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
atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Random thought: some states allow first cousins to marry, other states don't. Is there a DOMA that keeps them from receiving benefits or have they always had that even while arguments were made against same-sex couples?

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Truthseeker;

The "contract" you so easily dismiss was a contract that the county would use TAX money to maintain the structure as long as the public had use of it for their functions. ALL the public, not just those approved by the church in question. If they agreed (which they did) to allow the public to use their property in abeyance of their taxes they are then required to adhere to the contract and let the public use the pavilion - including LGBT public.

ClarkHippo
Tooele, UT

Mr. Evensen's article is good in demonstrating that ignorance and stereotyping are actions hardly exclusive to the political right wing. Public accommodation laws however do include the rights of those in the LGBT community.

On the other hand, sometimes gays do twist arms in ways that go beyond equal rights.

There was the case of four San Diego firefighters who, even though they are not gay, were threatened with the loss of their jobs if they refused to march in a gay pride parade. During and after the parade they were sexually and verbally harassed.

The fire fighters filed suit against the city and won, and while a few realize the city's original actions were a mistake, that people should not be forced to march in a gay pride parade, others were not as sympathetic.

I know someone who works for American Express and during the city's Pride Week, ALL employees were told they had to wear the rainbow flag alongside their security badges. If they refused, they could be terminated. He told me while it upset many of his co-workers, no one dared refuse.

Where's the equality forcing individuals like this?

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:RanchHand

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was "dismissing" a contract between the Methodist organization and the state of New Jersey. My intent was to present the facts to show that the Methodist organization had wrongly singled out gays for discrimination.

I agree with what you said.

And I merely provided the ridiculous views held by Ron Paul to underscore your point.

There are those (like Ron Paul) who think U.S. ideals/principals should/do include the "freedom" to discriminate against others, but that we do not have the "freedom" to decide that discrimination is wrong and enact laws to prohibit discrimination.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@mike Richards

You are right laws should not be based on child like beliefs that is why while you have every right to base your behaviors on your child like beliefs in a "creator" laws that govern society should be based on reason grounded in sceince and observable facts.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Truthseeker;

Thanks for the clarification.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Somebody has to stand up for what is right! I'm happy that marriage is one of those things. It is actually quite a self-esteem boost to find myself telling the Supreme Court how intellectually empty they have become! Whatever law they think they understand, it is quite obvious that that they have become pawns to the me generation. So be it! Now America has a choice, one that will split America again. Awesome! Bland acceptance of evil is unfitting for
America, something we have been doing for decades. The future is bright and the battles are going to be inspirational!

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

@Tolstoy,

"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

It's pretty obvious that the Creator doesn't think much of the self-important who think that their laws have anything to do with Him.

Little children do things when even though they are wrong they think that they are right; but, little children are also teachable. They quickly learn right from wrong. Our creator expects us to become teachable and to leave behind us the pride that would make us think that we can reorder eternal truths.

Like many others who have posted, I think that the Court showed us that they are "ever learnng but never coming to the truth".

That might not be so bad, but they're leading a bunch of gullible people around with them. Some of those people think that because five people said something that eternal laws can be nullified. That's pretty childish, don't you think?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The reason to define marriage as a man/woman institution comes out of a belief that marriage is about raising children and meant to create a situation that links it to child rearing. This is done through a form than can create children. The form is not violated by individual couples that chose not to or cannot have children, but it is violated by couples who in form can never create their own children.

The reasons to define marriage this way are not about limiting behavior by the unmarried, but for the purpose of showing a certain view of what marriage itself is.

Thus the whole rhetoric of one group forcing another misses the point. Marriage law is inherently the state choosing what marriage is and what it wants to be. Man/woman marriage is a marriage centered on child rearing. There are other ways to conceive marriage, and people have the right to advocate for a change in public policy.

However it is a public policy, and as a public policy issue, it affects all people. All people have a vested interest in having marriage be in a form that best fits their definition of what it should be.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@j thomas

"Like many others who have posted"

you of course mean you posting as Mike Richards right?

I am sure your comment would be much more impact on someone hat shares your beliefs but since I do not and they are based on beliefs not facts they make for some interesting insights into your beliefs but nothing more.

The thing that I have trouble understanding is your continual selective morality when you claim to have such stanch and unbending beliefs.That is what I would really like to try to understand the motivations and thinking of. How do you reconcile the two?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The failure of the supports of same-gender marriage to recognize the freedom concerns of their opponants is very disturbing.

People who object to homosexual actions as morally wrong should have the religious freedom right not to in any way participate in ceremonies that proactively affirm them.

This is not an issue of providing services, it is an issue of forcing proactive affirmation. People have a right to view homosexual behavior as morally wrong, and until the supporters of same-gender marriage recognize this, they will be in violation of the 1st admendment's freedom of religion guarantees, and in many cases violating free speech guarantees.

