Support Traditional Marriage in UtahThe 5 tribes that have always
lived in the Great Basin/Rocky Mountain area practiced Marriage Equality. They
had words for "Two Spirit" people, treated them with respect &
sometimes special privilege because they were often the medicine people.
Traditionally, there was no discrimination, they married in the same ceremonies
as the rest of their tribe. They were family.The following are some
of their names.Navajo Male-/female-/intersexed-bodied: Nadleeh or nadle
(gender class/category)(“one in a constant state of change,”
“being transformed”)Paiute Northern Male-bodied:Tudayapi
(“dress like other sex”) Southern Male-bodied: TuwasawutsGosiute Male-bodied:TuvasaShoshone Bannock Male-bodied: Tuva’sa
(“sterile”)Southern Ute Male-bodied: TuwasawitsMormon settlers came here in search of freedom to marry as their conscience
dictated. Establishing a New & Everlasting Covenant, they practiced
traditional marriage spoken of in scripture. Their descendants can honor their
historic sacrifice now. Pave the way for a return to traditional marriage
values.In Utah many of us grew up with an important phrase
constantly in our hearts. "Families Are Forever."If you believe
this, please, support your brothers and sisters equal right to marriage &
family. Support Traditional Marriage.
Actually, being against marriage equality does mean you are against someone.
You are actively working to deny people equal rights and protections under the
law. It doesn't matter if you're being mean about it--you are working
to keep a group of Americans second class citizens. The attitude you think you
do it with doesn't matter. What you are doing is cruel.
The state's attempt to re-define marriage is a breach of the understood
"wall" separating church and state in America. Marriage is a religious
institution that has pre-dated and out-lasted all states, even those states
which protected religion. The state lacks the power and authority to re-define
marriage, which it did not create. Churches do not have to recognize any civil
union as marriage, though many have chosen to recognize the civil union of a man
and a woman as marriage, and the state has called it by that name because of
tradition. Anyone is free to invent their own religion, but they cannot force
others to accept it. The state needs to keep to it's own side of the wall,
and remember it's place. All the rest is just quibbling and useless
debate. Leave marriage alone, and call sexual license what it is.
Who on planet earth is so presumptuous as to believe that they have the
authority to put asunder what God has joined together, namely, a man and a woman
in marriage? No lawmaker, nor king, president, ruler, nor magistrate has
authority to change the definition of marriage. God alone has that power.
Before there was a Supreme Court, before there was a Constitution, before there
was a Revolution, before we had a country, before any of us were born, since the
dawn of time, there has been marriage. It has always meant the union of a man
and a woman. Call any other union whatever you will, but do not call it
"marriage". Throughout the ages, sexual license has not required that
the definition of marriage be changed. You can do whatever you want; no one is
stopping you; you have that right. But do not destroy marriage by calling
something "marriage" that is not marriage. Marriage will never go away,
just as God and Religion will never go away. Civilizations come may and go.
Governments may come and go. But no legislature will ever succeed in getting
rid of God and Religion, from which came true marriage. That's why we as a
people, and as individuals, are still here to discuss this. Everyone one of us
was born of a woman united with a man.
I assume that there is a high density of Mormons discussing this issue, so
I'd like to inform you that your own scriptures forbid you from sticking
your belief system into civil matters. Don't believe me? Read D&C 134
verses 1-9. I'll be nice and include verse 9 myself:"We do
not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby
one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual
privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens,
denied."That's right. Don't impose your religious
beliefs on those who do not share the same beliefs.
I would love to sit down with these people and we could truly get down to the
truth! I have some very good questions that I would like to ask and before it is
over, we would see that their thoughts are not as sweet as they want to portray!
There is nothing good about what people do to us! It is all degrading and it so
insulting to pretend that it comes from God! For these people to dismiss my 15
year relationship with my partner as if it were nothing is truly an insult! He
is as important to me as any heterosexual's spouse! Do we get to insult
your sacred marriages? Maybe our beliefs include taking away your right to
marry! You get to live your beliefs but we don't? God created gay people.
If you are not intelligent enough to realize that then maybe you should start
thinking! He gave us minds and hearts and gave us the same right to make our
lives the best we can and who are any of you to tell us we have to live some
life that is anything less than yours? Don't tell me you care!
MickMost couples don't know they are sterile until after they have
been married for a few years. KJKWe could issue marriage licenses
that expire after 5 years if the couple doesn't produce children. airnautThis is where inter-State recognition of State laws at the
Federal level [Constitution] comes into play.KJKThe US
Constitution’s Full Faith & Credit clause requires all states to
recognize eachother's acts (marriages, arrest warrants, judgments, child
custody, birth certificates, car titles, etc…) The issue of it requiring
recognition of SSM is unresolved, but since Utah recognizes other marriages that
can’t legally be performed in Utah (first cousins), Utah would have a hard
time justifying not accepting SSM from other states.Redshirt1701Even if the courts say that gay marriage is legal, the state can always copy
Colorado and ignore federal law.KJKIt’s one thing for a state
to give people rights that the feds don’t recognize (and the feds still
may come in and arrest people), but it’s a whole other thing for the state
to ignore federally protected rights. The feds would quickly put a stop to
History FreakMarriage is not a right and is not regulated by the federal
government. If it was a right, you wouldn't have to get a license. No one
has to get a license to exercise their freedom of speech. That is because it is
a constitutional right.KJKMany places require gun owners to get a
license to buy guns. You have to register to vote. The Supreme Court has
stated that marriage IS a right. If marriage isn't regulated by the feds,
then why were the state bans on mixed-race marriage overturned?LovedumsThe Equal Protection Clause was …never intended to deal
with a person's sexual preference.KJKLimiting the 14th
Amendment to only racial protections is like saying that girls can wear a string
monokini because the letter of the law says that one-piece swimsuits are fine.
We should look to the spirit of the law which means that all should be treated
equally. We should liken the 14th to all people - gays, women, etc...
WrzIt's not a matter of taking over churches/temples. It's a
matter of losing tax exempt status accorded religions for those who refuse to
conduct same-sex marriages.KJKSenator Lee’s bill addresses
this and a constitutional amendment would fly through the approval process
should a serious threat appear.Meckofahess[W]e do not have to
accept behavior if it is contrary to our moral and intellectual foundations.
Should they not also respect our point of view? We should stand for fair legal
rights for ALL PEOPLE, not just those who want to be treated as a special class.
Respect runs both ways.KJKAgreed, therefore let’s grant gays
the right to marry while we LDS retain the right to refuse to perform such
marriage and the right to preach our beliefs regarding homosexuality. Gay
friendly churches retain the right to preach what they feel as well.
"the purpose of marriage — to unite children with the man and woman
who made them"I guess I missed the fact that when gay marriage
is legal, children will be taken from their parents. And, if that is the
purpose of marriage, I guess my father-in-law had no business remarrying after
his wife passed away. I mean, he already had children with his first wife and
he and his new wife are past child rearing age so I guess his second marriage is
a complete abomination to traditional families everywhere. I
understand gay marriage can be contrary to your belief system and I believe you
can have those feelings and not hate. However, when you make it a priority to
force your belief system onto somebody else when their actions do not affect
you, it is very difficult to argue you are not "against" gays.
A few thoughts...If this has so much to do with legal rights, then why not
make it easier for all couples to gain access to those rights. Why should you
have to be married to have deathbed access or estate tax freedom. It should be a
simple contract that I can enter into with my wife, my girlfriend, or my buddy
down the street, who ever I choose. Remove "rights" from marriage. The biggest reason I'm against this is what they are teaching in schools
in states where gay marriage is legal. The school systems are required to
present gay couples on equal footing with traditionally married couples in
family units in elementary schools, even though there are far fewer gay couples.
And in some cases it is presented as a "choice" (yes the word choice is
used) for children to make when they are older. Children are taught that they
should not expect to enter into traditional marriages, but they can
"choose" another "option" if they wish. It's as if
activists are pleading children to be gay.Lastly, if you think churches
are safe from being forced to perform gay marriages, you are fooling yourself.
@mightyhunterhahaDo your homework. The Supreme Court did in fact
declare marriage a right that shall not be infringed. Just as they found the
ban of mixed race marriages unconstitutional, they shall find the ban on same
sex marriage unconstitutional.
I don’t hate gay people, but I hate the worn-out and manipulated claim of
bigotry and hate. What a childish, immature, victim mentality. What I do hate is
how peacemaking most conservatives are, however. My hat's off to these two
authors, but the article falls short in that it expects some inherent level of
understanding and reason from that of a gay rights advocate. That’s just
not going to happen. Read the comments for an example. You see, it’s
really not about love, finances, and all the other ridiculous claims made that
sound good and fair (because they do)—it is about destroying what I and
most consider sacred. It’s about destroying millenniums of faith and
tradition in sweeping, unilateral, not-of-the-people decisions. If not so,
another name for it would be just fine. No, they want to be
“married” because they want what they want, regardless the
consequences, and in the most offensive way to accomplish it. Let's be
honest. It's not about love, equality, and taxes...you just want to be
called “married.” What a joke. And that is sad!
Everybody, every organization, every institution has lines that are deeply
imbedded and should not be crossed. And so it is with marriage. The gay
marriage proponents also have lines that they would be upset with if crossed;
they just haven't thought enough about or discussed their thoughts on their
"arbitrary" lines. I do not accept the argument that "if its all
about love and fully expressing that love" or , typically what I hear in San
Francisco is "I am made this way and I have to express it to be complete or
whole.." then gay marriage is necessary and all ok. Where then is the
line? I assume the "line" for gay marriage proponents currently is 18
year old man - 18 year old man. But what if I am a 35 year old man and the way
I need to express my love (or to use the other various rationals) is to marry a
consenting adolescent boy or girl? Is that ok or is there a line that has been
crossed? According to Dwayne any marriage between any age or gender would be ok
because its "the expression of love and an intimate bond between two people
who have joined together."
Thank you for this thoughtful article. You expressed my own sentiments very
Regarding same-gender marriage from the stance of Tolerating the sinner and
loathing the sin is hardly friendly.
Someone wrote recently in the Deseret News about marriageThe purpose
of marriage isn't to unite children with the man and woman who made them
for several reasons. First, marriage should and most frequently does occur
before children become involved, if at all. Second, the purpose of marriage
isn't procreation nor is the sexual act debased to the bearing of children.
It serves a much higher and noble purpose. One doesn't sit at home singly
thinking "I want children to spend my life with" instead they long for
that someone to spend life with. Third, legal marriage recognizes the legal
commitment of two people by a contract. Children/dogs/houses are a result of
that intimate relationship and not party to it.I reject that
view.Marriage as a covenant between four entities:1 a
man2 a woman3a God3b the society in which
they live4 and children, who have a right to parents of both gender
in a legal protective framework.This is what marriage should be.
However, modern marriage is yet another example of something we practice that
does not deliver the promise.
Where is the marriage equality for people who don't conform to the strict
2-person hetero- or homo-sexual standard? And where is the marriage equality for
good-hearted people that lack the social graces to have any success in the
not that many years ago traditional marriage in utah included polygamy...let the gays marry and be happy..what does it hurt...utah has the 4th
highest divorce rate in the nation in 'traditional marriage' it doesnt
appear utah is doing that well in the staying married dept.
I'm 100% for traditional marriage. I'm NOT for government butting
it's nose into the private business of individuals. Get government out of
marriage. Create civil unions to provide a framework for dealing with
inheritances and other legal issues. Marriage should be a private contract
between consenting adults and their respective families. Government has no
right to define marriage, nor does it have the right to regulate who is able to
be married, or to grant preferential treatment to any individuals who choose to
and are able to enter into such a contract at the expense of those who do not or
are not. I'm continually amazed that in a supposedly
"conservative" state, almost nobody has a problem with using the
coercive and destructive power of government to act outside of its rightful
responsibilities to control such a sacred and private affair. Getting the
government out of marriage will do nothing to reduce the sanctity and value of
marriage to those who truly understand it.
Some of the viewpoints here are quite unusual, to me:Llew40Sandy, UT"Where's the article on LDS singles wards, where more
than half are made up of single, never married women, celebrating the idea that
gay marriage in no way affects them, the dating pool, or the kind of family they
hope one day to create?"...Are you saying that the evil,
rebellious Gay men are being poor mormons by not marrying those women and
popping out little mormons, who will be raised in a home full of lies and
unhappiness?...To most of us out in the rest of the world, anything
that forces one to live a lie is against Jesus and against God.
Blue CollarHuntington, UT"I am sorry if that offends but I can
see no way how anyone can think that marriage is anything different then a man
and a women in a committed relationship for life. two plus two will always be
four not five or three know matter how close three or five is.".... Funny, I cannot see how anyone halfway rational would actually believe
the story of how the lds church came about, but it is a FREE COUNTRY.monkeyseemonkeydoProvo, UT"On this topic, I am just like a
7-year old kid....riddled with questions of Why?....Certainly do
understand and support a gay individual not wanting to be ridiculed or
harmed....no question.In the words of John Travolta and Olivia
Newton-John, 'Tell me more, tell me more..'"... You DO
understand that John and Olivia did not write those lyrics, but that both are
considered Gay, no?But the answer is simple: Gay people are
different from straight people only in:1-- Who they love2-- Whatever
effects being an "outsider", "not OK", told they are no good or
a sinner, fired from a job, refused respect, etc may have had on each of them
The solution to this would have been for gays and lesbians to push for same sex
"Unions" or "Partnerships" to be recognized by the government
with the same rights and privileges as marriages. No one would have
fought that. I want my gay friends to have those same benefits.. but don't
change the definition of marriage.
I whole heartedly agree with the author of this article. I do not hate gays.. I
have many who are personal friends. But I do support traditional marriage as a
union of male and female. Same sex unions are NOT marriage.
