Comments about ‘Jay Evensen: Gay marriage opponents stereotyped by ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 5:55 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Shelama
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Here is not a stereotype but an obvious and overwhelmingly true observation:...

The only way that virtually anybody ever enters into Christianity in the first place is either by childhood indoctrination or else in rather profound ignorance of the Bible itself.

While there may be stereotyping going on against opponents, well... welcome to the game.

Gays have been negatively stereotyped for centuries primarily by people like those above and often people who would do them harm.

Epstein will fly very well within the religious community, including by people who don't mind stereotyping but who don't seem to like turnabout.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

In the examples you provide, if we substituted a Mormon for someone who is Gay, would the right to discriminate in the Public Sphere still be as justified?

We all give something up in exchange for the rights and benefits to operate a business that is open to the general public. This includes safety laws, labor regulations, and nondiscrimination laws. Do we really want to go back to a time when certain classes of people were turned away from hotels, restaurants, housing, drinking fountains, etc. because of parochial objections whether based in religion or custom?

Consider your own past and consider it carefully. It won't be just Gays who are turned away if we take the course suggested by this column.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

New Jersey, New Mexico, and Colorado do not have same-sex marriage, so the issue isn't with SSM but rather the issue involves equivalent or uses of the 14th amendments' equal protections clause and provisions similar to the civil rights act that prohibited discrimination based on race.

Mainly Me
Werribee, 00

"Democracy is messy; it's not efficient and it isn't always fair."

Paraphrased from a book by David Weber:

A republic is freedom.
A democracy is oppression.
A peoples republic is a dictatorship.
A peoples democratic republic is an oppressive dictatorship.

With SCOTUS in lock step with the so-called homosexual rights movement, we are headed for a peoples republic.

Arizona1
Tucson, AZ

It's sad how we bandy around the word "rights". We cheapen its meaning when we apply it to anything and everything that we want to become the law of the land.

As for the cases I have heard of concerning a refusal to serve those who identify themselves as gays, they have been cases where a photographer or baker, or what have you have refused to participate in the "celebration" of gay practices, not against gays themselves. Those who identify themselves should by all means be protected against discrimination. They should have every right to housing, employment, etc., but we don't have to make up rights that force people to "celebrate" what flies in the face of their convictions.

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Mr Evenson was right in his column but he didn't come right out and get to the heart of the matter. The fact is that the American left has no interest in debate as evidenced by Justice Kennedy's majority opinion. The American left seeks to shut down debate because their arguments cannot win when forced to be stated logically. Exhibit A: IRS targeting of Tea Party organizations. I believe that the citizens of a state should be allowed to decide whether or not the state should sanction/certify gay marriage. In fact, at this point (now that we're standing at the end of Western civilization) I don't think states should even have a role in marriage (certification or otherwise)
I hate to find a Communist behind every tree but on every issue the American left is obsessed with from Gay marriage (destroy Religion) to "climate change" ( centralized power over individuals) it's fairly obvious that there is an ulterior motive.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

Brilliant article!

Thank you for articulating the problems with this issue, and the insults from the liberal left, so well.

And yes, those of us who live by our principles are worried by our rights are being taken away.

Church member
North Salt Lake, UT

To: red state pride

I feel the same way about the "American right". They don't want a debate because their arguments are silly when they are forced to be stated out loud. Quoting the bible or saying "because my God says so" is not a very good logical argument.

People around the world are starting to wake up and realize that religious dogma and myths are not the best way find "truth". Using reason, logic, and facts are a much better way.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Mr. Evensen
A few facts:
New Jersey has never legalized same-sex marriage.

A Methodist organization in New Jersey tried to take advantage of a state property tax exemption by opening up its ocean boardwalk pavilion to the public for a wide variety of uses--including allowing people of other denominations to reserve and use the pavilion for marriage ceremonies. A gay couple tried to reserve the pavilion for a commitment ceremony but were denied. The New Jersey real estate commission found that the Methodist organization could not discriminate for a building open for public use and claim a property tax exemption. The organization was then assessed an additional $200 in property tax for the pavilion.

re:Red State Pride
This week, the IRS released documents showing that progressive and liberal groups may have been singled out as well. On Monday, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee released 15 BOLO lists, which changed over time and were dated between August 2010 and April 2013. The lists included the terms “Progressive,” ”Medical Marijuana,” ”Occupied Territory Advocacy,” ”Healthcare legislation,” ”Newspaper Entities” and “Paying National Debt.”

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

I'm sorely disappointed in you Jay. A half-truth is also a half-lie; intended to decieve.

"In New Jersey, a judge ruled against a Methodist church that declined to allow a gay marriage on its property."

Why didn't you include the portion of that case where the property was being subsidized by tax-payer money?

