Quantcast
Utah

Utahns call for civility in contentious same-sex marriage debate

Comments

Return To Article
  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    Jan. 20, 2014 7:47 p.m.

    This is human nature on display in all its glory, for everyone to see and observe with (hopefully) shame and disgust. It all results from people--both sides--trying to use the power of government to force others to embrace their values. It shouldn't be happening at all, except that people aren't able to grasp the concept that just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you should make it illegal--or, conversely, that you don't have the right to try to control how others think, or force others to accept you even after they show you the utmost tolerance.

    Marriage laws should not exist, period. Everyone should just let everyone else do whatever they want, with whomever they want, and leave the government out of it. It is not the job of the state to legislate morality. People have their free agency. Mormons of all people ought to understand that, but somehow, in Utah, that basic doctrinal tenet gets lost in the flurry of misinformation flooding into homes through talk radio and Fox News. And the other side can't see its own hypocrisy either, clamoring for the state to enforce its views as well.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:36 p.m.

    Proud Duck: "Taken in the aggregate, it is significantly more likely that a couple living together as man and wife will produce offspring, for whose welfare government is partly responsible, than a gay couple will. There's your rational basis right there. Rational basis is an extremely deferential standard. "

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

    But, whether or not they can produce offspring, gay couples ARE raising children. It is estimated that 70,000 children are in the homes of gays here in America. Do you think the government is partly responsible for these children too? Why would the government only be concerned with the children of opposite couples? Why not all families? Why not offer the same benefits/privileges to gay parents (and by association, all gay couples - like they offer the same benefits to all heterosexual couples, whether or not they have/want/can conceive children) so that these 70,000 children will have the same backing from the government as other children? There is your rational reason, if you need one.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    Whistler, we've gone over this. It is not the ability of a specific couple to reproduce that matters. It is the likelihood of a class of relationships, taken in the aggregate, to produce offspring, that matters. Government is not required, when it creates an institution to address a policy need, to customize the institution exactly to every last situation.

    Taken in the aggregate, it is significantly more likely that a couple living together as man and wife will produce offspring, for whose welfare government is partly responsible, than a gay couple will. There's your rational basis right there. Rational basis is an extremely deferential standard.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that when civil marriage was first introduced into Anglo-American law back in the 1700s, it was set up to cover male-female relationships specifically to disfavor gays. Including gay unions within the definition of marriage was simply not seen as necessary to accomplish the institution's purpose. And it's still not.

  • Born that Way Layton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 6:24 a.m.

    JamesW:It's easy to argue against a viewpoint that you oversimplify.

    The government should have no interest in regulating your personal relationships, but instead provides protection for relationships with the potential to impact the future generations that abide within it.

    Government uses endorsement programs all the time to stimulate social and economic growth and change. Gays can do whatever they wish to do. In many states domestic partnership laws can supplement relationships seeking to equalize inheritance laws and power of attorney benefits that come in a marital relationship.

    But this is not about nomenclature, it's about how acquiescence benefits society. I'm perfectly willing to change sides if I saw compelling evidence of a significant social benefit.

    Changing the legal interpretation of the marriage relationship to mean merely that of consenting adults has already shown detrimental effects on the law. Utah had its antibigamy laws struck down, because of the concept of consenting adults, which is a direct result of the successful gay marriage litigation.

    Judges are legally obligated to open marriage up to an anything-goes interpretation should the reason for the change be based upon a legal precedent of marriage is merely consenting adults.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Jan. 15, 2014 2:25 p.m.

    I find it odd, and sad, that many people who are opposed to homosexual marriage because it is non traditional come from a church who was persecuted because they practiced polygamy, also a form of non traditional marriage. Boy do we forget what it is like to want to live our lives according to our own beliefs and merits, but not be able to because somebody else doesn't agree with it. I am sure that those persecuting the Mormon church justified it because they viewed polygamy as non traditional and as a sin. It is the exact same thing here, only it is the church and its members that are on the other side of it. So sad.

    BTW - I am one of the first to say I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but also the first to say I don't participate in it but if somebody else wants to then let them. There are many things that people do that I don't agree with, but others still have a right to do them.

  • Born that Way Layton, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    twoforflinching: It's nice you can tell me what I care about. Especially in a discussion about whether or not the gay-agenda driven folks need to try a little.

    I guess you proved the article's point.

    You're entitled to disagree with me, but ascribing my motives oversteps the bounds of civil conversation and is a disservice to whatever cause you espouse.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    Do you remember that New Year 2010 Celebration from the Conference Center?
    Remember the lyrics to Be Strong?
    You know, the part about standing for truth even if you have to stand alone.
    Is it considered civil discourse to stand up and disagree with SSM?
    Sometimes I wonder what these statements from Church HQ are telling us to do.

  • James Whistler Chicago, IL
    Jan. 15, 2014 1:18 a.m.

    Here's a pattern of discussion I've seen in many comments.

    A: My partner and I are gay and we want to get married.
    B: You can't.
    A: Why not?

    B: Because marriage is only between a man and a woman.
    A: That's not an explanation. That's just saying "you can't" again.

    B: Because gay couples cannot reproduce.
    A: What's the connection between marriage and reproduction?
    B: Marriage is only for reproduction and child rearing.
    A: So couples who can't reproduce can't get married?

    This is where B says something about a "hackneyed, overused cliche" and avoids the logical question. The inability to reproduce is not sufficient reason to forbid a couple from getting married. B has find a better reason, if he or she can.

    If a person or group is barred by law from certain benefits or responsibilities that other people freely enjoy, and the government can offer no compelling reason for that distinction, then the law is unjust and must be thrown out. This is what is meant by "rational basis."

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:27 p.m.

    @ Born that Way

    No you don't. You don't care at all about your (made up) civil duty to "protect children." Single people (straight or gay) can adopt children on this state and I guarantee that you have never had an issue with that.

    The fact is bearing children is completely irrelevant when it comes to who can, and who can't get married. It simply is not a requirement, or even a factor.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:07 p.m.

    "Government may legitimately conclude that -- although some male-female couples may in fact be infertile, because of age or other reasons -- the intrusiveness and burden of making individualized determinations of that fact are unwarranted, even if some "off-label" uses of marriage may result."

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

    And yet, in Utah, to be able to marry your first cousin, you must prove that you are infertile. What is that about? Talk about intrusive!

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    Lane, the answer to that hackneyed overused cliche of a comeback (seriously -- do you guys have a macro on your keyboard or something?) is that when government creates an institution to accomplish a specific purpose, it is not required to set that institution's contours so they do the absolute bare minimum necessary to accomplish that purpose. As anyone who has ever practiced administrative law knows painfully well.

    Government may legitimately conclude that -- although some male-female couples may in fact be infertile, because of age or other reasons -- the intrusiveness and burden of making individualized determinations of that fact are unwarranted, even if some "off-label" uses of marriage may result.

    Government might also legitimate conclude that there's no harm expanding the contours of marriage to include gay or polygamous couples. But it is not *required* to do so, as a matter of equal protection or otherwise.

    A civil debate involves persuading your opponents that your view is right. An uncivil debate just calls them bigots and declares their consent unnecessary to impose your views on them.

