeff
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:56 p.m.

    @Pagan. Assuming that you are old enough to consent, you, too can be married, even if you're gay. The idea is not that homosexuals can't marry; the idea is to keep marriage between people of the opposite sex--be they homosexual or heterosexual.

  • An Observer
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:49 p.m.

    If Government is for the general welfare of the people and for the society in GENERAL,

    then government does have an interest in marriage.

    THe homosexual agenda is quite opposed to what is best for the country,

    homosexuality is selfish and only cares about self and it's own self interest.


    Chaffetz is right on this one.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:06 p.m.

    'The 14th Amendment, in my mind, could not qualify as an excuse for same-gender marriage.'

    Jeff, Equal protection is not a reason for marriage?

    We can solve this in one simple yes/no question.

    Jeff, can YOU get married?

    If 'Yes' then laws have not been applied equally as homosexuals are American citizens, with as much right to happiness as yourself.

    If 'No' CONGRADULATIONS! You are gay and cannot get married.

    I am thankful your idea about the 14th amendment is only in your head.

    I don't think even YOU would like the world if it applied whenever someone else THOUGHT it should.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:00 p.m.

    'The fact is you can bring home very serious ilness from homosexuality.'

    And NOT from a heterosexual? Sexually transmited diseases increase from to many sexual partners. Not what gender they are.

    'My friend who is married brought his wife home Hepatitis C from sleeping with another man.'

    So, how straight WAS this man to sleep with another man?

    'This is a fact!'

    Obviously. As your 'friend' has no name and no information to reffernece.

    'Homosexuality can bring to others very grave illnesses even death...'

    So can driving your car, do you see me making up things?

    Should I say 'Mormons cause cancer?'

    Both are fiction as your logic dictates who is at fault, not the facts.

    Too many sexual partners increase your chances to catch Hep C. Not they're orientation.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:56 p.m.

    'By your line of reasoning, all of the states and cities who's courts or adminstration approved of gay marriage, the Courts and Leaders deprived the voting public of making their own laws on gay marriage. In the process the Courts/State, City and County leaders unconstitutionally elminated the legislative process and the votes of the relevant population of constitutents.' - 6:39 p.m.

    Thankfully, every state and city who's courts and leaders did that were elected by the people.

    And Vermont would STILL have gay marriage.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:53 p.m.

    'A house with a hole in it is still a house. A barren woman is still a woman....'

    And still cannot have children. Which is the whole 'point' of marriage, right? Not to commit your life to someone?

    Don't cross analogies. You look silly.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:50 p.m.

    'don't be flattered because someone sees your postings.' - 4:21 p.m.

    Anon, no. I am flattered because you REPLY to my posts. You only feed into the idea that I am not 'forcing' anything into your life but rather that you try to exert some type of control by trying in vain to dictate my actions.

    Just like with the Rush Limbaugh's and Glen Becks who dominate the GOP's face time, if people really DIDN'T care about another's person's life they would not FIGHT so hard against it.

    You are exposed.

    Please feel free to continue your drabble as you give me EXCELLENT ammunition.

  • Re: DMC | 4:53 p.m.
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:39 p.m.

    Read the Constitution and Federal statutes regarding how DC is to be governend and how their laws are to be made. Chaffetz is acting according to his congressional duties as mandated by the Constitution and Federal laws regarding DC.

    By your line of reasoning, all of the states and cities who's courts or adminstration approved of gay marriage, the Courts and Leaders deprived the voting public of making their own laws on gay marriage. In the process the Courts/State, City and County leaders unconstitutionally elminated the legislative process and the votes of the relevant population of constitutents.

  • AB
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:33 p.m.

    I am not sure why my satement is not being printed.. The fact is you can bring home very serious ilness from homosexuality. My friend who is married brought his wife home Hepatitis C from sleeping with another man. This is a fact! To say that Homosexuality does no one harm is a myth. Maybe you should talk to his wife?? Why is this side of the coin being ignored??? Homosexuality can bring to others very grave illnesses even death.....

  • Dash
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:12 p.m.

    Its a shame that people on the conservative right get so involved in things that don't affect their lives at all, but tremendously affect other's lives. Gay marriage wouldn't affect Chaffetz's or his wife's marriage, but would give protections to millions of American families who currently don't have access to their partner's social security benefits, inheritance without taxation, and over a thousand other benefits married couples take for granted. People should keep their noses in their own business. We live in a world with millions of Gladys Cravitt's butting into every else's business.

  • Christy
    Dec. 22, 2009 5:42 p.m.

    To: @Bruce and Lance | 4:18 p.m. Dec. 22, 2009

    Sorry, but gays can come from perfectly healthy, traditional-marriage families. Even from LDS families! Yep! They're not all confused misfits from broken homes. But I guess if you feel that being gay is a choice then you must have faced that 'choice' during the angst and confusion of YOUR puberty. I myself new all along that boys were for me. That was never a 'choice' for this girl. Nuh-uh. :) And how FORTUNATE for me that I'm not being told I need to CONTROL my BEHAVIOR from people who don't agree with it! Thanks Gays, for NOT telling me I should remain chaste my whole life just beccause I was made different from you! Thanks so much for minding your own business! xoxo

  • Christy
    Dec. 22, 2009 5:39 p.m.

    Re: Christy | 2:21 p.m. Dec. 22, 2009

    "Some people have sexual preferences for children also. Pedophiles are expected to live within the bounds of the law.

    People can and should control their desires, otherwise they are self serving, without concern for the greater good of society."

    4th time trying to post this DN...

    Ok. Here we go. You see, pedophiles prey upon children. These children are non-consenting victims. We are to protect children, and animals. We are their voice.

    How on earth, can ANY THINKING PERSON, compare pedophilia, or beastiality, with homosexulaity and gay marriage? A gay couple consists of two, committed, consenting, tax-paying ADULTS who are not hurting ANYONE.

    To keep using the 'Hey, I'm attracted to little kids/animals, so where are MY rights?' argument is to give in to the fact that you have no real, rational argument at all. It just shows that you are nothing but a small-minded bigot.

  • Why stop at gay marriage?
    Dec. 22, 2009 5:10 p.m.

    Why aren't my conservative friends clamoring to prohibit pre-marital sex, birth control, and divorce?

  • DMC
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:53 p.m.

    Umm, does anyone find it weird that DC has decided how to govern itself on this issue -- and some lawmaker from Utah is trying to overturn a law that doesn't directly affect him or his constituents. What happened to sovereign rights? I'm a moderate - but the republicans commenting here really repulse me.

  • @Jeff | 4:34 p.m
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:51 p.m.

    14th Amendment 1. "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Even if this were written about race, it still applies to every law-abiding citizen of this country. You cannot arbitrarily apply it to gays and not to others similarly situated. Read the Iowa Supreme Court's decision. It will explain it clearly and distinctly.

  • Christy
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:43 p.m.

    To: @Bruce and Lance | 4:18 p.m. Dec. 22, 2009

    Sorry, but gays can come from perfectly healthy, traditional-marriage families. Even from LDS families! Yep! They're not all confused misfits from broken homes. But I guess if you feel that being gay is a choice then you must have faced that 'choice' during the angst and confusion of YOUR puberty. I myself new all along that boys were for me. That was never a 'choice' for this girl. Nuh-uh. :) And how FORTUNATE for me that I'm not being told I need to CONTROL my BEHAVIOR from people who don't agree with it! Thanks Gays, for NOT telling me I should remain chaste my whole life just beccause I was made different from you! Thanks so much for minding your own business! XOXO

  • @4:18
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:41 p.m.

    "No, unfortunately, they're here for much longer than that. See children used to grow up thinking that they wanted to get married to the opposite sex and have kids. That sex was supposed to be after that kind of marriage, that certain things were private, and certain other things were just plain wrong. Now, just as they are going through puberty and all the angst and normal confusion, they get all these messages about experimenting with sex. To find out who they are. And you get enough of them who come from broken homes, or have been abused, and they are no longer being taught traditional societal norms, and so they do experiment because they don't have those traditional role models and examples of intact, functional families in their own homes and around them.

    It's sad. And warped. And it's not going to change any time soon. "

    So, seeing how you have it all figured out, why am I gay. I did not experiment when younger, I did not come from a broken home, and I was not abused physically, sexually, or emotionally. Why am I gay?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:36 p.m.

    to Anonymous | 4:08 p.m | 4:22 p.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    A house with a hole in it is still a house. A barren woman is still a woman. A gay man is not a woman, and hence changes the definition of the word "marriage."

    -----------

    You people are so silly. You just cannot get it out of you heads that marriage must be man-woman.

    There is gay marriage in this world. It is not man-woman. It is man-man or woman-woman. They do not pretend that one is the man and one is the woman. They celebrate their sameness and enjoy having the relationship that they do.

    Man - man.

    Woman - woman.

  • Jeff
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:34 p.m.

    The 14th Amendment, in my mind, could not qualify as an excuse for same-gender marriage. It could be used to prevent a test for homosexuality before a mixed-gender marriage were allowed.