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

This is the same argument used by business owners in the Jim Crow era. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to use their "religious" beliefs as a shield for their bigotry and to discriminate against citizens in this country. A baker who provides wedding cakes should provide the cake for all weddings. Same with a florist or photographer.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

If the issue is stereotyping, Jay Evensen surely knows that a fair amount of that is done on both sides of the issue. It doesn't help anything.

The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

How can one dispute that the principal purpose of DOMA was to impose inequality?? A couple is legally married in Georgia, but are denied federal benefits because they are of different races. Alternatively, a couple is legally married in Massachusetts, but are denied federal benefits because they are of the same sex. If either event happened, it would be a bald imposition of inequality - treating legal marriages as unequal in the eyes of the federal government.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

Speaking of "honest" discussions --

"government's interest in marriage as a vehicle for ensuring children have claim to their biological parents..."

This much-touted argument is absolutely irrelevant to the actual issue of gay marriage.

Gay couples are already raising children, with or without marriage. Gay marriage won't change that.

Straight couples are already raising children, with or without marriage. Gay marriage won't change that, either.

Gay couples are NOT somehow stealing children from happy, stable, straight homes. They are:

1. Adopting children -- Thousands of children in the US spend years in the foster system, simply because there aren't enough homes available for them. Adoption by gay couples HELPS these children.

2. Using surrogacy or in vitro fertilization -- These children wouldn't even EXIST without the gay couple, so it's meaningless to claim that a straight home would have been better for them.

3. raising children from previous relationships -- The parents of these children were already separated. In these cases, there is no happy straight home to go back to.

Gay marriage doesn't remove children from happy straight homes in ANY of these cases.

Yes, let's try for some HONEST debate. Less rhetoric and red herrings, please.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

More facts:

The adjunct professor at U of Illinois was initially fired (but reinstated) for what he wrote in an e-mail, not what he taught "in" class. (Previously at U of Illinois, instructors teaching Catholic studies courses were paid by St. John's Catholic Newman Center. Subsequent to this incident, U of Illinois began paying the instructor's salary).

In part, the e-mail (which is too graphic to pass DN standards)stated:

"Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality."

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:Ranch Hand

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."

Ron Paul 2004

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

It's pure hypocrisy of Mr. Evensen to claim that a statement like" Its "principle purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency." stigmatizes the laws supporters as wild eyed radicals, while at the same time defining opponents of gay marriage as supporters of traditional marriage, insinuating that those who would allow gay marriage don't support marriage between a man and a woman. If you want to be accurate Mr. Evensen call both sides what they are, opponents to gay marriage, and supporters of gay marriage. Pretty much everyone in the debate are supporters of marriage between a man and a woman.

Diligent Dave
Logan, UT

"Democracy is messy; it's not efficient and it isn't always fair. But it works best when all sides can be aired under the presumption of best intentions."

The Supreme Court's majority decisions in these cases regarding homosexuality are prima facie evidence that such "...presumption of best intentions" are stupidly wrong. In fact, their majority decisions in most of these cases are but yet another "shout down" of those advocating what in another era would have been called "common sense".

Like the mob outside Lot's home who continued to press to enter his house to "have their way" with Lot's guests, even after being blinded by God, so today's pro-Sodom crowd are likewise blind both to their blindness and to how untoward their groping press is.

After logically pointing the error of those LDS members who sided with those against Prop 8, against the leadership of their own church in Sunday School a couple of weeks ago, an otherwise friend of mine side-swipingly implied my viewpoint was "hateful". Wow! The logic of so-called liberals I have long found to be out of context with the totality of reality.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

There are so many who argue that they are the creators, not the created. They argue that they set the laws that govern mortality and morality, not Him who gave them life. They live and breathe, walk and talk, yet they mock Him who made that possible. They demand that those who defend the Creator be forced to accept them and their Court-backed-exemption from eternal law.

Little children often want to play in the sun without getting a sunburn.

Little children often want to stay up all night without being tired and miserable the next day.

Little children often want to make their own rules where adults are excluded because adults "take away their fun".

The Court acted like a foolish child. It blamed the adults in our society for the self-caused misery of those who reject the eternal laws of happiness. It called the adults names. Only one judge defended the adults. The rest pretended that they were replaying "The Lord of the Flies".

No society can survice when foolish children make the laws.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

We aren't interested in a debate, we're interested in human rights.

Anti-gay-marriage arguments aren't that complex, and can be easily reduced to simple stereotypes.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "We aren't interested in a debate, we're interested in human rights."

Liberals are only interested in debate when they're not in power. When -- as now -- they run things, debate only gets in the way of implementing their deranged policies. As the President indicated yesterday, while implementing his unconstitutional war on American energy, they "have no time" for discussion or debate.

Well, having established the pattern, we should expect liberals to just go quietly into the night -- as they current demand we do -- once political sanity is restored and Constitutional government is re-established, right?

to comment

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