  • James Whistler Chicago, IL
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    People on one side say, "I need to have the same rights for me and my committed gay partner as married opposite sex partners have. This means my gay partner being able to immigrate to the US (or to Utah), and for us to raise our own kids or to adopt, and to not be denied ordinary business services that are extended to straight people. And by the way, the tax and social security and health insurance benefits are really nice, too." People on the other side say, "no." I suppose that's pretty "civil", if put like that, is there any room left for compromise?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    TheProudDuck

    Newport Beach, CA

    The purpose of marriage has been held by multiple court decisions to be to regulate conjugal relationships that are reasonably likely to result in the birth of children, the protection of whose interests is a compelling government interest. Government really has no other reason to involve itself in regulating people's interpersonal arrangements.

    __________________

    Why was my mother allowed to get married at the age of 67?

    Maybe gays just want the same marriage that she was able to receive from the government...

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    @nycut:
    "@Your assertions illustrate the kind of animosity that is so problematic to civility."

    I know... that's essentially what the DNews moderators keep telling me. I keep trying to improve.

    "- that equal rights for gay people is the opposite of religious freedom"

    I didn't say that.

    "- that marriage between two gay grownups is somehow related to underage, incestuous or inter-species marriages"

    No.. I said if one aberration of marriage is allowed (same-sex), to be fair all other combinations that mankind conjures should also be allowed.

    "- that gay people are disease-ridden and dirty"

    Anti-AIDS medications have resolved that issue.

    "- that "ceasing to be gay" is a legitimate antidote to anti-gay hostility"

    Try it, you might might find you like it. Besides, this life is where we meet/overcome our challenges.

    "Gay couples are clearly harmed when kept from the legal protections marriage provides to citizens."

    Then declare yourself un-gay and get married.

    "All they have is their personal revulsion and religious preference, neither of which is sound basis for law."

    John Adams said: 'Our Constitution is mad for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    The purpose of marriage has been held by multiple court decisions to be to regulate conjugal relationships that are reasonably likely to result in the birth of children, the protection of whose interests is a compelling government interest. Government really has no other reason to involve itself in regulating people's interpersonal arrangements.

    By definition, gay relationships are significantly less likely to raise these issues. Accordingly, government declined to involve itself in regulating gay people's personal conjugal arrangements.

    It is not necessary for the government to show "harm" in order to craft an institution that furthers the institution's purpose, and goes no further than that. Gay marriage is essentially an "off-label" use of the institution of marriage. Government *could* reasonably decide to expand its meaning to include gay relationships, but it is not obliged to. Treating different circumstances differently is not invidious discrimination.

  • Born that Way Layton, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    nycut: Nice response, until this: "all they have is their personal revulsion and religious preference", which is trite and overly simplistic. You may consider my reasons unconvincing, but they are significant to me.

    For many in the opposition it isn't about deprivation of any right, they don't see marriage as a right at all, but as a civil duty by heterosexuals in particular to provide a stable and safe environment for children generated in that union. For the longest time (especially in religious communities, but not limited to them) marriage and offspring have gone hand in hand. Nothing in society takes its place, when considering that aspect.

    I have no issues with gay civil unions with partner benefits, etc, extended to domestic partners, nor do I really have any serious objections to adoption rights... I struggle with the erosion of significance heterosexual marriage has had in society. The legal definition has been reduced merely "consenting adults", which has very real legal consequences.

    If marriage is codified in law as merely consenting adults, then in a strictly legal sense could incest and polygamy become legal... (which, imo, has significant risk to children).

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    @Alfred
    Your assertions illustrate the kind of animosity that is so problematic to civility. Each is rooted in negative stereotypes and prejudice. Each is as insulting as it is inaccurate.:

    - that equal rights for gay people is the opposite of religious freedom
    - that marriage between two gay grownups is somehow related to underage, incestuous or inter-species marriages
    - that gay people are disease-ridden and dirty
    - that "ceasing to be gay" is a legitimate antidote to anti-gay hostility

    The constitutional principle of equal protection guards against a majority that says "we don't like [insert group] because they are all [insert prejudice], so we're going to gang up on them to make their lives miserable."

    Gay couples are clearly harmed when kept from the legal protections marriage provides to citizens.

    Opponents to gay marriage have struggled and failed to make convincing arguments as to who is significantly harmed when gay people marry. All they have is their personal revulsion and religious preference, neither of which is sound basis for law.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:24 p.m.

    @nycut:
    "We care what it (LDS) DOES-- which has been to mobilize against gay people for the sole purpose of keeping them from being treated equally under the law."

    Sounds as if you'd like to stem the LDS Church's right to mobilize against sin... is that right?

    "Gay people had to fight institutionalized injustice every step of the way..."

    Oh, wait... for a second there I thought you were talking about arrangements like polygamy, incest, brother/sister, close relative, geezer/child marriages.

    "just to do what others take for granted: meet, date, have sex, marry, adopt, raise families-- facing derision, physical harm, arrest, job loss and legal discrimination just because of who they are."

    You forgot... pass on a serious disease.

    "Animosity toward gay people has caused tragic loss of human potential-- destroyed families and lives."

    Then chose another live-style.

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    @mauister who said:
    "A lot of the pro no SSM proponents' arguments are based upon a belief that God does not want SSM and that is their argument, period. Those same proponents would likely take offense at the suggestion that God really doesn't have an opinion about SSM. They would also be offended, no matter how politely stated, that those whom they believe speak for God so that we can know without a doubt God's opinion regarding SSM really don't speak for God."

    I'm glad that we misguided religious folk who believe in God and His many witnesses (ancient and modern) who have spoken against SSM have you. It would appear from your statement that you know God's thoughts and you speak for Him.

    You also say that you don't think we can disagree in a civil manner if (I'm paraphrasing) irrational religious people are involved. I disagree. We'll never see eye-to-eye in particulars, but there are areas of middle ground where we could agree if we came together respectfully - like hospital visitation rights. But incivility will not breed cooperation and compromise where both sides are agreeable.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 7:11 p.m.

    Meckofahess:

    It doesn't matter if my new religion is true or not, what matters is my new religion believes based on the Scripture I listed that SSM is of the Bible. Without any doubt can you prove me wrong? Therefore, by your logic regarding the Constitution it is a Constitutional rite that same sex couples have the ability to marry.

    The bottom line is this Meck, religion is a belief and none of it can be proven. You can't twist the Constitution to suit your personal beliefs nor can you vote away the rights of others based on a personal belief. From prop 3 forward that is what this whole situation has been, personal beliefs. Many people on here talk of morality but really how moral was prop 3? Let your heart guide you on that one.

    The Constitution was written with the intent of protecting all of Americas citizens. God fearing or no in the Constitutions eye's we are all entitled to legally marry.

    Please don't do us the injustice of now arguing if gays can get married we should be able to marry relatives, animals or non living objects.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 5:24 p.m.

    @sid 6.7

    Thanks for the laugh - I needed that!. So I stand by my quote "More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions".".

    Religion certainly does not favor SSM unless you twist the truth.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    Meckofahess

    I appreciate the value you place on the Founding Fathers and the Christian values instilled in the Constitution. In regards to this part of your previous statement

    "More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions"."

    I agree as do you with the above statement.

    Based on 1 Samuel:

    18:1:And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

    Samuel 1:26, where David says:

    I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women

    I am going to form my own Religion based on the above Scripture. Clearly SSM is encouraged in the Bible.