    There are no favors allowed to others that are not allowed to homosexuals. The favors (and punishments) are the result of behaviors, not being. It is true that, in most of America, we choose to withhold favors from homosexual behavior that we might grant to heterosexual behavior. It it perfectly appropriate for us to do this. It is not appropriate for us to withhold favors from people simply because we believe that might engage in certain behaviors.

    That, in my mind, is how the 14th Amendment (which was meant to remove race as a sole reason for limiting political access, and which never was intended to allow racial exemptions from generally applied behavioral circumscriptions) ought to be applied.

  • Just Me...
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:33 p.m.

    Re: @Re: Christy | 4:05 p.m.

    "The point was a persons "sexual preference", not what was illegal. You implied earlier that a person cannot change their sexual preference. I was simply pointing out that one can at least control their preferences."

    My question to you is why do homosexuals have to "control" their sexual preference because you think they should? There is nothing illegal about what they do. It is not immoral to them, but it is to you. Most likely the only reason you think it is immoral is because your religion, or religious texts say it immoral. (Highly debateable btw)

    So my question is why should people, who are consenting adults, have to fit into your or religions view of morality when they are the only ones affected?

    And do not give me slippery slope arguments like religions would be forced to marry them, or there will be loss of religous freedom. We have the Constitution which guarentees rights to religions.

    Don't tell me people will want to marry their dogs because dogs cannot consent. Don't tell me that children will get married to pedophiles because children cannot enter into a contract.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    '..they are no longer being taught traditional societal norms, and so they do experiment because they don't have those traditional role models and examples...'

    You mean like Hooters?

    Please.

    Your idea of 'normal' examples never happened. It's all in your head.

    And 'yes' you SHOULD get used to it.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:28 p.m.

    'As society ventures further towards the point of no return, they comes a tipping point from which there is no return.' - 4:05 p.m.

    I thought the 'point of no return' (twice!) was when gay marriage was legalized in MA 5yrs ago.

    Or when being gay was no longer against the law in 2003.

    Or when Interacial marriage was allowed.

    Or when women could vote.

    Or...

    Sorry, your 'end is neigh' comment has no bearing as EVERYTHING will be the 'point of no return.'

    Wow. With so much time spent saying it's 'the end of the world' if we do 'X', how happy is your life?

  • to Anonymous | 4:08 p.m
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:22 p.m.

    A house with a hole in it is still a house. A barren woman is still a woman. A gay man is not a woman, and hence changes the definition of the word "marriage."

    Don't cross the analogies. You just look silly.

  • Anon
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:21 p.m.

    to pagan and his paganette boyfriend. don't be flattered because someone sees your postings. your postings make up about 1/3 of all postings. I agree with others, you might look into getting a job.

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

    'We live at a time where no one wants control.'

    So, you want to control other peoples lives?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:20 p.m.

    ...how will they be gone in a generation or two, when they've been around forever?

  • @Bruce and Lance
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:18 p.m.

    No, unfortunately, they're here for much longer than that. See children used to grow up thinking that they wanted to get married to the opposite sex and have kids. That sex was supposed to be after that kind of marriage, that certain things were private, and certain other things were just plain wrong. Now, just as they are going through puberty and all the angst and normal confusion, they get all these messages about experimenting with sex. To find out who they are. And you get enough of them who come from broken homes, or have been abused, and they are no longer being taught traditional societal norms, and so they do experiment because they don't have those traditional role models and examples of intact, functional families in their own homes and around them.

    It's sad. And warped. And it's not going to change any time soon.

  • @ Bruce and Lance | 3:51pm
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:17 p.m.

    LOL - really? And where do you think gays come from? Everyday families - yes, even LDS families.

  • @Bruce and Lance
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:09 p.m.

    "I've reached the point where I say, "Go ahead, let the gays play house and get married". Afterall, they'll all be gone in a generation or two... "

    Very interesting stance as homosexuals come from heterosexual couplings 100% of the time.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:08 p.m.

    My nephew married a woman that he loves very much. He knew when he married her that she could not conceive, but he was still allowed to legally (and religiously) marry her.

    His house had a hole in it but, he is still married to the woman he loves.

    If he can do it, so can gays. Remember the 14th amendment? Equality under the law.

  • Re: @Re: Christy
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:05 p.m.

    The point was a persons "sexual preference", not what was illegal. You implied earlier that a person cannot change their sexual preference. I was simply pointing out that one can at least control their preferences.

    We live at a time where no one wants control. The popular mantras include "everyone else is doing it" ... "if it feels good" ... I'm not hurting anyone else" ... "it's my life" ... etc.

    The slippery slope is real. As society ventures further towards the point of no return, they comes a tipping point from which there is no return.

  • Bruce and Lance
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:51 p.m.

    I've reached the point where I say, "Go ahead, let the gays play house and get married". Afterall, they'll all be gone in a generation or two...

  • to Anonymous | 3:24 p.m
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:45 p.m.

    Is this Pagan? You're making about as much sense as Pagan does.

    The point is that divorce is a remedy for a problem that arises after the fact. Gay marriage is not a remedy, and arises from the fact. How hard is it to see that difference?

    Is it really that hard?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:36 p.m.

    '"your position that black is black just happens to require the total destruction of the view that black is white"

    I think a better comparison would be:

    'your marriage is SO different to my marriage that even the IDEA that your marriage is like my marriage completely negates every aspect of my straight marriage.'

  • Embarcadero
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:36 p.m.

    Two points:

    - Taxation without representation. Who is Jason Chaffetz to go against the elected representatives of the District of Columbia? Why is his goal to impose the views of Utah County's voters onto the good citizens of DC?

    - Futile grandstanding. Jason Chaffetz is right up there with Barbara Cubin as one of this country's most ineffectual and, IMO, laughable elected representatives. Chaffetz is ranking republican on the committee to boss around DC. This is because he *holds no other position of importance on any other committee*. Chaffetz is an ineffectual fool and, reading the comments of the knee-jerk LDS right wingers, he has managed to hoodwink many in this state.

    Just sad.

  • to New Yorker at 3:06
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:35 p.m.

    Don't you realize it's easier to vote democrat and NOT get a job. Uncle barack is more than happy to provide lazy individuals with everything they need to sustain themselves without any personal accountability. So it looks like we're out of luck - he'll be wasting his life away on these posts for years to come(with this imaginary boyfriend)

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:30 p.m.

    'You obviously don't get enough attention...' - 3:06 p.m.

    Is that why you make messages out to me specifically?

    I'm flattered you spend enough time on here to read them and post a reply.

    I have a job.

    Maybe you need a hobby?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:24 p.m.

    'If I make a house with a hole in the roof, it is by design. If I make a house which then develops a hole, it is not by design. See the difference?'

    If you make a house to last forever, I can see how your design would not allow a hole.

    However, for this to be comparable to divorce, you would have to remove the option of divorce from the begining of the marriage.

    Since that has not happened, everyone can go into a marriage with an option divorce.

    Besides, how can YOU have some grand design for someone ELSE'S marriage?

  • Mike
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:08 p.m.

    "your position on supporting 'traditional marriage' just happens to require the total destruction of gay marriage"

    This comment actually made me laugh out loud. It's like saying, "your position that black is black just happens to require the total destruction of the view that black is white"

  • New Yorker
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:06 p.m.

    Pagan,
    Please do the world a favor and get a job. You obviously don't get enough attention and have to drivel constantly on these sights. You make no point, no message, no sense and do it in such a way that you make tofu seem engaging.
    Please get a life and while you are at it a job.

  • wrong
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:04 p.m.

    "Marriage is none of the government's business"

    Ummm, try again: Governments issue marriage licenses, governments enforce the obligations that accompany marriage, governments define what marriage is.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    'Gays want to be legitimized, and they think that passing laws to allow them to marry will somehow change the fact that their lifestyle is immoral.'

    Anne, your under the impression your morality should affect laws that others must adhere too.

    How would you react if I 'felt' that your life was immoral and not deserving of marriage?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    I wish that Jason would stand for the constitution that he pledged to defend. We have a 14th amendment that states that citizens should be treated equally under the law. Gays are citizens and are NOT being treated equally. Nor are their children.

    Where are the constitutionalists? Where are those who will stand up for what this country represents - equality for all?

    Why is he being patted on the back for his morals when his morals hurt others and their children?

    It does not matter that you think that you are better than gays are and are worthy of the benefits and privileges of marriage. That is not the morality that I was taught to love.

    Where are the real Americans who will stand up for liberty and justice for all?

  • Jason
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:57 p.m.

    can have any opinion he wants on any subject. That is his right as an American, however why does he feel it his job (an elected official from Utah) to tell people in Washington D.C. that their elected officials are wrong and its his job to overturn their decisions?

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:55 p.m.

    'Some people have sexual preferences for children also.' - 2:21p

    I thought homosexuals were trying to get married to consenting adults? They ARE! Then why bring this up?

    'Pedophiles are expected to live within the bounds of the law.'

    Yes they are. Are homosexuals doing something against the law? Not since 2003.

    'People can and should control their desires, otherwise they are self serving, without concern for the greater good of society.'

    You mean like Gov Sanford?
    or Tiger Woods?
    or Bill Clinton?
    or David Letterman?
    or Ted Arthur Haggard?
    or Todd Bentley?
    or Joe Barron?

