Quantcast
Opinion

Is support for traditional marriage 'hate speech'?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Aug. 9, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    "Sweden and Canada have had instances of people supporting traditional marriage who have been either fined or fired."

    Can you cite the specifics of the fines or penalties? I would like to see some concrete evidence to back up that argument.

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    Aug. 9, 2013 5:23 a.m.

    "change the Constitution to favor anyone because of sexual preference."

    The Constitution does not mention sexual orientation. Or marriage. Or the Internet. Or a host of other things that are relevant to today's society.

    It does, however, establish basic general rights, including such rights as Equal Protection under the law. Most of the court cases being decided in favor of gay people are based on these general rights.

    That's why, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas couldn't have one set of rules for what opposite-sex couples did in private and another when same-sex couples did precisely the same thing.

    That's why, in Evans v Romer, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado's law targeting gay people and depriving them of protections afforded to heterosexuals.

    And that's why, in the recent DOMA case, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government couldn't treat some married couples differently from other married couples.

    With respect, most of the laws in question are special laws that target gay people and deny them rights that others take for granted.

  • milojthatch Sandy, UT
    Aug. 9, 2013 2:45 a.m.

    We as a society keep going farther over the edge, and every time those with common sense try to pull us back and warn the people about what's next, those pushing us over the edge go, "You guys are crazy, it won't happen." Then when it happens, they deny they ever said that and we start the whole thing over again.

    It truly is a scary time to be on this Earth.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 8, 2013 7:17 p.m.

    Darrel,

    Somehow I think that you've been caught up in your own rhetoric.

    The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to have special laws for sexual identity nor to discriminate because of sexual orientation, but it does.

    The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to make laws about marriage, but it has.

    The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to involve itself in religion, but it does.

    Obama has publicly stated how wrong America is for not allowing gays to have exactly what they want, yet he has no authority to legislate and no authority to change the Constitution to favor anyone because of sexual preference.

    We are not defined by our sex. We are not defined by what we think about sex. We are not defined by our sexual preferences, but you couldn't tell that by reading the comments of those who will boycott Orson Scott Card because of "offenses" perceived, or those who will boycott Utah because of "offenses" perceieved, or those who will block temples or vandalize churches because of "offenses" perceived.

    Sorry, but rhetoric does not change history.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 8, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    @1covey --

    "Look at what's happening to Orson Scott Card. "

    He's being boycotted. Big whoop.

    NOM is currently sponsoring TWO boycotts. If they can boycott, why can't anyone else?

    "Legal action has already been taken against ministers who refuse to marry those of the same sex."

    Baloney. Name the ministers.

    It is true that some churches **in other countries** are being required to perform same-sex marriages -- but that is because those countries have STATE churches. Obviously, we do not.

    Now aren't you glad we have separation of church and state?

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 8, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    @1covey

    Legal action has already been taken against ministers who refuse to marry those of the same sex.

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

    Who? Where? I'd like a source on this, because that would be an absolute travesty.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    Look at what's happening to Orson Scott Card. Legal action has already been taken against ministers who refuse to marry those of the same sex.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 8, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    mcbillay

    Jobs bills passed by the House: 0

    untrue - too much MSNBC for you!

    if you mean jobs paid with federal money, then you might be right, but there are still some who believe in the private sector.

    BO's supposed "compromise"??? he has made NO definite proposals. He said YOU give up something definite, and I'll throw out this nebular concept that will never materialize.

    As I said, too much MSNBC for you!

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    Aug. 8, 2013 5:17 a.m.

    @wrz

    As I indicated, it was the religious ceremony that had an emotional impact on me and my family-- I suspect in exactly the same ways that it does on anyone who marries. There wasn't a dry eye in the chapel!

    The problem was that it had no force of law behind it. We remained legal strangers to one another.

    While that "little piece of paper" cannot buy happiness, it can provide some piece of mind. I saw that directly when my father died, and my grieving and distraught mother fretted over all the paperwork that fell to her (us). The family lawyer assured her that we had only to order a bunch of death certificates and, as his legal spouse, she would have them on hand whenever any questions about rights of survivorship arose.

    And he was right.

    So that "little piece of paper" has tremendous legal value. That may be one reason that you don't find many (any?) opposite-sex couples foregoing signing the civil marriage license when they marry religiously.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 9:39 p.m.

    @wrz @Linguist:
    "Now, with the law in our state recently changed by popular vote, we are legally married. A win-win in my view."

