Quantcast
U.S. & World

Same-sex marriage votes Tuesday night turn conversations back to family

Comments

Return To Article
  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Nov. 12, 2012 1:44 p.m.

    I agree that there is no need to rely upon religion to believe marriage should maintain the traditional definition. I made this comment on a thread that quieted down, so I'll go ahead and plagiarize myself:

    You're naive if you don't see that if same sex marriage becomes the law of the land there will be far-reaching consequences. Legally it would mean that homosexuality and heterosexuality are completely on par. There is no way that kids could be taught anything other than that in school without facing lawsuits. I don't want my kids to be part of that kind of social experiment.

    There are many of us who have sincere compassion for gay people and believe their wires got crossed through no fault of their own and that there should be legal accommodations for gay couples who want to formalize their union -- Civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. But I don't go along with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are purely a matter of taste and that both are equally normal and healthy.

  • georgeman Kearns, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 12:29 p.m.

    "The human species evolved as heterosexual, pair-bonding species. Would it be wise to mess with hundreds of generations of human evolution in order to accomplish some kind of social, feel-good, politically correct goal?"

    Totally agree with you JSB. Whenever this subject is breached in the media, many of the comments by LGBT activists are aimed at the religious conservatives who oppose gay marriage. I think this is an evolutionary issue even more so than a religious issue.

    We are a species that through time and science, has evolved to propagate through our gender. When we take a small percent of the species that is prone to go against that science, we introduce changes in our social development as a species. What the outcomes of that social development are become uncertain.

    We have certain social morals that once we go against them, create new social dilemmas. One of them being the issue of children and the affects on them. Both sides may argue that they know what the outcome is for children, but the fact remains taht we really don't, even with the numerous studies done on the matter to date.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 12:13 p.m.

    JSB:” the best situation for children is in a home with both biological heterosexual parents”.
    KJK:Agreed, but should those kids raised in same-sex homes suffer even more by being denied the legal benefits they receive from married parents?

    JSB:Polyamorus "families" are rather loosely structured. The more people involved, the more likely there will be "divorce" with its attendant legal problems..."Infidelity" is more common in polyamorous families.
    KJK:Who‘s more likely to leave a relationship..married people or those cohabitating? Marriage strengthens ALL families. Should only those whose demographics indicate a low chance of divorce be allowed to marry?
    Aren’t people entering into marriage less likely to seek sex from others outside of the relationship than those cohabitating? If straights were denied marriage, would that increase or decrease people seeking sex from others?

    JSB:My point is that any decision that is made about "marriage" should consider the long term social consequences especially how it will affect children.
    KJK: Affect children? Denying marriage to gays harms their children. It harms stay-at-home parents too. Both of these show that denying gay marriage is anti-family and anti-child.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    To think that there might be a change of mind down the road regarding Tuesday's pro-gay marriage results because people today are still questioning pro-abortion rulings done many years ago, is comparing oranges to apples. The two issues are completely different.

    No matter how many abortions people have, it's still the killing of an unborn child. The question is, do women have the right to choose this killing. (I, personally, say yes--though I would hope they wouldn't.)

    Gay marriage is an expression of love between two people who happen to be of the same gender. As more and more gays flourish in their marriages--and more and nore straights personally know gays who are flourishing in their marriages--it will become harder and harder for the majority of voters to "change their minds."

    In short, abortions are focused on death, gay marriages are focused on life. And I have no doubt that life will win.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Nov. 12, 2012 11:17 a.m.

    re. Kirkham. Ample research shows very clearly that the best situation for children is in a home with both biological heterosexual parents. I never said that monogamy "immunizes" children from neglect and disease and legal wrangling. It is just the very best situation. The word "immunizes" is a word you selected which distorts the meaning of what I said.

    Polyamorus "families" are rather loosely structured. The more people involved, the more likely there will be "divorce" with its attendant legal problems. And children of divorce are often seriously handicapped as a result of that divorce. So, unless you are in total denial, more children will suffer under polyamorus families.

    "Infidelity" is more common in polyamorous families. If someone has sex with someone outside of the "family" who has VD, then, before long, every adult in the family will have the same disease. That isn't too difficult to figure out.

    My point is that any decision that is made about "marriage" should consider the long term social consequences especially how it will affect children. This is something that the advocates of gay marriage are not doing or are at least refuse to respond to.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    zoar63: My point is LDS who feel that gays should be allowed to marry cannot offer those who are LDS and homosexual the same opportunity in the church.
    KJK:LDS likewise feel people should be able to teach infant baptism, the Athanasian Trinity, to shack up, smoke, etc... but refuse membership to such. How is that inconsistent?