    Be real. The people you are trying to imply that have 'control their desires' are just as messed up as the people you try to villify.

  • Christy
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:53 p.m.

    @Re: Christy | 2:21 p.m. Dec. 22, 2009

    "Some people have sexual preferences for children also. Pedophiles are expected to live within the bounds of the law.

    People can and should control their desires, otherwise they are self serving, without concern for the greater good of society."

    I'm trying really hard not to type in ALL CAPS. What does pedophilia have to do with gay marriage? Children are non-consenting victims of pedophilia. A gay couple consists of two consenting, committed, tax-paying adult citizens.

    When you people compare gay marriage to marrying a child or an animal, it just shows you have no rational, concrete argument against gay marriage. It just goes to show you are nothing more than a small-minded bigot.

  • To Anonymous | 2:13 p.m
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:45 p.m.

    You realize there is a significant difference between something happening by design and something happening, right?

    If I make a house with a hole in the roof, it is by design. If I make a house which then develops a hole, it is not by design. See the difference?

  • @Dogs are barking! | 2:07
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:44 p.m.

    The problem with your comment is that Chaffetz does NOT represent the residents of D.C. - they are NOT his constituents.

  • @Re: Christy | 2:21 p.m.
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:41 p.m.

    "Some people have sexual preferences for children also. Pedophiles are expected to live within the bounds of the law. "

    However you are comparing apples to oranges as it is not illegal to be a homosexual and have relations with consenting adults, but it is illegal to have relations with children as the children are not in it by choice, or cannot legally make that choice.

    It is a red herring and you know it.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:34 p.m.

    'Great Job Jason. Thanks for supporting your constituants!' - 2:07 p.m.

    Are you saying Jason Chaffetz is representing the will of his gay constituants? Or are you just trying to pretend they do not exist.

    Birther.

    I'm not voting for him.

  • I'm with Chaffetz
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:31 p.m.

    on this one.

  • Christy
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:26 p.m.

    @Pagan | 10:14 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    "I will not stop my fight for equality until I am allowed to marry my boyfriend in the Salt Lake temple. Until that day, I will fight the discrimination that is so prevalent here in Utah. Jason Chaffetz needs to go."

    FAIL.

    Pretty pathetic stealing someone's user name to try to slander them to prove a falsehood.

  • Anne
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:23 p.m.

    I just want to thank Mr Chaffetz for standing up for what he believes in. Too many are worried about being "politically correct" or popular.

    Gay marriage is a counterfeit of the real thing and always will be. Gays want to be legitimized, and they think that passing laws to allow them to marry will somehow change the fact that their lifestyle is immoral. It won't.

    Wickedness never was happiness. No law will change that truth.


  • Re: Christy
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:21 p.m.

    Some people have sexual preferences for children also. Pedophiles are expected to live within the bounds of the law.

    People can and should control their desires, otherwise they are self serving, without concern for the greater good of society.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:13 p.m.

    'No one gets married planning to divorce.'

    And yet it is an option. That means at some point someone thought it would be handy to have.

    Also, if you get married you know divorce exists.

    Hence, divorce IS by design.

  • Dogs are barking!
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:07 p.m.

    Great Job Jason. Thanks for supporting your constituants! WE LOVE YOU!

  • Christy
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:56 p.m.

    @ j | 10:09 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009

    "Homosexuality doesn’t help society. And, yes, most legislation is, when you look into it, a legislation of morality, even controlling speeding.
    I feel it’s right to keep safe from attack, but uncaring and destructive to legally enforce homosexuality or allow teachers to mainstream to children, etc."

    How does homosexuality hurt society? NOPE, you can't say that the human species will eventually die off-because %95 percent of us are hetero and will keep on reproducing. NOPE, you can't say that it's propoganda to harm our children-because sexuality is innate, it's not something that is taught or even chosen. NOPE, you can't say that if gay marriage is legalized then what's to stop people from marrying their horse-because animals (and children) cannot give consent. And NOPE, you can't say it invalidates the sanctity of YOUR marriage-because it does not affect it ONE IOTA.

    So, go ahead and tell me HOW it hurts society.

  • Order
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:43 p.m.

    The entire universe is dependent upon natural laws which order its existence.

    If the earth suddenly determined that it was tired of following its prescribed orbit, it would mark a bad day for all of us.

    Man is the exception. Men believe that natural laws don't apply to them, and any suggestion that consequences might result are insulting.

    We will reap what we sow, whether individually or as a society. And our posterity generally pays the cost.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:39 p.m.

    to @ I want to marry.. at 12:59 | 1:15 p.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    and yet three years later you have no answer

    --------

    If you don't know the answer, you only post and do not read others posts.

    You must CONSENT to marry. It is a contract. Children cannot consent by law. Rosebushed cannot consent by logic. Your dog may love you, but he cannot consent or sign a contract.

    Sorry.

    There. You have your answer.

  • Christy
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:34 p.m.

    @Laughing | 9:40 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009

    "you can change the your sexual orientation"

    Go ahead then. Change yours.

    I'll wait. Let me know when the change is complete.

  • @What about France
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:33 p.m.

    "In 2006, the parliament of France courageously rejected same-gender marriage precisely so that children would not "suffer as a result of situations imposed on them by adults. The interest of the child must outweigh the exercise of freedom by adults . . . whatever life choices are made by the parents.""

    What about the interest of the child already being raised by gay parents. Should they be taken away even if one of those parents is a natural parent. Does it serve their best interest to not recognize the 2 people they call Mommy or Daddy as a family?

    Or does that further outcast them due to unfair prejudice or outright bigotry.

  • RUNNING
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:32 p.m.

    GAY MARRIAGE...HOT BUTTON ISSUES...WHATEVER

    We all know, all these crooks, liars and cheats we send to DC, are always running for office.

    As long as JC (symbol intended) can fire up the voters, without spending a dime of his own money, he is a happy politician.

    We will be happy voters when we can show him the door.

    DO NOT BE FOOLED BY A SLICK WILLIE POLITICIAN.

    DO NOT VOTE for an INCUMBENT.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:25 p.m.

    No one gets married planning to divorce. And if they do, they shouldn't be getting married. Hence, it's not by design.' - 1:02 p.m.

    Your entire argument is foolish.

    So, straight people who are unhappy in they're marriage just suddenly WAKE UP and are divorced?

    I doubt it.

    Married people have to make a concious choice to be divorced. Even if one cheats on another, they can still choose to be in this bad excuse for a relationship.

    Just like some argue a gay person can 'choose' to deny every impulse and be in a healthy relationship, right?

    'As for the rest of your argument, simply because the situation is already bad does not mean we should make it worse.'

    Wow. Your going to have to explain that one to me.

    How a seperate married gay couple makes a straight couple who divorced, have one child, and that child is being raised by one parent (not both), how that seperate gay couple makes they're lives worse.

    Actually, can you give me an example? Because I would LOVE to hear you support you lie with facts.

  • Darryl in Atlanta
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    Remember Jason, your Mormon lifestyle is definitely a choice ... one's sexuality is a God given gift. Any discrimination against another person or persons based upon your chosen beliefs are wrong on so many levels. So ... shame on you! and ... you're not doing "good work" as some of the hypocritical whack-jobs claim.

  • Legacy of Divorce
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:16 p.m.

    It amazes me that people on here claim that same-sex marriage would cause people to not want to get married. Or that this would affect their marriage by leading to divorce. Sad that your marriage is built on such a flawed foundation, if that is all it would take for it to end!

    The biggest threat to marriage is divorce - plain and simple. Children of divorce end up sabotaging their own relationships and often go through at least one marriage before having success in relationships.

    Just pick up the book, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce." This is a 25-year study that followed children of divorce, their lives, relationships, marriages, and yes - divorces.

    If you want to help prevent failed marriages, do something to stop the 50% of marriages in the U.S. that end in divorce!

  • to @ I want to marry.. at 12:59
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:15 p.m.

    and yet three years later you have no answer

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:06 p.m.

    'Children come from the union of a man and a woman.'

    Really? I thought it came from an egg and a sperm?

    'Union', what are you six? You know, after 21 people are SUPPOSED to be adults.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:04 p.m.

    'I want to marry my dog.' - 12:48 p.m.

    You are pathetic and try to compare ANYthing to gay marriage that will give it a bad name.

    Maybe I should be like the supporter's of prop 8 and actively campaign to remove any rights you and your 'dog' have?

    However, like most Americans I do not CARE what you and your dog do, so long as it dosen't affect me.

    However, since you dog cannot give consent, I'm sure you are simply making it up.

    A better example would be:
    'I want to get divorced in half of my marriges like straight people. Will Glen Beck & the RINO's support that?'

  • to Pagan | 12:55 p.m
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:02 p.m.

    No one gets married planning to divorce. And if they do, they shouldn't be getting married. Hence, it's not by design.

    As for the rest of your argument, simply because the situation is already bad does not mean we should make it worse.

  • John C. | 2:41 a.m.
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:01 p.m.

    You said: "Just as Europe is dealing with a depleting population because they no longer have enough of the next generation growing up to replace those who are retiring or dyeing. Any country that looses its moral compass starts making laws that eventually lead to its down fall."