    Now then, since we are in agreement on being able to worship how each individual see's fit, it is now a religious rite for SSC to marry.

    Based on your above statement you certainly you agree, right?

    How's that Constitution workin for ya?

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 13, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    @Windsor
    "Why is it that those of the same-sex community are so infuriated with same-sex being called a sin, while persons living in the many other categories--also labeled as sin-- don't say a word or give a hoot what the LDS Church thinks?"

    Lots of us don't give a hoot what the LDS church thinks. We care what it DOES-- which has been to mobilize against gay people for the sole purpose of keeping them from being treated equally under the law.

    Gay people had to fight institutionalized injustice every step of the way just to do what others take for granted: meet, date, have sex, marry, adopt, raise families-- facing derision, physical harm, arrest, job loss and legal discrimination just because of who they are.

    Animosity toward gay people has caused tragic loss of human potential-- destroyed families and lives. Keep it up. Gang up and vote on who's a sinner if you like.

    We'll be over here, relying on this country's guiding principles of justice to prevail where religion has fallen short.

    You don't have to like gay. You don't even have to understand it.

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 13, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    @Mlawrence:
    "Marriage equality will not change the number of gay people who have children..."

    I guess we'll just have to get used to the way two women have children together.

    "...it will however eliminate the discrimination that hurts children in gay families every day."

    If you think not being married hurts children, just tell them you're married. Draw up a piece of paper that says so, if needed.

    @a900rr:
    "How can there be common ground when one side desires same sex marriage, while the other does not?"

    As above, just get out a piece of paper, an nice pen and ink and scroll your own marriage license. After all, marriage is just a contract between two people.

    @Kaladin
    "Yes, SSM will eventually be allowed under the Constitution."

    Then so must all other marriage combinations be allowed such as polygamy, incest, sibs, geezers/girls, etc., to be fair. Can you imagine Judge Sotomayor allowing that stuff?

    @sid 6.7:
    "In the end God will make the decision and I am sure he will provide a path for all of his children."

    She has already... called repentance.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 13, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    To "Schnee" your analogy is incorrect. SAT scoring has no correlation to marriage.

    Even your Mississippi idea is lame because they already have a low marriage rate right now, what would banning marriage do?

    The point is, that when looking at marriage, you have to look at the benefits and harm to society. Just like SAT statistics are used to identify at risk groups, statistics on families and risky behavior within them can be used to help ensure that problems are avoided.

    Since you like analogies, how about this. If a parent was known to be abusive, would you leave a child in that house? I would say probably not, because statistics show that if a parent is known to be abuse they will most likely continue the abuse until an intervention is taken.

    The same for same sex marriage. Children raised by same sex couples are at a greater risk for harming themselves when they are teens or young adults. Right now society frowns on changing people's sexual orientation, so all that we can do is encourage good behavior, which is marriage of hetersexual couples that are the child's biological parents.

  • SammyB Provo, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    I read the comments with hope that the article would engender greater respect. I was happy to see that most LDS responders really tried to be civil. I was sad to note that more than half of the supporters of gay marriage basically rejected the need to be civil and found excuses to justify that position and also disappointed to see how many 'likes' those comments received. Thank you to SSM supporters who were civil.

    How do we go forward if most of one side is trying and the majority of the other side refusing?

    I'm not saying gay marriage supporters should change their views but does it have to be contentious?

    And for those who accuse me of being contentious by pointing out what we can all read here...civility doesn't mean not calling a spade a spade. Many comments justify the refusal of civility and that is simply a fact that we shouldn't hide from.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 13, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    Meckofahess

    You wrote:

    ".. it appears that the gay community is only interested in re-defining the definition of marriage between a man and a woman to "marriage between opposite or same-sex couples"

    You got it! That is right.

    You wrote:

    "It also appears that the gay community does not want the religios or morality point of view to be included in the discussion of this important matter".

    Here you are only partially right.

    No citizen should have his/her "civil rights" subjected to religious beliefs specially if the citizen doesn't share those religious beliefs.

    Regarding morality; our argument for Same Sex Marriage is based on "Secular Ethics",
    requiring that all citizens of this Republic should enjoy the same rights, privileges, responsibilities and protections that the state offers. Not providing equal treatment under the law to all citizens of the republic should be considered immoral.

    P.S. We have gone over this many times before, Marriage has been declared a "right" by the SCOTUS.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Jan. 13, 2014 2:48 p.m.

    The tactic with which gay supremacists will likely have the most success in redefining marriage, is the tactic of defining belief in actual marriage as evil bigotry, so that ideologically sympathetic judges will impose by judicial fiat what would be less likely to be won by reasoned debate and the consent of the public.

    This tactic -- which is by its nature incivil -- is too powerful not to be used. Accordingly, it *will* be used. The only question is whether the traditionalists will match their self-declared enemies' incivility. The answer is no. With a few exceptions, the traditionalists will engage in a civil manner with an enemy that has no intention of being civil -- and they will lose. But at least the losers can feel good while they lose.

  • mauister Wailuku, HI
    Jan. 13, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    A lot of the pro no SSM proponents' arguments are based upon a belief that God does not want SSM and that is their argument, period. Those same proponents would likely take offense at the suggestion that God really doesn't have an opinion about SSM. They would also be offended, no matter how politely stated, that those whom they believe speak for God so that we can know without a doubt God's opinion regarding SSM really don't speak for God. Heated discussions can remain civil when arguments are based upon rational thinking and rational logic. Very little civil rational discussion can be done in response to the argument that my Dad is right and your Dad is wrong, end of discussion.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    @windsor
    "I believe the LDS Church does not call SSM sinful"

    Correct me (anyone, not just windsor) if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure an LDS member entering a same-sex marriage is grounds for excommunication (or bars them from being baptized if they're a non-member), isn't it?

    @Redshirt
    "the ideal situation for raising kids is by their biological mother and father that are married."

    Statistics don't apply to individuals. You're either going to be a good parent or you're not. Would you use statistical averages to ban people of a lower-average SAT scoring race or religion from marrying? How about barring people from Mississippi from marrying since that's the poorest, most obese, highest STD state in the nation? Why is the average argument only ever used to deny same-sex couples (especially when studies show two parent households do better on average and you want to stop these households from becoming two parent while single people can still adopt in this state)?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    Sadly, it appears that the gay community is only interested in re-defining the definition of marriage between a man and a woman to "marriage between opposite or same-sex couples" with little or no willingness to consider "civil unions" for same-sex partnerships.

    It also appears that the gay community does not want the religios or morality point of view to be included in the discussion of this important matter.

    Sadly, it appears the gay community would exclude the voice of those who hold that the foundations of our nation were built upon a moral and religious foundation. According to Mark David Hall, Ph.D. these values were part of the fabric of America's foundation: "and while America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths. More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions".

    Only an approach which respects the views of all will result in the gays achieving the acceptance they covet.

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    @Impartial7
    You said
    "When you target a group of people, try to deny their civil rights & brand them as sinners, don't be surprised if the response is not so polite."

    It could also be said, "When you target a group of people, try to deny their rights to engage in the political process & brand them as bigots, don't be surprised if the response is not so polite."