    JSB:I got 10 recommendations on my first comment in which I said that homosexual marriage will lead to legalization of polyamorous families and the social chaos that will follow. No one of the pro gay marriage commentators responded to my comment. Why? Do you really want legal recognition of polyamorous families? Do you want the child neglect and disease and legal wrangling that will inevitably follow?
    KJK: How will neglect and disease occur in polyamorous families while monogamy immunizes people against them? The legal issues can easily be addressed. Our ancestors practiced polygamy. There is no objective reason to deny it to others. Denying the legal protections marriage provides children and the non-working spouse(s) harms straight couples, gay couples and polygamous families. Why be anti-child and anti-family?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    Sasha Pachev:.. I would argue that any measure that promotes homosexuality or makes it more acceptable will result in more homosexual relationships.
    KJK:If it were illegal for straights to marry, would there more or less fidelity and sex?

    Really???: Could it be proof that apostles make mistakes?
    KJK:Yep Prophets too. Go to the Church’s website and wordsearch “coy”. You’ll find a 1988 talk by President Benson. He states-“Would a husband be pleased if he saw his wife flirting and being coy with another man? My beloved brothers and sisters, this is what Paul meant when he said: “Abstain from all appearance of evil”. The problem is that the word “appearance” in Greek does NOT mean “how something seems to be”, but rather “manner, occurrence or manifestation”. Check the verse’s footnotes or foreign language or more modern English translations. The bottom line is that the president of the Church misinterpreted scripture. They are men subject to error. HBL and JFieldingSmith said that if their words contract scripture, we are to obey scripture.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    Shimlau,atl134 How do you know if " the church did internally assess prop 8 as a PR mess not a benefit." Were you involved in the councils that helped to determine this? If not, then watch what you say.
    KJK:The Church has been very quiet on gay marriage initiatives since 8. Baptisms fell in CA. Americans believe that forcing others to abide by a church’s beliefs is wrong.

    very concerned: We do reserve marriage for a certain citizenry. We don’t let close relatives marry. We don’t let underage citizens marry. We don’t allow polygamy.
    KJK:Sholdn’t be base denial of marriage on objective rounds? Restricting marriage to willing adults otherwise able to enter contracts should be the standard rather than subjective moral beliefs.

    very concerned: Inevitably, religious teaching will guide many of us in our policies, voting, and beliefs.
    KJK:Religious teachings of others force us to abandon polygamy. Scripture condemns using religious teachings to restrict the rights and liberties of others. Gays HAD the right to marry in CA prior to Prop.8. 8 infringed upon that right. We violated the scriptures in supporting Prop.8.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Nov. 12, 2012 8:18 a.m.

    I got 10 recommendations on my first comment in which I said that homosexual marriage will lead to legalization of polyamorous families and the social chaos that will follow. No one of the pro gay marriage commentators responded to my comment. Why? Do you really want legal recognition of polyamorous families? Do you want the child neglect and disease and legal wrangling that will inevitably follow? Don't be so short sighted. New policies we adopt now will have long term consequences.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Nov. 11, 2012 5:21 p.m.

    Well, it wasn't until 1978 that black members of the church were allowed to receive the priesthood ordinances in the Temple.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Nov. 11, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    @Really

    It puzzling that some LDS are softening their views towards homosexuals but they are also creating a paradox with LDS members who are gay. My point is LDS who feel that gays should be allowed to marry cannot offer those who are LDS and homosexual the same opportunity in the church. I am sure you can see the reason why.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    Nov. 11, 2012 10:39 a.m.

    I still believe my statements about the founding fathers to be true, BUT we could argue all day about specific points each one of us has made.

    Let me tell you what my argument is based on. This is where I’m coming from. I’m sure you’ll recognize it. God does not approve of sex between people of the same gender. Period. I would kindly try to explain that if I thought most GLBT were practicing immoral behavior innocently, not knowing what they were doing was wrong or not in opposition to God’s laws. But I don’t believe that.

    I am convinced that most of the GLBT community - who do not abstain - do know. They have either seared their conscience, rationalized their behavior, gone deliberately against the commandments, or used some other excuse to justify their behavior.

    I have sympathy for those who have the tendencies and do not act on them. But to put it scripturally, *. . . and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.* (Doctrine and Covenants 82:3) I didn’t say it, He did.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 10:33 a.m.

    @zoar63

    Yes, I do believe in apostles and prophets, yet I know from our history that they also teach the concept of continued revelation. Perhaps new doctrine comes when the hearts of the members are changed enough to accept the new revelation.

    Think about Bruce R. McConkie and the things that he taught. He said some controversial things as an apostle that the PR department asked him to tone down or retract. In fact, he actually said the following: "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

    We have new light and knowledge about homosexuality. Many still deny the information that years of research is now teaching us about the subject, yet many hearts are now softening; and they are trying to make amends for how we treated others in the past.

    The church recently toned down a comment Boyd K. Packer made in a general conference talk. Could it be proof that apostles make mistakes?

