Comments about ‘Utahns call for civility in contentious same-sex marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 11 2014 5:10 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Willem
Los Angeles, CA

Im surprised that so many people dont see this as an equal rights issue, we gays didnt get to vote on you getting married to
the one you love.How would you feel if you got married and the next day the State of Utah tells you are UNmarried?
Believe me here in sunny California last year probably 100000 gay couples got married including me and nothing has changed
no additional earthquakes ,no floods only more equal rights for gays and straigths.I ask you fellow Amerikans do we have a
great country or not?

equal protection
Cedar, UT

re: "Our tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs does not cause us to abandon our commitment to the truths we understand and the covenants we have made. With serious moral issues involved, we cannot bend on matters of principle."

The same logic and concerns were said about interracial marriages back in the day, begging the question: "Which religious view should be codified into our civil laws?"

The answer might be that no religious view, either for or against same-sex marriage should be codified into our civil law.
The principles of liberty, due process and equal protection as defined in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution might well guide us instead.

Joemamma
W Jordan, UT

The gay community has been offered in other states civil unions which will treat them as a married couple, however they refuse to accept.
Which leaves the question what exactly do they really want?
My perception based on the LGBT upper echelon's argument is that is not just marriage they're looking for but normalizing the act of homosexuality.
The LGBT wants it taught in schools to children and wants to force religious institutions to perform gay marriages as if they're normal. Also the destruction or erradication of religion and traditional families are being persued.. Listen to Dan Savage or Masha Gessen two well known LGBT activist speak of gay marriage and LGBT real agenda. what most in the gay community do not recognize they're being used for a political end by the left.

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

I think most people are now accepting the idea of a civil union and that the use of the term marriage is inappropriate. Since the term marriage has been taken over by the gay community we need a new term for heterosexual unions. If some churches want to perform unions of gay couples that is their privilege. Many of the objections to gay "marriage" cannot be discussed in public.

waikiki_dave
Honolulu, HI

The DN format for posting comments on this topic (or any other for that matter) seems to work best; it does not allow direct responses or retorts to individual posts. The process seems to promote civility and avoids confrontation between antagonists.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Not supporting gay marriage does not equal hatred, discrimination, or the lack of civility.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

1 Man, 1 Woman

Loving v Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

I agree not just with the first part of this statement, but the entire statement in context. One cannot read the court opinion without also understanding that the grounds they offered described a male and female relationship. The defining clause didn't just disappear.

The court's history with other forms of marriage show that different definitions have not been legally recognized as marriage:

inter-racial
(SCOTUS ruled in favor of)

Polygamous
(SCOTUS ruled against)

monogamous traditional
(Already recognized & practiced)

monogamous same-gender
(Not recognized & practiced)

Why citing Loving v Virginia is invalid:

1) The court has considered "Marriage" an equal right.
2) Court rulings have already limited "Marriage" to a "one man, one woman" definition.
3) While "practicing" ties to liberty, recognition is a privileged.

The reason why inter-racial and polygamous marriage cases reached the court wasn't for "recognition" but because people were denied the free practice. Liberty is a right, recognition is not. Already established law, SCOTUS precedent, and our constitution have already established all these legal doctrines.

Really???
Kearns, UT

Thank you Owen for you kind words. I agree that we need to work more to understand one another. That's the only way we will become civil to one another. I have seen the arguments from both sides of the issue. I actually voted for Amendment 3 because I thought it was the right thing to do. Looking back, I believe I did so out of blind obedience and to passively avoid dealing with my true sexual identity. You see, for many of us in the state, we have been hiding who we are for a long time. I truly believe there are more gay men and women in Utah hiding who they are than there are gay and lesbian couples living open and genuinely honest lives. Too many of us live in fear worrying daily that somebody will find out and condemn us for our "poor choices."

I used to get upset about the attacks the LDS church and members of the faith would receive for standing up for their convictions. Those feelings, however, have never brought me to tears like the emotional abuse I felt like I had to endure due to being gay.

JBQ
Saint Louis, MO

Actually, there is no "give and take" on a legal issue which is a challenge to the U.S. Constitution. It has been stated previously by Charles Krauthammer that the nation is "evolving" toward acceptance of gay marriage. This federal judge interfered in the legal process. This was compounded with the "psychological hand grenade" thrown by Eric Holder and blatant interference by the legislative branch of the federal government. These marriages should not be valid pending the finalization of the legal process. With the current wind of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is every real probability that the dignity of the people of Utah will be upheld. This is "one man, one vote" and not "one judge, one vote".

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Maybe we could increase civility and ease tension in the state by following the lead of Colorado. Utah, Life Elevated.

J. S.
Houston, TX

@gittalopctbi
"The only animus I see is people who are trying to tell LDS members (some of them LDS themselves) that they are wrong in believing what they do, they are wrong to express it, they are wrong to vote their conscience on it, and that they are wrong to believe they have a right to do so. Animus?"