    Wouldn't a better solution, as the article suggests, be to respect another's fundamentally different views and allow this issue to move toward its resolution. You can shout all day that you're right and I'm wrong, and you can try to do it in the most offensive way possible, but I'm still going to think I'm right and you're wrong - and on top of it I'm likely going to feel less compassionate toward you. Tell me respectfully why you feel the way you do and I still am not going to agree with you, but at least I'll understand your point of view, and I may even try to find common ground in the areas where we both find compromise acceptable.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    I was just ready to take down a note that was posted on our refrigerator this season from Howard W. Hunter's Christmas message back in 1994.

    "...mend a quarrel, ..dismiss suspicion and replace it with trust.... Give a soft answer, ...Manifest your loyalty in word and deed..... Forgo a grudge, forgive an enemy. Apologize.

    ...Try to understand. Examine your demands on others. Think first of someone else...

    ...Be kind. Be gentle. Laugh a little more...Welcome a stranger. ..Take pleasure in the wonder and beauty of the earth. Speak your love and then speak it again..

    ..There is no celebration that compares with the realization of the true meaning of Christmas--with a sudden stirring of the heart that has extended itself unselfishly in the things that matter most."

    I read this note again and it gave me pause. I think I will leave it where it is ...

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    I'm always amazed at how oblivious religionists can be to how their message sounds to those who don't believe their version of "the truth." Some of the things uttered against LGBTs in the name of a god or a belief system are downright..."Uncivil" is the kindest and least accurate adjective I can think of.

    The outrage and resentment I feel within as I respond to some of these messages is merited. The voices of LGBTs and those that love them have been squelched by religionists for centuries. It is no wonder that hearing these voices is a little disturbing. This is how deaf people feel too when they can finally hear the world around them.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    @Mayfair:
    Reducing someone to a “sex act” is not only rude, it misses the point. Whatever sex someone has or does not have is none of your business, nor does it define them, or their rights.

    Further, to suggest gay people don’t undertake marriage for “love, companionship, sharing a home, federal benefits, tax purposes” and the myriad of other reasons that people marry is willfully ignorant of the lives of the human beings on this planet.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    These sometimes intense discussions are good for our community. The anonymity of the internet gives us the options to say how we really feel without fear of repercussions and the dialog is sometimes direct and to the point. I would rather see it in here than seeing tempers flare and possibly creating a violent situation in the streets.

    This issue is a far more complicated subject than this State has ever seen. On one side sit a group of people who just want to be accepted and loved for who they are. They want the same privileges straight people enjoy, they want love, to build homes, raise families and enjoy life. On the other side sit a group of people who live and die for their religion. They donate money and time to ensure their religion remains strong. They are the largest Charitable organizations in the world and their core belief is the marriage between Man and a Woman. Their lives revolve around the creation of a family unit.

    An intense subject indeed.

    In the end God will make the decision and I am sure he will provide a path for all of his children.

  • Kaladin Greeley, CO
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:29 p.m.

    Yes, SSM will eventually be allowed under the Constitution. No, that doesn't mean religious folk are awful because they stand up for their beliefs. Yes, we all need to be kinder to one another. No, we don't have to agree.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    @voiceofreason1234: it is posts like yours that lead many to reply in less than civil terms.

    Two of your assertions indicate a fundamental lack of understanding regarding how this legal process works. Judge Shelby was not "soon afterward overruled by a higher court". A "stay" was not granted to the state, neither did the 10th Appeals Court grant a stay. A stay was, however, ordered by SCOTUS while they fast-track this case before the Supreme Court. But Judge Shelby's ruling has NOT been overturned, and in fact, most reasonable judicial scholars already see the handwriting on the wall here. The current stay will be vacated once SCOTUS finds for the plaintiffs later this summer.

    Your other contention that "a majority of the population voted" against marriage equality indicates a lack of knowledge regarding constitutional civil rights. The United States is not a pure democracy; we are a constitutional republic, which means the rights of the minority can not be "voted upon" by the local majority population. This is key to understanding why marriage equality is about to become Law of the Land: it is not a religious issue, it is a civil liberty matter.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    To "Two For Flinching" but gay marriage and a hetersexual marriage are not equal, and can never be equal.

    In a hetersexual marriage, their children and the children in their neighborhood can see that it is a man and a woman who are distinct and different from eachother. Plus, according to recent research, the ideal situation for raising kids is by their biological mother and father that are married.

    With gay marriage, children see a couple that are the same as eachother, no distinction or differences beyond personality. Then, according to studies, this is just an approximation of a family lead by a hetersexual couple. The children perform equally in school, but are more likely to consider themselves gay and engage in risky sexual behavior.

    The differences are quite significant once you get beyond the superficial things being said about gay marriage. This is not seprate but equal. This is a case of separate and distinct.

  • a900rr St. George, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    Many state they want 'common ground' for Utahns.

    How can there be common ground when one side desires same sex marriage, while the other does not?

    One side or the other is invariably going to lose....

  • City Girl 21 Utah, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    Just different.

    Women are still discriminated against.
    Many children rarely have rights.
    Ethnic folks suffer.
    Jewish members feel pain.
    US citizens are not treated well in parts of the world.
    While males have discrimination.
    Gays face discrimination.
    Mormons have a heritage of persecution and have been discriminated against by angry mobs who murdered leaders and burned homes.

    The list goes on.
    Who isn't on this list at least once if not dozens of times?
    Who doesn't feel pain?

    At some point getting out of the emotion of fear and hate to find solutions that can and will work would be worth our while.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    Article: "Erickson, who has taught at BYU, and her husband, Michael, have periodically written about marriage. She said he insisted they read _a_ book about gay people before writing a word." [emphasis added]

    Please tell me that this is a misquote or the reporter's oversimplification of a much more nuanced and complex statement by Ms. Erickson. While I greatly appreciate the Ericksons' desire to learn about gay people to cultivate empathy, this does not come from reading a single book. What book did they choose to enlighten them on the LGBT experience? There is a vast literature out there on the subject, from fiction to memoirs to scholarly psychological and sociological studies. Most major universities have entire departments devoted to gender studies. Have they no gay friends or colleagues with whom they could discuss the topic?

    While I entirely disagree with the Ericksons on SSM, I respect them for making some small effort to learn more about a subject that I assume is alien and maybe even a little repellent to them. However, I encourage them to seek out some actual human beings and not rely on the printed word for understanding.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    I know!

    Let's talk about how LGBT are 'Abominations, Unnatural, Perversions, who are going to burn in a lake of fire fore all eternity because of what I believe'…

    that will be civil!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    Just add it to the list of other legal "sins" --

    Smoking
    Drinking
    Gambling
    Coffee
    Tea
    swearing
    R rated Movies
    SSM

    You can choose not to sin, even if it is legal.
    It doesn't impact Religious rights in anyway.

  • Mlawrence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    Perhaps the road to civility might begin with addressing the rhetoric and denouncing some of the talking points.

    1. Defending Traditional Marriage: There is nothing to defend it from, traditional marriage is not threatened. Those who support marriage equality support traditional marriage as well.

    2. The will of the people. The rights of the will of the people end where the individual rights of the citizens begin. We can't have it both ways.