Drew1house:Being an LDS yourself (from what I gather in the quote) I
strongly urge you to read what President Gordon B. Hinckley had to say on the
matter in October 1999 General Conference, during the priesthood session.Rest of the people:Same sex marriage is not about civil
rights, though the judges and many in the country are willing to make it civil
rights.I consider a right something that is yours from the time you
are born to the time you die, while a privilege is earned, and bad behavior can
have it taken away. I also consider that government CANNOT give or take away
rights because rights do NOT come from government but from God. Government can
only safeguard rights.Marriage therefore for me is not a right,
though there will be many trying to refute me with SCOTUS cases. It is a
privilege. One cannot enter into a marriage unless both sides consent to the
terms of marriage. If one side violates the terms of the marriage, then a
divorce can happen.If marriage is a right, why is there divorce?
RE: A Quaker, WHY? What is so different about homosexuals getting legal
recognition for a lifetime bond than the rest of us? So what is
your Religious context? Many Quakers today draw spiritual nourishment from their
Christian roots and strive to follow the example of *Jesus. While other
Quakers draw spiritual sustenance from various religious traditions, such as
Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and the nature religions. *(Jesus), “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and
female(Adam and Eve), and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his
father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has
joined together, let no one separate.” Mt 19 4:-6)
Remind me, can I marry my sister? Mother? Father? Child? If not, we need to work
on that law. I know the vast majority of people will be against me, but who are
they to say who I can love and not love, who I can marry or not marry? It's
my "right"! Who cares about religion, morality, ethics, values, the
children we may or may not have, it's all about love.We have to
draw the line somewhere as to what is right and wrong, what is moral and
immoral. Right? Don't we? At some point peoples feelings are going to be
hurt and not everyone can be accommodated. Who draws that line??? Oh,
that's right, the voice of the people decide. Nature also has a small
say.What's next folks? Does everyone get to trample on morality
for the sake of "feelings" or "equality"? I submit to you that
they do not! Sorry everyone, people are allowed to disagree with your lifestyle
and fight to protect their own. The more we seek to spare everyones fragile
"feelings" the more we turn into a valueless and immoral people.
Let's be honest here, this whole gay marriage thing is all about redefining
traditional marriage, it not about telling someone "who they can love".
You can love anyone you want. Unfortunately in our imperfect language the word
love is often used in a context where lust would be a more appropriate term.
People can love other people of any gender in the true selfless sense of the
word (Greek "agape" vs. "eros"). This is all about the LGBT
activists wanting to have their same sex unions defined as marriage. They can
still have what they want with civil unions. Trying to redefine marriage for
everyone is all about forcing their views/ideas on others, by demonizing them
rather than using rational argument. The demonizing is the part that bothers
folks the most.
I think I get what they're getting at. I'm for the traditional
definition of "Marriage". But I don't feel like I have any
negative feelings towards any gay person.Why do so many have frame
it in the, "You're either for us or you're against us", way of
seeing things?You can be for traditional marriage and not hate gay
people. I think that's all they're saying.If you pretend
you have to hate gay people if you don't accept same-sex marriage as
traditional... then you are seeing things in the wrong frame of reference.I HOPE I can keep my religious beliefs, and not have some outsider
insist they know I hate someone because of them. I don't. But I know I
don't speak for everybody. Just myself.
Thank you Michael and Jenet. As a supporter of traditional marriage, this is
exactly how I feel.
Marriage is not a right. LGTB get off your high horse. As it is not a right the
voice of the people define what marrage is and is not. Show me in the
Contitution of the United States where it says you have the right to marry. It
does not. You can run around and twist words and meanings all you want. The
Constitution does not support you. One day the people may support you and laws
may change. Just as we don't have to give driver's licenses to 13 yrs
olds, not every one can have a liquor license etc. laws and the people can
What a wonderful article! This echos my feelings and thoughts exactly. I would
only add that is saddens me when one activist judge can over turn the will of
The Church has more in common with advocates of gay marriage than any other
group. They have been mistreated by the federal and state governments and were
advocates for the 14th amendment when it was passed because it would prevent a
state... Like Missouri from being able to pass an extermination order like they
did against Mormons. Doctrine and Covenants 134:9 specifically states that we
will NOT mingle religious influence with Civil Government. We should follow it.
Does this mean Mormons must accept that gay acts are moral? Of course not!
However we have felt the brunt of marital discrimination in this country...
Yes,as much or more than Gays. In the 1860's through 1890's the Church
was persecuted for their belief in non-traditional marriage. They were stripped
of property, driven underground, jailed and persecuted because one group chose
to foist their version of morality on another group. This is wrong. The
constitution should have protected this for us then certainly should protect the
rights of gays now!
@Fancy PantsA belief in and of itself is not harmful. The actions
taken or not taken in service of the belief are where any harm arises. So, yes,
one's intentions can be absent of animus even as one's actions cause
great harm. And when you or someone you care about are being done great harm
and the reasons don't seem very legit, doesn't it feel kind of hostile
"the pillars of marital prevalence, permanence and monogamy, each vital to
creating a bond strong enough that a child's heart can rely upon it."
Except when marriage is defined by the LDS church to include polygamy. How many
of Joseph's or Brigham's kids created a bond strong enough that a
child's heart can rely upon it? Why can't the children of gay and
lesbian couples form bonds that strong? Your attempt top minimize the bonds and
relationships they form are ridiculous. "You or your loved ones
deserve better. All are owed dignity and respect." Except when gay couples
want to be treated the same as heterosexual couples. Gay couples deserve better,
but not equal to hetero couples. Gay marriages deserve neither dignity nor
respect (the dignity and respect you DEMAND for your marriage) in your eyes.
Gays and lesbians are immoral and wrong to demand the same respect and dignity?
How dare they? "There is something unique, special, and sacred
about the legal union of a man and a woman." There is also something unique,
special, and sacred about the legal union of gay and lesbian couples.
I agree, supporting traditional marriage is unselfish action that benefits
everyone. Stable traditional marriages are crucial for everyone, and crucial for
the survival of high civilization.
@lilpinkzombiemama"it's important that we all know the
facts and realize that it's none of our business if a woman loves a woman
or a man loves a man... or a woman loves two men, or a man loves two women. It
doesn't matter, it's non of our business."------You are correct. It is none of our business who loves whom. But when it
becomes mandated by law, giving the same treatment as race, then it becomes OUR
business. Keep the government out of marriage, and you have a point.
But when the government recognizes and forces the Redefinition of Marriage, then
it suddenly becomes EVERYBODY'S business. Why? Because then the rule of law
forces EVERYBODY to accept it. The Left doesn't understand that
government is force. But FORCE it is. And now I am forced to make it my
Where's the article on LDS singles wards, where more than half are made up
of single, never married women, celebrating the idea that gay marriage in no way
affects them, the dating pool, or the kind of family they hope one day to
MapleDan,What a hateful thing to write.
There is a lot of hate, but you're correct, it isn't coming from the
traditional family types. It's from the other side. And it's that
hatred that changed my view from being open to gay marriage.
Wow, reading through the comments is eye opening. So many false claims,
especially those redefining bigotry or minimizing the rights of children to
their parents. "All that matters is love", blah blah blah. If only life
could be that irrational and continue on in peace. This issue isn't
ultimately about marriage, it's ultimately about religious rights.
Government needs to get out of marriage entirely before people end up being
jailed and fined for putting homosexual and sin in the same sentence. It'll
be labeled hate speech, and any act of not wanting to participate in homosexual
marriage will also be considered discriminatory. Therefore leading to more
fines, and possible jail time, for services those people could easily find
elsewhere. Why does homosexual marriage affect me? Because it's just a
small step toward very large implications as a person who would sooner be jailed
and fined for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, then compromise on my
religious morals. The government needs to get out.
This is a wonderful article, Ericksons. I doubt that many in the gay community
are going to accept it, but it speaks the truth of the matter.
Fantastic article. Couldn't agree more.
Empathize with both sides. Gays and lesbians, I understand wholeheartedly your
desire and would fight for the same were I in your position, but stop pulling
the "bigot" "homophobe" card every time someone disagrees with
you! It weakens your position and makes you look ignorant and void of valid
argument. People can disagree and fight for their beliefs, after all, that is
what you're doing. It does NOT mean anyone "hates" you! You sound
like whining fools when you say that. It's as stereotypical a statement as
the one's you're claiming to be victims of, so knock it off and show
some grit and intelligence. Asking religious people to withdraw from a fight for
something that is inherently religious is absurd! They are invested in
traditional family just as you are invested in what you seek. You cannot only
value opinions so long as they are yours and scream "hater" if they are
not. Don't label while whining about being labeled. It's hypocrisy. I
can support traditional marriage and support your right to try to change it.
Please support my right to try to stop you, unless of course you hate me.
When I say to you that black people are not allowed to eat ice cream because
black people come from an area where ice cream is not traditionally eaten, and
the Bible says only white people can eat ice cream anyway, what do you call
that? Does the eating of ice cream by black people in some way decrease the
enjoyment of white people eating ice cream?
I believe this is my 4th and final post. After allowing it's
content before, why is the Deseret news denying it now?
'Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not
the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be.' -
Article*'Gays GREATEST THREAT TO AMERICA, Buttars says' -
By Aaron Falk – Deseret news - 02/19/09'Sen. Chris
Buttars believes gays and lesbians are "the greatest threat to America going
down," comparing members of the LGBT community to radical Muslims.' -
ArticleButtars was elected in Utah, on a Republican ticket, in 2000,
2004 and 2008.Or let's talk about the Sherif who's
comments were posted by the Deseret news. The constant OP's. Threats to
overthrow the government, etc?I know!Let's talk
more about how people who don't believe as I do will burn for eternity in a
lake of fire.That will show how much I am 'not against'
@Karen R.Houston, TXSSM opponents have co-opted the word
"marriage" in the same way that political extremists have co-opted words
like "patriot" and "liberty." The implication is that they alone
know the "true" definitions of these words. Which is another way of
saying, "My beliefs are the only legitimate ones." This is the
definition of intolerance.======== Agreed!just
like they did when they added, "real Germans", "true Germans",
"defenders of the Fatherland", and "purest" of Aryans.
The best study I've ever seen on the effects of same-sex marriage on
raising children--with the largest sample size and the best longitudinal
data--is entitled, "High School Graduation Rates among Children of Same-Sex
Households." Among other things, this longitudinal Canadian census research
study found that the little girls adopted by male same-sex-married couples were
only 15% as likely to eventually graduate from high school as their peers from
opposite-sex married homes. That's compelling evidence to support what
this Deseret News article is trying to say!Thank you, Ericksons, for
the thoughtful, sound reasoning you put forth here.
Quaker, your question is What is so different about homosexuals getting legal
recognition? My question then, is what is a civil union? Why is a civil union
not good enough? We are arguing over one word, that word is marriage. Why should
we not call a homosexual relationship marriage, for the same reasons I have
already listed. Two guys or two women can not create their own flesh and bone
(children) and they can not create that bond that only comes from creating with
God your very own offspring. When two men or two women can create their own
children then I will recognize homosexual marriage. But that is impossible,
because the creator did not make it possible. Also a mother and a father bring
two different approaches to rearing a child, and you want me to believe that two
men or two women bring the same approach. That is absurd, it is obvious that it
is not the same. Marriage is not just two committed people, it is a man
and a woman committed to each other with the opportunity to create with God
their very own offspring or Children. Any thing else is a civil union.
Tekakaromatagi says:"Giving traditional marriage a specical
status, creates respectability that this is the way things should be."--- "Respectability": The goal of EVERY marriage."It is society's way of sending a message."---
Wouldn't a telegraph be easier?
Blue Collar, dear friend, I fear it is you who is dodging the question.Your reasoning, if I may call it that, is tautological. You argue that
homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to pledge to each other in marriage
because they're homosexuals. Yes, a man and a man marrying would be a
homosexual marriage. Yes, a woman and a woman marrying would be a homosexual
marriage. If they were a man and a woman, instead, like the other 95% of us,
they would be a heterosexual marriage. Yes, that's all given. That's
the discussion we're having.You favor preventing them from
being allowed to be legally married. In accordance with the Quaker testimony of
Equality, I favor treating all loving couples (unrelated, adult, consenting,
human, free-to-marry) who wish to pledge themselves to each other, with or
without God, the same. Their bonds, their love, are smiled upon by God as much
as ours. And our society should treat them legally equally.Explain
again why we shouldn't?The question you're dodging is WHY?
What is so different about homosexuals getting legal recognition for a lifetime
bond than the rest of us?
@Atl:"A few things...I. Marriage is a tool to fight
poverty because either1. Both work and whichever is making less is boosted
by the other.2. One works and makes enough to support the other."That may be a reason why marriage fights poverty, but that is not the
reason I am thinking. The reason is: the father marries the mother before he
sleeps with her. So when she gets pregnant the father is around, as opposed to
him not being around and there is only one parent and the children aren't
being properly raised and taught by two parents. The son grows up without a
father figure, he joins a gang, sleeps around, fathers out-of-wedlock children,
and the cycle continues.Giving traditional marriage a specical
status, creates respectability that this is the way things should be. It is
society's way of sending a message.
All I can think is "Separation of CHURCH and STATE". If you don't
understand the concept, please read, review and see that the religious opinion
of this state has no bearing on what the government should do. Just because you
don't understand, believe or feel that it is right, it is not hurting you,
your family or damaging your livelihood. Regardless of the ridiculous
propaganda that the state has been spreading about same sex marriage somehow
"damaging" other's rights, it's important that we all know the
facts and realize that it's none of our business if a woman loves a woman
or a man loves a man... or a woman loves two men, or a man loves two women. It
doesn't matter, it's non of our business.
