Comments about ‘Attention now turns to Utah's Amendment 3’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 27 2013 6:45 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Albert Maslar CPA (Retired)
Absecon, NJ

The gay marriage issue is now history, as the homosexual lobby, given the proverbial inch has taken the proverbial mile and gay marriage recognized in all 50 States is virtually fait accompli. There is no restraining the rushing waters of social family change, and can no longer be held back from going over the falls. The genie is out of the bottle, Humpty Dumpty USA has fallen off the wall and is broken, and all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put Humpty back together again.

Cedar City, UT

So first the federal government FORCES the settlers of Utah to END polygamy because they don't like it in order for Utah to become a state. NOW Utah will be FORCED to accept gay marriage by the federal government because they DO like it. Meanwhile, complacent LDS people worry about what flowers to put on the RS podium for their Sunday lesson.

Marlborough, MA

Tick, tock, tick tock....

Huntsville, UT

So many of you claim to be moral and righteous and refuse to obey your Jesus. His own words were: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". He didn't put any qualifiers on that commandment.

Bigotry is immoral. Discrimination is immoral. Nobody is going to force you into a same sex marriage. Nobody is going to force your churches to perform same sex marriages.

It's time to grow up kids. It's time to realize that you have been wrong all this time and actually start LIVING your religion yourselves.

Springville, UT

In the end, if you believe in the Constitution, the full faith and credit provision has to be recognized or the nation will come unraveled. This means that a legal marriage in one state will be honored in another. Eventually, this has to happen.

S.L.C., UT

Equal Protection un the law. The kestone of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yes it's a beautiful thing this constitution. Especially when it's applied to EVERYONE !!

Mom Johnson
West Jordan, UT

The LGBT agenda is upon us. I can see it now...........more and more LGBT couples will move to Utah so that their voting voices will be heard. They will move because of that soul reason. Citizens of Utah need to prepare themselves for a battle from here on out. Not only will they sway the vote in their direction over legalizing marriage, but they will sway the vote in all the elections to go their way. They are a united group with lots and lots of money behind them.

This is not a scare tactic, and it is not out of disrespect, it is very real. This is what is happening all over the country. Don't be blind to what is inevitable. We have lived somewhat complacently here in Utah for decades. It's time that we wake up and get involved and know what is happening around us.

Cedar City, UT

@Wilf 55
You really must read the statement put out to each ward about the BSA decision. It is not a acceptance of gay boys. It is an affirmation that virtue and morals are still the foundation of scouting and the LDS church continues to hold those standards: Celibacy before marriage (to one of the opposite gender) and complete fidelity after. I pose this question: Once the left gets its way and Utah accepts same gender marriage how long do you think it will take for a gay couple to sue the church because they can't be "married" in one of our temples? I'm betting about a New York minute. This is not about gay marriage, this is about forcing churches to do what the left wants. It was said quite well just a few months ago by an LGBT activist. Masha Gessen 2012 "the institution of marriage should not exist". Search "lesbian activists surprisingly candid speech gay marriage fight is a lie to destroy marriage" for the video of her speech. Acceptance of the premise is just another step into the Nile during crocodile meal time. The agenda is the destruction of marriage in every form, not strengthening marriage.


Reading these comments has only made me more convinced of why using the legislative arena to defend traditional marriage has wound up backfiring and only angered those who see differently than we do. If we could stick to sharing our values in a civil, compassionate way, through the normal proselyting channels of the church, it's much more likely that people would be willing to take a look at them with open hearts (or at least open minds) and then choose to accept it or not on its face. Instead, we had to engage it in a hostile manner, and now neither side wins. Oh, it's resulted in members of the church voting more Republican and electing politicians who support anti-family economics, which destroys families of all types - even the faithful members of the church.

Salt Lake City, UT

@WILF 55: Thanks for your amusing comment implying that the Church is slow to follow the "wise" evolution of history, and that, with time, it will see the error of its ways. Why don't you get familiar with the Church's "The Family: A Proclamation To The World," and discover that that statement is a statement of fundamental Church doctrine, amendable only by direct revelation from God, Himself. Also, unbeliever that you may be, please note that our Church leaders, as well as its devout followers, consider the Proclamation a warning to those who violate God's laws, including countries and, even, readers of the Deseret News.

layton, UT

Traditional marriage ?

Does "traditional" marriage mean polygamy, as was traditional among many societies prior to and after Judeo/Christian theology? In african cultures many wives were the norm.

In other cultures, the sale of a 13 yr old daughter preceded a "traditional" marriage.

Anyone who uses the term "defending traditional marriage" is ignorant of history. How many wives did those described in the bible have ?

Cedar Hills, UT

So, what this argument means is that there is no difference between man-man, woman-woman, and man-woman relationships. I don't buy it. I think there are big differences between these relationships and should be treated uniquely.


Jared says: If you allow same-sex couples to marry, you allow them to divorce. This means divorce rates can only increase.

So you believe States should enact laws to make it more difficult for people to get married so there will be fewer divorces? What are you considering?

Dammam, Saudi Arabia


Funny. You understood perfectly from those talking about traditional marriage that they meant one man and one woman. What should we call it instead? Some awkward term? How about a "Real Marriage".

Lots of cultures had the view that generally speaking a man would pair off with a woman for the length of their lives for the rearing of children and grandchildren and that there should most of the time or all of the time sexual exclusivity. That the man and the woman had different but equal roles. I have a 400 year old poem composed (not written) by a woman living in a stone-age society who mounrs that her husband left her for another woman. I have a story about a man in about 1650, who in a time of crisis, traded his lands to get his wife brought to him so they could flee into exile together rather than being separated.

That is the kind of marriage that I mean by traditional marriage.

Husband and wife, rather than Spouse 1 and Spouse 2.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia


"Redefining marriage is not strengthening it, it is changing it."
Exactly right. We agree. Read my post again.

Cedar City, UT

Will they then try to amend the Utah Constitution: Article I section 29? See the feds forced Utahns to put that in when they disagreed with polygamy. Guess the LGBT lobby was less active back then huh?

Walt Nicholes
Orem, UT

If these Liberals believe that all forms of marriage should be recognized, would they endorse plural marriage as one of those forms?

Virginia Beach, VA

The Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 tells me it's a state issue. But, more likely there stalling for more time. For a conservative state law banning same sex marriage to come into the Supreme Court, for them to overrule. I wonder if the Utah homosexual couples are capable of being civil at the capitol, unlike what I've seen on video's at other rally's across the country.

midvale guy

@Ranchand- It is NOT bigotry. I do not dislike the person I dislike the behavior. We are all God's children. The real problem is Nobody can express disagreement or dislike of someone's behavior without someone else there to immediately claim 'Intolerance". Just because I don't like the behavior doesn't me I don't care about the person. Thank God, Jesus loves the sinner because I know who I am too.

layton, UT


That was exactly my point. You have a traditional view of marriage. Others do not share the same view. The word "traditional" is sufficiently vague as to cause the problem

to comment

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