Quantcast
Utah

Obama stand on same-sex marriage draws reaction in Utah

Comments

Return To Article
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 14, 2012 5:47 p.m.

    Gay marriage is all about children. Do we want 2 gay men or women raising our children and teaching/nurturing them or do we want a father and mother doing that job?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 13, 2012 12:00 a.m.

    Everybody knows right from wrong till rationalization kicks in.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 12, 2012 2:31 a.m.

    So many comments on here make me sad. I am amazed I made it through junior high and high school with the names I was called. I dreaded seeing certain classmates because of how unsafe they made me feel. I was treated horribly by the kids that I had to sit with in Sunday School and other church meetings. It was a very painful experience, yet somehow I survived.

    Now, with the modern technologies we have, I see adults bullying each other on Facebook and comment threads like this. I can't imagine what it must be like to be a teenager seeing the hateful comments spread in so many new ways.

    Most gay people do not have an agenda beyond making their communities a safer place to live. From the comments I read on here, it looks like we have a very long way to go.

  • P Central, Utah
    May 11, 2012 11:58 p.m.

    I like to think I am a simple guy ..

    "jr85
    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...."

    We define and uphold certain definations and procdurs. If you are to be a MD then there are certain requirements, If you are going to be called an electrican, other requirements and definations will apply to you.

    If an MD were to "pose" as an electrician, or anyone who wanted could call himseld an electrician there would be confusion & likely problems. Everyone does have the equal right to do those things to be called an electrician.

    To me,the defination of marriage equals man plus woman and everyone has an equal opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. Some may not want to for personal reasons.

    Since legal union etc.doesn't seem to satisfy, maybe we should define "EGAIRRMA" (marriage backwards) as between whomever or whatever circumstances.Everyone would have the "right" to do that if requirements aremet.

  • Logic101 Salt Lake, UT
    May 11, 2012 2:33 p.m.

    To All Members who seem to have a problem with other members accepting gay marriage -

    Please read the following that Elder L. Whitney Clayton said during the Prop 8 fight:

    "Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue without facing any sanction," said L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy. "We love them and bear them no ill will."

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    May 11, 2012 2:00 p.m.

    LDS Liberal writes: FYI - North Carolina is a State of America, not THE United States of America.

    Actually Rifleman raises a valid question. Why would 61 percent of the voters in North Carolina, including many democrats, vote in favor of the traditional family amendment if half of the population favors same sex marriages? Common sense suggests that the polls are flawed or conducted with the same accuracy as the UN census.

  • SSMD Silver Spring, MD
    May 11, 2012 1:40 p.m.

    Senator Reid might want to consider this statement from Elder Dallin Oaks and relate it to Reid's logic on gay marriage:
    "If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices."

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 1:38 p.m.

    A Voice: "If the same constitution didn't recognize gay marriage back then, then they need to ammend it to call it a 'right' today. Plain and simple.

    It needs to be "A DEFINED RIGHT" in our constitution to be exempt from the popular vote."

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

    Read Amendment #9. Simple. Many rights not specified in the constiution but they are still rights!

    Now, if gay marriage needs to have an amendment to call it a right because it wasn't originally in the constitution, so does heterosexual marriage because it was not listed as a right in the original document or any of the amendments, right?

  • Culture of Rationalization Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 1:36 p.m.

    "jr85":,
    You claim to be LDS but you support gay marriage. Are you familiar with the phrase, "No man can serve two masters"?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 1:31 p.m.

    jake2010,

    I agree that if two or three or ten people want to marry each other, they should be able to as long as they are adults and choose it for themselves. Polygamy is notorious for marrying off girls to older men without their consent or when they are too young to consent.

    The two problems with polygamy is that (1)the marriage laws have changed since BY's day. No longer is everything owned by the man but is shared equally by the wife. So, when you marry your first wife, she will own 1/2 of the property and you, 1/2. When you marry your second, she will own 1/4 and you will own 1/4. You better be a pretty rich man to marry 25,000 women and still own anything. And (2)Women would also be able to marry as many men as they want to also. So there goes all sanity! You could be married to two sisters that are also married to your best friend who is also married to your mother who is married to...Pure chaos. All the marriage laws in the US are written to support just 2 people.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 11, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    Re: LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    "FYI - North Carolina is a State of America, not THE United States of America.
    Huge difference."

    You may believe what the polls tell you but I prefer to believe what voters in a state friendly to the Democrats say at the ballot box. It is hard to spin the 61% vote in NC as a fluke. Maybe they should demand a recount.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 1:23 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "Why is their definition of marriage valid and a polygamists definition wrong if they are both based on who you love?"

    *shrugs* I think polygamy is morally wrong but I don't see any reason why it should be illegal (making it legal would be a bit messy since marriage is a 2-person contract so there'd have to be some reasonable way to deal with it). Though it's kinda funny that I have to be the one to defend Joseph Smith in this context.

    @Jake2010
    "And Warren Jeffs and any others presently imprisoned immediately released with a nation's apology."

    No they wouldn't. Abuse and child marriage would still be illegal. I'm pretty sure he was charged with something other than bigamy/polygamy.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 1:09 p.m.

    TOO
    Sanpete, UT
    On another note, the family of the "victim" that Romney supposedly assaulted because he was gay has come out and said that the story about Romney is inaccurate. Imagine that, leave it to the left to distort a story to look like they are the good guys.

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

    Half Truth!

    The sister merely said that she did not hear about the incident. Her brother never talked about it. The very last thing that she said was that, if it happened, he was not the type to ever mention anything about it.

    That does not mean that it didn't happen or that it was different than what was reported.

    Five different people were interviewed - one still considers Romney his friend. All recounted pretty much the same story.

    Today, Romney would be suspended. That is considered an assult and his verbal taunting and saying "atta girl" when another gay person spoke is verbal taunting, bullying. Times have changed, thank goodness.

  • Jake2010 bountiful, ut
    May 11, 2012 1:02 p.m.

    In order for Obama's stand on marriage to matter one iota wouldn't the constitution have to be rewritten to where it became the federal building that we got our marriage licenses? And I voice again that Gay rights activists are not really for the equal 'protection of all' but rather only protection that supports their life choices..... For to be truly fair and equitable plural marriage would also have to become legal. And Warren Jeffs and any others presently imprisoned immediately released with a nation's apology.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 11, 2012 12:57 p.m.

    @RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT
    12:14 p.m. May 11, 2012
    What do you mean RedShirt? --- We can’t answer your question because it’s not directed at us, but to you, that’s why.
    Your scenario is the definition of an “Open-Marriage” – not Gay marriage, and it was the definition of marriage that GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich tried to run on.

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

    @Rifleman
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    12:20 p.m. May 11, 2012
    Re: LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    "Whatever you say Rifleman, Whatever you say...."

    FYI - North Carolina is a State of America, not THE United States of America.
    Huge difference.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 11, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    I will repeat the questions that most supporters of Gay marriage hate to answer:

    If marriage is defined by who you love, then what is to stop 1 man and 3 women, 3 men and 1 woman, 2 men and 2 women, 4 men, 4 women, or any combination of men and women from getting married? By changing the definition of marriage to be based purely on emotion, how does that restrict marriage to only 2 people?"

    I don't hate to answer this. In a free society you can marry whomever you like as long as nobody's hurt. I hate when people bring up polygamy vs. gay marriage as if they're even related. I never even heard of polygamy until i found out Mormon's used to practice it until the government made them stop .... cough .... I mean God told them to stop.

    The definition of marriage is different to a lot of people. The government has no right to define marriage .... they are supposed to protect our freedom to marry. That's it.

  • Jake2010 bountiful, ut
    May 11, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    well said redshirt well said! Exactly! If you are to allow gay marriage than by dang and high water you better give me my 'right' to marry 25,000 women! What on earth is the difference? Answer is very simply NOTHING!

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 11, 2012 12:20 p.m.

    Re: LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    "Whatever you say Rifleman, Whatever you say...."

    More than 61% percent of North Carolina voters cast their votes in favor of Amendment 1 which ban recognition of any form of relationship that is not a legally married hetereosexual couple. The polls that really count are the ones that occur in the voting booth.

    The problem for Obama is that they are going to hold the Democratic Convention in NC and many of that state's Democrats voted for Amendment 1.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 11, 2012 12:14 p.m.

    I will repeat the questions that most supporters of Gay marriage hate to answer:

    If marriage is defined by who you love, then what is to stop 1 man and 3 women, 3 men and 1 woman, 2 men and 2 women, 4 men, 4 women, or any combination of men and women from getting married? By changing the definition of marriage to be based purely on emotion, how does that restrict marriage to only 2 people?

    Most gay marriage supporters that I have asked those questions to, have said that plural marriage is bad. Why is their definition of marriage valid and a polygamists definition wrong if they are both based on who you love?

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    May 11, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    "The fact is we have 10 countries and abot half a dozen states with gay marriage and that hasn't caused any problems"

    Yeah, it hasn't caused any problems that people are willing to admit. A lot of problems stay at home. Liberal have no problem with Hollywood films that depict the 'picture perfect' religious family that secretly has problems with in, yet gay so-called "families" never seem to have any problems.

    Gee golly... isn't that convenient.

    Rome didn't fall instantly, but if fell. The Nephites fell too, but only after they eroded the Gospel from their lives over time. Countries that marry gays may not have fallen yet, but it doesn't prove they won't. The clock is ticking for all things to be proven. I know where I want to stand when that happens.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 11, 2012 11:39 a.m.

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

    Just the expected reaction, nothing new . Just the same tired and old arguments of a stagnant group with the need to feel secure in their faith.

    Probably Marx didn't know of the Mormons, but certainly we could apply his statement
    " Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people"

    Religion is not necessarily bad. Except when instead of liberation it brings oppression to its followers and those who oppose it or are indifferent to it.

    Heaven or Fire. Glory or Doom. What a limited perception of humanity.

    The true words and love of Christ brings real liberation, not the blinded and sectarian arguments of men.

    All human beings are children of God and all should enjoy the same rights, benefits and responsibilities that come with that elevated status, including the Right to marry the one you love, regardless race, social status, or sex, or other people's opinions or beliefs.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 11, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    @Rifleman
    Salt Lake City, Utah

    Whatever you say Rifleman, Whatever you say....

    According to the March 2012 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll
    currently 49% of Americans favor gay marriage, with 40% opposed.

    That represents a flip from October 2009,
    when 49% were opposed and 41% were in favor.

    Go back to March 2004, and 62% were opposed, vs. only 30% in favor.

    Mitt Romney should have Flipped when he should have Flopped.

    Although I may not agree with his decision personally,
    Pres. Obama hit the American political mark, while Mitt Romney was out chasing the Tea-Parties Target.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 11, 2012 10:55 a.m.

    "The fact is we have 10 countries and abot half a dozen states with gay marriage and that hasn't caused any problems. Not even New Hampshire's republican legislature could get a repeal of gay marriage passed (it wasn't even close) probably because they can see that nothing is being harmed by it."

    That's what they said about tobacco and alcohol a long time ago.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 11, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    Republicans running for office here in Utah should thank Obama for a helping hand. The majority will make their opinion on the subject known in November in the voting booth.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    @Stephen Kent Ehat
    Honestly, I don't care if it was or wasn't part of past history since using that argument against gay marriage is just an argument from tradition logical fallacy anyway; I should've just stuck to that rather than pass along something a friend posted on facebook. The fact is we have 10 countries and abot half a dozen states with gay marriage and that hasn't caused any problems. Not even New Hampshire's republican legislature could get a repeal of gay marriage passed (it wasn't even close) probably because they can see that nothing is being harmed by it.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 11, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    You know --
    All this arguing would go away with legal "Civil Unions",

    something the GOP shot down years ago because it would require a "compromise",
    and we have all seen that the far-right GOP with their All-or-Nothing thinking is unable and unwilling to compromise on anything with their My-way-or-the-By-way stiffnecked, obstuctionist, stubborness.

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    May 11, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    John Boswell's lexicographical arguments have seeming unending influence, even here in atl134's comment ("Do a search for 'the time when same-sex marriage was a Chritian rite'.").

    Boswell's translation of "homologia" in his appended translation of Passion of Sergius and Bacchus as "love, unity, union, living together, togetherness" does not mean same-sex marriage or even same-sex sexual relations.

    Boswell had an agenda. He wanted to undercut history by simply rewriting it through the lens of mistranslation.

    In martyrdom accounts it almost invariably means "confession" of faith. Saints Sergius and Bacchus died together in love and unity.

    atl134 could just as easily claim that John Boswell's "homologia" concerning Saints Sergius and Bacchus should be applied also to two latter-day martyrs who were brothers (who in life "were not divided, and in death they were not separated!").

    Sometimes we are gullible. But we aren't that gullible.

    Fordham University has a page about John Boswell's views on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans* History. (Google those terms.)

    Read some of the literature. Was this a Christian rite or did John Boswell present this present generation with advocacy masquerading as scholarship.

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    May 11, 2012 10:03 a.m.

    @jr85 "Practice what we preach fellow members"

    What you preach? Or what the church teaches?Believe it or not, you are not President Monson.

    And teaching false doctrines against what has been revealed isn't something I'd be keen on doing.

    What missionaries teach is literally scripture per the D&C. What the prophet teaches is no less than that. What the apostles teach is no less than that. The scriptures not only tell us this, but drill it in repeatedly. These priesthood holders are imperfect, but they teach the truth and are called of God to do the work they are doing. They unanimously signed and proclaimed to the world that marriage is between a man and a woman. Biblical and LDS Scriptures both define marriage as between a man and a woman only. And in nearly every General Conference it is restated. The proclamation didn't say "we ordain" but that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God". It has been said enough that denying it now is very unwise.

    We should practice what is preached to us. We shouldn't try to preach ourselves when it isn't our calling.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 11, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    @Mountanman

    "In the entire history of mankind, when has marriage NOT been defined as a union between and man and a woman? Answer: NEVER! Who is the one who is backwards here?"

    In the entire history of mankind there wasn't always marriage. Marriage started when man ordained it ... do you know your history or do you believe the worlds only 2-4000 years old?

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    Attention everyone:

    Did I say the framers were perfect? Did I say they did everything right? No, I didn't.

    What I did say is that they didn't frame a constitution that recognized Gay marriage.

    They also didn't frame one that banned slavery. It was ammended to clarify. If the same constitution didn't recognize gay marriage back then, then they need to ammend it to call it a 'right' today. Plain and simple.

    It needs to be "A DEFINED RIGHT" in our constitution to be exempt from the popular vote.

    -------

    UtahBlueDevil,

    You're absolutely right. The constitution doesn't define it one way or another. But the laws we've passed do. And if you want to say that those laws are unconstitutional, then the constitution would have to define it as such- as "A man and a woman only" can still satisfy the "equal protection of the laws" by applying to all of us equally.

    Marx felt "equally entitled" to what others have. Governing is the right of the people. State recognition belongs to all of us to qualify. Those who would rather dictate the law themselves instead of democratically vote argue to destroy freedom.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 11, 2012 9:43 a.m.

    How come Reid is against polygamy, or bigamy, or two children marrying each other? Seems his understanding of "love" is discriminatory? As is the case with most politicians; no courage, no principles, but enjoying the power and the money of their position.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 11, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    Ummmm...let me guess.

    Utahans don't like him?
    [surprise!]

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 9:24 a.m.

    Mountanman
    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?

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

    Read, man! There is more than one culture that has accepted gay marriages. Ancient China is a good place to start. Rome accepted them between nobles. It is not a completely new idea to history.

    Just check on the history of marriage - you might be surprised how new your idea of marriage really is.

  • Brent78 Holladay, UT
    May 11, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    For marriage (or any other word) to mean anything, it has to have a definition. Definitions are inherently discriminatory in that they fail to encompass anything excluded from the definition. You can change the definition of marriage to encompass certain unions that are currently excluded, but this will still leave certain others excluded. You could keep changing the definition further until it encompasses absolutely everything and is discriminatory to no one, but at that point the word ceases to have meaning. If you expand the definition of the word 'apple' to encompass every form of fruit, flora, or fauna, and then you ask someone for an apple, good luck actually getting one.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 11, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    In the context of freedom of religion, one persons religion should not interfere with the rights and freedoms of another person. Otherwise stated, a citizen of the United States of America cannot be regulated, imposed upon or limited by another persons beliefs except as provided by law of the governments of the American society. And our Constitution expressly forbids laws that come from religions and not the general citizenship of the USA.

    The notion of man/women restriction is not supported or indicated in the natural world outside of religious beliefs. And as such, should not be a lawful regulation for American citizens.

    An American citizen should have the right and freedom to do or be as he chooses to the extent of not impinging on the rights and freedom of others. This notion should not begin and end at the borders of the various states.

    I personally do not wish to support or condone the Gay lifestyle, however until it can be shown that those actions do harm to others, I support the rights of Americans to be Gay without loss of other freedoms.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    May 11, 2012 8:55 a.m.

    One thing I find interesting is a comment made by the president at the time he was elected, that he didn't want his children to be drawn into the political scene in the country. He wanted his daughters, and rightly so, to stay out of the spotlight and grow up as normally as possible.

    This said, countless times he has used his children as examples as to why he is making a political move or changing a personal theory - 'evolving' into a different position.

    I might get involved in a "bullying help group" because my children are being threatened at school, but I'm not going to decide to prefer Milky Way bars over Butterfinger because my children have friends at school who like them a lot.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    May 11, 2012 8:54 a.m.

    I am fascinated by the Democratic (supposedly big government loving) President taking a States Rights approach to the issue, while the Republican (supposedly small government loving) Mitt Romney has been painted into a corner pushing for a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

    Who saw that coming?

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    May 11, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    "Obama's statement of support isn't likely to spark any significant legal changes surrounding gay rights in the state."

    Oh, that is not quite true.

    Headlines on "The DrudgeReport":

    B A C K L A S H
    POLL: OBAMA TRAILS ROMNEY 7%

    Obama's decision is likely to have a profound effect. Great campaign move: FOR ROMNEY!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 8:51 a.m.

    @O'really
    "This is a free fall plummet"

    Plummeted all the way to being 1.0 points ahead of Romney in the RCP average.

    @A voice of reason
    What is the point of having the constitution be the law of the land if there is no judicial review to determine that the constitution is or isn't being followed?

    "Children deserve a Father and a Mother."

    Then complain to Utah that they adopt to single parents.

    @JuliannaG
    "Maybe the loss of basic morals and values"

    I thought committed monogamous relationships was a basic moral and value.

    @RAB
    "If it were, opponents of gay marriage would be fighting to keep gay couples from obtaining rights rather than fighting to stop gay marriage."

    North Carolina just voted by 20 point margin to ban civil unions in addition to gay marriage.

    @Liberal Ted
    "rather than President-elect Mitt Romneys side."

    Seems a bit presumptuous.

    @Mountanman
    "In the entire history of mankind, when has marraige NOT been defined as the union of a man and a woman? "

    Do a search for 'the time when same-sex marriage was a Chritian rite'.

  • rpjense West Jordan, UT
    May 11, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    Years ago, I was camped near a lake that had been formed by the damning of a river. An old road had been covered by water, but was used as a boat ramp. Late at night, I heard a car approaching with obviously drunk people loudly talking and not really paying attention. Suddenly, they saw the water, but it was too late and they skidded with a splash into the cold, dark lake.

    Today, I hear society as I heard that car. People drunk on their pleasures, desperately and loudly trying to convince others to accept and vindicate their lifestyles. They want everyone to admit that the sins they commit are really okay. They think that social acceptance will take away the sting and the pain. They don't see the water.

    Mosiah said: "Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right ... if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you ..."

    Nothing changes.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 8:36 a.m.

    I don't get the "we have more important things to deal with now" thing. We have over 500 representatives and senators, they can handle multitasking, if they need time maybe they can cancel their daily 9-5 grandstanding appointment.

    @A voice of reason
    "It isn't a stand when you only stick around when it's popular."

    Ohio passed a bill that limited union rights. It was put to referendum. Romney suppored the law/opposed the referendum. The referendum passed by almost 20 points. Romney backed away from his position.

    North Carolina put gay marriage/civil unions to a referendum. Obama opposed it.The referendum passed by 20. Obama went further in the direction that just got crushed in a swing state vote. Who exactly is the one that sticks around when something is popular? I had even predicted that when that North Carolina vote happened that that would be the thing that keeps gay marriage from being in the Democratic convention platform.

    @DN Subscriber
    "distract voters from the really important issues that are being ignored. "

    Those who lack the federal benefits that come with marriage recognition probably think it's important.

  • Flabbergasted Huntington Beach, CA
    May 11, 2012 8:18 a.m.

    I am with so many others that see that this little trick is going to distract people from the real issues that we should be looking at. I am opposed to gay marriage and i have many co-workers and friends that are "gay". What is interesting is that these are the same people that stare the most at the opposite sex as they walk by and comment. Let's not change the term of marriage just so the lawyers have a new population of people to earn money from with divorces. To Obama; would you steal just because your daughter decided to do it. You are to teach them to except people for who they are and yet teach them right from wrong. Oh yea, you don't know right from wrong do you.You just know how to be multiplicative with people.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    May 11, 2012 8:17 a.m.

    On another note, the family of the "victim" that Romney supposedly assaulted because he was gay has come out and said that the story about Romney is inaccurate. Imagine that, leave it to the left to distort a story to look like they are the good guys.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 11, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    Re:Voice

    " There is countless evidence that shows the impact of changes to the traditional nuclear family having a serious and devastating impact children."

    If you are talking about same-sex marriage vs hetero where is the evidence? When the Prop 8 case was heard in CA court, the core defense presented by the Prop 8 side was that same sex marriage undermines oppose sex marriage. The opposing side argued that there is a substantial body of evidence which documents that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. Also how marriage has historically been used "punitively" to demean disfavored groups, how the legally enshrined gender roles in marriage had been disestablished during the 20th century and how the changes in the institution of marriage had mainly involved "shedding inequalities", which she said strengthens marriage. She emphasized the importance of the institution of marriage by noting that "when slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married, and this was not trivial to them.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 11, 2012 8:01 a.m.