Nice logic:"Being for singing does not mean being against
anyone. As long as "singing" only means opposite-sex breathing.Same-sex singing isn't really singing because it's not our tune. We
just don't think same-sex people should redefine singing for the rest of
us. But we're not against anyone. See?Oh, and just treat them
nice because it's so sad that they can't get enough air."
Even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which so many brand with
hatred and bigotry because of their stance for marriage, has fought for the
rights and equal treatment of people who identify as "homosexual" in
regards to housing and employment. When the Boy Scouts of America
began admitting "openly gay" boys into the program, they commended
them.It's insanity to suppose that, after all this, it is
somehow hatred or "inequality" that drives its push to protect marriage,
or that the half of this country who also supports that motion are driven by
anything but concern and time-tested wisdom regarding the family unit.
The surest sign of a weak argument is the use of half-truths and misdirection.
However, if the audience doesn't make the effort to verify the claims,
their true nature will go undiscovered. This is what the arguer hopes for -
sometimes out of conscious intent; sometimes because they aren't ready to
confront the truth either. Do your homework, audience.
SSM opponents have co-opted the word "marriage" in the same way that
political extremists have co-opted words like "patriot" and
"liberty." The implication is that they alone know the "true"
definitions of these words. Which is another way of saying, "My beliefs are
the only legitimate ones." This is the definition of intolerance.A fear repeatedly expressed in this debate is that allowing SSM will invite
further challenges to religious beliefs. I really hope so. I would feel a lot
easier if all religious beliefs had to meet the same standards of justness and
equality that we demand of our secular laws. I would like to watch children
being led into a church and NOT worry that they're being taught that
exclusion and discrimination are good, even sacred things, and that such actions
are examples of love and respect.
After reading so many comments to this story, the author's claims ring even
more true than the first time I read it. So many commenters just
prove their points for them..
Very well written. Thank you for your courageous honesty.
The legal system is in a shambles currently because the gay marriage
legalization effort has been so haphazard as to require the redefinition of
marriage to hinge solely upon "Consenting Adults". This legal ambiguity
has opened a floodgate of other behaviors completely beyond the intentions of
its founders and is still creating chaos, as was made clear by the court's
decision to strike down otherwise consensus-based civil law. Ironically there was a time when advocates for gay marriage claimed their
quest for legalization would have no consequences on other social behaviors like
incest or polygamy, yet now we're actually seeing that being proven
patently false in the courts now, because of the confusion created by
"Consenting Adults". It doesn't affect you, except that
it does, and the truth is they always wanted it to affect you. Being gay in
politics has never been about quietly allowing a victimized group live in peace,
but instead about changing your mind regardless of whether it benefits society.
@banderson 8:18 p.m. Jan. 5, 2014Okay, I'll play your game.
I've been a lawyer for 26 years, studying the Constitution both in my
undergraduate Political Science degree and my law degree. My ConLaw class in
law school ran an hour a day, five days a week, for nine months and I spent
double that time doing homework and participating in study groups. I studied
the Constitution intensively and have kept up-to-date on it since then. My
understanding of it is complete and correct.How long ago did you get
a law degree? If you don't have a JD, then when and for how long did you
study the Constitution with a competent teacher? Please provide your
credentials.As to your assertion -- Article IV (second clause)
states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; . . ., shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution
or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Nullification theory
has been denied by the Supreme Court. Please provide your authority that the
will of the people trumps the Constitution.
Quaker, I get that two people want to be want to be in a committed
relationship, however you completely dodged my question. Two men or two women
are not the same as a man and a woman. We are made different take a look in the
mirror there are some big biological differences. What a man and a woman in a
committed relationship bring to the table is completely different then what two
men or two women bring. I say have your civil unions, have your tax break, have
every right but to call it the same as a what a man and a woman have is not
correct, it's not the same. it never will be because we are different.
Therefore trying to change the definition of what marriage is, is actually an
assault on marriage. There is no such thing as traditional marriage there is
This article is very well written. It explains the position of two non-hateful
people I'm acquainted with very well (me and my wife).Unfortunately, the gay community has discovered, accurately, that the most
effective way to change their opponents views is not by argument, but rather by
using terms like 'bigot', 'disingenuous',
'fear-mongers'. For many people the threat of being considered mean,
regardless how frivolous the claim, overrides their judgement. The arguments for
gay marriage convinced very few, but these other tactics have been much more
effective.You need only ask a child if two moms or two dads is the
same thing as a mom and a dad. It isn't, and treating them different is
not bigotry and deserves no negative label.
If you're a married man who supports "traditional marriage," here
are three things you can do right now to show your support.1.
Don't cheat on your wife2. Don't spend hours, or even minutes,
looking at porn3. Go on dates with your wife. Treat her as though you were
both 16 again.If you're a married woman who supports
"traditional marriage" here are three things you can do right now to
show your support.1. Don't cheat on your husband2. Spend
less time complaining to your girlfriends about all of your husbands
imperfections and spend more time telling your husband how much you appreciate
him3. Spend more time laughing togetherIf we value the
institution of marriage, we need to walk the walk before we talk the talkAs for those who claim their religious beliefs were violated because a
gay or lesbian was able to patron their business, I still don't get the
reasoning of that argument.My wife and I are active LDS and my wife
used to house clean for a lesbian couple (she only quit there because of a
scheduling conflict) but we never felt she was compromising here religious
beliefs. Should we?
"Can someone please just explain to me how anyone can think that two men in
a relationship or two women in a relationship will ever be the same as a Mom and
a Dad?"Two men who are friends of mine who adopted a little girl
who had been abandoned by a mom and a dad, had been bounced around from a foster
home of a mom and a dad to another foster home of a mom and a dad. "A mom
and a dad" were never willing to adopt this little girl, and yet two men
were willing to. And so, in this little girl's case, the two men were never
the same as a mom and a dad, because unlike any mom and a dad, they were willing
to adopt the little girl. In actuality, they were better, and that little girl
is doing awesome today, happier than she's ever been. In fact,
she'd probably still be waiting for "a mom and a dad" to adopt her,
just as the hundreds of thousands of kids in foster kids are all waiting to, all
of them placed there by "a mom and a dad".
So why can't a man and a boy marry? Why can't three men marry? The
LGBT advocates need to state why these people can't get married, and when
they do - maybe only then will they start to see why the definition of marriage
should not be changed.Can't gay people find the accommodations
and all the rights they seek with civil unions?
Traditional marriage folks aren't haters."former Arizona
sheriff . . . Richard Mack" speaking in UT said: "take back America
county by county, state by state."Cherilyn "Eagar said the
governor and state lawmakers have the power to tell the federal government that
Utah will not enforce Shelby's ruling.""Joe Wolverton,
who described himself as a "constitutional" attorney, threw out words
like secession and treason while talking about states' rights and
federalism in his remarks to the crowd." "We are absolutely
within our right to secede from a political union that no longer answers to the
demands of liberty and justice," he said.I'm feeling the
Re: "As has been pointed out to you numerous times the only restrictions on
rights protected by the constitution is if those seeking to restrict those
rights can prove their is a harm to society."Bogus liberal
argument that even they don't believe. If they did, they'd never
object to my exercise of Second Amendment rights, since they'll never prove
my exercise of those rights result in harm to society.
Being in favor of heterosexual marriage doesn't make you against anyone.
Trying to outlaw same-sex marriages, however, does.
Blue Collar: You have part of the answer right there, in your comment. A
committed relationship for life. That's what a marriage should be.The institution of marriage doesn't make that relationship. Only
the couple can do that. Some modern couples do a "test drive" before
buying the car, so to speak. Others, hewing to religious tradition, practice
chastity before marriage, and hope for the best. Unfortunately, about 50% of
all marriages don't work out. The younger that people marry, the higher
the failure rate.Same-sex couples who have been in very long-term
relationships have all the characteristics of successful, traditional married
couples. All they lack is the legal certification of their already-existing
relationships. These are the people who have rushed to take advantage of this
judge's ruling, knowing that while it may get overruled, they'll still
be married and will have the right to legally look after each other in old age,
to manage their joint estates, and parental rights of children they've
raised together.They deserve the civil right to marry at town hall.
@monkeyseemonkeydo "Can understand a gay couple wanting to structure their
finances and rights as a married couple does, which I believe is accomplished by
a civil union."Whatever made you believe that? You are totally
misinformed if that is the basis of your opposition.
For the vast majority of human history any girl who had undergone puberty was
considered eligible for marriage, with or without their consent. This is a
traditional marriage. Nobody here is truly for traditional marriage.
For the sake of full disclosure, am a white, married, active LDS male with a
homosexual brother-in-law whom I and my wife, do love and respect.On this
topic, I am just like a 7-year old kid....riddled with questions of Why?....Certainly do understand and support a gay individual not wanting to be
ridiculed or harmed....no question.Can understand a gay couple wanting to
structure their finances and rights as a married couple does, which I believe is
accomplished by a civil union.I don't comprehend the coordinated
promotion of gay individuals toward being allowed to marry and the requirement
placed on society to use marriage to accomplish some end....I guess I don't
understand what the gay person is trying to accomplish "globally" with
this force. It is peculiar to me.In the words of John Travolta and Olivia
Newton-John, "Tell me more, tell me more..."
Liberal democrats once shouted,"You can't legislate morality!" Now,
that it involves their perspective of what constitutes morality, they have
conveniently changed their position.
The headline for this article reads: "Being for traditional marriage does
not mean being against anyone." And I know that we can all agree that--
being excluded, left out, ignored, uninvited, looked over, left behind,
unworthy, unfit, disenfranchised, can't be a member of the tribe,
didn't make the cut, will never be picked to be on the team-- doesn't
mean "they" are against us, they just wish "we" didn't
@bandersonAs has been pointed out to you numerous times the only
restrictions on rights protected by the constitution is if those seeking to
restrict those rights can prove their is a harm to society. If you would like to
fight for the right to a polygamist marriage or to mary your cousin (both of
which have interesting historical roots) then please by all means petition the
courts to demand those rights and those that may oppose it will have to prove
there is a harm to society if it is allowed that is how our rights are
preserved or denied not by popular vote.
can someone please just explain to me how anyone can think that two men in a
relationship or two women in a relationship will ever be the same as a Mom and a
Dad? It wont ever be the same, because it isn't. Marriage is a relationship
of a man and a women, there is no question here. This is how it has been for
millenniums. If you want a civil union fine but to call it marriage is an
assault to what marriage has stood for, because you are trying to change what it
is and what it has been. I am sorry if that offends but I can see no way
how anyone can think that marriage is anything different then a man and a women
in a committed relationship for life. two plus two will always be four not five
or three know matter how close three or five is.
A commenter above asks, "Utahns. Is it morally right to force all of society
to adopt the morals of a minority?"Is that what you think is
happening here? That you are being asked to change YOUR morals? How does that
work? Are you suddenly going to abandon your sexual faithfulness to your spouse
or your temperance and avoidance of caffeine and alcohol? Because some people
you disapprove of get some right in civil law that you have? I don't think
so. That's not you.Your morals are yours and no one is taking
them away from you.As someone once said, "One man's rights
ends at the tip of the next man's nose." You may express yourself as
you will, but not violate someone else's rights with a punch in the nose.
So, mind your own morals and let others mind theirs. Being a Quaker, I will hold you in the Light that you may find Peace,
Equality, Community, Simplicity and Integrity to be the true blessings of Christ
that you desire.
Despite the misunderstanding of scripture that it entails, I am confident many
religious people oppose same sex marriage because they fear God's wrath for
a nation that embraces such "wickedness".But rest assured in
your wresting of scripture, that God dais he would not destroy Sodom and Gomorah
if there could be found even ten righteous people in the cities.Since the nation and the state of Utah have so many millions of righteous
people (ask them, they will tell you), there is no threat that God would do any
harm to the United States or to Utah!
Furry1993: according to your reasoning, based on a 26 year faulty reasoning of
the Constitution, anybody who is "wired"differently not only has a
right to be protected under the law from any behavior, be it gay marriage,
polygamy, or cousin, but can also subvert the will of the people in doing so
under the pretense that every behavior is protected and that the will of the
people as defined by the 9th and10th amendment is moot! Wow, how far we have
@ TiagoMay God Bless you in your search of who you are. Regardless what
you find you still will be a child of God and He will love you the same, may be
even a little bit more.To All:In my last post on this
editorial, I would like to say Thank You from the bottom of my heart to all
those faithful members of the LDS Church and other straight citizens, who having
nothing to gain have expressed their "genuine" support to the LGBT
community through their comments on this medium.As many of you have
broken the chains of irrational fear, I hope many more evolve and reach your
level of maturity, understanding and love. Without the help of heterosexuals
like you and Judge Robert Shelby we wouldn't be able to eradicate the
shadows of ignorance, fear and bigotry.Hopefully soon we will be
able to rejoice together in a new stage toward freedom and equality in the
United States and the world.May God bless all of you. Again Thank
What shows the dislike of gays is that Amendment 3 not only made same sex
marriage illegal but any same sex union. Doesn't matter to me how many
times you say Utah tolerates gays (forget love) or how loudly, The fact that 66%
didn't want gays to eat any meal at the same table. When I hear the
individuals talk about the fear they grew up with that anyone would find out
they were gay, I lay that at the doorsteps of the religious. I shed no tears for
the "sadness" of the anti-same sex marriage crowd.
@Svoboda_ReligiiI hardly think so but for the sake of argument lets
say it does, what would that prove? rights are not given out passed on the size
of a particular segment of society. It could be two people and they would still
have the same rights as if they were 99% of the population.
For a proffesional couple they must lead a sheltered selfish life.Its all about
us and our straigth loving family.They want all the goodies like marriage
and 1000s of tax breaks for themselves but not for us gays and lesbians which
they seem to admire so much.First of all they should be aware that many of us
dont believe in their god or church so they should put that aside.Next
their phony sadness is misdirected didnt they see 1000 happy gay couples pics
in the papers and on television?Get over it your cause is lost and over do
domething good for our country instead of denigrating us ,i like to suggest you
sponsor a homeless (straight) veteran.
The author's opinion is bigoted. I've been happily married for 25
years and I'm glad that LGBT people now get to share the same joys,
challenges, and benefits as my wife and I. We've used the recent events to
teach our children how people's prejudices and bigotry hurt and
discriminate those who have diffrent life styles as ours. Our children, like
most other young alduts, realize how oppresive and cruel opponents of LGBT
marriage are and how shallow their arguments tend to be. The author's
letter is a great example of this and I encourage all parents to share it with
their children and discuss it openly.
Conservatives make up words and phrases all the time. An example is attempting
to rename the "estate tax" to "death tax". Even the term
"traditional marriage" is a term made-up by conservatives to influence
opinion. So I don't see why the definition of marriage is such a big deal
at all. In fact, your "sadness for what it means to redefine — to
change — the meaning of marriage" sounds a disingenuous since you have
already redefined the term marriage by creating the subcategories of
"traditional" and "same-sex". Problem solved! The meanings of
the two subcategories are very clear so you don't need to be sad.
"We can now count the number of licenses issued and multiple times two,.
Does this represent the number of gay and lesbians in Utah?
Approximately?"It doesn't even come close. On the low end I
would estimate that there are 58,000 gay and lesbian people living in Utah.
Funny thing is, so many of us go through our daily routines without flaunting
our orientation and go unnoticed.
Being polite towards someone because he or she is gay does not in and of itself
make one not prejudiced. The picture is much broader.The tone of
the editorial comes from a hetero-privileged center. How can someone understand
unless they have lived or are empathetic towards those of a sexual orientation
other than their own?Inasmuch as this letter addresses marriage it
misses the bigger picture. There are many other issues in which the LGBT is
marginalized --- not having a cookie-cutter doctrine ideology in Church,
bullying, being kicked out of the home for being gay, harassment at work and in
school, gay parenting, gay adoptions, the list goes on and on.How
can one compare this long list of a lifetime of struggles to a single issue in
which they are at odds? The one example they cite about being sued for
"religious reasons" is not technically true. People are not sued for
their religious convictions. They are sued for holding a place of business
which is supposed to serve all people who are legally entitled to the services
they provide and denying those services to the LGBT community, exclusively.
We can now count the number of licenses issued and multiple times two,. Does
this represent the number of gay and lesbians in Utah? Approximately?
Marriage has already been redefined many times in western society. There truly
is no traditional marriage, it's just a catchy buzzword used to invoke
emotion and allow discrimination.And Finally Fourth, the idea that
you can be against marriage equality, “but not against anyone” is
preposterous. It is as false as saying I love the black people, but they must
not eat at the same table, and must sit at the back of the bus. That
“separate but equal” philosophy has not only proved to be wrong, but
it continues to kick me and others like me in the teeth. So, in
summation, may I just share what I’ve heard, “Claiming that someone
else’s marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone
for eating a donut because you’re on a diet.”
Third, the claim that Utah citizens are only protecting traditional marriage and
are sad that it is being "redefined." Do you not see the irony in that?
Mormons telling others to follow "traditional marriage", when they
practiced polygamy for 40 years, were chased out of the boundaries of the US in
order to continue practicing polygamy here, and were forced with jail and fines,
and the very dismantling of the Church, before renouncing it?Whatever does traditional marriage might mean at which time? Which tradition?
The one where it was arranged by the parents in order to bind families as
allies? The kind where the woman was property and literally traded for livestock
and other possessions? (please see "coverture") The tradition that
girls were wed at 13 and boys at 15? (please see "child marriage") Or
the tradition that a woman had NO property rights, and a man was justified in
the eyes of the law in beating his wife for disobeying him? Or the tradition
where men took their first wife's maid as a 2nd or third wife? Marriage has already been redefined many times in western society.
"Traditional marriage" is just a phrase to invoke emotion and allow
Baccus0902 - Sexual fluidity is a new concept for me. Most people I know exhibit
binary sexuality, and that's how I personally experience it. I've only
ever felt romantic feelings for the same sex, even being part of the LDS culture
that strongly pushes heterosexuality. The fact that I came out purely same sex
attracted makes me assume that other people would have the same sexual
rigidity--whether they are SSA or OSA. If that is the case, I see no downside to
full societal acceptance of same sex relationships.If sexuality for a lot
of people is fluid and they could have satisfying romances with either their
same or opposite sex, then I can see how religious folks who value one form of
sexuality as inherently better than another would passionately work to make sure
society pushes people to choose their "preferred" outcome. I think this
is what they are trying to do by opposing SSM.I would prefer a world where
sexually fluid or marginal individuals are free to imagine all possibilities and
choose the most satisfying life for themselves over one where people feel
trapped and pushed to certain actions.
Just one more opinionPleasant Grove, UT"I suspect this article
was written with the intention of it being an 'olive branch' but any
discussion of this topic is only going to result in fueling the fire"SORRY, you do not get it."An olive branch" means you
are trying to reach out to the other side, NOT that you are trying to get the
other side to understand that you have your reasons to stick to your position
and feel hurt that they want change.The gist of the article:"Oh, goodness me, we are such good people, and you are so hurtful by
trying to tell us that as Americans, we have to allow your rights, even if we do
not like them, boo-hoo, boo-hoo, why can't you just shut up and leave us
alone or do it our way?"America is about rights for everyone!Mormons have many thousands of Gay kids each year -- To lie about their
identity as "an attraction to be overcome" is cruel, unrealistic, and
Second, The Ericksons who wrote this opinion/editorial, and anyone who agrees
with them, don't seem to understand that in this country, the majority are
not allowed to vote away rights of minorities. It really doesn’t matter
what your intent or beliefs are—there really are no brownie points awarded
to the good citizens of Utah who stayed home and didn’t demonstrate
outside the court-house against Judge Shelby’s ruling. It doesn’t
matter that conservative people say, “we believe what we believe. And our
conviction is strong.” The US is not a pure democracy. It is by the
design of our wise founding fathers a Constitutional Republic. This means that
there are inalienable rights that the majority cannot simply vote away. If 51%
of the people in the US voted to do away with the Mormon Church, they
couldn't do it.
I appreciate that the authors acknowledged the hurt, loneliness, insensitivity
and fears that those of us in the LGBT community have faced; and I appreciate
that they advocated for a change, that we are owed dignity and respect.However, there were a number of inaccurate assumptions and assertions in this
article, which I must refute because I do think it’s important to have a
genuine, civil discussion, and point out the four most damaging errors in this
opinion piece. First, even though some "supporters of traditional
marriage are not the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to
be", those people still exist, and the list of evidence of hatred, violence
and assault on gay people is long. Please check the Wikipedia article on
violence toward LGBT people.And they're also here in Utah, as
the meeting in Highland, Utah this past weekend shows.These people
are calling for "an uprising". An uprising because a Federal Judge
upheld the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which grants equal protection to
ALL U.S. citizens? Make no mistake, there still are angry, hate-filled bigots
even in this state.
My sister lives in Salt Lake. She and her husband are friends with a lesbian
couple. A "good" Mormon lady refused to give their daughter piano
lessons because she doesn't agree with their "lifestyle." What
kind of Christian refuses a little girl piano lessons?
I agree with this article 100%. I have nothing against other people having
legal civil unions, but the term "marriage" should remain as it has been
defined since the union of men and women began. Just as there are different
terms that state the nature of a person's sexual orientation, there should
be terms that state the nature of their union, and marriage has already been
identified as the union between a man and a woman, so pick some other words to
define other unions.
Steve C. WarrenThe writers say they aren't against anyone.
Couldn't the same thing be said for those who favored males-only voting?
They weren't against women. They merely favored a tradition. Same thing for
those who favored slavery, opposed mixed-race marriages, etc.KJKYou
beat me to it. Bravo! The writers may not have ill will to people, but being
indifferent to the harm and suffering gays endure due to the lack of marriage
rights does indeed evince animus.PolishBearGay couples could
get civil unions …[which] would have exactly the same legal benefit and
protections, at all levels of government, as required under the 14th Amendment.
KJKCivil unions are like the Blacks Only and Whites Only drinking
fountains found in the South 60 years ago. Both provide(d) the exact same
government sponsored benefits and both treated both groups of people
identically. Why were the Blacks so insulted by this? "Separate but
equal" is never equal and America isn't about 2nd class citizenship.
The responses I've read regarding this article have re-affirmed my opinion
that you can't have a conversation with a person who won't listen to
you; an argument yes, but not a conversation. I suspect this article
was written with the intention of it being an 'olive branch' but any
discussion of this topic is only going to result in fueling the fire. Perhaps
for the time being it would be best for Des News to simply discontinue the
subject, it's only "keeping the wound open" as it were.Just saying.
Aja, has someone tried to force you into an SSM? Made you attend an SSM?Then how on earth can you claim someone is trying to govern you on this?
The reality is that you are trying to govern others for no good reason.
TiagoThere are many studies on your question.I just would like
to point out to you, that many same sex couples are raising children of their
own previous "traditional marriage". Many LGBT feel forced to marry in
order to fulfill their role in society and church.Many LGBT/LDS
marry only to end living double lives.As a partial answer to your
question, you may see an increase in homosexuality once the stigma is erased.
You will also see a decrease in teenagers' suicide. You may also see a
decrease in divorce, since many LGBT will not be forced to enter into a
heterosexual relationship that is unnatural to them.Letting
consenting adults enter into a marriage for love may not a bad idea after all.
I find it interesting that the authors of this op-ed continue to use the "we
don't hate anyone, please just think of the children" refrain, and yet
gays and single people are allowed and do adopt children in Utah. If your main
argument is 'the best interests of the children" where is the
'sadness' that gays are already providing homes for these children?
Why are the fanatics not fasting and holding town halls when this happens?
Cause, you know, 'the children', the whole basis of your argument.
You're only 'sad' when the parents of these adopted children are
given the legitimacy of marriage, which only strengthens their family bonds?
This is what makes you sad? Well I think that attitude is 'sad'.
Is or is not "preserving traditional marriage" simply religious activist
language for "not allowing gays or lesbians to marry each other"? For
condemning homosexuals to always be legal strangers to their loved ones? To
never allow them to be spouses or have the legal protections that spouses have
in their marriages? It's hard to see how that isn't
"being against anyone," isn't it?Outside of a religious
context, a context that my particular religion doesn't necessarily share,
there is no societal justification for denying an adult, consenting, unrelated,
otherwise-unattached couple the status of a civil marriage. They're
already allowed to cohabit, to have sexual relations, to have children, and to
live in houses next door to you. Without marriage. Denying them marriage
doesn't change that in any way. All it does is demonstrate that you wish
to discriminate against them.Don't deny that. Own it proudly.
Own your prejudices. And learn to accept that people will criticize you for
them. You fully earned it.
Same-sex spouses generally must file using a married filing separately or
jointly filing, for tax year 2013, and going forward. For tax years 2012 and
earlier, same-sex spouses who filed their tax returns as single, may choose (but
are not required) to amend their federal tax returns to file using married
filing separately or jointly filing status provided the period of limitations
for amending the return has not expired. A taxpayer generally may file a claim
for refund for three years from the date the return was filed or two years from
the date the tax was paid, whichever is later.
@Aja;I couldn't care less if you never accept the equality of
LGBT citizens in your life. The government on the other hand is supposed to
protect ALL of us, not just you heterosexuals. Once you get that, we'll be
fine. Believe whatever you want, just don't push your beliefs onto those
who don't believe. And don't say that we're forcing our beliefs
on you; you haven't been forced to marry someone of the same sex.
To all the defenders of "traditional" marriage, a couple of questions.
Has the energy, enthusiasm, emotion, and money you have committed to this cause
contributed to contentment and peace of mind? Or, perhaps, has it done the
opposite? Has your attachment to ensuring society define marriage as you think
it should be defined promoted well-being and love? Or, has it merely promoted
your own sadness or anger? Isn't it time for you to take responsibility for
your own suffering? Won't you be in a much better position to help reduce
the suffering of others if you do?
This "editorial", along with other reactions to the Judge's
perfectly obvious verdict, makes me see that I missed a great opportunity:....I should have moved to Utah, and become a rich optometrist, due to the
prevalence of myopia!"we have a message to the gay and lesbian
people who live among us - we don't hate you, it's nothing like that.
But we believe what we believe. And our conviction is strong."May I suggest a parody or two of the Ericksons' pleadings and that
statement:"Dear Black People -- we love you but ask you to not
give us so much upset by wanting to attend our schools and eat at our lunch
counter""Dear Jewish People -- we know you feel as German as
we do, but we resent you owning so many businesses and trying to control the
culture, so we might have to take action"You do not want people
who are different, or believe differently, to make you adjust your thinking, in
order to recognize they are equal Americans.Blocking people's
rights to be equal qualifies you for those ugly labels, even if you have
convinced yourself that you are not being hateful.
@The Judge"Funny how LGBT radicals trumpet the rule of law when
they agree with it and trash it when it goes against them."Funny
how conservatives trumpet the rule of law when they agree with it and trash it
when it goes against them.
".we believe what we believe. And our conviction is strong"How does your conviction of excluding a certain class of people benefit
society? Can you show any evidence? It has been established that blacks can
marry whites, the mentally handicapped can marry, prisoners on death row have
the right to marry. None of these allowances denigrates the institution because
inalienable human rights to pursue happiness on an equal footing with others
trumps your idea of what a perfect society should look like.One in
4500 babies is born without clearly defined sexual characteristics. The
variations are many, 47XXY chromosomes, Klinefelter's Syndrome, congenital
adrenal hypoplasia, gonadal dysgenesis, androgen insensitivity syndrome. Would
you prefer to put all these people into boxes so you can force all intimate
human relationships (or dignified companionship) into a predefined concept that
not even the Bible or modern day revelation can clearly detail? Live
and let others live as well.
Funny how LGBT radicals trumpet the rule of law when they agree with it and
trash it when it goes against them.
"supporters of traditional marriage are not the angry, hate-filled bigots
they have been stereotyped to be" Actually, many of them are. A
well-attended meeting was held in Highland, Utah yesterday calling for outrage
and uprising among those opposed to homosexual marriage in Utah. Further, just because you are not angry or hate-filled does not mean that you
are not prejudiced.
I second the frustration of most everyone else. The title of this article
didn't really match the arguments. And the arguments that were made were
just bad logically. Personally I think the reason Utahns aren't fussing
over the decision is that more of us are becoming open and less homophobic. Why
does the editor let such low quality writing through ...
Can I make a suggestion to my LDS brothers and sisters who hold the position
that gay marriage is an affront to the "sanctity of traditional
marriage". - Let temple marriage be the sacred distinction you desire to
have because it is, after all, for time and all eternity. And let civil marriage
be available to all committed couples " 'till death do they part".
It's always the same - respect me and my views, but how dare you have your
own. You can say whatever you want but if someone speaks out differently, with
their opinions then you blast back with unfair, bigots, demeaning, ignorant,
etc. We all have views and what I think is just as important as what you think.
I do NOT have to believe or act the same as you do, nor do I have to change or
except something that I do not agree with nor see the logic in. It's sad to
see the minority push themselves on and govern the majority.
People may not be rioting in opposition to this ruling, but not a day goes by
that there is not an article or letter in this paper bemoaning the situation and
"activist judges" and calling for the state to do whatever is necessary
to get the ruling overturned. And the only reason anyone can give is
tradition - and the only way to make that claim with a straight face is to
ignore the real history of marriage and the world. If you cannot
make your point using real life and real facts, perhaps there is a flaw in the
point you are trying to make.
To all who say gay people deserve all the same rights as straight people, but
not the name "marriage", why on earth would you vote for Amendment 3? It
clearly states: "No other domestic union, however denominated,
may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent
legal effect."You voted to ban giving anyone else but one man
and one woman the "same or substantially equivalent legal effect." Now,
this has been the absolute hardest part of the amendment to defend. That is why
DOMA (which also denied gay people all the rights of marriage) was found
unconstitutional and it is why Amendment 3 also was found unconstitutional for
the exact same reasons.It is a poisoned pill which in absence of any
government rational basis can only show animus. I'm glad the courts saw
right through that and it deserved to take the whole amendment down.
in the past 100 years the LGBT community has been subjected to forced shock
therapy, forced lobotomies, forced castration, incarceration and forced
hospitalization among the nicer and at the time legal things in the United
States in addition we are still subject to incarceration and even execution in
some parts of the world. We were rounded up by the thousands and killed by the
Germans, a piece of history lost in the classroom and memories of those that
speak such harsh words, so please do accept my deepest apologies if we do
occasionally offend in response to characterizations that diminish our basic
humanity. After all we shadows do not mean to offend.
@Fred T"They don't protest and whine in the streets."I could've sworn there were dozens of tea party protests...@smart_aleck"I am a strong supporter of gay rights, rights
that are best preserved in the codification of marriage as between a man and a
woman. "That's like arguing that segregation was good for
black people.@wrz"Most all humans have some
eccentricities/oddities or penchants/drives that need to be
controlled/overcome."I'm visualizing a random person
yelling at a kid for writing with their left hand..."It's
that all other combinations of 'marriage' such as polygamy, incest,
sibs, children, etc., would also have to be allowed. "You sound
like someone who opposed interracial marriage. @Alfred"Disobey the (homosexual marriage) laws and you lose it."Why? We have anti-discrimination laws based on religion and yet churches are
free to not marry whoever they don't want to in their churches and temples
(like say a mixed-faith couple can't marry in an LDS temple). Gay couples
aren't magically different.
Wouldn't it be interesting, if to have one's comment approval on this
forum, one's age would be required.Statistics would show the world
the numbers, determining the opinions and the outcome of this issue.We
would see, just as we have throughout history, just what will take place in our
Mr. Bean. You commented: "Many same-sex attracted folks are on the border...
can go either way. Once same-sex is thought of as 'normal' the
tendency to go that direction will naturally increase."I am honestly
very curious about this and it's not something I can really talk about with
my LDS friends to gauge if it is true or not. Maybe here in relative anonymity
people will be more open. Of those here who are in heterosexual marriages, how
many of you would have considered or explored same sex relationships if there
weren't barriers of societal/legal disapproval?I think this is the
crux of the argument against same sex marriage. People who oppose are afraid,
wrongly or rightly, that supporting same sex relationships will make more people
experiment and choose homosexuality, so they feel like they need to strongly
voice their disapproval to maintain the social pressure that keeps people from
experimenting. Is that right?
Thank you so much for writing this article. I loved the points that you made.
Even though I don't support gay marriage, it doesn't mean I hate all
gays. I am glad that you had the courage to say these things, great job!!
I've never believed for a moment that my Latter-day Saint friends were
motivated by hatred in their opposition to Gay Marriage. Every
generation is handed a set of social beliefs from the previous generation, and
sometimes they are handed the previous generation's fears as well. I grew
up hearing that there would be disastrous consequences for society from
miscegenation - the mixing of races. That fear infected people everywhere,
including Utah. But Utah changed. The Mormons changed. The recent essay on
blacks and the priesthood on the LDS Church's official site shows just how
dramatic that change has been.I think the notoriously kind an
generous people of Utah will discover that Gays do not pose a threat to them or
their beliefs and they will respond with a friendly and welcoming heart. This is
how the Mormons have always responded when touched, as surely they will be, by
the Better Angels of Their Nature.
It is not really telling that those who really hadn't lost anything with
the recent court ruling didn't take to the streets. All it shows is even
they know they have haven't lost anything but the ability to have a
marriage and deny it to others. The march in California was completely
justified, when the LDS made themselves the focal point of the pro-Prop 8
campaign to deny this simple contract to others, those others react angrily.This editorial is just another attempt to push a bigoted perspective in
nice soft sounding words. All the nonsense about children, or sex, or
traditional marriage, or what have you is irrelevant. All of these are occurring
with or without SSM. This is about a state issued marriage contract, a piece of
paper, creating a condition of rights and responsibilities between two people.
The state has no business or justification in telling two legal adults they
can't agree to that and sign the contract. None at all.Churches
are protected against unwanted SSM in the US, else I'd have the right to
get married in an LDS temple as an atheist. I don't.
I love that I was married to my husband and have many wedding photos in our home
and wear my ring with pride. I cherish my marriage and would love everyone else
to be able to feel the same and be able to get married. So I don't
understand how so many others don't want to share this thing that they seem
to care about so much. Why wouldn't you want other people to be able to
share in the joy that you have in being married? If you value marriage so much
to try to keep certain people out of "the club", isn't it a little
hypocritical to do so? I understand wanting to protect what you think it should
be ("traditional"), but why? Churches should be able to decided who they
perform marriages for (the LDS church already does; you must be worthy to marry
in the temple), so how will two other people getting married really affect you
and your marriage? Your principles shouldn't affect how other people get to
live their lives.
'Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not
the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be.' -
Article *'Gays GREATEST THREAT TO AMERICA, Buttars says' -
By Aaron Falk – Deseret news - 02/19/09 'Sen. Chris
Buttars believes gays and lesbians are "the greatest threat to America going
down," comparing members of the LGBT community to radical Muslims.' -
Article Buttars was elected in Utah, on a Republican ticket, in
2000, 2004 and 2008. Or let's talk about the Sherif who's
comments were posted by the Deseret news. The constant OP's. Threats to
overthrow the government, etc? I know! Let's talk
more about how people who don't believe as I do will burn for eternity in a
lake of fire. That will show how much I am 'not against'
@Wilf 55 Dear Sir/madamme: I have stated much of what you say to
some of my family and friends who sometimes have been "a little
homophobic". We do not want more suicides!. What we need to do is accept
those who are different from ourselves - and love them despite those
differences!. However, as we love and accept them, we do not have to accept
behavior if it is contrary to our moral and intellectual foundations. Should
they not also respect our point of view? We should stand for fair legal rights
for ALL PEOPLE, not just those who want to be treated as a special class.
Respect runs both ways.
@Bebyebe:"Your statement that children are best with a mother and
father is unjustified. Many children are being raised in single parent homes
now."Study after study shows children of single parents are more
apt to join gangs, get in trouble, etc. True fact.@Tiago:"I think the idea is that legal acceptance of same sex marriage will
increase the incidence of homosexual activity among 'marginal'
individuals..."Seems right. Many same-sex attracted folks are
on the border... can go either way. Once same-sex is thought of as
'normal' the tendency to go that direction will naturally increase.Here's the reality. Homosexual activities, including marriage, is
repugnant to the vast majority.. Sorry to say and my apologies if it offends.
If/when people find that you're married as a homosexual they will shun.
Not saying this is right, just saying what is.@Kapz:"Do
same sex marriage proponents support incestuous marriage or polygamy amongst
consenting adults? Why or why not? I don't see the difference.."Thy don't. It's more of a selfish issue... 'I want what
I want and I don't care about the consequences.' Kinda like liberal
Seriously, we should be impressed and relieved that "Utah voters have not
taken to the streets in angry protest" about the change in marriage laws??
Wow, what self-restraint. And following that statement, this article goes on to
give us a moral lecture about all the reasons that "Utah voters" are
just "sad." I could go on about how condescending all this is, but
I'll just finish by saying that my wife and I have been married for 41
years, we have a beautiful daughter together, and neither my marriage nor my
family are threatened in any way by having LBGT married couples in our backward
I have never seen a crowd so full of hate as those who oppose traditional
Utahns, think the gay community will respect your rights?In 2006 the
Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools
to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children
when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the
case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts,
the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to
children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them
opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good
citizenship! Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is
“legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty
to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents
think or believe!Concerned about your rights - write your legislative
Mr. and Mrs. Erickson, Just wait until one of your children or
grandchildren turns out to be gay or lesbian and goes through all the pain and
horror that your views and reactions will cause. Do we want more suicides? But,
like so many other heterosexual couples who truly love their offspring, when
that child or grandchild will find the ideal partner and deeply desires
marriage, you will change sides. And you will discover it enriches your own
I think there needs to be an important distinction made between gays who are
"lying about traditional marriage not changing" & "marriage
shouldn't exist at all", and the vast majority of gays and lesbians
that just want equal protection under the law. Every civil rights evolution is
going to have the militants and deviants. Remember the black panthers in the
60s? Did they have the same goals and tactics as MLK or the mainstream black
community? Not at all...they were on the same side of the fight, but more
aggressive and violent in their tactics. This fight for equality for gays and
lesbians will also involve those who are deceptive and more aggressive in their
fight than the mainstream LGBT community. Lets not believe that the gay
community is somehow wanting to destroy marriage and religion with their fight
for equality. Sure there are SOME that may desire that, but the majority of them
including ALL the ones I know do not have that in their agenda. Yes,
standing for traditional marriage does not make you against anyone, but painting
all gays with the same brush having the same agenda doesn't make you appear
tolerant or loving either.
@Cats;"...militant..." LGBT citizens aren't voting on
your rights, are they? Jesus said that you should treat others the way you want
to be treated by others. YOU are NOT following Jesus on these comment
threads.@History Freak;I'm sure you would have just
said, "well okay" if the LDS church had just been instrumental in
violating your own civil rights. Not. That was anger, not hate.@Tekakaromatagi;Does it really matter how much niceness you cloak
your bigotry in? It's still bigotry.@Danny Chipman;I may end up with a lot of regrets, but one of them will not be leaving the
LDS church. That was the best thing I've ever done in my life.@Lone Star Cougar;You want to see "meanness and hate"?
Try standing in our shoes. @Mike Richards;Once again,
"god's" definition is irrelevant in our civil laws.
@banderson"The will of the people was subverted by a federal
judge and a tyrannical minority, plain and simple. The Constitution was thrown
overboard by emotions and tyranny."And your constitutional
scholarly studies eminated from where? Where exactly did you learn that mob
rule is what the United States was founded on? That school should be shut down.
If you don't understand the difference between mob rule and constitutional
law, then you need to do a little more studying.
Utahns. Is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a
minorty?Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout
history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is
emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing. But homosexual marriage
would change this. Since marriage is also a moral issue, redefining marriage is
redefining morals. Furthermore, marriage is an extremely wide-spread practice
within any society and has many legal and moral issues attached to it. So, when
marriage is redefined, the society is dramatically affected. Legalizing gay
marriage means changing the laws of the land. The ramifications are vast and we
are seeing the effects of homosexual legal "rights" affecting housing,
education, the work place, medicine, the armed forces, adoption, religion, etc.
Are all the changes good? That is hotly debated. But we have to ask, is it
morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority?
Why can't you believe in "traditional marriage" and
"non-traditional marriage" at the same time? I'm a married
heterosexual - have been for 28 years. I couldn't care less if a
homosexual couple wants to be married. It has NO impact on me and my marriage.
I'm not gay, so I don't plan to have a gay marriage. I just
don't see the problem. Yes, I'm LDS, and yes, I am married in the
temple. My gay co-worker and his husband have not impacted that at all.
@ Pagan: No Pagan, we are not against you, we are for our rights. You do not
want us to have the right to not have our children indoctrinated against
behavior we abhor and demand that public schools teach that to our children.
You do not want us to keep public restrooms restricted to the biological
identity, you want us to accept gender identity so that anyone can enter any
public restroom. You don't want us to have a voice that differs with you.
If we voice our basic inalienable rights you call us bigots and homophobes. Yes
Pagan, we do have rights too. I have voiced my opinion many times in defense of
gays to be treated with respect and dignity. I will stand up against anyone
that abuses my gay friends. But I want you to recognize my basic rights too.
As a straight married woman who is unable to have children, I find it personally
demeaning to have people use the "it's for the children" argument.
To say that marriage is an institution meant to bring children into the world to
be raised by their biological parents is not only demeaning to me, but to every
person like me who is unable to conceive as well as to families who adopt. Marriage is a beautiful expression of love and intimacy between two
people. What it is traditionally has been redefined so many times that it would
make the heads of Biblical people spin to see what it is today. Our world
changes, and we change with it. What is it to me if gay people marry? It has no
impact on my marriage. If two same gender people want to share a life of love
and companionship in the same way everyone else does, so what? There was a time
when marriage was nothing more than a business transaction, we should be
thankful today that tradition has evolved and expand our hearts and thinking to
let everyone enjoy the blessings it can bring.
I have friends and relatives who are gay and if you talk to any of them they
will tell you that I have nothing against them. They are my friends and family
and I love them and treat them as I do all other friends and family.That being said, I find it interesting the difference between the reactions of
the two 'communities' when the verdict was not in their favor. The
gay community in California chose to behave in a mob like way as they defaced
and degraded people and property of those who disagreed with them. The Utah
community did none of that. Utahns showed that they can still love those with
whom you disagree, the gay community in California showed that they believe that
those who don't agree with them should be punished. While examining the
difference in the reactions to political or judicial defeat among the gays in
California and the Utahns, all I can say is 'by their fruits ye shall know
them'.One other thing, those of you who have bought into gay
marriage being about love, the push for gay marriage is not about love, it is
Jesus Christ is coming back and sooner than many commenting here will want Him
to come. When he does, he will have the FINAL say regarding this issue. He will
not take polls. He will not ask for our opinion. He will not be swayed by our
sincerity regarding what is sin. Politicians and radical revolutionaries, just
like the rest of us, will have no say at that time. No one will call him a
hate-filled bigot or say that he does not love or understand them. In fact,
every knee WILL BOW and every tongue WILL CONFESS that HE is right. He will be
the final judge and he will reward us according to our faithfulness in keeping
HIS commandments.Living a righteous life is not easy. But I will
gladly sacrifice my will for the very short duration of this life so that I can
enjoy the eternities in the presence of my heavenly family. There is no other
way to achieve eternal happiness.
I'm glad to read the Erickson's commentary which artfully clarifies
that opposition to same sex marriage is not based on hatred or disparagement.
So much of the support of same sex marriage is based on the perception that a
segment of the population is hateful or angry towards LGBT. Unfortunately there
are those who feel that way.By excising the "hatred" element
from the debate on same sex marriage, as the Erickson's commentary does,
many supporters of SSM are angry that the basis for their own strong opinions
has been taken away. Some of the comments posted above are clear evidence of
@10CC:"Many LDS believe that allowing gay marriage will inevitably
lead to gays wanting to get married in the temple."That's
not the issue. The issue is tax exempt state for religions. Disobey the
(homosexual marriage) laws and you lose it."But re-framing the
issue to "you can't have what we have" does provoke the question of
whether marriage should enable privileges not available to those who are not
married, such as preferential tax advantages."Good point... the
IRS will eventually fix by eliminating filing joint returns."This may be the underlying end point - should government be in the
marriage business at all?"They should be, or some would be able
to marry and file a joint return with ten wives or their... horse.@History Freak:"By contrast, when Prop 8 passed in California by a
democratic vote of the people, the LGBT community marched on the Los Angeles
Temple en masse and screamed hatred toward Temple Patrons..."I
think you've inadvertently put your finger on the difference between
liberal and conservative.
"Sadness that we who are concerned about redefining marriage are publicly
branded as bigots whose sole motivations are animus and malice against gays and
lesbians."Ok lets hear the truth! Sadness should be directed to gay
and lesbian Americans who dont have all the tax breaks and equal rights that you
enjoy in our great country.Who are you to tell us how to live our lives when the
divorce rate in Utah is over 50!%.This inequality is gone on long enough
and with gods help it will stop now and the Supremes will liberate us all, ga
and straigth, no more homophobia pleeze!
I agree wholeheartedly with this article. I don't mean to offend or hurt
those that disagree, I stand for traditional marriage and also stand for
kindness to those that don't believe the way that I do. Mothers are
important, Fathers are important, together, married, they compliment and
strengthen each other....that is what I believe.
Oh, I see. Suddenly, it's supporters of traditional marriage who are being
oppressed.Now, where did I put the world's tiniest violin?
@cjb:"What are people supposed to believe when the main argument
against gay marriage is that allowing gay marriage would hurt traditional
marriages?"That's not the main argument. It's that
all other combinations of 'marriage' such as polygamy, incest, sibs,
children, etc., would also have to be allowed. Homosexuals can't have
exclusive right to the only non-traditional marriage."Gay
marriage is only for people who are wired differently."Alotta
people are wired differently. You can't deny them their rights.@Kalindra:"We don't... don't set income or educational
restrictions in the ability to have and raise children..."But
there are restrictions for marriage such as... age, competency, ability to
contract, two persons, etc...@Pagan:"Edie was hit with a
$363,000 federal estate tax bill because as a same-sex couple they were not
eligible for the unlimited marital deduction."She apparently was
unfamiliar with trusts. Can't blame that on laws re marriage.@Apocalypse please:"Of all people you would think that Utahns would
know what it's like to be persecuted for having ... polygamy."That shouldn't last too long when polygamy is reinstated along with
allowing homosexuals to marriage.
I believe in living my faith so I am for traditional marriage ... you believe
differently and are for "marriage equality." Judges are ruling in favor
of marriage for all. The reason this is sad for religious people is because we
feel we are standing up for the Lord, not hating you. That being said, it is now
possible for same sex marriage, so we go on. It doesn't mean I have to
renounce my faith or change my position, it just means I have to accept it and
go on. I still feel the same about all of my "brothers and sisters" ...
I try to love everyone because we are all children of God trying to make our way
in this world. Screaming and yelling does not get your point across any better.
I remember an group of people who practiced unorthodox marriages that
"traditional" marriage people didn't like.We had a
governor issue and extermination order against them, Our Prophet and
Patriarch were murdered, and this group was forced to leave the United
States by gunpoint from angry mobs.My, how things have reversed
their original course...
SOME are responding with sadness. SOME are "for traditional marriage"
without being "against" anyone.But MANY OTHERS have
responded, and are responding, with hate, anger, disgust, intolerance, and
threats of "an uprising" (presumably meaning "armed
rebellion").Brother and Sister Erickson, you're in the
former group? Great! But we saw it in the Prop 8 campaign, and we're
seeing it now from people like former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack; there
are a LOT of people in the latter group. And frankly, they disgust me, and I am
embarrassed to be in the same church as they are. Mack ranted about "taking
back freedom", but obviously, like so many other soi-disant "defenders
of the Constitution", what he REALLY means is "taking freedom AWAY"
from anyone who is different. Why are these people so angry about
homosexuality? Why aren't they as angry about, say, hungry children, or
inadequate schools, or homeless veterans, or how government has become "of
the dollar, by the dollar, and for the dollar", or about how our tax dollars
are being handed over to corporations that already make enough profit, thank
you? Priorities, people, priorities!!
I support traditional marriage. I think it's such a great institution that
I hope as many people as possible can find love and make their personal
commitment binding in the eyes of the law. I don't really see what business
it is of mine if they're gay or straight Mormon or Catholic.
Congratulations to anyone who finds love in this world. When it
comes to bigoty, I prefer my bigots honest. It's easy to know what the KKK
thinks. You don't have to sit down and hold their hands because they feel,
like, super sad about black people and how whenever black parents have kids,
those kids are going to have it rough. This new passive-aggressive
bigotry is too whiny for my tastes. If you want to keep another group of people
in a second-class social strata because you think they're icky, at least
have the stomach to say why you're doing it. We get it, you feel sad for
people aren't just like you. Can someone tell me again why Utah leads the
nation in anti-depressant consumption?
@A QuakerIt's not fear mongering. It's about trying to reserve
the institution of marriage... that being man/woman. There are myriads of other
marriage possibilities and if accepted, marriage becomes a ting of the past.
It's noble goal. If someone wants to enter into marriage, let the do so as
man/woman. This option is available to all people regardless of race, creed, or
national origin, or sexual orientation."There is no evidence
that 'they' could or would take over your churches/temples..."It's not a matter of taking over churches/temples. It's a
matter of losing tax exempt status accorded religions for those who refuse to
conduct same-sex marriages.@spring street:"...forced shock
therapy, forced lobotomies, forced castration, incarceration, forced
hospitalization..."The problem isn't that tough to
overcome. Most all humans have some eccentricities/oddities or penchants/drives
that need to be controlled/overcome. Homosexuality is just one of dozens.
Despite protestations to the contrary, if you are for "traditional
marriage" you actually are against someone. You are seeking to deny to gay
couples who love each other the ritual confirming a commitment to each other,
the legal and social acceptance and recognition, and the economic benefits of
the commitment. In addition, there are three thousand children in
Utah presently adopted by gay couples. What about them? By being in favor of
traditional marriage, you are depriving these children of being able to call one
of their parents a parent. You are depriving one of the parents the legal rights
to their children. What if the adoptive parent passes away? The children become
orphans and their other non-legal "parent" must jump through the legal
hoops to adopt them.The writers of the editorial are simply in
denial of the fact that they are abusing an entire class of society and are
simply attempting to rationalize their way out of it by saying they are *for*
something else that has always been and is not even relevant to those who are
I respectfully disagree with the conclusion to this article; that "changing
marriage is not the way [to end prejudice and mean-spirited attitudes]". It
is absolutely the very best way that we can show the LGBT community that we love
them, care about them, respect them, and see them as equals. Otherwise it's
just lip service.I also submit that if you feel your union is
somehow special, unique, and sacred that that is an internal feeling, and it
shouldn't be diminished because you don't like how someone else feels
about it. A gay couple may feel the very same way about their union. Are you
going to tell them their feelings are wrong or invalid?This article
may show some sympathy but it lacks deeply in empathy. Put yourself in their
shoes and see how the shoe fits.
The opinion is very well stated and needs to be repeated in other forums. I
would add to it that the emphasis on traditional marriage benefits ALL of
society. For example, being obedient to God's commandments regarding
marriage brings the blessing of strong families. And strong families are the
building blocks of strong communities. And we all enjoy the benefits of strong
communities. Disobedience to the commandments brings heartache and
sorrow. No one wants to see our LGBT friends suffer ill-treatment or forfeit
the tremendous blessings that come from obedience. I am a strong supporter of
gay rights, rights that are best preserved in the codification of marriage as
between a man and a woman. In short, gay marriage takes away
opportunities for the LGBT community to enjoy blessings they are otherwise
entitled to. We should support gay rights by preserving traditional, historical
@Tekakaromatagi"Well, since, traditional marriage is a powerful tool
to fight poverty, and because, as this article and gay rights activists point
out, changing the definition of marriage will weaken it, so would you say that
you are pro-poverty?"A few things...I. Marriage is a tool
to fight poverty because either1. Both work and whichever is making less
is boosted by the other.2. One works and makes enough to support the
other.Without marriage #2 means homelessness and #1 might mean a
struggle for the one making less. It being a "traditional" marriage has
nothing to do with this, any marriage has this benefit.II. Gay
marriage advocates do not believe same-sex marriage weakens marriage.III. You're the one trying to stop some couples from marrying, if anyone
is "pro-poverty" based on this logic, it's your side.
Trying to justify and convince yourself that you "don't hate
anyone" by writing this pitiful, disgusting 'essay' is both sad
and hilarious. Saying that you are such a wonderful and caring person while
simultaneously telling an entire group of human beings that they are not equal
to you does not make it so and is the absolute pinnacle of hypocrisy. Your rant continues by stating that only people in "traditional"
families were able to gather together, "feeling sadness" that the State
of Utah was being forced to treat everyone equally, while completely ignoring
the fact that many families of all types gathered together in joy and happiness
that the State of Utah was being forced to treat everyone equally.For shame.
@ cjb: "All this said, children ought to have a mother and a father. Gay
marriage if it ever becomes allowed permanently ought not mean that children who
otherwise could have had a mother and a father become stuck with two mothers or
two fathers instead."Civil unions with all the rights of
marriage other than the right to adopt children who otherwise would have a
chance to have a mother and a father would seem to be in order."When every child in the world who needs a home has a home, then we can start
worrying about placing those types of restrictions. Right now, no LGBT
individual or couple is adopting or fostering children who would otherwise be in
homes headed by heterosexual couples.
Yes it does.Cannot make a separate legal class. If marriage is fine for
one group, it has to be fine for everyone. It's really not hard to see
I am a woman in her 60s. I have been a partner in an opposite-sex marriage for
over 44 years. I don't know how "traditional" it is because I have
always been an equal partner in the marriage, and not the subordinate wife that
society and the law demanded in traditional marriages when we married.I strongly support opposite-sex marriages or people who are "wired" to
be heterosexual. I also strongly support legal same-sex marriage for those
whose "wiring" does not accommodate the affectional and sexual affinity
needed for compatibility in opposite-sex marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage
does not in any way change or threaten opposite-sex ("traditional")
marriage.Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Ninth
Amendment to the US Constitution. It should not be limited based on the way a
person's sexuality is "wired." People who are heterosexual will
find sexual and affectional comfort, compatibility and affinity in opposite-sex
marriages. People who are homosexual will find sexual and affectional comfort,
compatibility and affinity in same-sex marriages. The elements of marriage will
be the same for both.Joining couples in legal marriage will
stabilize society, and we will all therefore benefit.
Nicely written article, but fundamentally irrelevant to the facts on the ground.
Gay marriage is here. So now what do we do? I'm going to celebrate with my
gay brothers and sisters.
Mr. & Mrs. Erickson,While I was reading your article, I
couldn't avoid hearing the words attributed to Marie Antoinette, when she
heard that the people had not bread to eat: "Let them eat cake".It seems that you just don't understand and "sadly"
don't want to understand.Mr. & Mrs. Erickson, just the fact
that the both of you can share a name is a privilege that many of us are
deprived to have.You are sad....! You sound like the rich kid who
wanted a Maserati but his mean father bought him a Porsche instead.I
do apologize if I sound insensitive to your sadness. But, you live in a bubble
and that is your privilege and limitation. What really saddens me is too see
educated people that are not able to use "cultural relativism" and put
themselves on the other people's position.Mr. and Mrs.
Erickson, you are guilty of letting yourself to be blinded by the comfort that
your heterosexual marriage and social privileges have given you.
Some national media are concluding that Utahns are not “too upset about
it”This is understanable.Liberal run on emotions and
protest when the wind changes.Conservatives run on facts and logic. They
don't protest and whine in the streets.The MSM think everyone should
be like them and be emotional to verify they are for or against something.
The will of the people was subverted by a federal judge and a tyrannical
minority, plain and simple. The Constitution was thrown overboard by emotions
"Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not
the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be."Please explain how "supporters of traditional marriage" are on hunger
strikes over gay marriage and planning a violent uprising of the state are not
"angry, hate-filled bigots"? These are not "stereotypes". These
are real words examples going on in Utah right now.
"That is more of your hang-up."Right back at ya toosmart.
"Perhaps you could use another term for sharing your life together other
than 'married.'"Because there is no other term that
means "married". It is exactly the same thing, even if you don't
agree to it. Gay people want the exact same life that other Americans do. They
want to go to school, get a good job, fall in love, and YES, get married. They
are more alike than you than different. Now, I know you might have a problem
with people using their freedom of speech to call it "married", but you
are not the word police. You can't tell people what words they can and
cannot use. Otherwise, how are you any better than A&E and GLAAD telling
Phil Robertson what words he can and cannot use?The fact that you
feel they must be segregated into some other status is exactly at the crux of
the issue. They are the same, whether you like it or not. You don't have to
like it. You can call it whatever you want. We, on the other hand, are calling
So it would seem that what the authors are saying is, we don't hate you, we
just think you are harmful to children and society and less deserving of the
rights and privileges that heterosexual people take for granted. further to back
up our claims of harm we will acknowledge the mountain of research and the fact
that all the leading professional organizations that study human development and
behavior agree there is no harm and counter it with a link to a study the author
of which openly admits in the link has so many holes in it you could drive a
fleet of Mac tricks through it.
I am a gay man, religiously (Reform Judaism) and civilly married. I write this
respectfully.Please separate the arguments for and against marriage
for same-sex couples from claims of bigotry or hate on either side. Both sides
are often guilty of using such claims as a substitute for sound arguments. As a
gay person, I've been called many awful things by people who have never
even met me. I didn't like it, and I do my best never to do it to
others.Many opposed to my right to marry see this as an attack on
their beliefs. I'd ask them to understand that is not what motivated me to
marry. Indeed, I am a person of faith, and I married religiously to express my
love and commitment, to share that commitment with my community and to receive
the blessing of God. I married civilly for the set of protections that marriage
uniquely provides.I grew up fully expecting to marry a woman.
Reality changed all that for me. Eventually, after much thought and prayer, I
"evolved." I understand that not everyone else has or will. I will
treat them with respect while making my case.
At first the gay and lesbian world said they deserved the pursuit of happiness.
I agree but don't change a the meaning of a word come up with your own. How
about "Pairage" a pair of people in love being joined together. Problem
solved everyone has their rights everyone can be happy if they chose to be. My
real question is if this is over the pursuit of happiness then what about the
druggie that wants to be happy in life high. What about the sexual pervert who
wants to be happy abusing young people. Can someone tell me where the pursuit of
happiness draws the line? Happy "Pairage" to all those who don't
fit the definition of marriage but still want to have the right to be happy.
The problem here is the blanket statement that all who are against gay marriage
are not bigots. I am willing to accept that some are not, that they are truly
believers in the so called traditional concept of marriage and wish no harm to
those same sex couples who wish to get married. But, on the other hand, there
are myriads of people who are bigots, who do wish harm to those same sex
couples, and use the belief system to condemn them. So while perhaps not all
those who are against such marriages are not bigots many are.
I honestly can't say that I am "happy" that the worlds view of
marriage is changing. I understand, and even support the legal reasoning behind
it. But, just like drinking, I don't need to pass laws prohibiting
drinking to teach my children not to drink, or smoke, or lie, or to cheat on
their spouses. I don't need to have the long arm of the law as a threat to
have my kids, nor myself, do the right thing. I don't even need an angry
God to make we want to do the right thing.The right thing is just
that. There is a right way to raise a family. That doesn't mean just
because you are in a hetrosexual relationship, that you are raising a family
right. There are plenty of examples of "normal" families gone wrong.
But the last thing I want is for the government to become an extension of my
faith. The government has its right and proper role, enforcing religious edict
is not one of them. Churches, families, friends, they are the ones to mentor
and show what a proper family is…. not the government.Just my
Didn't your parents teach you how to share? That's all we're
asking you to do. Marriage is a wonderful thing and many heterosexual couples
take it for granted. It's the people who are fighting for access who truly
appreciate it. Marriage isn't being fundamentally changed as many allege,
it's rights and responsibilities are just being extended to others who can
benefit from it. Children are already raised in same-gender-led households.
Often these children are the results of failed heterosexual couples. Marriage
gives these children the same stability that children in opposite-gendered-led
households enjoy. How exactly is that a bad thing? And yes, when you're
denying others the same rights and responsibilities you enjoy, you are against
them. Telling yourself differently is just rationalization.
We're not against you, we just don't want you to have equal rights
because of our religious beliefs that you obviously don't share....If this were a theocracy where people have chosen to live said
theocracy, I would be fine with only traditional marriage. But we don't
have a theocracy, we have the constitution of the USA that says everyone should
have equal rights.
The editorial nailed it. The people of this State know and respect the
definition that God gave to "marriage". They also know and respect the
reasons why God told us that "marriage" is between a man and a woman.
We are disappointed that some people put themselves before God and demand that
their needs are greater than the needs of children and that their desire to use
their bodies as they wish is sufficient reason for them to reject the great and
glorious reason that God made men men and women women.Hear the
shrill voices that continuously demand that we accept another definition of
family. Hear the shrill voices that continuously tell us to reject God's
definition of family. Hear the shrill voices that tell us that they will teach
children their ways and that we must accept their philosophy. Then hear the
still, small voice inside you who tells you that God was not wrong and that He
did not err when He defined "marriage" and "family". The
scriptures plainly tell us to carefully choose who we hear and who we follow.
I do not believe that a single 65-year-old woman should be allowed to marry her
90-year-old single father. Does that make me a bigot, too, because I oppose
marriage rights for certain classes of people?Society will work out
these thorny questions around same-sex marriage rights. I just wish the debate
were more orderly and civilized.
Dear Ericksons, I completely appreciate the thoughtful civility of
your opinion piece, and your call to everyone for sensitivity and respect all
around.The problem is that your position on this just isn't
fair - plain and simple. NO ONE is against traditional marriage in the truest
sense - no one is trying to restrict straight couples's rights to marriage
and child-rearing. And most everyone is for the very many legal privileges and
priorities that come with marriage. Denying gay couples those same advantages by
marriage is unfair because giving them does NO HARM to your marriage. True, granting marriage rights to gay couples may feel like an affront to your
religious beliefs. And if we are honest, this is really where the problem is.
Gay marriage doesn't change "traditional marriage"; gay marriage
upsets the religious applecart. But very many of us don't adhere to those
convictions, and therefore, we have no trouble at all seeing marriage inequality
for what it is: Unjust. Now the courts, too.I agree, angry mobs have
no place here. But at the same time, no amount of polite behavior makes
DEAR TOOSMARTFORYOU:So let’s say the Supreme Court ruled that
Straight couples could get “married,” Gay couples could get
“civil unions,” but other than the different terminology, both
arrangements would have exactly the same legal benefit and protections, at all
levels of government, as required under the 14th Amendment. And let’s say
the Court also said the “Full Faith & Credit Clause” applied to
marriages and civil unions equally and were honored in all 50 states. Would you
have a problem with that?Remember, there would not be language
police roaming around telling Gay couples in civil unions that they could not
refer to one another as “married.” For all intents and purposes they
WOULD be married, except for a purely legal designation. So ask yourself: Is it
really only the word “marriage” that matters to you most?
Let's see. The writers say they aren't against anyone. Couldn't
the same thing be said for those who favored males-only voting? They
weren't against women. They merely favored a tradition. Same thing for
those who favored slavery, opposed mixed-race marriages, etc.The
sadness the writers feel contrasts sharply with the happy faces of Utah gays
receiving marriage licenses. I suppose if Judge Shelby had ruled the other way,
the sadness would be in the face of the gays and the Ericksons would be quite
happy with that.
Well said; the LGBT community would have us all believe the fallacy that because
some support traditional marriage, they are homophobes and hatemongering
hypocrites. By that same logic, traditional marriage supporters hate
anything/anyone that may not follow their model of marriage; not just men and
women, but dogs, cats, squirrels, and even trees!...if someone can
conceive of marrying it, then by golly, we old fashioned folk must hate it!Are there some haters out there? Of course...but simply supporting
something does not necessarily make one against every other alternative.
Additionally, simply because some activist judge overrules precedent and decides
that a law may be unconstitutional does NOT give that judge the authority to
pass opposing/opposite legislation, thereby circumventing our democratic
Good article. Sad to see the Gay and Lesbians act so hateful toward those that
believe in traditional marriage. Suing those that don't want to
participate in this for religious reasons is a hate crime and the judges that go
along with it are complicit. I have seen so much meanness and hate from the gay
community toward those that don't believe the same way that they are
willing to forcibly take away the religious freedoms of others.
Do same sex marriage proponents support incestuous marriage or polygamy amongst
consenting adults? Why or why not? I don't see the difference..
2nd try:"...we believe what we believe. And our conviction is
strong.”That doesn't give you the right to deny the
benefits you enjoy to LGBT citizens. We are not a theocracy."... the overwhelming reaction to the news about Amendment 3 was one of
sadness, ..."Why be sad over someone else's joy? How does
letting LGBT couples marry change the ties of children to their bio parents?"...religious believers must violate their conscience or have civil
claims brought against them. "You should be glad about this. It
means YOU can't be discriminated against too.We're not
"changing" marriage. Marriage will continue but now more people will
participate.This whole article makes ME sad.
That is like saying being in favor of the Ayran race is not being against any
other race. lol.
While we of course care about the best environment for children, it seems there
is another, more visceral reason for opposing same sex marriage that is not
included in the article. I think the idea is that legal acceptance of same sex
marriage will increase the incidence of homosexual activity among
"marginal" individuals who would otherwise limit themselves to
heterosexual activity or celibacy if homosexual activity is not socially and
legally accepted. Is that right? This assumes there is a group of people who
would choose to enter homosexual relationships if they are legally sanctioned
who might otherwise lead very happy heterosexual lives. It is an argument that
based on my personal experience and nature of my attractions seems so illogical
that I never would have thought of it. However, there could be many people who
experience opposite sex attraction but also experience some degree of same sex
attraction and only restrain acting on those feelings because of societal and
legal pressure.That is not something people talk about much, especially in
polite Mormon circles, so I honestly don’t know anyone in that situation,
but I don’t know that they don’t exist.
I would like to add, too, sadness for families that are depriving themselves the
opportunity to be sealed as a family for not only time but all eternity. God has
taught us that none of His children will be denied any blessing in heaven that
was stayed on earth, but repentance and obedience to His commandments must
predicate it. One day all our mortal temptations and preconceptions will be
stripped away and we will see each other as we truly are--sons and daughters of
God. There are going to be a lot of regrets. But that's just my religious
belief, and I recognize that religious beliefs alone cannot be the basis for
lawmaking in so diverse a society. I feel the sadness all the same.
I think that the Ericksons did an excellent job describing and documenting this
position. They did it with a whole lot more of a caring attitude than those who
would argue against them.@Schnee: Well, since, traditional marriage
is a powerful tool to fight poverty, and because, as this article and gay rights
activists point out, changing the definition of marriage will weaken it, so
would you say that you are pro-poverty?
To the thought in the article that we are mostly sad---at all the reasons they
list--I can only say, Amen.
It's true that Utahns didn't go out and riot when the decision came
down. This shows what kind of people we are. By contrast, when
Prop 8 passed in California by a democratic vote of the people, the LGBT
community marched on the Los Angeles Temple en masse and screamed hatred toward
Temple Patrons who were trying to attend the Temple. Similar things happened at
the Oakland Temple. Mormons in California were persecuted--some even lost their
jobs for supporting Prop 8. This should give everyone a much better picture of
who is spewing hate.
CONTINUED:I would believe your words, but if there's something
I've learned is that most people veil their distaste for others with a sort
of kindness. It's the "bless their hearts" way of approaching
things. Here in Utah we use carefully selected words to soften the blow. Instead
of taking to the streets, we write letters to the editor expressing how we take
the higher road--unlike the "in-your face activist" on the opposing
side. We use moral superiority as our arguments to lift ourselves above others.
We claim to be the victims of religious intolerance, all the while
ignoring the fact that people in this state are still pushing to keep our LGBTQ
neighbors from enjoying the same protections you take for granted. If you really
aren't against us, why do organization like FairToAll exist and push to
continue keeping us second-class citizens?