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Nov. 10, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    @Really???

    I am familiar with the scripture you are referring to. It is in the BOM. You must be LDS or are familiar with the BOM. I am going to assume you are LDS so you support the idea that apostles are servants of Jesus Christ. Read the first chapter of Romans which was written by the Apostle Paul to the Saints in Rome. He was a citizen of Rome himself so he knew about the practices that were prevalent. He admonished the Saints to remain true to the gospel lest they be led to unnatural desires.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    (Continued)

    Finally, we are constantly reminded about how gays and lesbians are leading us quickly to a godless society. Quite frankly, from what I have seen, they aren't leading us anywhere, but it's the self-proclaimed "righteous" who have pushed these wonderful, caring, and spiritual people out of their congregations. I don't know of many people who stick around in a church that constantly reminds them that they are sinners and less worthy than everyone else.

    So many of the comments on here remind me of a story in the scriptures about a group of people who cast out the people who they felt were not as worthy as the rest. They then prayed to their God, thanking him for making them better than the rest. What do you suppose the lessons we should learn from that story are?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    A few thoughts on the topic:

    On the right of my computer screen, in a text box labeled "What You May Have Missed" is a link to another article tilted "Marriage promotes longevity, study finds." The main idea of the article is that couples who are in loving marriage relationships live longer than people who aren't married. When I see these two articles side by side on the Deseret News website, I can't help but come to a sad conclusion that the Deseret News editorial board actually wants our gay and lesbian family, friends, and neighbors to die at an earlier age than our straight counterparts.

    I cringe every time I read someone telling gay couples they are being selfish for wanting to marry and raise children. They are chastised for only thinking of themselves, and in the same breath--or keystroke--the straight couples are commended for their righteous desires to have those same family relationships. It doesn't make sense to me.

  • trueamerican Huntsville, AL
    Nov. 10, 2012 6:58 a.m.

    Not unexpected. The whole nation is soon to be fairly ripe in iniquity. We can't wait to get there...and fast. The nation, as a whole, has rejected God and cannot wait to get the name of God off all documents. Take God's name off the currency, out of the schools, out of the hearts of people, out of the documents of government, and out of the minds of all. The only exception here would be "Allah". That would be perfectly fine in the eyes of the mess to come. Even among LDS I am shocked at how it is all going down. Even at BYU I saw Obama support signs. This president thinks gay marriage is good. In other words good = evil.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 10:48 p.m.

    @paul in MD
    Considering that your first post starts out with you making claims that others are calling you homophobic it seems like your intention is to try to shut down any disagreement with your arguments.

  • sg newhall, CA
    Nov. 9, 2012 6:26 p.m.

    You know, there are more pressing issues facing this nation than same sex marriage. Let them have it and let's move on with the economy, security, immigration (deport all illegals), ban all gun control legislation; demand obama prove he is eligible to be president (unseal your school records); furnish a real birth certificate; come clean with Fast & Furious and Benghazi. But hey, same-sex marriage. Let's move on. This is getting to be old, stagnant and frankly a diversion to what needs to be done in this country.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Nov. 9, 2012 4:25 p.m.

    @Noodlekaboodle

    "Yep, rape a virgin, pay off her dad and then you marry her. Good old traditional family values...."

    Actually it was a pretty good system. A man takes a woman’s virginity he pays restitution to the father, has to marry the girl and can never divorce her. It was very rare to see an unwed mother back then. Now contrast it to today where a man takes a woman’s virginity leaves her she gets pregnant and has to raise the child on her own or aborts it. The man gets off scot free not to mention that the woman is now used merchandise to another man who desires to marry her. Our civilization is not so enlightened as we think it is. Oh and if you had sex with a woman that was engaged to another man, you were executed. It sort of made guys think twice before doing the nasty.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 2:35 p.m.

    @Sasha Pachev;

    "The sky is falling, the sky is falling..."

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    Nov. 9, 2012 2:24 p.m.

    @ LDS Liberal and any other LDS member,

    "Never leave your religion at the door." - Jeffery R. Holland

    If you advocate sin, which gay marriage is defined as a sin within your religious belief system, than you are leaving your religion at the door. You are rationalizing away your faith. I don't understand how you can live in a state of cognitive dissonance like that. Where you claim to believe something on Sunday and then go out and support an opposing view on Monday.

    It is one or the other, it can't be both. "No man can serve two masters." Matt. 6:24

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:48 p.m.

    @Sasha Pachev
    "With that in mind I would argue that any measure that promotes homosexuality or makes it more acceptable will result in more homosexual relationships which in turn will result in those people not having children of their own. "

    I think the thing you're all missing is that... gay people are gay. They're not going to have kids anyway since the way to do that would be an unhealthy heterosexual marriage. In fact gay marriage makes it more likely that gay people would consider having kids through routes like in-vitro fertilization.