In deep south, in the time of segregation, some people sincerely believed that "segregation is God's will", "inter-racial marriage is un-Godly, un-naturally", you can see those pictures in history books about civil right movement. can other people say that they were wrong?

the general public opinion on this issue nationwide is moving towards marriage equality, including Utah, if amendment 3 was put on the ballot today, it would not gain 2/3 of vote because of such shift, and also because many people, even though don't support SSM, yet support civil union, and amendment 3 makes such compromise impossible. that's why amendment 3 has to go.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

We all need to show love for one another, whether we agree with each other or not.. Getting along is better for the world. We show our love by actions. Principles are good but we need to show love for our children and others as we have been taught. It is hard to show that love at times but we are all of God's children living in this beautiful world full of challenges.

We have good words to us from God and need to live His commandments to love one aanother.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'It is called "projection" when someone places blame on their opponents for behavior that the opponents have not manifested, byt that the critics are engaged in.

This is very frequently a tactic of the left.'


The call for civility is already lost.

x9 comments into the comment section of this OP.

Julie R.
Kearns, UT

Yes, it is understood that others have differing religious beliefs and ideas. But remember that everyone, not just you, can stand up for, advocate for, support, and champion for their beliefs, morals, and rights to a safe and moral government. Those who believe in God's laws are not going to lay down and be run over roughshod. We have the right to be heard and understood, too, without being called racists, bigots, and all the other horrible things people are saying. I have never been rude or disrespectful to those who differ from me. Yet, I have been followed by a man who kept flipping me off and calling me horrible things, threatening to attack me. I have had a woman pretend that my car tire was flat and when I rolled down my window she turned ugly and spouted off horrible things. How is that being civil? I wouldn't dream of doing such things. Don't think that if you differ from me that you can attack me and then get mad when I and others who are like minded stand up and say something against you. Yes, it goes both ways.

Lillith70
SLC, UT

The left is out marching as usual, causing civil discontent. Looking for "change" for some special interest group without determination of what is best for society.

Conservatives by nature are reluctant to change for the worse, and democrats for using the long arm of government to dictate.

Civil unions is way to go without redefining everything about
"marriage". One poster equating world slavery, hitching the wagon to that movement.Civil rights movement promised a better society. We bought into it and then watched as Power and Pride mangled the dream and stopped the unity process which takes time.

Marriage" equality, is the request for enforced legislating of respect and yet the porn and abortion promoters have prated "You can't legislate morality". The real oppressors are?

Marriage contracts for gays changes traditions since Adam or the first Cavemen rituals and will change not just parades and sitcoms but TV commercials. That could be a positive since conservatives might then finally give up TV and unwanted viagra commercials for instance.

Utah was selected why? To do in Mormonism? Gay temple marriage demands next? A complete unraveling of a religion? Sorrowful. Chilling?

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

This is a Hypocritical writing.

In order to talk about civility, we need to clarify definitions and boundaries.

The LGBT community is asking for Same Sex Marriage. We are asking that the State provides marriage license to same sex couples who want to join their lives in matrimony. Once the State provides the marriage license the couple may get married at city hall, at home or in a church that solemnize those unions. Marriage is a secular contract that can be embellish by religious vows or not.

The LDS Church does not agree with Same Sex Marriage. The church have the right not to believe and accept this type of unions. Therefore, the LDS church should do what just did. Emit a declaration that the LDS on religious grounds will not allow its buildings and/or officers to carry out SSM.

The problem here is many LDS have not been able to follow Jesus advice: "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

The LDS Church went into the political arena and got offended and surprised they had a political backlash.

Let's no mix religion and politics and we will be civil.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

The reason Loving v. Virginia is on point, addressed the issue of states rights to discriminate based on immutable characteristics. Race, like sexual orientation are for the most part, thought to be immutable and warrant a higher form of scrutiny.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

@Schnee

I think you raise some legitimate points but then sadly you wax into a very rigid position stating "The closest you're going to get to a settled agreement is same-sex marriage nationally" and that "the problem is that my side sees anything less than full marriage equality as "separate but equal" at best or bigotry (perhaps both) and many on the other side refuse to even accept civil unions"

I believe many of us 'weird religious heterosexuals' may actually view a "legal civil union" approach with essential rights (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc)as a possible "bridge" to our concerns - a compromise if you will. At least I would propose to the conservative community that we should examine that. But then you (and those of your ilk) demand "marriage equality" without hearing our concerns. I believe each side needs to work harder to find some "middle ground" - a solution that meets the needs and rights of both parties.

Personally, I believe it would benefit the minority gay community to try to work with the majority. Short of that, I fear you will never garner the acceptance you yearn for - you can not force or legislate acceptance.

windsor
City, Ut

Once again, commenters here are proving that to say anything at all that is not supportive of same-sex or SSM, is considered by those who support them as 'uncivil".

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@Joemamma: A civil union only offers legal recognition within the municipality or state that offers it. They receive no recognition outside the jurisdictional bounds of that local or state government. For federal benefits and tax treatment, it has to be an actual marriage under the laws of the state.

to comment

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