The better analogy is if someone went to a baker and wanted them to make a cake that said "Only man/woman marriage is approved of God". Could the baker refuse? Yes. Cake makers should be able to refuse on religious grounds. The state should not force participation in ceremonies.

George
New York, NY

@john pack lambert

Churches should never be forced to perform ceremonies that go against their tenants I agree. When it comes to civic society you do not have a "freedom" to discriminate against other law abiding citizens simply based on their real or perceived differences. when you incorporate as a business you agree to abide by civil laws. The laws are not some random liberal ploy o take away your rights they exist because of lessons learned from a painful past when we made the exact same type of exceptions that you ask for.

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

SSM will be allowed in LDS Temples when Divorced Catholics are allowed to be remarried in a Catholic Church. For the legal Beagles out there. The Catholic practice of denying remarriage sacrament violates discrimation based on Marital Status in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Well thats been on the books for about 50 years AND I don't see the Catholic Church in America caving in on this issue anytime soon. I wouldn't worry too much about Gay/Lesbian couples being sealed in the Salt Lake Temple in the immediate future.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

@Tolstoy,

It's interesting taht you talk about "selective morality". Eternal law is exactly what the name says that it is, "eternal". It isn't "selective" and it doesn't change just because a judge in California decided that the vote of the people of California didn't count. It doesn't change just because five judges in Washington decided that they had the right to tell California how to write its constitution.

Equality tells us that all must be heard, so where was equality in this case? When only one side is heard, is that equal? In an argument about equality, you're certainly silent about that bit of inequality. If you claim that the 14th Amendment is the basis for the court's ruling, then you also must demand that the 14th Amendment requires that all sides be represented.

One judge in California disregarded the Constitution and the Supreme Court redefined "equality" to mean the opposite. That all seems to be fair to you. Now, what about that "selective morality"?

amazondoc
USA, TN

@J Thompson --

"Eternal law is exactly what the name says that it is, "eternal"."

Actually, God's law is NOT "eternal".

We KNOW that God's law changes over time.

The biggest example: a "new covenant" was established in the New Testament (Hebrews 8:6-13 and several others), which supplanted God's laws from the Old Testament.

"...the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises." (Hebrews 8:6)

"By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."(Hebrews 8:13)

"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (Hebrews 9:15)

Furthermore, Mormons believe in continuous revelation.

Whether you interpret it as the actual law changing -- or only as our **understanding** of that law changing -- still, what we SEE as the law definitely does change.

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

I would like to point out that churches are given wide latitude in the U.S. For example, many/most churches practice defacto discrimination against women (and sometimes against minorities) by denying them leadership positions and priesthood ordination.

Therefore, there is little chance that churches will be forced/required to perform same-sex marriages. LGBTs will have to get in line behind women.

Truthseeker2
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

Re:JThompson

The Prop 8 proponents have defended their positions in court up to the Supreme Court level.

The problem is, they could provide no evidence of tangible harm to themselves from same-sex marriage.

"One essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. In other words, the litigant must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm."
(Chief Justice John Roberts)

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

‘Jay Evensen: Gay marriage opponents stereotyped by ruling’

========

Speaking of Stereotypes:
Gay opponents in general label the entire LGBT community as sex starved, drunken pedophiles, who hook up for uncommitted one night stands and have no sense or any sort of normal life.

Yes,
Let's put the silly mythical stereotypes away, shall we?

Jim Cobabe
Provo, UT

Though I have no personal anecdotes to offer, I tend to be rather disbeliving of the argument that such legal deliberations will prove to be more than even a passing interest to those who are inclined to indulge in homosexual behavior. After the celebration about the Supreme Court victory is through, I have the suspicion that those so inclined will contine doing what has always characterized homosexuals, regardless of any legal ramifications or claims of approaching any universal “equality”.

Lightbearer
Brigham City, UT

What I don't understand is why the baker wouldn't bake them a cake in the first place, or why the photographer refused to photograph their wedding. Assuming that the baker and the photographer are Christians, whatever happened to "Love your neighbor [and your enemy]," "Treat others as you would like to be treated", "Judge not, that you not be judged," or even the good old non-Christian admonition, "Mind your own business"?

If I am a baker, it is my business to bake cakes; if I am a photographer, it is my business to take pictures - not to pass moral judgment on my customers.

The idea that if I bake a cake for a same-sex couple, or photograph their wedding, I am somehow endorsing their life-style is ridiculous. I'm no more endorsing their life-style than if they came into my gas station and bought a candy bar.

Is that the kind of society we want to live in, where before we purchase something or engage the services of a company, we have to seek the moral or ideological approval of the owner - and shop around till we finally find one who deems us acceptable?

to comment

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