Quantcast

Comments about ‘Traditional marriage advocates rally over lunch in Orem to make voices heard’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 8 2014 6:05 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Article: Mary Summerhays, who heads a group called Friends of Marriage, said marriage is the only institution that protects children's right to have a relationship with their mother and father. "When we redefine marriage law we have said to those children, 'Your rights don't matter anymore,'" she said.

And what are we telling the children of gay couples? There are lots of them, despite the widespread perception that gays cannot reproduce. One in every three or four gay-headed households has children (the figure is actually higher in Utah). Children were abundant at the SL county complex on December 23 when gay couples snaked through the hallways waiting for marriage licenses. Protecting their children was a major motivation for couples wanting to marry. Opponents of SSM point to the benefits of marriage for children, yet they consciously and deliberately withhold these benefits from the children of gay couples. That strikes me as premeditated cruelty. If anything is telling children that their "rights don't matter any more," it is that.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

fowersjl

Farmington, Utah

Let's say two women "marry" and want to have children, so one decides she is the "wife" and gets impregnated through artificial insemination. That child then wants to know later who his father is. A sperm bank is the answer. And other male figures in that boy's life will hardly be a great substitute for a missing father. The perfect way to raise children is in an intact family with a female mother and a male father.

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

But why is it fine for a single mother to do the same thing or an infertile couple? The biological father will not be in the picture. You do not want to outlaw this practice, but feel that gays should not marry because this could happen?

You are not making sense. You see, gays are doing this right now. Did you not look at all the pictures of the gay couples wedding? Lots of them had children with them to celebrate this occasion. By determining that gays cannot marry, you are harming those children that are already being raised by gays. Why don't they matter?

uwishtoo
MESA, AZ

So, Ms Jensen, please outline EXACTLY how other people lives their lives affects yours? Does it threaten YOUR marriage? Of course not.

And um WHAT? @4blade2007 - so children learn by example? LOL Then where do you think gays came from? The majority of them came from HETEROSEXUAL parents. People don't "learn" or "choose" to be gay or straight. They are born that way.

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

I can see why these folks are concerned about making their voices heard. No one is speaking publicly for their concerns - well, no one other than the Governor, the Attorney General, most members of the State Legislature, the leaders of the dominant local religious institution, the editorial board of the Deseret News . . .

The idea expressed in this article, that somehow people who oppose marriage equality are being silenced, seems downright odd. The article itself is proof that's not the case. So we've got these folks gathering in public, covered by the local media, expressing their opinions . . . and asserting at the same time their opinions are being silenced. Something is wrong with this picture.

Maybe, the claims that they need to make their voices heard are a way of shifting the debate away from substantive issues of equality and social justice to anything but a discussion of equality and social justice. Just a thought.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

It is very heartening to hear that people are willing to stand up for what is right even with the bullies calling them names for doing it. In polite society we have given up using degrading names for people who are different than us, yet the SSM folks freely use nasty epithets against those who simply disagree with them. The SSM folks need to join polite society before there can even be conversations between the two sides.

What needs to happen is the churches should sue the government for interfering and regulation their religious rite of marriage. The laws need to change. A great start would be to scrap all laws regarding marriage and give marriage back to the churches where it originated and was stolen from. The state can then institute civil contracts of it's own construct however it wants.

Total equality would be the result.

But the SSM crowd doesn't want this. They want to dominate and control, and take away the rights of others. They want to force churches and temples to perform their unions. Such lawsuits have already begun. They have become the bigoted oppressor.

Happyinlife
PROVO, UT

I'm glad to see that people are working together to stand up for their beliefs. I support traditional marriage because I do believe it strengthens the community and the society as a whole. People who say that they cannot understand how same-sex marriage will effect them do not understand how societies work. It WILL effect you and your children. Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? Whether directly or indirectly, what other people do--good or bad-- has an effect on you.
I may be called intolerant for my beliefs that homosexual behavior is a sin, but I want to make it clear that I would never be unkind to anyone I talk to no matter their sexual preference. (Love the sinner hate the sin type of thing).

MAYHEM MIKE
Salt Lake City, UT

You advocates for gay marriage, consider Googling "gay marriage and slippery slope," and then responding to these simple questions and point: When enough gay people, albeit a minority, finally yelled loud enough and pushed their marriage agenda in our faces, the courts and some legislators finally buckled and approved it. Now, when enough people advocate marriages with more than two partners (and the key is "enough"), will you support their rights? Will you also cry "discrimination" under so-called "equal protection" if they are denied? Under what logic will you do so? Again, if enough people want more "creative" unions, where should we draw the limit? Three partners? Five? Or, should we just scrap the idea of traditional marriage altogether and call them "unions?" And please don't dredge up miscegenation cases to support your position. Mixed race marriages have never been shown to present a public social harm, but gay marriages or other unions, as many social professionals fear, might have untold consequences to our children and others.

Listening Ears
Provo, UT

Utah's legal faux pas starting with the emergency "stay", federal government offices not in compliance issuing equality and closing doors following Shelby's ruling, SSA and DMV violations to not recognize before the "stay", A.G. Reyes' edict to not recognize past marriages (which Utah former Federal Judge Cassell cautioned against), may lead to federal control over the State of Utah due to incompetent leaders! Don't forget politics and religion don't mix - J.S. saw this and said it time and time again, see Articles of Faith 11, 12. B.Y. moved to Mexico for polygamist marriage freedom - thus, it may be time for a move again to a new country! Sadly religious leaders spent trillions on SLC block acquisition, beautifications, and a mall - as Benson said "pride will be the downfall of the Church"!