    European studies have shown that the reason the birth rate has dropped is that many heterosexual couples are deciding to delay or completely forego getting married and having children. The reason most often given for this? The failure of their own parents marriages. Yes, divorce is the leading cause for this shift regarding marriage and children.

    Your claim that it is due to allowing same-sex marriage and losing their "moral compass" is just sophistry - deceptive reasoning or argumentation.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:59 p.m.

    'I'm more worried about the marriages that haven't happened yet. When marriage is just about telling other people that you love someone, instead of a commitment to each other to stay together as you raise a family.' - 11:28 a.m.

    I am sorry if you think gay marriage is NOT about ensuring commitment to each other and to raise a family.

  • @I want to marry.....
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:59 p.m.

    that was really funny stuff three years ago. seriously get some new material please

  • Kudos Jason
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:58 p.m.

    Thank You Jason. Keep up the good work.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:55 p.m.

    'A single parent is not a single parent by design.' - 12:41 p.m.

    Then can you please tell me how divorce is not by design?

    'Gay parenting, however, is, by design, removing the chance for a child to have both a father and a mother.'

    Wrong.

    Your assumption is that a mother or father has chosen NOT to be part of the childs life.

    Can you please expalain then why the CDC gave out a new report showing that 40% of all children in America are being raised in single-parent households.

    Thats straight people, by the way.

    Are you telling me that those 40% are 'not' in a 'mother-less' (or father-less) situation?

    Your assumptions about the world astound.

    However when you speak for the world I'm sure it will tell you.

  • ghj54
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:52 p.m.

    So, you see yourself as supporting 'traditional' marriage rather than attacking gay folk, do you? In that case, why not introduce a bill to ban divorce? That would do a heck of a lot more to strengthen straight marriage, presumably. Families would stay together (too bad it would be in unhappy and loveless unions), but hey, what's important is protecting an institution rather than allowing people to have access to all the benefits of CIVIL marriage, right? If your church doesn't want to marry a couple, that's fine by me - but don't impose your religious concept of marriage on the civil contract of marriage that is religion-free right now...

  • What about France???
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:51 p.m.

    In 2006, the parliament of France courageously rejected same-gender marriage precisely so that children would not "suffer as a result of situations imposed on them by adults. The interest of the child must outweigh the exercise of freedom by adults . . . whatever life choices are made by the parents."

    Report of the Mission of Inquiry on the Family and the Rights of Children, a study commission appointed by the National Assembly of France, January 25, 2006, 46 (English translation of commission report).

    --------
    Children come from the union of a man and a woman. History and contemporary studies have shown that marriage of a husband and a wife, with both contributing their distinctive natural traits to the family, provides the ideal context within which to rear children.5

    This conclusion reflects what the New York Times has called a "powerful consensus among social scientists that 'from a child's point of view . . . the most supportive household is one with two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.'" Hardin, 2-Parent Families Rise After Change in Welfare Laws, quoted in What Next for the Marriage Movement? (New York: Institute for American Values).

  • I want to marry my dog
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:48 p.m.

    or the rock in my front yard. Will all you liberals support me as I fight for my right to marry whomever I am naturally attracted to?

  • Spiral
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:43 p.m.

    Our society is in a downward spiral, and it's not going to get any better.

    Our society has grown into one of political correctness. You must be tolerant of anything and everything except for judgment. If something judges you, then it has to be destroyed.

    Conscience warns us not to sink our cleats too deeply in mortal turf, which is so dangerously artificial.


  • to Just Me... | 12:05 p.m
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:41 p.m.

    I disagree. Marriage has always been accepted by society as the prime institution to raise the next generation. Hence, the government stepped in to regulate it.

    If children have nothing to do with marriage, why is incest illegal? Why is polygamy illegal?

    As for your arguments about single parents--you have a point, except that widows and divorcees don't plan to be that way. A single parent is not a single parent by design. It happened as an unfortunate event or accident.

    Gay parenting, however, is, by design, removing the chance for a child to have both a father and a mother.

    In one situation, a child is rendered mother-less (or father-less) by misfortune. In the other, by design. Comparing the two is disingenuous.

  • Hey New Yorker
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:37 p.m.

    That is because you are what you said. Look in the mirror and you will see the person you are afraid of being labeled.

  • Darrel
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:36 p.m.

    @ Mike,

    Therein lies the problem! What right does a man representing a family living in Eagle Mountain, UT to decide whether or not a city can make its own marriage laws? Why does DC have to run everything through Congress, but Salt Lake City does not?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:29 p.m.

    More hate spewing here from the good ole members.

  • @11:26 @Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:20 p.m.

    ""I will not stop my fight for equality until I am allowed to marry my boyfriend in the Salt Lake temple. Until that day, I will fight the discrimination that is so prevalent here in Utah."

    Thank you for making it clear that your ultimate goal is to destroy religious freedom for all - and the Constitution with it. See First Amendment.

    And people wonder why Mormons get so prickly when our religion is denigrated..."

    If you are not bright enough to see that this is someone posing to be "Pagan", then there isn't any sense in arguing with you.

    I am still technically LDS even though I have been with my partner for over a year and I am going to tell you this right now... I have no desire to step on your religious freedom, or get married in the Temple.

  • to Anonymous | 11:37
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:17 p.m.

    How is that wrong? We all have the same qualifications for marriage.

  • @Gays and Marriage
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:17 p.m.

    "As for inheritance, hospital visitation, etc., there's nothing that $20 and a bit of paperwork can't fix."

    Please explain how. I am not allowed to have my partner on my insurance policy... PERIOD. I have shopped around and found that if I wanted a joint policy with my partner I would have to pay double that of a family plan. Does that seem fair?

    Then when inheritence comes in, lets see what the person's family would do if they didn't like the deceased partner. Lawsuits and all to prevent the "legal" documents to become invalidated.

    More rights are given to people whom the decedent wanted nothing to do with, then the man/woman they loved.

  • Just Me...
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:12 p.m.

    @Gays and marriage | 11:20 a.m.

    "But in a gay relationship, it's the children whose right to one of their natural parents is being interfered with."

    Unless the parent wants nothing to do with the child (artificial insemination, surrogates, etc.) And what if the child has both "naturarl" parents fully in their lives? Is it still so bad?

    But what it boils down to is this. WHAT DO CHILDREN HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE? Zero, Zilch, nada. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Children are not at all in the picture, or even asked about when you go down to the courthouse to get a Marriage license.

    If you believe that marriage is to protect the children and give them the best possible environment to grow in, then you need to outlaw all single parents, all people who do not have children should not be allowed to married, and after you are past child bearing age you should have to go back to filing taxes solely.

  • Pusey
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:08 p.m.

    I wish people would understand that if one is a faithful member of the LDS church one must stand against same sex marriage. It should be no surprise. The Prophet has spoken, end of debate.

  • Just Me...
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:05 p.m.

    @Children of gays | 11:09 a.m.

    "Every child being raised by gay parents also has an absent mother or father who is being discriminated against. Either those children are from a prior heterosexual relationship, or were adopted, or were created with medical help supplying the missing component. Every child has the right to both a mother and a father - and needs them. Support their right to their natural parents."

    What about the single parents that choose not to give up their children. Are you saying they are discriminating? Or how about the children from a relationship where one of the parent dies?

    It seems to me that you are advocating taking children away from single parents because it isn't the best place to raise a child. Until you start fighting for those childrens rights, then your argument has zero credibility.

  • @Gays and marriage
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:02 p.m.

    Very well stated.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:55 a.m.

    'As for inheritance, hospital visitation, etc., there's nothing that $20 and a bit of paperwork can't fix.' - 11:20 a.m.

    Wrong.

    A woman in Washington was denied visiting her wife because there was no legal protection for her.

    Most inheritence is automatically given to legal families. Not created with a lawyer.

    There are over 1200 rights that come with marriage. If you cannot name them all then you are taking for granted what others are fighting to have.

  • Dee J
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:54 a.m.

    Pagan @ 10:14 a.m. said: "I will not stop my fight for equality until I am allowed to marry my boyfriend in the Salt Lake temple. Until that day, I will fight the discrimination that is so prevalent here in Utah."

    This is EXACTLY why everything the defenders of gay marriage say about gay marriage not affecting traditional marriage rings completely hollow. This is precisely their end game: to fully and completely legitimize homosexual behavior in every aspect of society, including religious society. They WILL NOT STOP until they achieve a ruling in the Supreme Court that forces the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, and every other organization to accept and perform gay marriages. That is their agenda, and they will continue to smear, bully, taunt and denigrate anything and everyone who stand in their way.

    If you think that's unlikely, consider that the Supreme Court was a single swing vote away from forcing the Boy Scouts of America to permit openly gay men to serve as Scoutmasters.

    The gay activist community are wolves in sheep's clothing, prepared to stop at NOTHING to achieve full legitimacy and acceptance of their lifestyle and sexual practices.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:49 a.m.

    'Sexual activity is to be kept within the bonds of marriage.'

    Then every 60 seconds someone is doing something 'outside' the bonds of marriage.

  • I want to marry my cousin
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:48 a.m.

    Is that ok liberals? Why wouldn't you support me in wanting to marry whomever I am naturally attracted to? Will you all support me if I want to marry my sister or brother?

