Comments about ‘Same-sex marriage supporters rally on same day feds recognize Utah nuptials’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 10 2014 6:10 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@Jar van kwaad

"It's too bad the hundreds of thousands of us against the aberration that is same sex marriage, don't get the same press coverage."

Is this a joke?

Perhaps the two days the "rally" at the Golden Corral in Orem with 75 participants that was on the front page of the DMN (for two days) wasn't enough for you?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Utah ironically has pushed the issue of marriage freedom all the way to the Supreme Court which may require all states to comply with possible new federal ruling in favor of marriage equality for all.'

Well said!

*'Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Is Unconstitutional..' - ABC News - By Jake Tapper - 01/08/10

*’Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News – 02/07/12

"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

*'Breaking: Utah marriage ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL' – Advocate - 12/20/13

You cannot claim 'some' marriages are legal, in 'some' states, at 'some' times…

and claim you want to treat someone equally.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Jaar van kwaad

It's perfectly acceptable to believe whatever you want. You set the standard for your own life and you should live how you see fit. Nobody is going to call you a bigot for doing that. However, if you are actively trying to take away something from somebody else that has absolutely nothing to do with you just because you don't agree with it; well now you're starting to toe that line....

oldskool74
perth, 00

1000 protesters- is that all they can get

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@badger
When those that showed up at Golden Corral a few days ago to discuss their shared desire and plan their plans to not only try to stop SSM in Utah but stop theLGBT from having anything more then second class status in our country did you decry their "pressure tactics? "

@jaar and avenue
I am that people are calling you a bigot for supporting ideas and laws that leads others to be viewed and treated as less then.

Bob K
portland, OR

Jaar van kwaad
Salem, UT
"The way these stories are written, I'm not sure if I'm reading the DN or the SLT."

... In fact, the article contains quotes from AFA and NOM, very conservative groups, so the DN is trying to cater to you, in my opinion.

... It's all about one's PERSPECTIVE. I came here many hours ago looking for the DN to post a story, about Holder's decision, that was on Huffington at 10 AM Mountain Time.

My take: the DN held back and included as the 2nd part of the headline about the rally, 8 hours later, giving rise to suspicion that they were holding back a bit on news that some readers, such as you, would not like.

I keep saying that the DN, being owned by the lds church, ought to be held to a higher standard of truth and honesty than the average news outlet. when there is a story that contradicts the opinions of some readers, the DN ought to be forthright and let everyone decide their own interpretation.

Bob K
portland, OR

desert
Potsdam, 00
"DN : Holder said despite the doubt cast on Utah's same-sex marriages, they "will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits..."
"If you cast doubts on something that is in place already, your move shows an almost undesireable attitude for those inflicted. If this is Eric Holder language or DN comment on this matter, I do not know, but rather would I like a more clear seperation between legal rights and activist's loud demands."

--- You misinterpreted it. Holder was saying the doubt was cast by officials in Utah, statements of the church, and folks like DN commenters. He did NOT say or imply that he had doubt.

"At least we can observe, what for most of us is plain political rather than the sufferings of the mistreated."
--- Sorry you feel that way.

I wished the Mormon church would more love them into repentance, than all this admiration for "kindness" and being treated "equal".
--- If they aren't mormons, are they the business of the church?

If politicians like Eric Holder are excluded from repentance, things will go down even further even sooner.
--- Please speak for yourself

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

What a great country we have,soon we all have equal rigths gay and straigth.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@Jaar van kwaad

If we hold a bigoted or discriminatory belief, we should indeed expect to get called on it. One belief, however, does not make one a bigot.

LiberalJimmy
Salt Lake City, UT

Like it or not change is coming to even Planet Utah and all the narrow mindedness will not matter. Little do all of its people know that the state's A.G & Governor have paved the way for not only marriage equality in Utah but soon nation wide. @Chris B, @Worf, @DN News subscriber & all of the countless others that have been leaving gay bashing post after gay bashing post...Good morning!