    Are you any happier now that you're 'married?' If so, it seems strange that a little piece of paper can be the determining factor of happiness.

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

    First of @Linguist
    Wonderful, I wish you and your partner all the happiness in the world.

    @ wrz

    Really? Are trying to devalue someone's marriage? Are you married? Or did you just decide that "little piece of paper" wasn't worth it?

    The day I got my "little piece of paper" was the happiest day of my life. And never, in my wildest dreams would I try to devalue what that "little piece of paper" may mean to someone else.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2013 9:32 p.m.

    2 bits,

    Prohibition of gay marriage does not support "traditional marriage". Nor does allowing gay marriage change "traditional marriage".

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 9:28 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "Darrel,

    Do you think that anyone in government has the right to dictate religious doctrine? Do you think that the President has the authority to dictate to a minister when or how that minister conducts a marriage?"
    ============

    Absolutely not! You and I are both in full agreement on that point. I think that a vast majority of Americans, if not all, would be in full agreement. Uncle Sam has no business between me and my pastor.

    Where we differ is people claiming this is happening. I have asked for specific examples, and some have tried to use the military. It isn't and will not happen. Where are these churches, or ministers that are forced to carry these marriages out?

    Our temples aren't even required to marry every straight couple. Catholic bishops are free to not marry previously divorced people. The government is not, and has not declared any intention to try and change that.

    If that were to ever happen, I'll be right at the front of the protest march along with you.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:31 p.m.

    @Linguist:
    "Now, with the law in our state recently changed by popular vote, we are legally married. A win-win in my view."

    Are you any happier now that you're 'married?' If so, it seems strange that a little piece of paper can be the determining factor of happiness.

    @procuradorfiscal:
    "Military chaplains are being told that objections they or their endorsers may have to performing gay marriages are irrelevant, and that a "failure" to perform such marriages will considered a violation DoD policy that could jeopardize continued service."

    Marriage is a state and not a federal issue. The military is a federal organization thus has no authority to dictate or decide what marriage is to be.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:18 p.m.

    Darrel,

    Do you think that anyone in government has the right to dictate religious doctrine? Do you think that the President has the authority to dictate to a minister when or how that minister conducts a marriage?

    The Constitution has absolutely nothing to say about sexual orientation, including any special rights to anyone based on his/her sexual orientation, but the Constitution does have an absolute guarantee that government will not interfere with religion. Obama is injecting his personal ideas about sexual orientation into the ordinances performed by clergy in the military. There is no exemption offered to the President based on where or how clergy conducts ordinances - even if the clergy has been hired by the Commander in Chief.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Aug. 7, 2013 5:27 p.m.

    Marriage in churches is not legally binding without a marriage license. Ministers are "allowed" to perform the ceremony by the state government but it's the government that has taken all legal authority in marriage.

    Return authority to the churches and get the government out of marriage entirely.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    lingusist
    perhaps you have no intention fo forcing your choice on the rest of us, but that is not the direction in which the courst and militant gays are headed.

    RanchHand,
    your questions about marriage in LDS temples evidences an ignorance of US and LDS history. The federal government disenfranchised the church and confiscated its temples to force a change in religious practice. There is a definite precedent. And with BO's ideology of Fed govt uber alles, we have plenty of reason to fear

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    If you want to see the meaning of tone of the argument against the argument for the traditional definition of marriage, one need look no farther than the dissent by Justice Scalia, who states, "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition."

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    "You chose to ignore the "meat" of Obama's message where it said: "My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that." "

    So... heaven forbid we treat gays and lesbians as people? Heaven forbid they have rights.

    Section 533 (which was signed into law by the way) was feared to be used as a tool to allow for the discrimination against these Soldiers. No Soldier deserves that, Mike. Each of them swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. They didn't sign up to receive your disdain because of a life style choice.

    You preach (and I believe in) a loving God that has set commandments. Which do you think wins more souls? Treating them as the sons and daughters of God they are, or gawking at the notion we even consider them human? We preach of a loving Christ, why not show that love, treat them as equals, and let Him judge?

    You have your sins too, don't judge because others sin differently than you.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    @Hutterite,

    Unlike many countries, we have no State religion. You told us that religion is acting like a victim because it can't force itself on us. I beleive that your response is inaccruated and misleading. As Americans, we have the RIGHT to choose to join a religion or to remain independent of religion. We have the RIGHT to choose how we worship God or to not worship Him. We have the RIGHT to honor and obey a Creator, or to reject the Creator and place ourselves in His position. The government cannot tell us how to worship, where to worship or what to worship.