To the authors' credit, they acknowledge that gay and lesbian persons have
been treated badly and acknowledge that has to change.The
authors' claim to not be 'against anyone' would be convincing if
they hadn't linked to the debunked Regnerus study, or to the ADF (which has
ties to anti-gay hate groups) and Witherspoon Institute which funded
Regnerus' debunked study (and has ties to anti-gay groups). Both these
organizations have a history of maligning gay and lesbian persons.Their claim would be more convincing if they didn't ignore the vast
majority of gay and lesbian persons asking for marriage in order to give
credence to Masha Gessen. Gessen's view is a minority view in the gay
community, she speaks for and to a small number of gay persons.Ultimately, however, the authors' argument fails to make a necessary
connection. How exactly does denying same sex couples legal recognition and
protection of marriage have any effect on the "something unique, special,
and sacred about the legal union of a man and a woman"? Allowing same sex
couples to marry in no way discourages or prevents straight people from marrying
or from understanding it as something special.
What you have said in the article is true and correct. But the militant LGBT
community will never accept it. Their agenda will not allow anyone that
doesn't support their ends to escape their wrath. People who love God and
try to live his commandments do not hate their brothers and sisters. But, the
LGBT community will continue to make this claim because is has proved effective
in trying to attack and shame those of faith. We must continue to fight for
what's right no matter what the outcome.
"Amendment 3 codified that principle in Utah’s Constitution. To be for
it, Utahans need not be against anyone."I would believe your
arguments if Amendment 3 hadn't included this: "No other domestic
union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or
substantially equivalent legal effect.""Contrary to popular
portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not the angry, hate-filled
bigots they have been stereotyped to be."I would believe your
argument, but many of the comments on articles such as this one lead me to
believe differently. I would not feel safe in a room full of some of the regular
participants of the Deseret News forums."The overwhelming
reaction to the news about Amendment 3 was one of sadness, not anger at gays and
lesbians."I would believe it if there weren't another news
story about a gathering of over 200 people in Utah County where the main speaker
condoned an uprising, and he sounded pretty angry. I would believe it if another
man who is fasting for Judge Shelby's decision to overturned and claims
that it's all of the gay couples getting married that are causing rage.
I am one of those people you are conscious of who has felt sadness, loneliness,
and fear of rejection for so many years because I'm a member of the LDS
church who lives with same sex attraction and quietly remains faithful. My
experience helps me understand others who feel the same attraction without the
perspective of the LDS faith. I expect those people to fall in gay love and it
feels to me like the most positive way for them to do that is within a
monogamous, committed relationship such as "marriage" or a civil
union.Your argument against it is that the natural family with the
influence of a mother and father is the best for the children. This makes sense,
and I agree, but in light of general societal and legal acceptance and support
for many families outside that "best case" scenario, I am surprised by
the intense emotional opposition to SSM. I don't see anything close to this
same passion against divorce, single parents, step parents, adoptions, or other
less than ideal situations. So, it feels like there is some much deeper
motivation behind the intense opposition to SSM.
Sorry, but not everyone subscribes to your self righteous rose colored world.
There is nothing special about traditional marriage and nothing special about
you just because you are in one. That's all there is to it. Those that
you like to look down on are just as virtuous and just as good, or as bad a
parent as everyone else. Get over yourselves already. You are not special.
You are just another human in the world full of humans with different believes,
attitudes and human relationships.
This article betrays the hypocrisy inherent in the arguments of those who oppose
marriage equality.The thesis here is that believing in and
supporting traditional marriage does not necessarily equate to being
"against" anyone.But on the other hand, how is it that
legalizing same sex marriage is considered to be "against" traditional
marriage?You can't have it both ways. Either same sex marriage
threatens traditional marriage - in which case supporting traditional marriage
IS "against" same sex marriage; or the two marriages are independent and
neither one threatens the other, in which case, those who support traditional
marriage have absolutely no interest or legal standing in regards to same sex
That was probably the best article on this subject I have ever read. WELL DONE.
Thank you so much for explaining beautifully what a lot of folks feel.
"We're not against you, but no offense, you can't have what we
have," with quoting of scripture immediately following.This is
such a simplistic, erroneous argument that it's almost laughable, but it
does expose the issue in a new way.Many LDS believe that allowing
gay marriage will inevitably lead to gays wanting to get married in the temple.
Except that nobody else is clamoring for temple marriage, no other religious
people are pushing for that, the only resistance that arises are non-temple
worthy family and friends who are excluded from the ceremony, which has nothing
to do with the gay marriage issue.The threat to LDS temple marriages
by gay marriage = zero.But re-framing the issue to "you
can't have what we have" does provoke the question of whether marriage
should enable privileges not available to those who are not married, such as
preferential tax advantages.This may be the underlying end point -
should government be in the marriage business at all? If there were
no tax benefits to marriage, my hunch is people would continue to get married,
for all the other meaningful reasons it brings.
Of all people you would think that Utahns would know what it's like to be
persecuted for having a definition of marriage different than one man and one
woman ie polygamy. Instead of sadness you'd think there would be
Mr and Mrs Erickson, your marriage should have been exactly the same the day
after the ruling as it was the day before. There was no affect on it
what's so ever. People who aren't a member of your
religion and don't believe in your bible are not bound by it's rules.
So using that as justification is pointless. We live in a secular society.Your statement that children are best with a mother and father is
unjustified. Many children are being raised in single parent homes now. Do you
think they should be taken away based on your years of research?So,
yes, you are a bigot. Stating in soft words and 'loving' phrases
doesn't change it one bit.
"...we believe what we believe. And our conviction is strong.”That doesn't give you the right to deny the benefits you enjoy to
LGBT citizens. We are not a theocracy."... the overwhelming
reaction to the news about Amendment 3 was one of sadness, ..."Why be sad over someone else's joy? How does letting LGBT couples marry
change the ties of children to their bio parents?"...religious
believers must violate their conscience or have civil claims brought against
them. "You should be glad about this. It means YOU can't
be discriminated against too.We're not "changing"
marriage. Marriage will continue but now more people will participate.This whole article makes ME sad.
Absolutely NOTHING has happening to "traditional marriage" as it applies
to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual). Nothing is being redefined.
Straight couples will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and
families together as they always have. None of that is going to change when Gay
couples tie the knot also.Did Michael and Jenet Erickson think that
the marriage equality movement was some sinister plot to make homosexuality
compulsory for everyone? Gosh, I hope not. It doesn't work that way. The
human population has always been and always will be predominantly heterosexual.
Procreation is not at risk here.And for Heaven's sake, who
DOESN'T support "traditional marriage?" If any of my single
Straight friends finds a compatible person of the opposite sex to get
"traditionally married" to, NO ONE will be happier than me. The fact
that I support equal treatment under the law for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay
couples doesn't mean I'm against "traditional marriage" for
Straight couples.When it comes to tradition and stability,
isn't it better to encourage Gay couples toward monogamy and commitment?
Get over it. Gay marriage is happening in our country. You have lost, the other
side has won. Our civilization is not going to crumble now because of this. Find
a way to move past this issue and go make the world a better place.
Nice try, but bigotry is still bigotry. Put a nice face on it and you're
still denying other consenting adults rights that you get to take for granted
and for no substantive reason. "Traditional marriage"
isn't a finite thing. Extending it to gay couples doesn't mean that
there's less of it for you.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue. Great article.
I'm sorry...but you are wrong. You can "believe what you want to
believe", certainly. But you can also do so without trampling on the rights
of others. Not believing in marriage equality doesn't make a person a
bigot, however, actively opposing it does. Bigotry is believing that you have a
right to something while denying it to others. No one is saying that you have
to embrace marriage equality. You as an American have the right to personally
accept it or not, but what you don't have a right to do is to deny your
fellow Americans their right to marry the person that they love.
I am for traditional marriage too, but I am also for gay marriage. Why
can't I have my family just as you have yours? I am not trying to stop
anyone from having a traditional marriage. So why are you trying to stop me from
marrying the one I love? Gay marriage doesn't subtract anything from
traditional marriage, it only adds more happy stable families.
Wonderful article that's honest and represents the majority of traditional
marriage supporters in this state.
Once again, financial issues are conveniently ignored. Of course supporters of
"traditional" marriage favor paying less tax because same-sex couples
must pay more -- half a million dollars more, in the Windsor case. Of course
they are in favor of collecting more Social Security benefits because LGBT
survivors, including children, collect nothing. Of course they favor increased
veterans benefits for some, because spouses killed in action serving their
country are denied anything for their life partners -- at least if they did not
formalize the relationship in a state that recognizes unfairness.Those states, however, are where 38% of Americans reside. Same-sex marriage
is not just a financial issue, but those who are unwilling to address financial
inequality should no longer be permitted to ignore it. Opposition to same-sex
marriage may not mean being against anyone, but it does mean taking money out of
Very, very well said!
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those
who speak it."“During times of universal deceit, telling
the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell~Let the
"tolerant people" begin bashing the truth of this article (and then
proceed to claim that they are victims because they are seen as being the real
voices of hate)
"Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not
the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be."And yet the Deseret News prominently publishes the story of the gathering in
Highland ("Former Arizona sheriff blasts ruling that allows gay marriage in
Utah") that makes it clear just how angry, hated-filled and bigoted a
sizable element of the anti-marriage equality movement really is. What is also perfectly clear is that opposition to respecting the equal rights
of homosexual citizens derives exclusively from the hostility of religious
fundamentalists towards homosexuals. We do not live in a theocracy.
Our nation is a constitutionally constrained republic in which the rights of a
minority are not subject to majority vote. And because of that fact, Utah's
Amendment 3 has rightly been found, through extensive legal review and due
process, to be invalid.The rights, marriages and children of
heterosexual couples are not in the smallest way harmed by marriage equality,
while denying same-sex couples the right to marriage does real harm. Those are
the established facts.Your personal religious convictions do not
trump the 14th Amendment, no matter how much sugar-coating you apply to your
This same 'ho hum I'm not TARGETING' anyone claim has been
disproven over and over again… *'Kept From a Dying
Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living
wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'
And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and
emergency contact information... Janice Langbehn was kept from the
bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond. They were together for 18
years. Working against marriage equality has factual victims. LGBT
Americans who want nothing more than to live their lives. Do not
fool yourself otherwise.
When you spend $2 million dollars against it, fine. When the
governor forces me to spend $2 million of my tax dollars against my own
interests… yes, you are 'against me'.
When you force me to pay higher taxes, and get less benefits, because of who I
love. *'Gay Americans pay more taxes for fewer rights' -
By Suze Orman – CNN – 02/25/13 'We all have
83-year-old Edith Windsor to thank for in pushing the issue of same-sex marriage
equality on to the national front. Edie and her partner Thea were together for
40 years. How many marriages do you know that have lasted that long? But when
Thea died in 2009, Edie was hit with a $363,000 federal estate tax bill because
as a same-sex couple they were not eligible for the unlimited marital deduction.
How can someone who thinks marriage should not exist at all be considered an
"advocate" of marriage and why only focus on homosexuals who think
marriage should not exist when there are many heterosexuals who feel the same
way?Public accommodation laws are very clear - if you serve the
public, you must serve the entirety of the public. Business owners should not
be allowed to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. Otherwise - as history
has shown us, not as some fabricated slippery slope scar tactic - it progresses
from not providing a cake to not providing food at all, from not providing a bed
to not providing housing at all, from not providing elective medical care to
providing no medical care. There are already those in Utah who freely admit
they should not have to work with or hire gay people nor allow them to live in
certain neighborhoods or apartment complexes. There is something
special about marriage - which is why so many gay couples want it. And nothing in this editorial addresses why it should be denied them when it
is not denied to others based on the exact same reasoning presented.
The "Biblical tradition" of marriage includes multiple wives and
concubines. We don't force single parents to marry, we
don't prohibit parents the right to divorce, we don't set income or
educational restrictions in the ability to have and raise children - nor do we
have laws controlling against many of the other things we know are more riskful
situations for raising children. Why worry about this one that _might_ be a
problem while ignoring those we have firm evidence _are_ problems?
This reminds me of when women didn't want to be called "Miss" or
some feminists didn't want to be called "Mrs" so suddenly every
woman, regardless of age or marital status, was "Ms." Just because a
woman is married and prefers to be called "Mrs" is no reason for those
who aren't to feel uncomfortable being called "Miss." They think
being called Miss will openly attract men in whom they have zero interest.
News: If a man finds you attractive and he is the sort to pursue possibilities,
it won't matter if either you or he are married or what you are called; he
will behave that way towards you.For those with same-sex attraction,
that want to live together in a committed relationship, go for it. I hope you
are happy and feel fulfilled. You deserve every legal protection and advantage
the law allows anyone else. But you are not "husband and husband" or
"wife and wife" and certainly not "husband and wife." Perhaps
you could use another term for sharing your life together other than
"married." That is more of your hang-up than your previous legal
Comments about ‘Being for traditional marriage does not mean being against
anyone’----What are people supposed to believe
when the main argument against gay marriage is that allowing gay marriage would
hurt traditional marriages? The two aren't correlated, and people
intelligent enough to see this are consequently led to believe there is some
other hidden agenda.Gay marriage is only for people who are wired
differently. The institution of traditional marriage doesn't suit them. The
reality of nature is that some people are homosexual. I wish it weren't so,
but this is the reality.All this said, children ought to have a
mother and a father. Gay marriage if it ever becomes allowed permanently ought
not mean that children who otherwise could have had a mother and a father become
stuck with two mothers or two fathers instead.Civil unions with all
the rights of marriage other than the right to adopt children who otherwise
would have a chance to have a mother and a father would seem to be in order.
Instead of experiencing sadness, you should be happy. A whole bunch of people
made a commitment to marriage in the last week and a half. And individual rights
and freedoms have been strengthened. This is a great time for Utah.
Being for opposite-sex marriages doesn't involve being against anyone...
but being against same-sex marriages does involve being against someone.