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

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 10 2012 9:02 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

@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?

Freedom-In-Danger
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

@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.

Stephen Kent Ehat
Lindon, UT

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

"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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@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.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

‘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.

Freedom-In-Danger
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

"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.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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?

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

Jake2010
bountiful, ut

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!

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

@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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@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.

Jake2010
bountiful, ut

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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

to comment

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