    You can put government between you and your god, but that is not allowed by the Constitution. It is your own desire, not the law of the land.

    No person in government can tell us how to pray, or even whether we can pray without violating the Constitution. Any person in government that tells clergy what they must do or even what they CAN do, has violated the Constitution.

    Obama cannot use "gay rights" to amend the Constitution. He does not have that right nor does he have that authority.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    I hope it doesn't get to the point where churches have to marry those they don't want to. But that's where it has to end. Religion isn't a victim just because it can't force itself on society, and it's no less free because it can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. It's just religion, it's not society and it's not me.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    @ Darrell,

    You chose to ignore the "meat" of Obama's message where it said: "My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that."

    He is putting the "rights" of gay and lesbian service members above the Constitutionally protected freedom of establishments of religion to define their own doctrine. He thinks that if he hires a minister that he has the right to tell the minister what to do and what to teach. He is "fully committed" which is just more "gobbledygook" which means that he will do anything he wants to do without regard to the Constitution - just as he has ignored the Constitution in the past.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards

    "What, exactly did Obama mean when he said, "Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision,as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members...(shortened for space)

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

    Let's take it at face value. The Department of Defense cannot, and will not force a Chaplain to perform any ordinance, or practice that is contrary to their endorsing agency's values. An LDS Chaplain is not forced to perform baptism on someone he deems has not met the requirements, in fact he is prohibited from doing such. Therefore, unless the Church receives revelation and changes its stance, an LDS chaplain will not be forced to marry two guys.

    On the other hand, DoD will allow chaplains from agencies that allow these marriages to perform them.

    I have received numerous briefings, and every other serviceman, on this when the repeal took affect. How this affected Chaplains was a big part of those briefings. In short, it won't. They can still preach what they want from the pulpit, and will not, cannot be forced to go contrary to their religion.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    The hate part comes in because many do not stop at "I support traditional marriage."

    It is generally followed by hateful comments about legally-sanctioned marriage for all.

    If you support traditional marriage, have one, nurture it. Just don't tell others their marriages are wrong.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    "Sweden and Canada have had instances of people supporting traditional marriage who have benn eiter fined or fired."

    Sweden has a state church. Since the church is officially affiliated with the state, naturally it must uphold all the laws of the state.

    Now aren't you glad we have separation of church and state here?

    Cite your examples from Canada.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    What, exactly did Obama mean when he said, "Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision,as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that."?

    Has he read the 1st Amendment that protects the doctrine and ordinances of establishments of religion? Does he know that chaplains are recognized as ordained ministers of their respective establishments of religion? Does he know that the federal government cannot EVER tell an establishment of religion what it must believe or what it must do?

    As Commander in Chief, he can kick out all chaplains. He can leave the military without religious influence. Maybe that's his goal. Maybe he wants to teach young people how to use firearms without being burdened with a conscience.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    IMO the answer is "no". Speech supporting traditional marriage does not automatically mean hatred for ANYBODY.

    Support for traditional marriage is just supporting the age old definition the term "Marriage" has had in our culture as far back as history goes. It doesn't mean you hate anybody. It just means you want to preserve traditions of what a family is.

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    Aug. 7, 2013 5:45 a.m.

    This letter could be used as a text book example of the straw man argument - state that you know something will happen, even though there is no evidence to support your argument, then carry on about all the ramifications of that very thing happening.

    Paranoia strikes deep.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Aug. 6, 2013 11:52 p.m.

    You are always free to discriminate against any group, but it normally stops when it becomes too uncomortable to do it.

    Yes, it's perfectly legal for clergy to refuse to perform gay weddings, and this should be their choice as long as they want it. But over time, they will be, more and more, miserable outliers.

    The right to discriminate isn't clearly legislated. But the tendency to discriminate is eroded one group at a time. Gay marriage is here, and resisters will just move furrther and further to the fringes. But let that be their choice!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 6, 2013 9:46 p.m.

    @Moderate: You asked which nations? Sweden and Canada have had instances of people supporting traditional marriage who have benn eiter fined or fired.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 6, 2013 9:23 p.m.

    Re:"Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and services members,” Obama wrote."

    So, if it's mere restatement of current policy, and there's no intent to change that policy in the future, what could possibly make the section an "ill-advised provision?"