    3. Children are better off with a mother and a father: This has nothing to do with children, gay people have children because they want to have children not because they are married. This whole argument is moot and irrelevant. Marriage equality will not change the number of gay people who have children, it will however eliminate the discrimination that hurts children in gay families every day. You cannot claim to be pro-family and promote government sanctioned discrimination against families who don't meet your definition of a family. That dog simply wont' hunt.

    Mark Lawrence
    Director
    Restore Our Humanity

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    JWB
    Kaysville, UT
    In 1919 until 1945, there was an effort to systematically get rid of various types of people that were on a list of some officials. Those included one of the tribes of Israel, a race, and certain types of individuals.

    8:32 a.m. Jan. 13, 2014

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

    Yes --
    Liberals,
    Communists,
    homeless,
    Jews,
    Illegal Immigrants,
    and of course
    the Homosexuals...

    recognized by their concentration camp symbol of the Pink Triangle

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    @Mayfair: Sorry, and most respectfully, but you are wrong. If you're describing an act, surely you need to focus on the act itself. Otherwise, you're simply expressing prejudice against a certain class people. If one couple is allowed to do something, and have it considered part of their marital rights, why shouldn't another couple be treated the same?

    Every icky thing you think that gay people do, are the same icky things that some percentage of "normal," straight, heterosexuals do in their own love lives, at least part of the time. As there are way more heterosexuals than homosexuals, the preponderance of icky/unnatural acts performed at any given time belongs to us heterosexuals. Thank goodness "Lawrence v. Kansas" keeps the government from snooping in any of our bedrooms. If it is the acts themselves you decry, then not allowing same-sex couples to marry isn't going to make them go away. If it is the people you decry, you must find a way to come to terms with your own prejudice. God tells us to love our neighbors and to leave the judging to Him.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    Mayfair

    "I imagine the LDS Church...would be all for SMM if it were undertaken for love, companionship, sharing a home, federal benefits, tax purposes etc.

    There is just that 'other part' ....the part which you say does not exist.... the "act"."

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

    But Mayfair, that "act" will take place whether or not they are married. Stopping same sex marriages will not stop any of those sins that you are so worried about. These couples are already living together and now want that union recognized by their government. I do not think your argument holds water.

    What argument would you use in front of the Supreme court? Anyone? What would you say to convince them that Prop 3 does not make gays second class citizens?

    I have been watching these boards for 6+ years. It is interesting that now that gays are winning votes, legislatures and judgments, everyone here is now talking about civil unions. Now they want to compromise. Before, there was no way! They were sure they were right (no matter what the constitution says) and on God's side. What a change. I have no doubt that if you can adjust to civil unions, you can to gay marriage too.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    It's nice to see the Family Proclamation back in the good graces of the Church.
    Or is it just the PR department trying to walk the thin line?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    @ windsor, while I think you really missed my point, it would be ludicrous to say that SSM is OK as long as there is no sexual activity. That's a first. Not even the Church advances that notion. Along with marriage comes intimate activity. You have to be the first one I've come across that takes a contrary view.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    Owen
    Heber City, UT
    I love Utah. I love the Constitution. I love my gay brother and his partner. I love the gospel. There are so many ways to start the conversation. It seems one good way would be to admit that perhaps gender roles, relationships and procreation beyond our limited existence are beyond our limited understanding. When we seek to understand rather than be understood we'll make progress toward commandments to love one another.
    •9:56 p.m. Jan. 11, 2014
    [Agreed!, Great comment]

    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.
    7:27 a.m. Jan. 12, 2014

    [We already have one, it’s called “Sealings”.]

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    @ nycut
    New York, NY

    "...it's not just marriage they're looking for but normalizing the act of homosexuality."
    Newsflash: there is no "act" of homosexuality.

    Sorry but there IS an act of homosexuality. It is called same-sex.

    I imagine the LDS Church and others who are against SSM would be all for SMM if it were undertaken for love, companionship, sharing a home, federal benefits, tax purposes etc.

    There is just that 'other part' ....the part which you say does not exist.... the "act".

  • windsor City, Ut
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    Esquire said: "The Church really cannot decry SSM as sinful and then expect itself not to fall under criticism of those with contrary views."

    I believe the LDS Church does not call SSM sinful-they only say that the same-sex sex that goes on, in or out of SSM, is what is sinful.

    The Church also labels many other things as sins--yet persons who engage in these activities give no notice or thought to the LDS Church that is taking a position against their lifestyle or activities.

    So the logical question--Why is it that those of the same-sex community are so infuriated with same-sex being called a sin, while persons living in the many other categories--also labeled as sin-- don't say a word or give a hoot what the LDS Church thinks??

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    In 1919 until 1945, there was an effort to systematically get rid of various types of people that were on a list of some officials. Those included one of the tribes of Israel, a race, and certain types of individuals. That isn't what this country was made for. The racial, cultural and religious groups that have been included in extermination is not good for a country, as we all know.

    The discussion should be amicable. God has his rules and government is for the welfare and benefit of society, not the exclusion of a people that some disagree with. People love to get to this country and even this State of Utah due to freedoms.

    We are to love our neighbors, whoever they are, not selectively exclude them. God is the Judge and has told us to love everyone, no exclusion.

    There is enough vitriol in the world.

    We have to do our best. Some consider our school teachers evil when 99.99% are outstanding and doing good for society. Some believe other groups are evil when those groups are doing their best for society.

    Kindness should begin with all of us.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    @ wer
    You wrote:
    "In truth, the SSM folks want to transcend the mores so that what they say and do is "tolerant" and what anyone they don't like says or does, needs to be eliminated. Loss of reputation, job, income, anything and everything is acceptable"

    I see you infiltrated our last "secret" meeting. I'm glad you forgot to mention the worse threat of all...... that once we get equality we will demand "the right to redecorate " all public buildings. Those colors have to go. (Sarcasm...just in case)

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 13, 2014 6:43 a.m.

    "...it's not just marriage they're looking for but normalizing the act of homosexuality."

    Newsflash: there is no "act" of homosexuality. There are people who discover their sexual and romantic attractions to and who go about living their lives, including their sex lives. It's so normal that there are gay people everywhere. Living their lives.

    Some religious people think it's a sin when gay people do that.. So what. Some religious people think it's not.

    The secret gay agenda (cue scary organ music) is to normalize the act of minding your own business.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 5:59 a.m.

    While civility on this issue is a laudable goal, I don't know if it is inherently possible. The Church has spent a lot of effort to influence government policy on what they see as a religious issue, which puts the pro-SSM folks in a very defensive position on a matter they see as a fundamental right on the same basis as others in society, an issue that deals with the closest personal feelings a person may have. Again, the only solution is to separate the governmental and legal functions from the religious aspects. Give all the same legal rights, and leave the concept of marriage as defined by the various churches to them. How the sacrament of marriage is defined by a church is up to the church, and people may choose to affiliate or not. That is the essence of freedom of religion. In the end, LDS Church members must stop rolling out religious arguments against SSM, that it is a terrible sin and so on, or the tone of the dialogue will never change. The Church really cannot decry SSM as sinful and then expect itself not to fall under criticism of those with contrary views.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 13, 2014 5:17 a.m.

    LDS can be kind and sympathetic. But they should not be required to agree with the advancement of same-sex and SSM in order to considered 'civil'

    President Monson has said (and has been quoted recently by Elder Oaks) "Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise"

  • cambodia girl Phnom Penh, Cambodia
    Jan. 13, 2014 4:40 a.m.