PL
Davis, UT

As an active, believing Mormon with many gay friends the marriage dialogue is of particular interest to me. I have gay friends who are married, others living together, and others choosing celibate lives. All offer challenges as do those same choices for a heterosexual individual.

The issue of individual rights over states rights is quoted often. We live in a country where majority rules and the majority of people in this state and in the United States favor marriage between a man and woman. Heterosexuals have individual rights also. Their opinion is usually less vocal. Those believing in "traditional marriage" want to continue a legal institution which has proven over history to be most healthy and stable for family and society.

Thank you to those who have the courage to publicly support marriage between a man and woman. They are doing so in a non-confrontational and respectful manner and I applaud you.

RichLussier
Columbia, SC

Ooh!! DOZENS of conservatives meeting in a Golden Corral!! As opposed to the THOUSANDS of gay people in Utah who don't want the conservative agenda shoved down their throats! Live and let live. No one is forcing conservatives to get gay-married.

andyjaggy
American Fork, UT

Meanwhile people in the Central African Republic are being tortured and raped and murdered while their children stand by and watch. I think God would rather have us trying to save those people than arguing whether two homosexual people can file a joint tax return.

Yorkshire
City, Ut

@B Man

So refreshing to hear someone point out the REAL endgame of the LGBT community...

....and it isn't about the 'love and the happiness they have' or 'commitment' or 'spending the rest of our lives together or raising children'.
Gay and Lesbian couples have been & will continue to do that, regardless of 'marriage' or not.

All this drama--it is really about SOMETHING ELSE.

It is not about homosexuality,
Not about same gender attracted.
Not about LGBT kindness and love and commitment for each other.
Not about the straight community's love of them or celebrating with them, or not.
Not about the LDS Church and whether they and their members are for it, or not.
Not about any religion.
Not about if either side has Constitutional grounds and which Amendment is valid or not.
Not about its commonality to slavery or mixed marriages.
Not about majority votes, or State's Rights.
Not about activist judges or circuit courts or Supreme Court decisions

Its about trying to make the very act of same sex appear moral, normal, and natural to the current young adults, teens and children- and the generations of the future.

Wilf 55
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

MAYHEM MIKE: "Please don't dredge up miscegenation cases to support your position. Mixed race marriages have never been shown to present a public social harm, but gay marriages or other unions... might have untold consequences to our children and others."

Up to the 1960s Mormon leaders condemned interracial marriages. Mark E. Petersen said in 1954: "I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar with white people... it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage." (BYU address) Brigham Young said "If the white man mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (JD 10).

And then came intermarriage and nothing happened. And now we Mormons are ashamed that former leaders held such ideas -- because of tradition and unsubstantiated fears.

What will our grandchildren think of the anti-SSM statements some Mormons make today?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

PL: "We live in a country where majority rules and the majority of people in this state and in the United States favor marriage between a man and woman."

----------

No, we do not live in a country where majority rules. We live in a Constitutional Republic, where the constitution rules. Read it. Learn why the judge ruled as he had to. Learn why Utah will lose. And be grateful that we have such a blessed constitution.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Regarding the goal of the meeting participants to re-establish Bible-based traditional marriage, great. I can't wait to get a concubine, stone my wife for cheating, and marry my sister-in-law after my brother dies. On the other hand, I guess divorce will be off the table. That will be an unpleasant reality for some at the meeting.

Inis Magrath
Fort Kent Mills, ME

Dear Deseret News:

This was not a gathering of "traditional marriage advocates." The very definition of the word advocate means a person who champions a cause. The cause, in the case of these people in the article, is not championing traditional marriage. Rather, their cause is to champion denying marriage rights to LGBT citizens. That makes them anti-gay rights advocates.

So please, dear Deseret News, I sincerely ask that you work harder to craft your reporting in a transparent bias-free manner which means you should characterize groups of people accurately. In this case, it was erroneous to call the gathered group "traditional marriage advocates" but rather they should honestly and accurately be called anti-gay rights advocates. Thank you for your consideration.

micawber
Centerville, UT

I chuckled to think that Cherilyn Eager, Gayle Ruzicka and Lavar Christensen have a hard time having their voices heard in Utah politics.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

ALERT - the gay community will tell us that "organizing grass roots campaigns will do nothing". They will also tell us that our voice doesn't matter. The gay community would like to think that their voice and their rights are the only ones that matter because they see themselves as victims. Well heterosexual/straight folks, in my optinion we need to stand up and voice our concerns and strive to protect the rights of all citizens - not only the gay community rights. Lets ask the gay community if they think all citizens should have a voice? Lets ask the gay community if they think all citizens have rights - or just "special interest" groups? The gay community will tell us that we are bigots and inhuman people with no feelings. They will challenge the very core of your intelectual and moral beliefs and tell us religion has no place in the discussion. If we who respect the rights of all people and want a better solution sit on our chairs and say nothing - we soon discover that we have lost our liberty, freedom and rights!

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

I respect the Proclamation on the Family, just as I respect D&C 89. They have not, however, been enacted into law.

Jeff in NC
CASTLE HAYNE, NC

"People, I think, are too afraid of offending someone. It's really sad because we're giving up our freedom of speech by doing that." No, no you're not...freedom of speech means the government can't prevent you speaking your mind. Did someone from the government show up at your 75-person meeting and try to shut it down? No? Well, there you go. PS, you can have a religious conviction and not offend people, it's easy. If you have neighbors (man and woman) who are not married but living together, you don't march on over to their home and yell at them for being evil, right? You won't do that because you are not a horrible person, that's why. Be nice to gay people, they can be nice back. :-)

to comment

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