  • Melanna Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:37 p.m.

    I find those that argue that we should accept the very relativistic reasoning of their particular religious interpretations over scientific evidence to make our decisions rather short sighted.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:25 p.m.

    "...will result in more homosexual relationships which in turn will result in those people not having children of their own. Thus, such laws are a threat to the traditional institution of marriage which is as crucial to our existence as a healthy functioning cell to the body."

    ---
    Oh Sasha,

    Gays are having children. Surprise! They are also raising some children tossed out from unwanted homes. They adopt, have invetro fertilization, use surragate mothers and live lives not unlike most parents.

    Without the stablization of marriage, these children do not have the same benefits that a child with parents who are married have. Is that what you are looking for? One would think that you would want to offer the very best that we can for these children.

    AND it does not take a marriage to create a child.

    Those gays who will not have children just want the same type of marriage that older couples who cannot have children have or infertile couples. Oh, why that is just the same marriage as those who can have children.

    It's called equality. Why aren't all Americans for this?

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    I think it is wrong to assume that a man is either straight or gay by nature. Through various social influence he can be persuaded to go either way. It is true that some due to their nature are more easily persuaded to go one way or the other. With that in mind I would argue that any measure that promotes homosexuality or makes it more acceptable will result in more homosexual relationships which in turn will result in those people not having children of their own. Thus, such laws are a threat to the traditional institution of marriage which is as crucial to our existence as a healthy functioning cell to the body.

    Seemingly small modifications of critical infrastructure can have dire consequences. This can be appreciated by a chess player. A less skilled player may think that moving a pawn somewhere in the rears of his position makes no difference. His more experience opponent will observe that moving that pawn removes the protection from a critical square and use that weakness to launch a devastating attack resulting in a checkmate.

    Unfortunately we are too impatient to think of the infrastructure.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 9, 2012 12:02 p.m.

    To "RanchHand" unfortunately your scriptural reference to you sounds like the Republican party, but in fact is a result of liberalism. If you look at reality and see which political philosophy is espoused by people who personally care for the poor, you would find that Conservatives are more likely give then liberals.

    To "LDS Liberal" lets dispell your lie today.

    Lets remember what Obama has done for us. He started a revolution in Egypt, joined Al Qaeda in Libya, and is now using another terrorist group to send weapons to rebels in Syria who want to impose Sharia Law.

    Rather than consider words about the poor, sick, and needy, lets see what Obama has done. According to Forbes "How Obamacare's $716 Billion in Cuts Will Drive Doctors Out of Medicare" our elderly will have fewer doctors to help them. Various studies have found that the Recession has hit the poor the hardest, and Obama's policies have not added many jobs. We can also talk about the poor response to Sandy.

    Lets see, taxing people and giving money to businesses, like GE, the Obama darling that paid no taxes or what are you talking about?

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    Opponents of same-sex marriage or same-sex rights are going to find themselves on the losing side of history, much as civil rights opponents already have. Polls are showing that a majority of Americans do not oppose same sex marriage; the reason bans usually get passed by referendum is due to poor voter turnout. So you are not in the majority, you just show up in greater numbers to vote on this issue.

    I have yet to hear a cogent and logically consistent argument about why same-sex marriage is harmful to society or in any way threatens your own family & religious practices. If same-sex proponents move on to insist that LDS temple marriages be granted to them, I will fully support your opposition to that. But they are simply fighting for equality under civil law.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    "Princeton professor Robbie George, a high-profile traditional marriage advocate and a member of the Deseret News editorial advisory board."

    Good grief, why am I not surprised?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 11:43 a.m.

    @Sparon;
    Why not legislate all of your religious tenets then? Prevent divorce. Prevent divorced people from re-marrying. Ban the eating of shellfish (sorry Red Lobster). Ban cotton/poly blends.
    I don't care what your god says. You don't care what my god says. Lets not force one another to live the other's beliefs (btw: tolerating gays marrying isn't being forced to live their beliefs).
    When you claim to "love" someone and then deny them the same benefits you posess, you are lying.
    @aunt lucy;
    If you believe something, live it yourself. Jesus also said to do unto others as you would have them do to you. Do you want other people voting on your marriage?

    @very concerned;
    You're listening to the wrong voices in your head; your prophets aren't speaking for god, they're pushing their own agendas.

    @Paul in MD;
    You're right. A better word is bigot. If you don't approve of same sex couples marrying, then you shouldn't marry someone of your own gender; you have no business telling any other couple who they may or may not marry regardless of what you personally believe.

  • Noodlekaboodle Millcreek, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 11:27 a.m.

    What is traditional marriage? According to the Bible in Duteronomy Chapter 22 verses 28-29(KJV)
    28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

    29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

    Yep, rape a virgin, pay off her dad and then you marry her. Good old traditional family values....

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 11:24 a.m.

