Comments about ‘Gay marriage: What's next for Utah?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 3 2013 5:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
equal protection
Cedar, UT

What evidence exists that a same-sex couples marriage will "obscure or diminish the importance of the mother-father-child relationship?" I would argue that there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence of the beneficial effects of marriage on the children of same sex couples. Federal benefits, health insurance, societal benefits etc.

Vladhagen
Salt Lake City, UT

One of my largest concerns in fully supporting SSM stems from the issues involving escheatment of funds held by religious organizations by the government. While many proponents of SDM claim that legalizing such in no way encroaches upon religion, the fact remains that the door is being opened to such an encroachment. Will there reach a time where, say, LDS temples are forced to marry same sex couples or be stipped of the right to legally marry heterosexual couples? Proponents of SSM claim now that this is an absurd thought, but whenever SSM is in the table, drastic change is also. Claims that 20 years ago were considered absurd now are being considered the norm and politically correct thing to support.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@very concerned --

"certain behaviors are contrary to His laws of happiness and His plan."

But it is HIS job to make those judgments -- NOT yours.

"I can believe that at some point in the past, some societies practiced homosexuality....."

Homosexual relations will always be in the minority, simply because most human beings are heterosexual. That's a simple fact of biology -- and it has NOTHING to do with morality.

Many civilizations HAVE recognized same-sex unions, however -- and no, they didn't fail because of homosexuality.

Both ancient Greece and ancient Rome encouraged homosexuality. Both of those civilizations lasted for roughly 1000 years EACH. In fact, Rome fell well AFTER homosexual marriages were officially banned in around 300 AD.

"For instance, loud and intrusive protests across the street from the Salt Lake temple..."

Oddly enough, the First Amendment gives people the right to protest in public. Just like, for instance, those Westboro Baptist Church idiots who protest against gay rights AT SOLDIERS' FUNERALS.

"those who oppose true religion or religious doctrine will never be happy unless religion ceases to exist."

You don't get to decide what "true" religion is. Many Christians SUPPORT gay marriage.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Phillip M. Hotchkiss

"This topic is dividing country faster then any other disputes in history"

Actually this issue is getting less divisive over time especially with young people. I'd say slavery was most divisive. As for modern times probably abortion.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

"there reach a time where, say, LDS temples are forced to marry same sex couples or be stipped of the right to legally marry heterosexual couples?" LDS temples are free to deny temple marry interracial couples at any time or revelation. They have never been required to temple marry someone of a different faith. Catholic churches are not required to marry divorced couples. Are "Sky will fall arguments" and armageddon might occur, enough to currently deny equal protection to same-sex couples? Most likely not.

"Polygamy does not threaten straight marriages either. Should it then be legalized" Is Polygamy an immutable innate characteristic?

small town granny
small mining town, UT

Strange world we are living in. The heterosexuals want rights without "a piece of paper" and the homosexuals demand "a piece of paper." Is the grass always greener on the other side of the fence?

bill in af
American Fork, UT

The problem in the issue is referring to marriage as only between a man and a woman. That is the way it is supposed to be if we want our society to continue. I don't have as big a problem with civil unions if gays want legal protections in their chosen relationship; just don't call it marriage. Same sex marriage cheapens what marriage was designed to be. We can love one another and follow the Savior's teachings without having to force wrongful actions for all to see. Look at what Paul taught about the last days and the caution about certain actions such as "without natural affection".

Pac_Man
Pittsburgh, PA

Contrariusier needs to re-read his Ancient Roman and Greek history. Much of the homosexual activity that was encouraged involved older men with young boys. To say that has nothing to do with morality is a little twisted.

aislander
Anderson Island, WA

The arguments against same sex marriage are universally either based in animus, scripture or fear.

Animus...well the case against bigotry speaks for itself.

Scripture...we are not a theocracy and our constitution guarantees US citizens the right to follow THEIR own god and beliefs, as well as to NOT have religious beliefs of others forced upon us...As Contrarious has said here and elsewhere, many denominations DO support gay marriage.

Fear...The ridiculous arguments that gay marriage will somehow damage heterosexual marriage or the non-survival of the species boggle the mind. NO ONE has ever articulated a single shred of damage caused by gay marriage. The very best lawyers and experts the anti-gay marriage forces could muster tried their hardest and failed abysmally. (Read the transcripts of Perry v Schwarzenegger in particular, as well as the other litigation).

Running around saying the sky is falling when it isn't does not legitimize denying equal treatment under civil law to gay US Citizens.

And as far as voting away those citizens rights, how would you like it if YOUR civil rights were put up to a popular vote? We all need protection from the tyranny of the majority.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@Pac_Man --

"Much of the homosexual activity that was encouraged involved older men with young boys. To say that has nothing to do with morality is a little twisted."

What I actually said was simply that the proportion of homosexuals in the population has nothing to do with morality -- and that is true.

As for ancient Rome -- Rome actually recognized same-sex unions to one degree or other throughout its history.

