Comments about ‘NAACP backs same-sex marriage announcement declares the practice a 'civil right'’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, May 19 2012 10:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
salt lake, UT

thank you

Natchitoches, LA

Infants have rights. They deserve a mother and a father, and a nurturing environment. Marriages replenish the earth. It's a relationship which integrates the genders and strengthens our society. Take away the discriminating effects under the law, and tax codes, sure; but to call same gender relationships a marriage is no service to our families or communities.

Alex H.
Provo, UT

The other message of this article is that the NAACP no longer represents the views of the community they were created to defend. Now their sole purpose is to be another liberal activist group.

Salt Lake City, UT

One more step toward the abyss.

Mcallen, TX

From a Chinese cookie:

Rationalization does not change wrong to right. Accountability will be sweet and sour.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

When people deny equal civil rights to others, and then rationalize such bigotry by invoking the moral authority of Fortune Cookies, you can rest assured their morality is questionable!

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Forrest: If you truly believe that children have a right to a mother and a father, than by all means work to get recognition of that right - but understand the full consequences of doing so. Understand that all children born to single women will have to be taken and placed in foster care. Understand that when a coupe with children gets divorced, the children will be taken and placed in foster care. Understand that when a spouse dies, the children will be taken from the surviving spouse and placed in foster care.

You also need to understand that marriage has nothing to do with child bearing. If you wish to permanently connect marriage and child bearing, there will need to be laws mandating fertility tests before marriage or a limited time after marriage to bear children before the couple is forced to divorce. Couples that are beyond child bearing age or who do not wish to have children will not be allowed to marry. Once the children are raised, the couple will have to divorce. There will also need to be laws mandating a minimum number of children per married couple.

Without these follow throughs, your comments mean nothing.

Provo, UT

Last I checked, the words "liberal" and "liberty" we're from the same root.

As a lifelong Republican, I find it puzzling that fanatics have hijacked the Grand Ol' Party and defending liberty has been abandoned!

What has become of the party of Lincoln? I have not left the party, it has left me!

Billy Bob
Salt Lake City, UT

Call me crazy, but shouldn't the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people be focused on, I don't know, issues that will help the advancement of Colored people? If I were an African American I might just be a little annoyed by the fact that they are focusing on this issue, especially since most blacks have been against gay marriage. I agree with the poster above who stated how they are now just another liberal activist group. They look to be just another group that will blindly follow Obama into the abyss. How sad.

very concerned
Sandy, UT

The NAACP wants to us to avoid codifying “discrimination or hatred into the law." A noble goal. But with all due respect, being against same-sex marriage does not necessarily make one discriminatory nor hateful. There are legitimate reservations by reasonable people as to the appropriateness of same-sex marriage. Certainly, there are those on both sides who are discriminatory and/or hateful, but those characteristics are not at all a prerequisite to opposition to gay marriage.

Also, speaking respectfully, I submit that discrimination against African Americans or any other groups, including Mormons, is not the same as the reservations that currently exist about same-sex marriage. The constitution does not necessarily always protect people based on behaviors, but does protect based on race, creed, and religion.

As a matter of truth, the constitution has no problem discriminating on basis of behavior, such as with civil and criminal law for example.

Scranton, PA

"A believer should certainly obey the authorities and those who have rule over us. A Christian should be the most law-abiding citizen in the land. But when the laws of a state conflict with God’s revealed will, then the Christian has no choice but to obey the command of God. This was the experience of Peter and John when the authorities attempted to silence them in their witness for Christ, '… Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard' (Acts 4:19–20). The believer is to obey the Word of God today rather than the word of man. That should be our attitude as children of God."

J Vernon McGee, "Thru the Bible"

Are we, today's generation of Christ-followers, ready to "obey the Word of God today rather than the word of man?" Are we ready to stand, as a united church of Christ, against government imposed and/or court-ordered statutes which clearly violate the word of God?

Salt Lake City, UT

RE: "A Scientist"

Being a "scientist" and, presumably familiar with logic, please tell me where your boundaries of the definition of "civil rights" extend. Do they encompass the "civil rights" of one who wishes to marry more than one partner? For example, one man and several women; one woman and several men? Please enlighten those of us who believe that expanding the definition of marriage beyond one man-one woman would bring a flood of discrimination complaints (and lawsuits) from those who want several spouses.

no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

Southern Utah is abound with men who have several spouses. Things seem to be without mayhem, Mike.


You can talk about insurance and what not, but marriage itself is not a right, otherwise a guy could sue a girl who said no, or a girl who was never asked could sue for emotional damages, and do we real ly want to let lawyers take us down that route?

Salt Lake City, UT

I think it is about time to sue Mother Nature. After all, she doesn't let same-sex couples create children. She's been discriminating longer than anyone!

I'll call it
Ogden, UT

Two types of people on this earth:

Producer vs Consumer
Fixer vs Finder
Giver vs Taker
Charitable vs Selfish

The list goes on... I'll support marriage between a man and a woman.

We wish all well...

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ very concerned: "The constitution does not necessarily always protect people based on behaviors, but does protect based on race, creed, and religion."

Religion is a behavior - and very clearly even more changeable than homosexuality.

"As a matter of truth, the constitution has no problem discriminating on basis of behavior, such as with civil and criminal law for example."

Prohibiting a behavior because it causes a harm is not discrimination. Same-sex marriage causes no harm and therefore there is no reason to prohibit it.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Mayhem Mike,

Enlighten you? Too often the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Hawkyo: Freedom of religion is a right - that doesn't give us the right to sue someone for not leaving their old religion to join our new one.

Marriage is a right - forcing someone to marry against their will is not.

@ Civil: Yep - and all those infertile people need to sue, too. And people who color their hair should sue for being born with the wrong color hair - and bald men can sue for being bald, short people for being short, tall people for being tall, people who don't like the shape of their nose can sue over that - the list just goes on and on!

Salt Lake City, UT

RE: A Scientist

Thanks for the non-reply to my comment. Tough one to answer, eh?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments