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
Durham, NC

"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.

Ogden, UT

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.

salt lake city, utah

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.

Magna, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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."

Saint George, UT

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.



" 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.

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.

Huntington Beach, CA

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

West Jordan, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

"Maybe the loss of basic morals and values"

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

"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.

"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'.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

"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":


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

Magna, UT

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?

Medical Lake, Washington

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.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Holladay, UT

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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Ummmm...let me guess.

Utahans don't like him?

Saint George, UT

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.

to comment

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