Comments about ‘Obama stand on same-sex marriage draws reaction in Utah’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 10 2012 8:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Huntsville, UT

"The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any impact on my life, or on my family's life, always struck me as absurd," Reid said

Amen Brother Reid (can I still call him "brother" since I'm not LDS any more?).

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Obama's "stand"? It would have read better as Obama's "political move to stand opposite to Romney in hopes it will get him elected". It isn't a stand when you only stick around when it's popular.

Here's a REAL stand...

"THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

That's worth standing up for- and it is being and will be stood for.

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Another great move by the Obama campaign to distract voters from the really important issues that are being ignored.

With less than 180 days left before the election, this will guarantee 3-4 days of news cycles devoted to Obama's purported conversion, the timing, reaction from various fringe groups (on both sides) totally absorbing the limited attention span of most voters.

Meanwhile, Obama has said not a word about his Democrat allies in the Senate refusing to even vote on a budget for more than three years, the torrent of debt he is creating for every gay, lesbian or straight man, woman, child or transgemdered person which they must either pay back to China from confiscatory taxation, or suffer the worse fate of a total collapse of our traditional standard of living. Not to mention the ticking time bomb of the Iranian nuclear program, the demonstrable failure to make significant progress in Afghanistan, and the corruption in Obama's Justice Department.

Those are far more important issues to every American, but Obama skillfully deflects attention elsewhere to avoid them.

Oooh, look, over there, something shiny......

Watch for similar diversions at least once a weak until November 6th.

Salt Lake City, UT

When Romney changes his mind it's a flip-flop. When Obama changes his mind his philosophy is "evolving." It's better to talk about this issue rather than the economy.

Idaho Falls, ID

This was simply a well choreographed stunt by Obama's reelection team. Let's see... have Biden accidentally on purpose state his views on gay marriage so that this puts faux pressure on Obama to finish "evolving" right before the gala event in Hollywood where 15 million dollars can be raised. Obama's statements about Biden getting a little ahead of him on their big revelation was nothing but an act. It's just yet another diversion tactic from the real issues- the economy and healthcare for which Obama has very little ability to stage an act. My opinion of this president is spiraling ever lower. In fact it's more than a spiral which could describe a gentle decline. This is a free fall plummet. His announcement just didn't strike me as authentic from the get-go. And now I know why. Too many coincidences. I'm sure Obama has a tighter reign on Biden than this. And as tactless as Biden can be, this is too big of an issue for him to spout off about accidently.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

What is more important than the POTUS' stand on equality before the law for all US citizens, regardless of their orientation?

I'm sure Abraham Lincoln's opponents and critics whined that their were more important issues than civil rights, too.

They were wrong, and the blood spilt in the civil war testifies of the importance of these issues.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

DN Subscriber,

Respectfully, I would suggest that this issue is very important. State recognition deals with three dramatically important things.

1) My right to vote vs the constitutionally unauthorized practice of judicial review.

I'd rather live in a world that has wars and struggling economies than a world where I couldn't express myself and democratically voice my opinion. Whether or not my vote counts, whether or not state recognition is taken away from the people and given to one party to dictate- the issue has political consequences.

2) The state supporting a change to one of the most fundamental building blocks of society.

3) How important is our valuing family?

Children deserve a Father and a Mother. To me that is more important than any political, social, or moral issue that man can devise or theorize. There is countless evidence that shows the impact of changes to the traditional nuclear family having a serious and devastating impact children.

Families are important not only to stable social structure, but peace and human happiness. Without family as ordained of God, between only a man and woman, happiness cannot exist. People may find pleasures, but not eternal happiness and peace.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

A Scientist,

The 14th amendment states "equal protection of the laws", not "equal interpretation" of legal terms. I wouldn't stop Elton John from marrying a woman and therefore have satisfied the clause. If it said "equal interpretation" I would have just as much right to marry a cow. If the law says "man and woman", no standing rights are infringed and the principles of the law applies equally to everyone.

Rehnquist's dissent from Roe v Wade-

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."

The framers didn't accept gay marriage (even outlawing certain... activities). The same constitution unless amended is being twisted. To argue otherwise is to willfully be deaf to any degree of human intelligence. One can't argue "No Thomas Jefferson, you don't believe in God... what you say you believe is irrelevant".

I sustain constitutional equality. Gay marriage supporters are suggesting marxism (equal entitlement from the state), not equality as constitutionally defined. The framers didn't recognize gay marriage- so clearly the constitution doesn't either.

Salt Lake City, UT

Those that complain about the president's comments weren't planning on voting for him anyway. Romney wants to frame the election around a single solitary issue. Romney will have to learn the hard way that presidental candidates have to address many many issues.

Farmington, UT

Maybe some behaviors wouldn't affect Mr. Reid, but what about his grandchildren? If they are at an impressionable age would "alternate lifestyles" affect their view of "marriage?"

I'm ok with rights given as civil unions or domestic partners not being discriminated against when it comes to health and housing, employments, education, etc. But the very word and definition of marriage conjurs up an image or vision of a man and a woman, tied together. Whether or not they decide to procreate is their personal choice. Any other arrangement and the ability to procreate is not even possible. But the ability (in general) to do so has been traditionally tied to marriage for time immemorial.

There are so many folks ignoring the benefits of getting married today, why is it even an issue? Let whomever wants to live together do so; protect their rights, but don't call it "marriage" because it's really not.