    I believe, the problem people who are opponents of this issue have is when their voice has been stifled and their vote has been cast aside. That is what happened in California with Prop. 8. The vote was taken, the people spoke and yet, it was cast aside by some judge who wants to do his own will instead of the people.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 13, 2014 4:38 a.m.

    Commenting on an Op-ed on this issue in the other daily newspaper, I wondered why Judge Shelby did not initially stay his own order, and presented credible testimony that he could have done so, and his having done, so would have prevented some problems that have already presented themselves.

    You would have thought that I had unleashed beezlebub or committed some horrific terrorist act from the responses that I got. They were amazingly mean spirted, making as they often did, derogatory remarks and false allegations about me. One commenter actually called me a liar, others questioned my qualifications to speak on the issue.

    I understand why passion run high on this issue, but civil discourse is necessary if we as a state and distinct culture are going to be able to deal with this fairly and dispassionately.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 2:21 a.m.

    Calling one a "civil union" and one a "marriage" is the equivalent of "separate but equal." It's unacceptable.

    The only people who can effect the sanctity of a marriage are the two people who are involved in it. SSM does not have any effect whatsoever on a heterosexual marriage, and vice-verse.

  • Dana the Barbarian Merced, CA
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:58 a.m.

    What the Mormon church has shown on issue is that when they say:

    "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

    it is a lie. It is actively trying to deny gay people the right to practice their belifs as they please when they deny them the right to marry. Now the LDS church claims it wants us to be civil while it tries to take away our civil rights.

  • voiceofreason1234 SANDY, TX
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:00 a.m.

    These marriage should never have taken place. The judge who made the decision to allow same-sex marriages to occur was very soon afterward overruled by a higher court who made it clear that it was wrong for the lower judge to allow same sex marriage to be legal in Utah at all - given the fact that a majority of the population voted and passed an amendment to the State's Constitution defining what marriage is in an effort to avoid same-sex marriage. The higher judge stated that it would upset the population and that would not be good!
    Hey, it is okay to be mad at what happened in the legal realm. It was unjust and unfair to the good people of Utah for same sex marriage to be allowed in the state that veheminately opposes such. It is my opinion that the move by the judge who allowed the marriages was in part retaliation against the Mormons for their highly effective efforts to fight same sex marriage in California. Any casual observer can surmise that it has become trendy to mock Mormons. (example: Book of Mormon Musical on tour everywhere.)

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:42 p.m.

    In spite of all the rhetoric, most Utahans just cave on issues. They hardly go to the polls, they take just about whatever Washington, DC dishes out, and they, like many people across the nation, would like to believe that SSM folk want only to get along, to let them get "married" and everything will be just fine.

    In truth, the SSM folks want to transcend the mores so that what they say and do is "tolerant" and what anyone they don't like says or does, needs to be eliminated. Loss of reputation, job, income, anything and everything is acceptable. Don't think so-just look at what happened during and after Prop 8 in California, and other areas where people stood up for the value of traditional marriage. Laws are being changed to grant homosexuals "favored" status in many areas.

    That won't be enough, of course. How long will it be before legislation is introduced in Utah to not only allow teaching of homosexual behavior in high school, but to be mandatory in elementary school?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:08 p.m.

    re: "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."

    Gays will never be content to compromise and sit at the back of your equality bus with something like a "civil union." Like Rosa Parks, we will sit anywhere on the bus we darn well please whether you accept us or not.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    There are two sides here, but they are not equivalent, and it is false to treat them as equivalent.

    On the one side is a minority slice of our population, about 1 in 20 by most counts, and those who support them in their quest. They are asking for equal treatment in law for their established lifetime partnerships. They ask for nothing special, no special favors, only to gain the right to legally register as spouses, and gain all the civil legal benefits that flow from that, especially regarding next-of-kin rights, property rights, guardianship rights, tax treatment, survivorship rights.

    On the other side are representatives of the majority of our population, who by any accounting of property or civil rights stand to lose nothing by granting that right to the minority. For sentimental reasons alone, including heartfelt religious tenets, they object to sharing the institute of marriage in civil law with a group of people they call sinners, among other things.

    If those opponents to allowing civil equality cannot see that they are not just being selfish, since they stand to lose nothing, but cruel, should we care that their feelings are hurt by those who point this out?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    @Schnee:

    I think you express your point in a reasonable way. I think those on the conservative side are willing and able to listen to your concerns - especially if our views are not demeaned by angry emotions (that is not directed at you by-the-way). I have gay friends and associates too and I value their thoughts and I believe they value mine. I respectfully re-state my view that I believe there may be some common ground for both sides to seek, but it will require a lot of work, patience and a willingness to really listen to each side's concerns. If we can do that, perhaps a "win-win" solution can be identified that addresses the rights and needs of both sides. That would be my hope.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 12, 2014 8:30 p.m.

    If you remove the word and documents supporting the word marriage you take away all tax breaks that straight people get, this is not equal.

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 7:00 p.m.

    It seems to me that, when there are two polar opposites on an issue, something in between is usually a reasonable position.
    One extreme: anyone with SSA is some combination of “weird/crazy/evil/”, etc. and should be given basically no standing in society. Obviously, many fine people have these desires. To attach such labels to them and treat them with such contempt is obviously unreasonable and unfair.
    Other extreme: the union of two people of the same gender is ESSENTIALLY THE SAME as a “marriage” between a man and a woman, and therefore should be considered, for all intents and purposes as a “marriage”. Anyone with an understanding of basic anatomy and sexual activity (not to mention the many other basic differences between human males and females) certainly knows that these two types of unions are VERY DIFFERENT. Is one ALL BAD and the other ALL GOOD? Certainly not! Do they have some common elements? Certainly! But that does not mean that they are basically the same—they are not.
    Thus, I suggest that same gender unions be given a label of “civil unions” AND be given legal rights of inheritance, etc.

  • Mountain Fox Davis, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 6:25 p.m.

    I think a lot can be gained if the word "Marriage" was removed from the Union of two same sex couples, and call it something else so that they can get their benefits. Using the word marriage is a large burr in a lot of people's saddles. I personally believe that same sex activity is a sin, but love all of us sinners, and not the sin. We need to love these people and hopefully they will respect our values and beliefs also, God Bless.

  • Lillith70 SLC, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 6:07 p.m.

    Human behaviorwise, sociologically or psyhologically predictable reactions have a few basics that are applicable for understanding each sides reactions. One "expert" has said that "all misery comes from thwarted desires."

    Another,the 4 D's, demand, defer,defect, declare. Demanders will be met with deferral (no fight), defect (angry opposition,yell, hit, etc), declare (those famous "I" messages which could be merely finding the common ground to cooperate, which would be gay unions as the greatest chance of peaceful solution.

    Psycholgists say there are two basic emotions, love and fear. From fear comes anger and hate. What does each side fear?

    Another homily on people part of politics is "When you feel anger, the other's goal is power". So power to do what? Fundamentally change society or stop the change?

    One poster said the gay cause is winning. IMO coming to a consensus is winning but other thasn that, the Duck Dynasty thing shows that the other 47% have reached critical mass.
    If this issue is forced through, expect big changes like conservative civil disobedience just as if China or Russia conquered America. Obamacare forced through. People hate it. Not a good time for more forced or enforced change.