    The crazy logic of the liberals.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:47 a.m.

    'And it is incorrect to compare race with sexual orientation. One can choose to act upon, or not act upon, their sexual orientation... it is a behavior.' - 10:49 a.m.

    Then Makenna, please give us an example of any religion asking you to 'wait until marriage' and THEN work to take away your ability to marry.

    Has that happened to you?

    I doubt it.

    Then why ask others to do it?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:37 a.m.

    'We all have the same rights to marry.'

    Wrong.

    Unless by 'right' you mean the same 'right' as a straight man to marry a gay man.

    Oh wait...

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:34 a.m.

    'I think you all should admit it’s a moral issue.' - 10:09 a.m.

    Well there's your first problem 'J'. Thinking with your morality. Would you like an example?

    '...and I’m not sure how we define “harmful,” but gayness can be just as harmful as...'

    Your not really making a lot of sense when you can SAY being gay is 'harmful' but you CANNOT say 'why.'

    'Some gays take offense when their sexuality is called a moral issue, while, for many gays, the sexuality of others (legal prostitution...'

    ESPECIALLY when something is no longer against the law, like homosexuality. Been legal since 2003.

    Is prostitution legal? Is that why you make the comparison?

    'I feel it’s right to keep safe from attack, but...'

    So, everyone should adhere to J's 'feelings' however there seems to be an acception to his rules when it comes to homosexuals.

    Nice.

    Keep on going J... best thing I could ask for.

  • Hey John C
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:33 a.m.

    Hey John,
    Nice that you don't think marriage equality will threaten yours. It's about rights and protections that no other institution provides but marriage. Civil Unions don't do it and that is a fact.
    As far as less population (i.e. Europe), do you honestly think that if gays were to marry that all of the sudden procreation would stop among heteros? I doubt it. Everyone is so eager to have a "little me" running around to satisfy their egos that there will be plenty of children born - STILL too many for what the planet can sustain anyway. Lets face it all you crazies wishing for the end of days will probably see it sooner than you think based on the way the world is heading. Its such a sad state and it's not b/c of gays. It's because of the holier than thou fundemantalists (in all religions) that think they know the right path and everyone should follow it...or die...or go to prison...or lose rights.
    Wow! I packed a lot into a couple hundred characters! Peace and Love

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:31 a.m.

    Pagan | 10:14 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    I will not stop my fight for equality until I am allowed to marry my boyfriend in the Salt Lake temple.

    ----------

    Pagan,

    I am gay and for gay marriage, but I also believe that people should be allowed to worship however they want to. If the LDS church NEVER allows you to marry in their temples, that is their RIGHT. I will fight with them to be able to follow their beliefs.

  • to @III 9:07 am | 10:24
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:28 a.m.

    I'm more worried about the marriages that haven't happened yet. When marriage is just about telling other people that you love someone, instead of a commitment to each other to stay together as you raise a family.

    Why get married if it's a simple declaration of love? There are much easier ways of telling someone you love them.

  • @Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:26 a.m.

    "I will not stop my fight for equality until I am allowed to marry my boyfriend in the Salt Lake temple. Until that day, I will fight the discrimination that is so prevalent here in Utah."

    Thank you for making it clear that your ultimate goal is to destroy religious freedom for all - and the Constitution with it. See First Amendment.

    And people wonder why Mormons get so prickly when our religion is denigrated...

  • to Saw the light after I left
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:26 a.m.

    The one since mesopotamian times--a man and a woman. The rest is just details.

  • to Pagan | 10:11 a.m
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    Only the government can print money. But that's so restrictive. I want the right to print my own money. And you should be tolerant enough to accept it.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    "So gay groups are questioning in widespread Internet posts why Chaffetz, with such ties, could do such a thing."

    ---

    The answer is simple and easy: it is that Chafetz is able to think for himself and has the integrity to align himself with Truth.

  • Homer
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    Young people are overwhelmingly supportive of same sex marriage and equal rights for LGBT folks. In contrast, you have the moribund Republican Party yapping on and on about this topic, turning more and more young people away from them. Chaffetz is anti-gay because he perceives this as a way to rise in the Republican Party. Really, he is an opportunist.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:21 a.m.

    'I will not stop my fight for equality until I am allowed to marry my boyfriend in the Salt Lake temple.' - 10:14 a.m.

    You can fight for that if you wish. Since I am not LDS why would I want to 'fight' to get married there? No, I'd have to say that is not on my list of things to do.

    Could it be that you only say such inflamitory things to incite hatred? Just like many pastors did in Prop 8? ('They'll get married in our temples!')

    I would be happy if I could get married in City hall like many Americans.

  • Gays and marriage
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:20 a.m.

    Every pro-gay marriage commenter always seems to claim that being denied marriage is the same as being denied their right to have the gay relationship at all. There are plenty of heterosexuals who are having relationships without benefit of marriage. Most because they prefer it that way. There's nothing stopping anybody from having an adult relationship.

    So you want government benefits? What for? With a wife and husband, there's an inherent disadvantage for a wife who bears children and usually is their primary caregiver. She interrupts her career and often takes a job where it's easier to be a mother. So she makes less over her lifetime. She needs the protections of marriage. There's no comparable disadvantage in a gay relationship.

    Fathers need the legal protection to their right to their own children that being married to the mother gives them. But in a gay relationship, it's the children whose right to one of their natural parents is being interfered with.

    As for inheritance, hospital visitation, etc., there's nothing that $20 and a bit of paperwork can't fix.

  • Chaffetz no RINO
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:15 a.m.

    The Log Cabin Republicans and other RINOs did not help in the Chaffetz election. It was the Republican voters of the 3rd CD that did it in the primary. The 3rd Congressional District, excluding the SL County portion, probably has fewer than ten Log Cabin Republicans total, and none of these would have voted for Chaffetz.

    Chaffetz's willingness to stand up to the likes of the Log Cabin, and other RINO Republicans only adds to his political stature in the Utah 3rd Congressional District, and of course the democrats still remain insignificant in that district.

  • mtymouse
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:10 a.m.

    Wish we had more politicians like Chaffetz, who actually stand up for values to preserve our nation! I too have gay family members, but I believe the teachings of God, that such relationships are immoral, and to allow the "marriage" of such relationships is truly against His teachings. I love my confused family members, but not their lifestyle--which saddens me greatly. These truly are the last days, where good will be called evil, and evil good. I fear for the direction our nation is going; immorality, whether same gender, or opposite genders, has been the destruction of other great nations, and will be the destruction of ours if people don't stop their sinful ways.

  • What a joke
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:10 a.m.

    What a smoke screen. Let's waste a bunch of time talking about guns, religion, and marriage. All the while, these idiots we send to Washington are living the high life. Let's talk about something substantive, something that actually matters when our paychecks are reduced by a third every month. At least I have a paycheck, for which I'm thankful. Smokescreen in full effect in DC. It will be such until these fools are term-limited. Ask Chaffetz what his federal pension will be if he left office TODAY, not to mention in 20 years unless he is term-limited. He could retire today - based on his 11 months of "service", with more benefits than 99% of us readers will enjoy in "retirement", that's for certain. TERM LIMITS!!! But instead, let's keep talking about guns, religion, and marriage - the politicians like it that way.

  • Children of gays
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:09 a.m.

    "Only homosexuals that are raising children! There are about 9 million children in the US being raised by gay parents! What do you say to these children? Don't they count? Aren't they important? Shouldn't they receive the benefits that marriage can give their families? Why do you discriminate against them? THEY EXIST! TAKE CARE OF THEM TOO!"

    Every child being raised by gay parents also has an absent mother or father who is being discriminated against. Either those children are from a prior heterosexual relationship, or were adopted, or were created with medical help supplying the missing component. Every child has the right to both a mother and a father - and needs them. Support their right to their natural parents.

    From an adopted child, whose single mother decided my right to both a mother and a father was more important than her pain at relinquishing me.

  • @new yorker (lite)
    Dec. 22, 2009 11:02 a.m.

    whine and cry whine and cry, you are a disgrace to your moniker

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:58 a.m.

    Gay Marriage | 9:25 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    is NOT about Equal Rights...every gay already possesses the SAME rights that every hetero already has.....its purely A BENEFITS GRAP....SONS WANTING MOMS LIFE! Why is it always Gay men who are begging for Gay Marriage.....because gay women already have all the benefits,because they are women!!

    -------------

    What?

    I am a gay woman and I am looking forward to gay marriage. There are PLENTY of lesbians for gay marriage.

    What ARE you talking about?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:54 a.m.

    'If TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE is so sacred, why aren't you also planning to ban divorce?' - 9:29 a.m.

    Oh but that would be the goverment infringing on your legal rights!

    That's only ok to do to homosexuals! We can tell them who they can marry. And cannot.

  • @Laughing
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:54 a.m.

    "Slavery and Black Rights are not the same as Gay Rights......you can change the your sexual orientation but you CANNOT change the color of your skin? Just ask M.Jackson!"

    If you think you can change your orientation then I challenge you to change yours.

  • Chad
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:54 a.m.