-- Polybius (Roman historian) noted that homosexuality was widely accepted there by 600 BCE -- and Rome didn't officially fall til around **500 AD**.

-- Edward Gibbon, who literally wrote the book on the fall of Rome, noted that only *one* of the first **fifteen** Roman emperors was entirely heterosexual. Rome didn't fall until hundreds of years later.

-- Martial and Juvenal (1st Century AD) both tell us that same-sex marriages, complete with traditional rites, were not uncommon in their time.

-- Gay marriages weren't officially prohibited in the Roman empire until around 300 AD.

-- Historians generally agree that Rome didn't fall until at least a couple of hundred years after that (some historians think the fall was much later).

What is that you were saying about reading history? ;-)

cjf
Salt Lake City, UT

@amazondoc

"Unless, of course, you are a hotel owner...."

The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination by private businesses more than 50 years ago. This is nothing new.

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

In other words, there is no distinction between a wedding cake and a black person forced to sit on the back of the bus.

Got it.

hermounts
Pleasanton, CA

What is the Deseret News, owned by the LDS Church, doing publishing a story on this issue where they start out from the point of view of a gay couple?

Tom in CA
Vallejo, CA

SSM will pave the way for Polygamy to make a comeback. Who's going to stop it?

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@Tom in CA --

"Who's going to stop it?"

The populace, the laws, and the courts.

1. Roughly 15 countries already have gay marriage -- and NONE of them have legalized polygamy.

2. Canada recently reaffirmed their polygamy ban -- even though they've had gay marriage for 10 years.

3. Multiple court decisions in the US have reaffirmed the distinction between gay rights and both polygamy and incest.

Here's a couple of excerpts from US court decisions. In these quotes, "Lawrence" refers to the SCOTUS ruling overturning sodomy laws --

-- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, (Mass. 2003): "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but this) DOES NOT MEAN that this constitutional right...extend(s) to POLYGAMOUS OR INCESTUOUS relationships....the state CONTINUES TO HAVE A STRONG AND ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships..."

-- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming polygamy bans: "the holding in Lawrence is actually quite narrow.....In fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM PROTECTION conduct that causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.'"

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@cjf

"In other words, there is no distinction between a wedding cake and a black person forced to sit on the back of the bus."

That's more or less right.

When the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act was challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court, the challengers were a hotel owner who didn't want to rent rooms to blacks, and a restaurant owner who didn't want to serve blacks inside his restaurant. The restaurant owner was perfectly happy to sell food to the blacks as takeout -- he just didn't want the blacks sitting inside his building.

There were certainly other hotels and restaurants in town that the blacks could have gone to instead -- but, of course, that wasn't the point.

So, yes, this is pretty much the same as with businesses not wanting gay people "inside their buildings" (contributing to their businesses) for whatever reason.

edgeoftheabyss
OC, CA

Gay marriage is simply the public face of a massive gender redefinition and homosexual-norming agenda. In California, they're going after the children in schools. For evidence, refer to a sampling of the California legislative history:

AB394 (2007): establishes definition of harassment that includes expression of views relating to traditional marriage or traditional gender identification.

AB14 (2007): prohibits state funding for any program that does not support transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality.

SB777 (2008) California Education Code amendment: "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. (gender is how you feel, dress, and act.)

SB572 (2009) Harvey Milk Day: pressures all California public schools to hold an annual “day of significance” honoring the life and values of homosexual activist Harvey Milk. (no parent opt-out)

SB48 (2011) FAIR Education Act: requires that school textbooks include instructional material that portrays LGBT societal contributions in a favorable light. (no parent opt-out)

You either conform and comply to the LGBT agenda or bear the labels of homophobe and bigot. This is about so much more than just a marriage ceremony.

cjf
Salt Lake City, UT

@Contrariusier

So, yes, this is pretty much the same as with businesses not wanting gay people "inside their buildings" (contributing to their businesses) for whatever reason.

----------

The argument is not that gay people can't enter or cater to a business. The argument is the type of service being rendered. There is a distinction and you know it (and it is very obvious), but since it weakens your position, which is to force in mind, thought, and conscience the gay lifestyle, you won't admit it.

ImABeliever
Provo, UT

It amazes me that people including some members of the L.D.S. Church for the which I belong; want to argue the things of God. God said homosexuality equals destruction. Case closed.

postaledith
Freeland, WA

I think this couple should be able to get married.....in Utah. The same-sex marriage movement is getting stronger; especially since last week and I don't believe it will take 10 years.

Phillip M Hotchkiss
Malta, Mt

@alt134.
This country is not divided, It's dividing. I have to disagree with you about abortion dividing us faster.As I see it their is less fence sitters on this topic. You are either for life or against it. This deals with living beings.most will stand up for this right I think this area is more cut and dry.
Gay marriage is more on compassion feelings acts of love for each other.I don't understand people being Gay. But I don't place them in the same category as one's who are pro choice.I feel they have no love for life. When it is divided we will see witch divided us more slavery or Gay marriage.

to comment

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