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 5:32 p.m.

    It's funny...and sad how right after this article comes out the comments here just go to prove the point of the article...

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 12, 2014 5:18 p.m.

    @ 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"."

    You are right!! Expect to compromise in anything less than equality it is "Uncivil".

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 12, 2014 5:05 p.m.

    This is such a passionate issue because it is motivated by love on all sides.
    I know many people of faith oppose laws that make life easier for gays because they believe it will normalize the behavior, which will lead more people to be gay. They think that expressing strong public disapproval of homosexuality will motivate people to avoid sin and its consequences.
    For me, the first thing to understand to have a productive conversation about this is that a homosexual orientation is not chosen and cannot change to heterosexual. Secondly, homosexual attraction is as deep, rich, and varied as heterosexuality. In my experience, faithful people who accept these two realities are able to have a much more compassionate and nuanced discussion on the topic than those who don't.
    Unfortunately, I have seen too many examples where well-intentioned, good people have hurt their gay loved ones and pushed them into depression or out of their homes, churches, and lives while trying to "help" them. Shunning, marginalizing, and maligning gays will not change who they are. It will only keep them in the closet and on the fringes. It doesn't help anyone.

  • tellitstraight Hurricane, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    Here's something thoughtful from Alan Watts re: the ego-driven human need to be right, and how being right depends, for its livelihood, upon seeing others as being wrong: "[Life] must be lived in the spirit of play rather than work [...] no species, or party to a game, can survive without its natural antagonists, its beloved enemies, its indispensable opponents. For to 'love your enemies' is to love them as enemies; it is not necessarily a clever device for winning them over to your own side [...] This recognition is the absolutely essential chivalry which must set the limits within all warfare, with human and non-human enemies alike." Opposites depend upon each other: we know this in terms of language, and we know it when we, say, try to change others into what we want them to be. This perpetual process only reinforces "our" sense of rightness in contrast to "their" wrongness. So in the chivalric spirit that Watts describes, perhaps we should ALL thank each other for gettin' in the game!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    @Meckofahess

    "I believe many of us 'weird religious heterosexuals' "

    I am a heterosexual Christian myself.

    "without hearing our concerns"

    I am aware of your concerns, we've both written many posts the last couple weeks. Some things I can try and reassure you of (like that churches won't be forced to marry same-sex couples, after all we have non-discrimination laws based on religion but that hasn't forced churches to marry mixed-faith couples in their churches or temples) but other things... there's nothing I can do to reassure you, because my side considers it unacceptable to give up (like same-sex couples adopting).

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    I am sorry that you have had to deal with at least two uncomfortable situations because of you stance--that shouldn't happen. I would like you to know, however, that some of us on the other side have and do experience similar situations on a daily basis. It doesn't excuse the way you were treated, but hopefully you will gain more empathy for how gays and lesbians go through life.

    I agree that this is more than a marriage issue; it's the desire to one day not have our sexuality be an issue. We, more than anyone, would love to go through a day--even a week--without hearing about this battle. We are tired of fighting for our safety and legal rights. Believe it or not, laws like amendment 3 and the attempts to keep LGBT citizens from enjoying employment and housing protections give some people unwritten permission to treat us in horrible ways.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Jan. 12, 2014 12:45 p.m.

    One individual's civility can be another individual's injured feelings.
    One person's distaste may be looked at as hatred by another person.
    One guy's religious miracle's are another guy's paranormal activity.
    One family pushing their religious moral values, are to another family, the voice of cruel criticism, and misunderstanding.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    As for the courts, I posted about Loving v Virginia merely to show that the court may not recognize it as the same thing as they haven't in the past for various definitions.

    I believe SSM proponents don't want alternatives and as in reality their liberty to act is protected already... I believe what SSM couples want most from all this is acceptance.

    I've known people to leave the LDS Church because they can't do whatever they want and get a temple recommend. One of the biggest motivations for heated feelings, even violence, is that people want their choices validated, right or wrong. I may not accept the drink in someone's hand, but that doesn't mean I don't accept them. I not only do, but I want them to feel a warm welcome. Some members struggle with this (as we all have issues to overcome)... but in general members of the church generally feel the same way. Why? Because most of us were once in need of the same welcome.

    Love & acceptance may not extend to our actions, but we do welcome and love everyone who comes in with that same attitude.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 12, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    @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.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Jan. 12, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    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".

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    @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.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 12, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Lillith70 SLC, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    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?

  • Julie R. Kearns, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    '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.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    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.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    @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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:17 a.m.

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

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    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".

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    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.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 12, 2014 8:29 a.m.

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

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Jan. 12, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    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.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Joemamma W Jordan, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 7:18 a.m.

    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.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 12, 2014 4:03 a.m.

    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?

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 12, 2014 3:38 a.m.

    It's not so much a question of civility as it is of linguistics. It's like saying pro-choice when you mean pro-abortion. "Support traditional marriage" is code for "oppose same-sex marriage." The stories about people who "support traditional marriage," if read by a visitor from another planet, would immediately raise the question: "Why is that inconsistent with supporting other types of marriage, also?"

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 2:36 a.m.

    The problem is that that the voters approved the Proclamation to the World in 2004 and voted for it via Amendment 2 to be a permanent part of Utah's Constitution. Facts are what they are, it is not legal to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Folks are to focused on adult desires, but what about the poor helpless little chidden? Aren't they entitled to a say in the matter? Which parent. a mother or father should they be expected to do without? It is ungodly not to think about the helpless children who don't have a say in the matter.

  • gittalopctbi Glendale, AZ
    Jan. 11, 2014 11:20 p.m.

    @Maudine Though what you say is true (diversity of beliefs, etc.), it makes no difference--like-minded people (a group, BTW, who founded the state, escaping to a place where they could practice their religion) voted. 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? As I read the posts on DN and elsewhere, it seems that a vast majority of the animus comes from the supporters of SSM because of a difference in opinion and beliefs. You assume that LDS church members are the only denomination to have contributed to the 65% majority. You also assume that all homosexuals support SSM. I think that is wrong on both accounts. And in spite of your historical points, traditional marriage is still historically by far the most "traditional." Those of you who accuse the church of acting out of "animus" are looking for a reason to be offended.

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:58 p.m.

    If you start from the assumption of tolerating the sinner and insulting the sin/lifestyle, it is hard to see how the discussion can stay civil for long.

    Considering how wide spread slavery still is in "The Civilized" World" -- should we be civil and polite in decrying and arresting those who own humans.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:56 p.m.

    I love Utah. I love the Constitution. I love my gay brother and his partner. I love the gospel. There are so many ways to start the conversation. It seems one good way would be to admit that perhaps gender roles, relationships and procreation beyond our limited existence are beyond our limited understanding. When we seek to understand rather than be understood we'll make progress toward commandments to love one another.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:49 p.m.

    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 (after all Amendment 3 banned those too) frequently on the basis of either considering it acceptance of sin, or an acknowledgement of an "inferior" partnership. That's a very wide gulf that can't exactly be bridged.

    The closest you're going to get to a settled agreement is same-sex marriage nationally with churches maintaining their freedom to pick which marriages they will or won't conduct.