    Jason is standing for what he believes, as is President Obama. Do you think Obama should keep his religious beliefs out of his work? For most of us, our religious beliefs are an intrical part of our lives and cannot be separated from our daily thinking. Our Founding Fathers were very religious men and injected their beliefs into their great constitutional work. It was their religious beliefs that led to the creation of our Constitution.

    Keep up the good fight, Jason.

  • Makenna
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:49 a.m.

    Many religions (Christian, Islam, Jewish) support traditional marriage. Mormons are among such believers... you can hardly single them out!

    And it is incorrect to compare race with sexual orientation. One can choose to act upon, or not act upon, their sexual orientation... it is a behavior.

    One can be a fully participating member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even if they same-gender attraction. Like with many other challenges in life, such as a woman who never has the opportunity to marry, or a handicapped individual who cannot find a marital companion, they must ALL remain chaste to be members in good standing in the Mormon Church. It is their choice!

    Sexual activity is to be kept within the bonds of marriage. That is a long-held belief my Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Baptists, and many others.

  • Wrex
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:40 a.m.

    Go forth, Bug-eyed weasel! Preach your intolerance to all!

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:35 a.m.

    Good job Rep Chaffetz ... Keep up the good work!

  • Great Job
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:27 a.m.

    Great job of defending marriage Jason. Liberals are the least tolerant group but demand the most tolerance.

    Just calling a man a woman does not make it so. A society based on perversion is not much of a society.

    Marriage is already available to everyone as it has always been. Perversion is still not looked upon with approval.

    People who are doing something that is wrong always want other people to agree with them.

  • Saw the light after I left
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:25 a.m.

    For everyone stating that we shouldn't be "redefining" "traditional marriage" which has remained the same for thousands of years, when you make that statement, can you please also mention which definition of "traditional marriage" you're referring to ... pick from this list please:
    The one before 1691, when only whites could marry?
    The one before 1724, when blacks could get married? (with slave owner permission)
    The one before 1769, when the wife was property of the husband?
    The one before 1899, when polygamy was legal?
    The one before 1848, when the wife had no property rights whatsoever?
    The one before 1965, when using contraception was not guaranteed to be legal?
    The one before 1967, when interracial couples could not marry?
    The one before 1975, when the wife could not have her own credit rating?
    The one before 1981, when a husband had total control of joint property?
    The one before 1993, when a husband could not be charged with rape?

  • @III 9:07 am
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:24 a.m.

    I am a happily married straight man. I can tell you, unequivically, that any gay marriage out there will have zero impact on the possibility of me getting a divorce. My marriage will be unaffected by anything my neighbor, or anyone else, does.

    Why would anyone think differently?

    With a 50% divorce rate among the heterosexual community, I'm surpised straight people bring the divorce rate into a discussion about gay marriage.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:22 a.m.

    'You've got to love the tolerance of the gay community that they claim to be.' - 9:24 a.m.

    Everyone has flaws it's true.

    However if I were to take the 'Love the sinner, not the sin' logic and apply it to the other 'Glen Becks' of the world it would be:

    "Love the Mormon, hate the religion."

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:21 a.m.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. You cannot defend something that doesn't exist. If you want to create new rights for two men or two women to "marry" one another, you are trying to create a different union. We all have the same rights to marry. If you want to change and give homosexuals new and different rights, that is another story.

    I think homosexuals should go for civil homosexual unions instead of attacking marriage. The attack is on marriage at present, not homosexuals. The gay rights movement wants people to be open minded by agreeing to their agenda. Being open minded goes both ways. Please respect my marriage, my belief in God, my definition of marriage, and my rights. If you want something new, pursue that. Don't try to make me accept your lifestyle.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:14 a.m.

    I will not stop my fight for equality until I am allowed to marry my boyfriend in the Salt Lake temple. Until that day, I will fight the discrimination that is so prevalent here in Utah. Jason Chaffetz needs to go.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:13 a.m.

    'I might have a family member who committed murder, but that doesn't mean I would work to legalize murder.' - 9:05 a.m.

    The biggest flaw in this logic? Murder is a crime.
    Homosexuality is not. Since 2003, so six years now.

    Birther

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:11 a.m.

    'How can you defend money by denying its creation to others? Think of how much money we'd have if anyone could just make it!' - 9:02 a.m.

    Not sure how that relates as the US goverment DOES make money! And that is NOT based on the amount of gold we have.

    I think it's called 'depreciation of value' or somesuch.

    If you want to use money as a reason to deny marriage to others, keep in mind the US owes China literally TONS of money.

    Birther

  • j
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:09 a.m.


    I think you all should admit it’s a moral issue. Trying to make it into a racial issue etc, is deceptive. Without morality all societies crumble. Those who want morality to be kept out of their lives are promoting the destruction of all of us.
    Legislators have a moral responsibility to protect citizens from attack, and also to promote healthy traditional marriages, which help children and society.

    Some gays take offense when their sexuality is called a moral issue, while, for many gays, the sexuality of others (legal prostitution, consenting adult polygamy, siblings marrying, etc.) is a moral issue. Also polygamy, etc, are called harmful, when there is little evidence showing that consenting adult polygamy is harmful, and I’m not sure how we define “harmful,” but gayness can be just as harmful as those things that gays seem to think are immoral and they are above (smoking, prostitution, polygamy, etc

    Homosexuality doesn’t help society. And, yes, most legislation is, when you look into it, a legislation of morality, even controlling speeding.
    I feel it’s right to keep safe from attack, but uncaring and destructive to legally enforce homosexuality or allow teachers to mainstream to children, etc.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:09 a.m.

    '..so to suggest that gay marriage doesn't affect hetero marriages is completely false.'

    ~lll~, I have asked you before with no reply. Perhaps this time you have facts to back up your claim.

    Can you give me a factual example of how gay marriage PREVENTS a straight one?

    Or are you all words and no facts?

  • Lasertrac
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:06 a.m.

    Just a remainder to all of those who kneel at the feet of Lord Obama; even he has said he defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Where is all your indignation over that?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 10:06 a.m.

    Jason knows this won't even get to a vote. He is in the minority in the house and those in control have no problem with allowing DC to govern themselves.

    This is merely a grandstanding play by Jason to get his name in the papers again - he is running for re-election again in 2010.

    Don't fall for his acts. See what he really is...

  • where is the story?
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:51 a.m.

    So yet another republican shows their true color. "we are all about local control, unless of course local control means doing something I don’t agree with" and "government should stay out of peoples lives, as long as its big business and the rich’s life government is getting out of." I repeat where is the story? we have heard this time and again, there is nothing new here.

  • Filling the vacuum
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:48 a.m.

    He's just filling the vacuum left when Marilyn Musgrave lost her seat after her constituency got tired of her harping on the subject. Maybe Utah will get tired of him, but I doubt it. For some reason, Utahns have been made to believe that marriages in other districts and states affect them in some way when rational people know otherwise.

  • RE: Ah, Conflict
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:47 a.m.

    You're conflating libertarian values (more accurately libertine values) with conservatism. Conservatism holds that the state has a certain role in protecting fundamental institutions of society.

    Libertarians who mistakenly feel that the only principle of any importance to human happiness is liberty, believe that the government should serve liberty and liberty only, principally by getting out of the way of all human activities.

    Conservatism respects the role of family, tradition, and civil society actors such as churches and further recognizes that they are essential to ensuring human happiness and a well-ordered, non-chaotic society.

    Extremist libertarians want only the freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. It is a feeble political philosophy long abandoned by all sane members of the human race.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:41 a.m.

    So, the freshman congressman from Utah feels like he has the right to force the elected officials of the District to accept his opinions of their values, rather then their elected represnatives on the city council and mayor. Next time those wacko's in southern Utah demenad that Washington back-off, remind them of the 'know-it-all' from Utah.

  • Laughing
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:40 a.m.

    Slavery and Black Rights are not the same as Gay Rights......you can change the your sexual orientation but you CANNOT change the color of your skin? Just ask M.Jackson!

  • EM
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:31 a.m.

    Chaffetz continues to make a fool out of himself. Derailing gay marriage does nothing to improve the institution of marriage for non-gays. You can support traditional marriage 100% AND gay marriage at the same time. The argument that you're against gay marriage because you are FOR traditional marriage is just so foolish and tired.

  • Dear Chaffetz
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    If TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE is so sacred, why aren't you also planning to ban divorce?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    Horse lover... | 8:44 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    In 10 years, people will demand to be married to their horses, dogs and Heaven knows what. When I stand in objection to that idea, will PETA and liberals and democrats try to brand me as an animal hater?
    ----------

    When your horse can sign a contract (marriage IS a contract, btw), marry it!

  • Gay Marriage
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:25 a.m.

    is NOT about Equal Rights...every gay already possesses the SAME rights that every hetero already has.....its purely A BENEFITS GRAP....SONS WANTING MOMS LIFE! Why is it always Gay men who are begging for Gay Marriage.....because gay women already have all the benefits,because they are women!!

  • Go Jason!
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:25 a.m.

    We are proud of you and grateful that you are fighting for traditional marriage! Keep up the great work, and don't let the enemies of good dissuade you from doing the right thing.

    If the opposition is upset, then you are absolutely doing on the right track! Go, go, go!!!!