How a family is constructed and the values that are taught to children are absolutely the business of every single American. No matter how much I teach my children to behave themselves and treat others with respect and kindness, there is always some kid at school teaching them through their behavior that the opposite is "cool." Maybe the loss of basic morals and values is "cool" to some people in this nation, but I'm witnessing first hand the damage it's doing to our new, emerging adults in the workforce. They're absolutely clueless about how to manage their finances, how to maintain basic long term relationships, how to have any sort of compassion for the people around them, and so on. With each new batch added to the work force the overall maturity level and responsibility decreases. Because they weren't given the tools for social survival by their families (because those families were so dysfunctional) they are now less proficient and less able to fully realize their professional potential. This issue reaches into all aspects of life and it's affecting everything right down to your national security, whether you realize it or not.

United Kingdom , 00

I am LDS and really feel sad that I am apart of a global community that treats other human beings like this. Every living soul on this planet has the right to have equal access to EVERY law regardless of their religion, race, gender or sexual orientation. Times are changing yet again for the better and I really pray that the Church I love so dearly will for once be on the right (or left) side of history rather than having convenient policy changes once laws come into place.

I am happily married in the temple to my lovely wife and if I ever have a son/daughter who was homosexual I would want them to be as happy as my wife and I are. This does not make them any less human to want to love someone.

Practice what we preach fellow members

Bountiful, UT

Gay marriage was never about religious intolerance or hatred towards gays. If it were, people would be trying to stop gay couples from even living together.

Gay marriage was never about civil rights. If it were, opponents of gay marriage would be fighting to keep gay couples from obtaining rights rather than fighting to stop gay marriage.

Gay marriage has always been about the gay community’s true agenda - to obtain government endorsement of homosexual behavior. Our government represents all Americans. Endorsement of homosexual behavior goes contrary to the beliefs of millions of religious people. Therefore, same-sex marriage is really nothing more than an attempt to suppress religious people - forcing them to endorse homosexual behavior regardless of their beliefs.

This is not about human rights. It is about oppressing those who dare to believe homosexual behavior is a sin. A government should not establish official approval of ANY behavior that is so deeply opposed by a huge segment of the people that government is supposed to represent!

This is NOT about equality. It is about favoring the gay community over the religious community. Plain and simple.

Sandy, UT

If it were Romney, "flip-flopper!" would be shouted from the rooftops. But since it's the anointed one, it's billed as a "careful and evolving position" Amazing that everyone can't see through this. But I'm sure the $40,000/plate "beautiful people" in Hollywood think it's just glorious, and the "OCCUPY" campers will never accuse them of being part of the 1% that works to destroy the country.

Salt Lake City, UT

@voice of reason
Many of the framers also didn't consider black people, people. Our constitution literally only counted black people as 3/5ths of a person. So I mean, they were still men, not Gods and they didn't get everything right. Not to mention that straight marriage is no longer traditional either. This whole, women get to choose whom they marry is a very recent development. If we really are following traditions a woman's father gets to pre-arrange a marriage then sell off his daughter for material goods. Then she becomes the property of her husband. Who defines what version of marriage is traditional?

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Funny how Matheson once again throws his support where he hopes he can keep his job. If it came down to his vote in congress, Matheson would be more on baracks side rather than President-elect Mitt Romneys side.

Just the same old game from "won't take a position if it doesn't benefit himself" matheson. Now that makes sense:)

Stephen Kent Ehat
Lindon, UT

Campaign? No. Arcade game? Yes. Whack-A-Mole!

President Obama: Ladies and Gentlemen! Step right up! Impress the ladies with your strength, reflexes, and skill against 'Whack-A-Mole.'

Indeed! Whack-A-Mole! A waist-level cabinet. Holes on top. A large, heavy, soft, mallet for the hapless player. Moles randomly pop up from their holes. Hit them down with that unwieldy mallet.

So far, the Moles have been:

An off-the-wall debate question by a reporter about contraception, followed by Sandra Fluke's testimony, leading into discussion of a "War on Women" with little discussion of Obamacare and the War on Religion.

Trayvon Martin's tragic death, followed by discussion of racial issues (profiling ["he'd look like me"], inequality, hate crimes, stand-your-ground laws, gun control).

Osama bin Laden. Interest rates on student loans.

The offensive remarks by a preacher inciting fathers to abuse gay sons, followed by the president's evolved views on same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, there's that great big circus tent over there covering issues like the economy and jobs and debt and deficits and regulations.

Mr. Romney calls: "Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages . . . "

The crowd turns?

Sanpete, UT

A Scientist,

If you are going to use an example from the past, please make it similar.

I don't think that gay marriage has ANY equality like slavery. Where are gays getting beaten by masters? Where are gays forced to do hard labor or be killed? Where are gays being executed for skin color?
You hear of an incidence once in a while of some lunatic doing something horrible to a gay person, but it is not part of our culture.

There are more important things right now. People don't have jobs, yet they still have to feed their families and pay their bills--otherwise they're on the street. I really think that peoples physical needs are far more important than whether or not two people should be married.

Hayden, ID

Those oppossed to same sex marriage are said to be on the wrong side of history. In the entire history of mankind, when has marraige NOT been defined as the union of a man and a woman? Who therefore is on the wrong side of history?

Durham, NC

"Quin Monson, head of Brigham Young University's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, said the school's exit polls have shown the majority of Utahns oppose gay marriage but favor some sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples."

This really sums it up. I do not approve of the redefinition of marriage as being pressed by some. But everyone should have equal rights regardless of what happens behind the door of their home. This should not be a "marriage" issue, but an equal protection under the law issue. Diverting into the ditch by both sides sidetracks from the real issue.

to comment

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