    Conservatives --

    Aren't these the same folks who keep insisting that:

    the Federal Government can't tell States what to do?
    that Government shouldn't be involved in people's private lives?
    that Freedom needs to be protected and not taken away?

    and yet....

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 11:15 a.m.

    Igualmente
    Mesa, AZ
    Slouching towards Gomorrah indeed when a society seeks to assuage guilt in the name of political correctness. These are the times when men call good evil and evil good.

    6:52 a.m. Nov. 9, 2012

    ==============

    Like starting wars for oil as being "good"?
    Like shunning the poor, sick, needy and elderly is "good"?
    Like taxing people, and giving that money to WallStreet and Corporations who don't pay any taxes is "good"?

    Meanwhile -
    Back on topic....

    I got Married for LOVE,
    I married my best FRIEND,
    not just for SEX.

    Why do Conservaitves always confuse that - and think someone marries just for sex, and not for love or friendship?

  • Paul in MD Montgomery Village, MD
    Nov. 9, 2012 11:09 a.m.

    I have a problem with how quickly people use the word homophobe. All I have to do is say I oppose same-sex marriage, and I'm labeled a homophobe. That is like saying that since I oppose smoking I'm afraid of tobacco.

    When someone is so quick to label their opponents, it reflects stupidity, a willingness to over-generalize, or simply lie to promote their own position.

    If I were truly homophobic, I wouldn't live or work where I do. I'm not afraid of people who are homosexual.

    I've read the comments on a lot of articles like this one. Each time, there are a few reasonable, thoughtful comments by people trying to honestly discuss the issue. Unfortunately, the conversation quickly devolves into mindless repetition of silly arguments, blatant bigotry, rampant baseless generalizations, and useless name-calling. And it all flows equally in volume and nastiness in both directions.

    Be honest. Show respect. Don't call others names.

    These are things our parents taught us from the time we could understand words. Yet these comment boards prove time and again that too many of us have forgotten these simple rules of good behavior.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    @Sparon
    "We love those who are struggling..."
    The only reason this is in any way a struggle is because of people like you insisting on imposing your religious beliefs on those outside of your religion. If you would just practice the principles you believe in and let others govern themselves when it does not impact you one bit, there would be far less "struggling".

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic

    (Who made Gays?
    Let me answer that...God did, is his design flawed or your logic?)
    You are correct. God created gays. He also created every other imperfect human being. All of us transgress. But He expects us to overcome our sins through the atonement.

    @Ranchhand
    No . . . I do not have all knowledge and enlightenment, but I do have the assurance that God speaks to prophets/apostles on these issues. Inevitably, religious teaching will guide many of us in our policies, voting, and beliefs. This country was obviously founded on Judeo-Christian values. I submit gay issues are HIGHLY charged with religious, ethical, practical, physical, and moral implications, and therefore wide open for deep debate and politics. In many ways, we cannot and should not separate a persons deeply held convictions from his/her politics.

    @Lane Myer
    Yes, legislatures and the electorate have sanctioned gay marriage in some states. As I said in my posting, that is a shame. Religiously speaking, the Book of Mormon teaches us that when the people (not necessarily the leaders), choose unwisely, that civilization is becoming more ripe in its iniquity.

  • aunt lucy Looneyville, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    To me it all boils down to principles of religion. Similar to others opposed to gay marriage, I have a strong belief that God has established principles which govern our existence in this world experience. The worldly way of handling things is to work actively through legislation to bring about changes. LGBT activists have been heavily invested in this for years. One hasn't been able to turn on a sitcom or read a paper without some reference to this issue for years. No doubt if this isn't the turning point when the majority will sympathize with this effort then the turning point is not far off. Still, I will cling to my belief that we can legislate sin into righteousness all we want, but is is also clear what will happen at judgment day. If LGBT activists could legislate changes to allow same sex partners to procreate they would. Still, LGBT activist should be smiling because there is no doubt in my mind that with each passing day those who share my way of thinking will be fewer and fewer. Their only concern should be about the next life. Might not be smiling there!

  • Sparon austin, TX
    Nov. 9, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    The idea that marriage should be anything but what we know from scripture standpoint is ridiculous. Even the proponents of Gay marriage believe that the traditional template of marriage which is that there is a man and a woman, a husband and a wife cleaving together and to none else should be used. The fact that they believe that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman should make them abolish their stand and call whatever they are engaged in something else other than marriage. Here is where we take the template from.

    Mark 10:7
    7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

    Genesis 2:24
    24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    We love those who are struggling to find themselves, but we are not redefine God's laws just to prove that we love and care about them. Remember the first great commandment is to love God with all of your heart, might, mind and strength, and then the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Follow both. thanks

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    @Shimlau
    Do you have a better idea as to why they didn't get involved in something that they considered so important in 2008?

    @DWP
    "So what benefit are they really seeking through a marriage?"

    There are roughly 1000 legal provisions that are granted through marriage. The most obvious is that you can file taxes as a couple. Of course that will require federal recognition to affect federal taxes not just state recognition. A lot of those couples are religious and their churches marry same-sex couples.

    @very concerned
    "Call it what it is: Intimate physical relations between people of the same gender. Doesn’t seem so innocent when you say it that way. "

    No, that's sex. Marriage is something different.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    @Igualmente;

    You don't know your scriptures very well:

    Ezekiel 16:49 (KJV)
    Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (Sounds remarkably like the Republican Platform).

    @ClarkHippo;
    If religion would mind it's own business it wouldn't be having the trouble you are complaining about. You won't know what equality will bring until you have equality, but I doubt your fears have any basis in reality.

    @johnnylingo62;
    Boring.

    @very concerned;
    You discuss "knowledge and enlightenment" as if you had it. When you refuse to use your religious beliefs to decide what others are allowed to do, then you have achieved knowledge and enlightenment.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 9:35 a.m.

    Very concerned,

    The founding fathers never thought we would allow blacks and whites to marry either! They never thought that women would be allowed to vote.

    It is no longer your claim that it is only "liberal judges" that are allowing gays to marry. State legislatures have passed these laws (voted in by the people), and now, for the first time, the people themselves have voted for these laws.

    I believe in gay marriage because I am an American. I have read the constitution many times and I believe in the 14th amendment.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 9:27 a.m.

    Article: "We have crossed a crucial threshold in our country’s journey..." Yes, we have.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    DWP
    So what benefit are they really seeking through a marriage?

    -------------
    There are many benefits that the federal/state government offers to those who are married. Couples are allowed to inherit their spouse's estate without paying inheritance taxes to the fed (see Edie Windsor's story). They are allowed to make medical decisions for their spouse if the spouse is unable to. They are able to have their spouse's social security benefits if the spouse passes away, etc.

    But the greatest benefit that they are looking for is to be able to state that they commit to a person that they love in front of the state and loved ones and have it recognized by the state.

    Civil marriage (and all who legally marry are civilly married, btw) is a contract between the two people and the state. The state offers to make these two people related by law when they make their commitments. They become closer related than even their parents.

    These privileges need to be offered to all American citizens.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 9:16 a.m.

    Knowledge, enlightenment, ignorance, and darkness – four more words used erroneously to describe the liberal left attitude that the GLBT community has knowledge and enlightenment while those opposed to gay marriage are ignorant and in darkness. This is a classic case of calling good bad and bad good. Turning the tables to assert anti-gay-marriage behavior is ignorant and dark says that thoughtful people of traditional, conservative values are bad. What a turnabout?

    I base my arguments on millennia of conservative values and history, not on the decisions of he last 10-15 years by liberal judges who like to legislate from the bench, who misunderstand “inalienable” rights to include gay marriage between two people who engage in intimate behavior with people of the same gender. Call it what it is: Intimate physical relations between people of the same gender. Doesn’t seem so innocent when you say it that way. It's a shame and a commentary on society that some electorates have bought into the GLBT agenda.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 9:09 a.m.

    More misused words:

    Equality - The argument, though you say it is old, is still true, that for millennia, traditional marriage has been reserved for a man and a woman who can produce and provide for children. Claims for *equality* with gay marriage are only recent phenomena, asserting rights that never existed. I think it far-fetched to think the founding fathers were referring to gay marriage as one of the inalienable rights when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. I imagine they are rolling in their graves right now to see what people use that document and the constitution to justify.

    Discrimination – One posting says *(Marriage) does not constitute a special right reserved only for a portion of the citizenry* I respectfully disagree. We do reserve marriage for a certain citizenry. We don’t let close relatives marry. We don’t let underage citizens marry. We don’t allow polygamy. We don’t afford that right to just anyone, but to those who are willing to publically commit to one another and meet other criteria. Marriage is a social, moral, and legal, binding agreement with far more significance than some people currently realize.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic: Who made Gays?
    Let me answer that...God did, is his design flawed or your logic?

    Our country is NOT a theocracy, although a lot of folks obviously believe they speak for God?. Now, you also believe you speak for God? Does He give you that right? Man is given his free agency, that means he is free to act, as he wishes. He has the ability to tell God "No!" He (mankind) will suffer if he does, but it is still his right. Now, you may say that I am speaking for God, but I am only stating things as I know them, or believe them, to be.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Nov. 9, 2012 8:57 a.m.

    There is no rational reason to prohibit same-sex marriage. This is why it won in these states, and why it will eventually become legal in all states.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 8:52 a.m.

    atl134: How do you know if " the church did internally assess prop 8 as a PR mess not a benefit." Were you involved in the councils that helped to determine this? If not, then watch what you say.

  • DWP USA, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 8:39 a.m.

    What is the point in all of this? I doubt that it is because a couple wants a certificate to put in their scrapbook. As I drive through town, houses are not marked indicating that the occupants are married or not. It is not a crime for two men or women to live together. It is their choice on the decisions they make in their personal lives. So what benefit are they really seeking through a marriage?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    johnnylingo62:
    Who made Gays?
    Let me answer that...God did, is his design flawed or your logic?

    Our country is NOT a theocracy, although a lot of folks obviously believe they speak for God?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 8:01 a.m.

    @atl134

    I truly hope you and TimBehrend are right. If people honesty, truly want equality, meaning they are willing to accept both the good and bad that comes with being completely and totally equal, I say, Wonderful! But is that possible?

    Affirmative Action laws have for years given African-Americans and Latinos special consideration in terms of jobs and educational opportunities, and these laws have been upheld by court after court. Why would gays and lesbians not want to use this same thing to their advantage, especially when competing for those few kids out their in need of adoption and/or foster care?

  • johnnylingo62 Gray, TN
    Nov. 9, 2012 7:44 a.m.

    When you take God out of the world and rely on Secular philosophies of Men, society suffers and civilizations collapse. Mock the sanctity of marriage as established by God and we will see the consequences. Laugh at God's commandments and call it superstitious, but history shows all too well what happens when men (and women) decide to do things contrary to God's commands. If your CREATOR tells you what is good to do with our time, bodies and minds why don't we listen?
    If a Honda Engineer designs and creates your Accord to only put Gasoline into the gas tank as the only source of energy that the car was Designed to use, and you put Diesel into the tank, just because you felt like it and you like diesel more than gasoline (personal taste or it was the only "gas" available) - what do you think is going to happen to your Accord? It's not going to run. it may still be a car, but it's not going to get you around town - and it will not serve you as designed.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 7:39 a.m.

    @ClarkHippo
    "My wife and I have been unable to have a child. We hope one day to adopt. If same-sex couples are permitted to legally marry like straight couples, will that give them special minority status and thereby give them special consideration on matter such as adoption, foster care and school choice? "

    Nope. They'd only have the same opportunities you and your wife do.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 7:37 a.m.

    @RG
    The church did not nearly get involved as much as they had with Prop 8. Basically the liberals were right, the church did internally assess prop 8 as a PR mess not a benefit.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    @TimBehrend

    I really wish I was as certain as you are. I really wish I could believe that those demanding equality are willing to accept both the good and the bad that come with being truly equal.

    Sadly, we live in a society in which people are always looking for a leg up on everyone else. We live in a society in which certain people thrive on being the perpetual victim and can't wait to shout "discrimination" any chance they get.

    Would I support same-sex marriage if I could be assured that gays and lesbian couples won't use their new found minority status as a way of gaining special recognition in matters of adoption, foster care, school choice, housing or similar issues? 100% Yes, I would support it.

    But as I see the media continue to vilify those who attend church and live conservative lifestyles, I can easily see a time when being "equal" for some people won't be good enough. Or rather, being equal means, "What I want, I get, no matter who else is affected."

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Nov. 9, 2012 7:32 a.m.

    (continued)

    No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

    THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay. It looks like American voters are starting to accept that.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Nov. 9, 2012 7:32 a.m.

    The victories for marriage equality in Maine, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland tell me one thing: Americans are learning to make better value judgments.

    Why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

    Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability of even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

    (continued)

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 7:12 a.m.

    Between gay marraige and abortion liberals will no longer be a political factor in 30 years.

  • Igualmente Mesa, AZ
    Nov. 9, 2012 6:52 a.m.

    Slouching towards Gomorrah indeed when a society seeks to assuage guilt in the name of political correctness. These are the times when men call good evil and evil good.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Nov. 9, 2012 6:25 a.m.

    When prop 8 was on the ballot in CA, it was widely reported in the news, even before the vote, and the LDS Church definitely had a say in the matter. Yet, for these other states, I had heard nothing about it until a couple of days after the vote. And I do read/watch news often. Why wasn't this reported more in the national news in the days leading up to the election? And why did the Church not have their 2 cents in the matter like it did in CA - or did they, but I just haven't heard?

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    Nov. 9, 2012 5:35 a.m.

    @ClarkHippo

    You are inventing a straw man, then using that invention to justify denying equality to fellow citizens. LGBT activists want to become anonymous in society, to escape the stigma and disadvantage in culture, society and the law that they currently endure because their inborn sexual attraction is different to yours. As a group they don't demand special privileges or special status. They just want what you already have. Marriage, which in the United States is a civil matter (religious ceremonies have no legal status, they don't make a marriage in the eyes of the law), does not constitute a special right reserved only for a portion of the citizenry. Adoption is likewise a civil matter; no matter how long the queue grows, the state should not make special regulations based on the prejudices, preferences or private beliefs of some of those standing on line.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 12:31 a.m.