  • mc
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:24 a.m.

    You've got to love the tolerance of the gay community that they claim to be. I think it was said best in "Princses Bride", You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

  • Every family....
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:19 a.m.

    has someone like Jason. He is the relative who messes up the family dinner conversation with his "over the top" views on anything and everything.
    Wonder how the 2009 Christmas and New Year's get togethers will be this year?
    Keep passing the food to Jason. If he is eating, he cannot be talking!

  • Hmmmm
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:09 a.m.

    Perhaps Jason is living up to his convictions or perhaps he is playing to his constituents- just how bold a move is it to stand up to gay marriage when you represent the Utah 3rd Dist.?- so one possible interpretation is his morals and another is he knows how to get re-elected and the only group that matters in that equation is the 3rd Dist. and this stance plays perfect for that group- just a thought

  • Source?
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:09 a.m.

    Garden of eden!!......Adam, take thee steve....NOT!

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:08 a.m.

    My problem with Jason is that DC is able to vote out those councilmen that they did not agree with. It is the American way. Allow them the respect to take care of themselves. Why is Jason charging into THEIR battle? He is suppose to oversee their laws, but why would he think that Utah values should be pressured onto the people of DC?

    Why do you people believe that Jason should govern DC and not the people of DC themselves?

    Let this follow its own course without Super Jason to the rescue.

    I thought he was a republican. I thought he believed in Americans - not government. He is acting opposite those beliefs by stepping into DC battle.

  • ~lll~
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:07 a.m.

    @Utbuff- I'd rather be in the party of "no" , than in the party of " anything goes, tolerance is infinite".
    The fact of the matter is, according to Pagans' flawed analysis, gay marriage lowers the divorce rate for everybody, so to suggest that gay marriage doesn't affect hetero marriages is completely false.
    Gays and their supporters are always making the statement that gay marriage does not affect MY marriage. Really? Then how does it affect the divorce rate for EVERYONE?

  • to "to 'it is what it is'"
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:05 a.m.

    Well duh. If anyone were to name such a source, you'd dismiss it. Despite the fact that marriage has been between a man and a woman for almost all recorded history of social relationships.

    Is a tulip by any other name a rose? No, it's a tulip.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:05 a.m.

    I might have a family member who committed murder, but that doesn't mean I would work to legalize murder. Wake up gays, there are all kinds of moral issues here, not just social ties.

  • What? A package deal ...
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:04 a.m.

    "his conversions to be a Republican and a Mormon"

    -Are the missionaries preaching politics as well as repentance and baptism?

    -Was it both or no conversion or did one have precedence over the other?

    -Since I'm not a Republican do I have to confess this to my Bishop?

    This is hilarious and Chaffetz is way out there, a goner man. Sad that he's associated with us Utahns, Mormons, but glad he's associated with you Repubs. If he is stumping for a job with Romney and Mitt bites, he will bring Romney down .... AGAIN!

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:03 a.m.

    Married | 8:12 a.m. Dec. 22, 2009
    Marriage has been, and ought to be, about committed relationships between men and women. One of marriage's primary purposes is to produce and rear children. For that reason, it is rightly limited to heterosexual couples. There's nothing immoral about this distinction; quite the opposite. For the sake of our children (who benefit from being reared in homes that include both a man and a woman) and society (which also benefits from strong heterosexual households), that distinction ought to be preserved. That argument in no way denigrates homosexuals.

    -----------

    Only homosexuals that are raising children! There are about 9 million children in the US being raised by gay parents! What do you say to these children? Don't they count? Aren't they important? Shouldn't they receive the benefits that marriage can give their families? Why do you discriminate against them? THEY EXIST! TAKE CARE OF THEM TOO!

  • to Pagan | 8:08 a.m.
    Dec. 22, 2009 9:02 a.m.

    How can you defend money by denying its creation to others? Think of how much money we'd have if anyone could just make it!

  • Not right
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:59 a.m.

    He should keep his odd religion out of his work.
    There is no place for that in his position.
    Lia

  • New Yorker
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:57 a.m.

    Libs are tolerant as long as you agree with them. When you don't you are a racist, bigot, wierd or some other derogatory name. Pretending that marriage is other than between a man and a woman is just that, pretending.

  • Danny Grizzle
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:56 a.m.

    "It doesn't phase me much." This whole discussion doesn't faze me much, either, except for annoying lapses in literacy.

  • Thank You
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:56 a.m.

    I appreciate Jason Chaffetz for standing firm in the face of widespread personal attacks from the gay community. I did a search and couldn't believe the kinds of things people were willing to write about him and his family over this.

    The natural family is the most powerful social institution in the world. If government had to pay to provide all the services a family provides, from cradle to grave, there would never be enough tax revenue to sustain us.

    People are free to opt out of that traditional family structure, but for government to give them incentives to do so would be social suicide. We need more and stronger families to sustain this country, not fewer.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:51 a.m.

    Its great when some POLITICIAN stands up for what HE THINKS WILL GET HIM RE ELECTED.

    I fixed that for some of you.

  • Consensus
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:49 a.m.

    Chaffetz?

    We have LDS General Authorities who are divided on this issue, so it makes sense that the Congressman might have someone in his family who is opposed to his actions?

    The Gay Marriage deal is soooo yesterday.....the people of Utah will never pass it here....

    Illegal aliens are safer in SLC being coddled by the LDS Brass, than are Gays...because the people of Utah when it comes to Gay Marriage do not care what the LDS Leadership has to say on the matter, and will trump the Church!!

  • Like It Or Not
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:49 a.m.

    Gay Marriage will happen in the USA in the next 10 years. The USSC will rule that the 14th Amend applies just like the Court did in Loving v Virginia which did away with laws outlawing interracial marriage.Just yesterday the Federal District of Mexico made gay marriage legal. If this can happen in Catholic Latin America it can happen in the USA . Simply a matter of time. There are much bigger issues out there folks(China owning us,10% unemployment etc etc) . Worry about your OWN marriage, which is more than most of us can handle anyway

  • Darrel
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:48 a.m.

    @ Mike,

    Therein lies the problem! What right does a man representing a family living in Eagle Mountain, UT to decide whether or not a city can make its own marriage laws? Why does DC have to run everything through Congress, but Salt Lake City does not?

  • adx
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:45 a.m.

    Talk or type until you're blue in the face, but marriage is no longer between one man and one woman. Five U.S. states recognize it as a relationship between two consenting adults, and DC is (according to the pundits) not far behind them. I don't get this hysterical insistence on attempting to define it nonstop as "a union between a man and a woman" when every last time you say that, those who disagree *will walk away from you still disagreeing*. Have fun getting nowhere as you try to force your definition on others. THEIR definition forces nothing on you: It maintains marriage between a man and a woman, adding that those are *NOT* the two required genders for a legal marriage. Beginning, middle and end of story. Oh, did I mention that insisting on your definition will *literally do nothing* to change their views? Thanks.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:45 a.m.

    Just so you all know, the same arguments were made against interracial marriage. Just like then, the bigots eventually lost and to this day look like fools. A club many of you have joined.

    Chaffits is just another FAKE conservative who wants to shrink government down so small it WILL ONLY FIT INTO YOUR BEDROOM (and my online poker site).

  • Horse lover...
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:44 a.m.

    In 10 years, people will demand to be married to their horses, dogs and Heaven knows what. When I stand in objection to that idea, will PETA and liberals and democrats try to brand me as an animal hater?

  • No good deed goes unpunished.
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:41 a.m.

    Well done, Mr. Chaffetz!!

  • Re: Steve
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:38 a.m.

    Amigo.... you're comment about just defending EVERYONE'S right to marry who they want is so full of holes it'll never hold water. Why don't they allow first cousins to marry, or brothers and sisters? Why don't they allow polygamy? Are YOU fighting for THEIR rights to marry just as you are your own? Say it with me.... FAT CHANCE! And why wouldn't you? Because even in YOUR mind, there are some things that are just OUT OF BOUNDS. Now you understand the heterosexuals mind. The difference is that we drew our "out of bounds" line in front of the gay agenda as well as the others. Deviant sexual behavior IS and always will be about right and wrong.
    Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that EVERY heterosexual marriage is going to succeed and there still won't be problems in the world, but by allowing gay marriages, you begin to open up "Pandoras Box" because the question after allowing that is where do you stop? By allowing gay marriages, you can't stop other sexually deviant lifestyles from the same privileges. (Notice, I didn't say "rights".)

    Pete in Texas

  • LDS liberal
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:38 a.m.

    I thought Republicans believed in taking power away from the central Federal government and enpowering local authorities.

    Oh wait, that only counts when it helps them and their misguided doctrine.

  • Cougar Blue
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:35 a.m.

    If Jason were a true conservative, he would keep his nose out of government intruding upon the lives of others. It always used to be that way. But, the neocons want it one way, their way, every day and to heck with everything else. Remember, the constitution guarantees (yeah right) equal treatment and opportunity for all American citizens, not just those that marry they way YOU think it should be. Pretty pathetic.

  • good for him
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:31 a.m.

    Way to stick up for what you believe in!

  • to "it is what it is"
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:27 a.m.