    The best thing about Harry Reid is that he serves as the perfect foil for the difference between right and wrong. How would Harry Reid view Abraham Lincoln if Abraham had said, "Well, personally I'm against slavery, but people should be able to decide on their own whether slavery is good or bad!" Harry Reid should be held to a higher standard! If he can't see why it is important to stand up for the truth, then he is a failure beyond compare.

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 7:59 a.m.

    To quote one of my favorite cable TV personalities, "I'm a simple person." Please, those of you who seem to be more enlightened on his issue, and favor same-sex marriage, help me understand this one point: If a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, how, under legal restrictions prohibiting discrimination, can one man be prohibited from marrying several women or one woman be prohibited from marrying several men? Similarly, how can you prohibit other more "creative" marriage combinations? Where does it end? Or, is same-sex marriage the beginning of the total disintegration of the traditional family unit? Perhaps, in the future, the "family" will become the "family commune."

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    May 11, 2012 7:58 a.m.

    At the end of the day Utah has an over reach problem.

    In the Get Out The Vote rush to pass Amendment Three in 2004, the legislature thumped their chests in moral outrage and banned not only gay marriage, but ALL forms of legal recognition for gay and lesbian relationships and families. It went way too far.

    Since then, the cultural landscape has shifted under the feet of the political opportunists who threw gays and lesbians under the bus.To hear them suddenly say they support (or that they have ALWAYS supported) civil unions as an appropriate compromise is disingenuous at best.

    When Utah's politicians move to repeal Part Two of Amendment Three, and introduce a sensible Civil Unions Bill, I will finally take their word on this issue. Until then I will wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 11, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    To all of you whinning because the President is not being criticized for flip flopping..and claiming if Romney had done the same thing the criticism would be scathing. First of all the flip flopping criticism of Romney hasn't come primarily from the democrats but from his fellow repbulicans. Secondly the President changed position while giving a well reasoned explination for the change..and the change came over several years. He didn't deny his past position.

    The criticism of Romneys positions that comes from the left is because he has changed positions within hours on more than one occassion without any explanation..or some flimsy twisting that is obviously spin when one watches the tape.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    May 11, 2012 7:38 a.m.

    More smoke and mirrors from the flim flam man. Purely political. Shore up part of his base. Campaign cash from the gay community which consists of about 20 per cent of his bundlers. Believe it, Obama does not give a hoot about the gays or anyone else. His only goal is his own existence. He wants another four years as a squatter at 1600 Penn. Ave. and to fly around on Air Force one.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 11, 2012 6:59 a.m.

    "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."

    What in the heck are you talking about. The Framers didn't prescribe any definition of marriage - gay or straight. What part of the Constitution are you drawing this rhetoric from? The framers didn't recognize black people as humans either - shall we revert to that was well?

    The framers - hint word "framer" - built a framework for law to be created and administered. It was never intended to be the complete cannon of law of the land. Rather a prescription of how law can be created and enforced. It nowhere prescribes moral law as to who may marry who, what can happen on ones own property, or anything like that. That was left to states and other governmental bodies to fill in the gaps.

    As you say, " To argue otherwise is to willfully be deaf to any degree of human intelligence." Or perhaps I missed something. Please untwist my mind and show me where the document prescribes the legal definition of marriage.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 11, 2012 6:48 a.m.

    "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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 11, 2012 6:46 a.m.

    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?

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    May 11, 2012 6:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    May 11, 2012 6:04 a.m.

    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?

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 5:50 a.m.

    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:)

  • Noodlekaboodle Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2012 5:49 a.m.

    @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?

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    May 11, 2012 3:44 a.m.

    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.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    May 11, 2012 3:04 a.m.

    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.

  • jr85 United Kingdom , 00
    May 11, 2012 12:04 a.m.

    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

  • JuliannaG FPO, AP
    May 11, 2012 12:00 a.m.

    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.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    May 10, 2012 11:03 p.m.

    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.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2012 11:03 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2012 11:01 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2012 10:49 p.m.

    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 Scientist Provo, UT
    May 10, 2012 10:24 p.m.

    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.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    May 10, 2012 10:13 p.m.

    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.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2012 9:53 p.m.

    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.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 10, 2012 9:47 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2012 9:42 p.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 10, 2012 9:19 p.m.

    "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?).