    Places with lots of youth have better economies (Utah, Brazil, Indonesia, China, etc) Places with few youth and lots of elderly people have dying economies. This is a matter of national security. Traditional marriage and child rearing brings wealth. Anti-family theories bring poverty. Wealthy nations like those in North America and Europe have fewer kids and slowly become impoverished. If you can't say no to gay marriage, you will never say no to anything the rest of your life, and you would then have to support polygamy by the same logic and then we just keep pushing the envelope out of boredom.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Nov. 9, 2012 12:27 a.m.

    Once same sex marriages get legalized, the inevitable next step will be polyamorus families (miltiple adults of both sexes) wanting and getting legal recognition. Then what's next? Social chaos with children being the primary victims. The human species evolved as heterosexual, pair-bonding species. Would it be wise to mess with hundreds of generations of human evolution in order to accomplish some kind of social, feel-good, politically correct goal?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 11:50 p.m.

    I hope I can say something here that won't be instantly shot down as ignorant or homophobic, but I do want to ask something which I would like to get some positive feedback on.

    My wife and I have been unable to have a child. We hope one day to adopt. If same-sex couples are permitted to legally marry like straight couples, will that give them special minority status and thereby give them special consideration on matter such as adoption, foster care and school choice?

    I would be much more in support of recognition for same-sex couples except that I am not totally buying the whole "equality" argument. Equality means everyone is treated the same. No special consideration. A gay or lesbian couple would have to go through the same procedures and waiting time to adopt or be foster parents as a straight couple would.

    Is that something gay and lesbian couples truly want, or are they hoping for something a little extra? And if so, does that mean straight couples will at some point be legally considered unfit?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 11:50 p.m.

    @wee one

    The world did not end when we allowed interracial marriage and people used the same failed plea you are making now. There likely will be changes to our world that our kids would have never imagined that is how the world works so try not to worry so much.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 11:03 p.m.

    "Young people are more pro life than their parents" is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a while. I don't know a single kid who is more pro life than his parents.

    The real change here is that the spread of falsehoods and scare tactics regarding all the bad things that would happen is same-sex marriage were allowed worked for a while (as scare tactics will), but eventually people have awakened, looked around, used their brains, and realized that there are plenty of places in the world where same-sex marriage exists, and virtually nothing has changed.

    Knowledge and enlightenment always prevails over ignorance and darkness.

  • Wee One Santa Monica, CA
    Nov. 8, 2012 11:00 p.m.

    As a child and a teen we never would have thought of someone marrying another person of the same sex. That was not just because it wasn't an option but because how the world was back then. Now look at how things have become. Even though there are those that think that it is just ridiculous that someone would want to marry their (fill in the blank) down the road, I really wonder what will come down the road since this door has been opened. I am not for same sex marriage and I am concerned what will be coming down the road!

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 10:26 p.m.

    @red covervette
    your right, thats the point, erroneously comparing gay marriage to allowing people to marry their dog is just as stupid.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Nov. 8, 2012 10:25 p.m.

    I believe a better analogy might be interracial marriage rather than abortion. Up until 1967, most states prohibited such marriages. The arguments against interracial marriage were very similar to those advanced against Gay Marriage. Today, even those who feel strongly about marrying only someone of their own race would never think of denying others to make a different decision or suggest that it would disadvantage children. I think we are seeing the same thing happening with Gay Marriage. Its just a matter of time.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 9:34 p.m.

    since we allow people to drive should we not also allow people to run down pedestrians. Again please stop with the erroneous comparisons. the reason you are losing the conversation is because you keep attempting the same failed logic. Every argument you just made has been made thousands of time before and been refuted a thousand and one.

  • Embarcadero SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    Nov. 8, 2012 8:52 p.m.

    This is great news, not least because it may finally signal the moment when homophobia is no longer an effective lever to get the right wing masses riled up. It may be different in Utah and other more bigoted states, but it's heartening to see this happening in the four states we saw on Tuesday.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Nov. 8, 2012 8:45 p.m.

    Too bad a constitutional amendment didn't pass a few years ago. Most states voted against it. They have not been allowed to marry for millenai before why should it change? They can't bring people to earth why get same priveleges. Why do we have laws on what age to get married? Should someone marry his horse, his kid what next. It is redefining marriage. Anyone can marry any other person of the opposite sex. Same gender marriage is a mock of something sacred. Too bad Maryland, Washington, and Maine were on the wrong, As was Colorado in the drug law. Mosiah said does not happen too much too bad it did in those states and bad things happen when it does. Keep marriage traditional.

  • justme001 Salt Lake, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 8:09 p.m.

    Good for Washington, Maine and Maryland, lets hope more states will follow.