    "A dog is not a cat. A cow is not a horse. Calling them something else does not change what they are.

    Marriage IS bewteen a man and a woman."

    I am unable to find an original source that defines marriage as being between a male and female.
    Please site your source.

    A rose by any other name is still a rose.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:26 a.m.

    So because his family members have one view, he has to adopt that view as well?

  • jim
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:23 a.m.

    In a world that is being turned upside down, its nice to see someone whith common sense. Go jason

  • Thanks
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:23 a.m.

    Congressman. You would be a much better majority leader than Pelosi.

  • J. Scott Coatsworth
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:19 a.m.

    "I see my position more as a support of traditional marriage than it is an attack on gay marriage."

    Um, and the fact that your position on supporting "traditional marriage" just happens to require the total destruction of gay marriage is what - just incidental?

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:13 a.m.

    linguist-
    if you want others to be tolerant of you- you need to be tolerant of them. that means you need to respect people who believe differently than you do. you are acting to put in place regluations that fit into your persaonl belief system and those opposed to you are doing the same thing. the great thing about this county is that we can have different belifs and we are allowed to fight for those beliefs. instead of judging and hating everyone who disagrees with you why dont you have some tolerance on your end as well? lets stop the double standards.

  • Married
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:12 a.m.

    Marriage has been, and ought to be, about committed relationships between men and women. One of marriage's primary purposes is to produce and rear children. For that reason, it is rightly limited to heterosexual couples. There's nothing immoral about this distinction; quite the opposite. For the sake of our children (who benefit from being reared in homes that include both a man and a woman) and society (which also benefits from strong heterosexual households), that distinction ought to be preserved. That argument in no way denigrates homosexuals.

  • Pagan
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:08 a.m.

    Chaffetz is a fool and he will never get my vote.

    How can you 'defend' marriage by denying it to others? If he was actually working to defend marriage he might do something about the existing 50% divorce rate.

    But oh no. This man has to go through an airport screaming 'Don't you know who I am!'

    Diva, please.

  • spellchecker
    Dec. 22, 2009 8:07 a.m.

    "Faze" is the word, not "phase." "Fazing" not "phasing." Please set your phazers on stun.

  • Oh really!
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:52 a.m.

    Jason Chaffetz stands on the losing side of history. Look around the world at industrialized countries. Gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted.
    He is like George Wallace.... standing in the doorway to block integration of a university. What a legacy J. Chaffetz is creating for himself.

  • Traci W.
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:44 a.m.

    "I am the only member of my family who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am a convert."

    EXPLAINS it all. LOL

  • Doug
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:24 a.m.

    As a Republican I admire those who won't give up the fight even when the odds seem they are against you. Democrats are generally willing to go to the mat to fight for what the believe in. Republicans need to be less timid and stand up for their moral beliefs - and they would probably be suprised in the strength of their arguments and those who would stand with them. Way to go Jason!

  • Chris
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:08 a.m.

    At least there are still a few people who are willing to live up to their convictions. Go Chaffetz.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:02 a.m.

    Once again Utah leads the nation in exporting bigotry, hate and discrimination.

  • Mike
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:02 a.m.

    The reason that Jason is not listening to his family is because he represents us. Not them. He actually listens to his constituents.

    By the way, the government is very concerned and involved with marriage. Where it not so, we would not have to go and get a Marriage License, and pay money to get married. So the government does have an interest in marriage. Same thing with the so called "marriage penalty" on income tax.

    The government does have an interest in marriage. Mainly to tax it.

  • Courage to stand up
    Dec. 22, 2009 7:00 a.m.

    I'm glad that Jason has the courage to stand up for what is right. He was elected to represent his constituents and he is doing so. Don't pay attention to the hate mongers that couch their attempts to remake society in terms of "discrimination." Keep it up, Jason!

  • Scott
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:58 a.m.

    I will be pleased to vote for Chaffetz anytime I get the opportunity. Gay marriage is an affront to all civilized people and to God. Period.

  • It is what it is.
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:58 a.m.

    A dog is not a cat. A cow is not a horse. Calling them something else does not change what they are.

    Marriage IS bewteen a man and a woman.

  • Good Job Chaffetz
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:44 a.m.

    Good to see a Politican stick to his moral values and not cave to the whims of societal pressure. It seems our country is spiraling down due to politicans giving in to what's popular or going for power/$ grabs and not holding fast to traditional morals that made this country so great. Obamacare is a great example of this. It's all about destroying capitalism and setting up socialism...tax the wealthy and redistribute to the poor, but the poor wont benefit like they are promising. Anything that hast to be hidden and past dead of night is a red flag. Thieves are most comfortable in the dark of night. Well so are the Democrats that are voting against what American citizens want. Check to Gallup Polls.

  • UTBUFF
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:31 a.m.

    Love the comment about being in a party of "no" LOL! Glad he is not my representative. Hey Keep doing great Chaffetz person, are yot you for real!?!

    This man has no tolerance for you or anyone else. I can't believe you would stand behind him in line for a movie let alone anything political.

    I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman as well, but never would I support Chaffetz in anything but going away!

    Again, glad he is not my congressman!!! Oh and did I mention I was glad he was not my congressman?

  • Bryan
    Dec. 22, 2009 6:30 a.m.

    Regardless of whether I agree with him on this point or not, I respect Mr. Chaffetz for always fighting for what he feels is right and best for the people. We may not see eye to eye, but as long as he stands strong on his personal beliefs I will vote for him in the future unless somebody comes along that can match his level of integrity and match my personal opinions better.

  • Tike Larson
    Dec. 22, 2009 5:25 a.m.

    What he's all about is being Mitt R's running mate. To be that you have to flip-flop on the issues.

  • Linguist
    Dec. 22, 2009 5:05 a.m.

    Unintentionally funny wrote, "...Man, we who think marriage is between a man and a woman are just WEIRD!..."

    With respect, no, it's not that you are "just weird."

    It's that your position harms good people. And doesn't "protect marriage" at all.

    It's like believing that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ (not "weird") and that THEREFORE those who don't believe in Jesus should not be allowed to worship God as they envision Him.

    Not weird, just not respectful of others or understanding that even those who are different have the right to protect their beliefs and their lives just as you do.

    Peace,
    Linguist

  • Wow! I didn't know...
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:37 a.m.

    that you had to be conservative to be a member of the LDS Church. Many of us had better keep a low profile if that is the case. Funny how sterio types become the norm when, in reality, many of us are quite comfortable with moderate and/or more liberal views as faithful members of the LDS faith. Hmmmm!

  • Jason
    Dec. 22, 2009 4:19 a.m.

    You are a voice of reason out there and I am proud that you can speak out on matters of such importance.

    Keep up the good work.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:43 a.m.

    Good job Jason. Keep up the good work.

  • John C.
    Dec. 22, 2009 2:41 a.m.

    Ah, conflict: Because the gay community got the government involved in this debate, by trying to make it law to allow gay marriage. Or did you forget about that little issue.

    To Steve: Will granting you the right to marry another gay person hurt or threaten my marriage? Not one bit. Will it hurt our society as a whole. Why yes. Just as Europe is dealing with a depleting population because they no longer have enough of the next generation growing up to replace those who are retiring or dyeing. Any country that looses its moral compass starts making laws that eventually lead to its down fall.

  • Unintentionally funny
    Dec. 22, 2009 1:07 a.m.

    Funny line: "...misguided interpretation of what makes a real marriage."

    Man, we who think marriage is between a man and a woman are just WEIRD!

    Why in the world would anyone think such a silly, misguided thing?

    Unbelievable.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:56 a.m.

    What a guy! What a party of No!

    Recently Jason said:

    "On a scale of 1 to 10?" Chaffetz says. "28.2."

    His explanation for his off-the-charts grade: "It's really easy to vote no and I'm really good at it."

    Utah, becareful of what you wish for, you may just get it.

  • Steve
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:49 a.m.

    But Chaffetz... what does allowing me to get married have to do with traditional marriages? People in "traditional" (heterosexual) relationships will still be able to get married. They will always be able to get married. They are being defended either way! Why can't you defend us too? No, indeed it *is* an attack on the marriages of gay people. And that's *all* it is. Is it so hard to just defend everyone's right to marriage?

  • Keep doing great Chaffetz!
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:21 a.m.

    I hope Chaffetz is successful.

    If DC. doesn't like that, the residents can join Maryland like part of DC did in the 1800 joined Virginia.

    Chaffetz is doing his job. Keep it up.

    I wish we could vote out the 60 senators and 1/2 of the reps that voted for the "healthcare" which is nothing about Healthcare.

    Right now, I would vote for Chaffetz for President over who is in the White House now.

  • Ah, conflict
    Dec. 22, 2009 12:08 a.m.

    Too bad Jason isn't able to stand strongly in favor of real, true conservative values - like keeping the government out of things that are not relevant to the operation of government. How in the world can one claim to be a conservative, and support additional federal regulation of interpersonal relationships between adults? Marriage is none of the government's business, so long as everyone involved is an adult and acting with free will. Amazing how some self-described "conservatives" are unable to apply basic principles of conservatism to people whose values they don't like.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 21, 2009 11:41 p.m.

    Thank you and good luck!