LiberalJimmy
Salt Lake City, UT

Love will continue to win over hate and bigotry. Even in Utah and to the dismay of its religious sect.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Is this the Eric Holder that arranged the Marc Rich Pardon? The one that perjured himself before Congress about Fast and Furious? The one that just appointed an Obama contributor to investigate the Obama Administration and their abuses through the IRS? That Eric Holder? Wow, he really has a lot of credibility.

And....of course since the Supremes struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and found that the Federal Government has no role in the marriage business, it being a matter for the states to regulate, I don't see how this has any validity whatsoever.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

The announcement by Holder was a non-event and no surprise at all. I assert my constitutional right to disagree with Mr. Holder and with the notion that same-sex marriage is equal to God honored marriage between a man and a woman. As stated by the leaders of the LDS Church in a press release today "changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society". I also agree with our LDS leaders that those who promote same-sex marriage are "equally deserving of civility". They also correctly remind that "Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it"

Lets strive for a win-win solution to this issue that respects the needs and rights of all sides of the issue. To the minority that support SSM in Utah - remember there are hundreds of thousands of us that do not support it. Let's see if gays will be civil in their disagreement with us.

JBQ
Saint Louis, MO

Rightfully, there was a stay allowed by the Supreme Court. The law is now in the process of being evaluated by the judicial system. The attorney general of the United States, Eric Holder, should not have intervened and interfered with the process by acknowledging the status of those already married with federal recognition. The issue is one of whether the people of Utah have a right to make their own decisions without federal interference. The federal administration has made it plain that they would do the same if possible in such areas as "gun control" and education. Obviously, this is "a clear and present danger" to the U.S. Constitution. It has already been stated that Justice Kennedy is the swing vote for states' rights and that it appears through such conservatives as Charles Krauthammer that "the will of the people" appears to be evolving toward gay marriage. There is just no excuse for such a blatant power grab. This is not really a conservative v liberal issue. It is now a matter of whether "the people" make the rules or whether we have a dictatorship.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

A reply to Eric Holder and to those who would exclude voice of religious citizens from the public debate about SSM and morality, please ponder these words of GEORGE WASHINGTON:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens? The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.
Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Uncle Mordecai
GREAT FALLS, MT

How is it in the interest of the state to validate love? It isn't. The church created marriage. The state adopted it. Going back to colonial days it was determined that what was important for survival was to fortify the family and hold men accountable as fathers. Every individual was steered towards establishing a family of their own. Now, survival isn't so much the question as civilization. As marriage is trivialized / dramatized it's value is diminished and so is the worth of the individual.

higv
Dietrich, ID

How is it possible to have two mothers? Where is the father? Constitution does not mention marriage. SSM proponents don't take the will of the people seriously

Joemamma
W Jordan, UT

these are the facts and where the pavement meets the road.
The federal government has no right to recognize gay marriages and nowhere in the constitution is marriage is gay marriage mentioned, so the notion that just because a radical political administration chooses to go out of the normal confines of the constitution or chooses to interpret it in a way that suits their political purposes or their personal ideology does not letigitimize gay marriages.
I'm sure that 3.5% of the population is in a bliss, however last I read the 10th ammendment states have rights and Utah already spoke on this issue.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Jaar van kwaad says:

"@Karen,

I used to consider myself a "person." Now I'm forced to acknowledge that I'm a heterosexual male that can't have a belief system without being called a bigot."

If you were a person with a belief system who was not using that belief system to violate the rights of your neighbors, you would not be called a bigot. But, if you're using your belief system against others, then that is bigotry.

Do you see how that works?

speed66
Heber City, UT

@Jaar van kwaad - You can have your belief system. As for whether you are a bigot, history will decide. Were those who opposed interracial marriage bigots or just wrong? Were those who precluded blacks from participating fully in their organizations bigots or just wrong? Slavery? Women's voting rights?

As with most social issues, there is an overwhelming movement (55%-40% support for SSM) and the minority has to get dragged into the future.

Can you think of a single time in human history where giving more freedom and more equality has turned out to be the wrong decision?

Those who oppose gay marriage are on the wrong side of history. They can either evolve their thinking or bitterly cling to a belief whose days are numbered. Either way, equality is coming.

to comment

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