    Hmmmmmm.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 6, 2013 8:47 p.m.

    Re:Procura

    "Defense Department guidance issued to military chaplains said they may participate in ceremonies on or off military bases in states that recognize gay unions. Chaplains are not required to officiate at same-sex weddings if doing so is counter to their religious or personal beliefs, the guidance said."
    (Washington Post 2011)

    "House Minority Leader Pelosi on attacked a Republican proposal reinforcing the right of military chaplains to steer clear of gay marriage ceremonies.
    The California Democrat said the chaplains already have that right, and no one is trying to take it away.

    "Nobody's ordering them to do that. I've never seen any suggestion that we're ordering chaplains to perform same-sex [marriages]. Where is that?" Pelosi asked during her weekly press conference."
    (The Hill 5/2012)

    "Chuck Hagel assured the Senate on Thursday that military chaplains will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages they disagree with — though the defense secretary nominee said same-sex couples will have access to chapels."
    (Washington Times 1/2013)

    "Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and services members,” Obama wrote."
    (Fox 2013)

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 6, 2013 8:15 p.m.

    "Equal rights for women" hasn't penetrated churches yet, so it is hard to imagine legalization of gay marriage is going to require clergy to perform same-sex marriages."

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 6, 2013 8:12 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal

    "Military chaplains are being told that objections they or their endorsers may have to performing gay marriages are irrelevant, and that a "failure" to perform such marriages will considered a violation DoD policy that could jeopardize continued service."

    Please cite your source. That seems to run counter to everything the Chaplain Corp does. In fact, DoD policy prohibits a chaplain from teaching anything contrary to what their endorsing agency believes.

    I would be very interested to see if that changed, please provide a source.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 6, 2013 7:43 p.m.

    Re: ". . . clergy in America will remain free to preach what they want to — they will never be forced to celebrate a same-sex wedding . . . ."

    Too late. We're already there. Military chaplains are being told that objections they or their endorsers may have to performing gay marriages are irrelevant, and that a "failure" to perform such marriages will considered a violation DoD policy that could jeopardize continued service.

    The Obama regime recently filed an objection to proposed section 530 of the 2014 appropriations act, which would require "the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, actions and speech reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member."

    Makes real people wonder, why? What could the regime possibly object to in such language?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 6, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    Quoting "biblical truths" (i.e.; calling people "abominations" and claiming they should be put to death), is, in my book "hate speech".

    Now if you just want to call them "sinners" and the like, no problem.

    The next thing that Mr. Cruz needs to learn, is that "biblical truths" have never been proven to be true. Ever.

    If you think that churches will be force to marry gay couples if they don't want to, just look at the Mormon church. Are they required to marry heterosexual non-member couples in their temples? (no) Are they required to marry "unworthy" heterosexual members in their temples? (again, no). What makes you think gays could possibly demand more than actual members couldn't?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 6, 2013 6:10 p.m.

    "Cruz responded to the statement by saying, “If you look at other nations that have gone down the road toward gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced.”

    Conveniently, he didn't name those "other nations", so now we can't validate his wild accusation.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 6, 2013 6:04 p.m.

    So just how are things in MA, IA and the other states which have legalized gay marriage?

    Ryan T. Anderson's article in National Review Online merely trots out the same old stuff we heard during the Prop 8 campaign.

    People who are worried about the "state" of marriage in society should put their time and attention on ways to promote and support stable, long-lasting marriages regardless of what the sex of the partners are. Our children deserve that.

    "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    Aug. 6, 2013 5:55 p.m.

    To my mind, the question of whether it's "hate speech" or not is really a non-issue. I am gay, and a person of faith. I am now legally married to my partner of many years.

    I have never and will never demand that those from other faith traditions accept mine. Egads, as a Jew, I am already on the "wrong side" for most Americans yet I wouldn't want to force anyone to believe that my faith tradition trumps theirs.

    My partner and I married in a religious ceremony in the very same Reform Jewish temple where he had become bar mitzvah years earlier. It was wonderful. It meant the world to me, to him, to our families. And the congregation was extremely welcoming.

    But it had absolutely no force of law behind it. Now, with the law in our state recently changed by popular vote, we are legally married. A win-win in my view.

    There is no conflict. Really. Religions must be able to set their own rules, for or against, in accordance with the tenets of their faith.

    The law, on the other hand, must protect all of us. And that includes gay couples.