  • informed? Hooper, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    From the sound of things, you would think the two sides are from different worlds.
    Not So.
    We are are all sons and daughters, perhaps even brothers and sisters, our likenesses are far more than our differences.
    We all want and seek happiness.
    And hopefully all can attain true happiness.
    The difference is where each side searches for happiness.
    One side seeks happiness in being treated equal.
    The other side teaches it comes from following God's commandments.

    So where do we go from here?
    I believe there are many voices who have not spoken, and they want peace. Likely they know the true source, Jesus Christ.
    Let us all remember who we are.
    Most of us do not want contention
    However, even if our voice is not wanted, we must stand for what is true.

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:24 p.m.

    I would follow this advice, but am conflicted about how to respond when even my attempts at a civil attitude earn derision and contempt. Civility is not capitulation.

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:15 p.m.

    Civility is very important as is following the law. Open our hearts to what Utah has pressed to the Supreme Court of our country. It is what B.Y. said would happen. Utah has embraced polygamy for years and now is the time to recognize the law for SSM. Remember J.S. told all to obey the laws of the land (or leave) Articles of Faith 11, 12. Utah has led the nation to approve SSM nationally - although ironic, it is what has happened and we can be open to accept what Utah's actions have provided for same-sex marriages.

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    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. But in such instances we can politely disagree without being disagreeable. We can acknowledge the sincerity of those whose positions we cannot accept. We can speak of principles rather than personalities.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:21 p.m.

    When you target a group of people, try to deny their civil rights & brand them as sinners, don't be surprised if the response is not so polite.

  • JAHS vacaville, ca
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:10 p.m.

    One thing to consider is that many people like to comment about such things in a divisive way just to get a rise out of others and see how many responses they can get from what they say. And because of the anonymous nature of the comment board they can get away with saying whatever they want. If they were to actually talk to each other in person they would probably be a lot more civil to each other. At least I hope they would.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:36 p.m.

    Physical anatomy
    Divine potential
    What are rights
    How we treat others

    These things involve strongly held opinions from all of us. We came into this life together whether we like it or not. We can either bicker endlessly or put down our words of mass destruction and speak proactively and positively. I'll gladly defend that it is possible to express our different views with a positive attitude while showing respect.

    I believe one of the best ways us members of the LDS Church can contribute to this is to reinforce that we are not anti-gay but pro-family (male and female). I believe this is a beautiful bond which builds a family with unlimited potential. I also believe this potential is exclusive and unique to this one design. I believe this deserves special recognition and place in our society.

    "Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and crucial to eternal salvation."

    I simply believe we should remember & cherish where we come from, who we are.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:13 p.m.

    For sure everyone should be civil when discussing the issue of same sex marriage. But, sooner or later a decision will be made and someone will be unhappy.

    Marriage is a unique and historical institution designed to provide a family unit for perpetuating the human race. This has always been thought of as between men and women... sometimes one man and several women, but in today's society, between one man and one woman. But always between man and woman.

    Now comes the gay and lesbian communities who think they need marriage for some other reason... association and companionship for those whom they say they love. This is indeed strange conduct to heterosexuals since it contemplates associations and intimacies thought to be off-base. Nonetheless, they feel strongly about it. In addition, there are hundreds of benefits accorded the married that are unavailable to those who are not married.

    Sex marriage approval will bring myriads of problems to the human family... What about other combinations that must surely come to the fore such as polygamy, incest, family, sibs, close relative marriages? To be fair and equitable, these must also be addressed.

    Wish us all the best in this endeavor.

  • Fly Fisherman Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:02 p.m.

    In the 80s, the famous Wendy's TV commercial with the old lady saying "Where's the Beef!" increased Wendys business by 10%, if I remember correctly. The short, to-the-point, one-line slogan frequently wins sympathizers.

    For many years, cries of offensive slurs against gays lead to bigotry and sadly, bullying of gays. Some of that still happens today, which is hard to believe given how offensive and non-Christian it is.

    Now, the position has reversed itself. Those that advance gay marriage realize this. "Hater!" "Bigot!" "Stop the H8!" are all very effective at winning sympathizers to their side, while being useless at representing their point of view.

    What is so frustrating to me, a supporter of traditional marriage, is that so many people are affected by the offensive, disrespectful slurs.

    I have tried to present my point of view with respectful discussion of the Constitution, the role of government, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, etc. only to be shut down EVERY time by cries of "H8er!" and "Bigot!". Rarely are the issues discussed. Hence, few truly understand the issues, but most take a side based on childish slurs.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 6:53 p.m.

    The State of Utah has been asked to answer one question: How prohibiting same-sex marriage furthers the stated goal of promoting heterosexual headed households.

    It is great to claim that your religion believes marriage was ordained of God to be exclusive between one man and one woman. But you need to recognize that not all religions believe that and that your religious beliefs are not a valid basis for infringing on the religious beliefs of others. (Some religions believe it is a sin to drink or smoke - yet those things are legal.) This is not to say you shouldn't vote according to your beliefs or conscience, but some things should never be up for a vote.

    It is great to claim that thousands of years of tradition support one man one woman marriages and children being raised in those families. But this claim ignores history. Many cultures have had polygamy. Many cultures have had same-sex unions. Many cultures had children raised by wet nurses, nannies, tutors, sent off to boarding schools, or apprenticed out at very young ages. You cannot ignore/rewrite history and then not expect people to think you are acting with animus.

  • stanfunky Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 6:50 p.m.

    I agree that civility on both sides, and bridge-building will help. However, since it has been slow in coming prior to the court ruling, it may not be instantaneous afterwards. It would be nice to wake up and treat each other as God's children, even those who do not believe in the same worldview as we do. In many other countries, people kill and maim, groups are eradicated in genocide. Here, we can find ways to co-exist and get along. Let's get to work doing so!

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 11, 2014 6:50 p.m.

    Well, an article saying folks should be civil, just after the church said the same thing!

    Despite what the article says, the majority of "non-civil" comments I have read on related topics on the DN in past weeks, were from people in smaller towns and cities in mormon areas, not from Gays.
    --- there have been far more comments insisting that mormon family doctrine, God, the Bible, and tradition should trump US laws and equal treatment of citizens were from those towns. Sometimes the writer mentions that he or she is lds.

    So, respectfully, I suggest that a more needed article would explain to DN readers that no matter how strong their beliefs, a religious position cannot legally cause a situation of discrimination violating the US Constitution.

    I also suggest to lds people, considering the longtime history, until recently, of shunning, bullying, and discarding of Gay kids in those same mormon towns, the Prop 8 and Hawaii issues:
    --- a little bit of "letting the other side vent" might be a Christian thing to do.

    As far as Gay rights in the USA are concerned -- the cause is winning.

    I wish more effort were going into equality for lds born Gay.

  • IndeMak South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 6:37 p.m.

    We are of the human race and we all need each other. Allow God to judge. In the interim, let's be kinder to each other. Sheesh.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 5:39 p.m.

    I readily admit I don't understand two instances of great anger regarding marriage in our nation's history:

    1) Why was there such visceral opposition to LDS polygamy, in the 1800s and leading up to statehood for Utah? Why was this such an offensive issue to everyone else?

    2) people today thinking that gay marriage is a threat to... well... *anything*