Many take no stand with abortion either! So! Whether people have convictions or
not, the state of Utah has a right, not just to disagree, but to claim that
right and defend it! Hopefully others who can develop some self respect will
come around to the same!
I am interested in seeing exactly how the questions were worded in this poll.
This one seems contradict every other poll that has been conducted recently, so
I question the data-gathering approach and whether a bias was automatically
written into the questions. Does anyone know where to find the questions to this
There appears to be a discrepancy between the infographic and the article on
Judge Shelby's decision. The agree and disagree percentages are swapped
between the two.
For those curious about the LDS Church's stance on "civil unions,"
here's a quote taken from an interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder
Lance B. Wickman of the Seventy (the article is titled "Interview With Elder
Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender
Attraction”):"ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage
is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be
married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage
and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First
Presidency hasn't expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really
doesn't matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned
relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage
and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or
domestic partnership or whatever label it;s given, it is nonetheless tantamount
to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak
out and say, 'That is not right. That's not appropriate.'"
Now that I asked about the polling questions the graphics show up with the
story. After looking at the data, it appears that people were confused and
contradicted themselves on a few questions. For example: 57% of respondents
claim to support civil unions for same-sex couples, yet 54% claim they would
vote for amendment 3 again with the exact same wording prohibiting civil unions.
Another interesting note is that 45% of respondents say that we should recognize
same-sex marriages performed in other states, but I don't see any question
asking whether or not we should recognize the same-sex marriages performed in
Utah.It's interesting data, for sure, but I would like to
compare them side-by-side with the other polls that have been conducted.
Not that Utahn's opinions or beliefs influence the realness of another
person's life and their ability to love another human being. Nobody should
could care what they want. It has nothing to do with them. Gay
people are human beings. Human's fall in love, therefore, gay people fall
in love and their love is just as pure, kind, gentle, lovely and righteous as
the next love. These people, if so paranoid about marriage, should
focus on the high divorce rates over people actually trying to get married.
What would the Founding Fathers think about the voting rights of the majority
vs. the rights of the minorities?"All, too, will bear in mind
this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to
prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess
their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be
oppression."Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural
Address, (03-04-1801)"If a majority are capable of preferring
their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to
that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the
constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right,
the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial
considerations... "John Adams --- " Defence of the
Constitutions of Government of the United States"Moreover, if
more than 50% encompasses enough reason to change the law of the land, what will
become when the scales tip to a simple 51%/49%?My majority alone,
many of the rights we see as distinctly American would not have happened.
The Salt Lake Trib. also did a poll on Gay Marriage four days ago and found that
it was split 50/50 on the issue. So I wonder whose poll is accurate. There is
quite a big difference between these two poll results.
"....and say if gay marriage were legal, Utah should pass laws to protect
places of worship from having to perform weddings for gay and lesbian
couples."Uh, like the First Amendment? The paranoia is spinning
out of control.
I'm not stating which side of the argument I am on but it is really
frustrating when two polls on the same question say completely different things.
One polls says a majority of Utah supports same sex marriage while this one says
the opposite. Muddles the argument further. Interesting to see how this will all
Everyone supporting a decision or concept does not make it right.Everyone
rejecting a decision or concept does not make it wrong.Some try to
use the fact that the majority of Utahns are against SSM to reject it.Some
try to use the fact that the majority of Americans favor legal SSM to support
it.Both methods are wrong. Plessy v. Ferguson was the law of the
land. Dred Scott v. Sandford was also "legal." Few would argue today
that they were fair or right. But the numbers that support or reject those
decisions, then or now, do not give them any strength.Decisions and
public policy must not be based on the opinion of the day - whether you're
Bill Clinton or Congress in 1996, or Robert Shelby in 2013.
Collectively accepting gay marriage as acceptable is ONLY an equality issue.
It's a short term, feel good, pointless cause because it undermines
everything heterosexual marriage stands for.
A law protecting the church from gay marriage is superfluous and unnecessary.
Religious freedom is sacrosanct in this country. This is just more fear
mongering by conservatives and an opportunity to demean and ostracize
Utah's gay citizens, AGAIN.Anyone without a recommend cannot
attend the temple wedding of a family member or friend. It doesn't matter
how Christlike and loved a person is, the the LDS church can deny that person
entrance to the ceremony. This is upheld by the US Constitution. What makes
anyone think gays can make the church allow gay marriages in the temples???The rights of minorities in America are not subject to the tyranny of
the majority. Mormons, of all people, should value this.
So 57% support civil unions... and 54% support Amendment 3 which in addition to
same-sex marriage bans civil unions...
Does not matter. 50 Years of legal precedent says that the 14 Amendment is
there to protect the rights of minority groups like this.Stop trying
to legislate morality!
Unlike where i live I say let the people vote, then if yes make that the law of
the state if no then make that the law of the state.
I have seen this gay rights agenda go from domestic partnerships, to
"everything but marriage", to gay marriage. Each time with the
attachments that churches and certain businesses would not have to service gay
marriages. Since then, I have heard of photographers, bakery shops, caterers
and Pastors that are in legal trouble for not providing service to gays. I have
also read of pressure on a school district to insert gay curriculum into the
classroom. My concern is: How far will this go? Are there really exemptions?
And, if so, will they get any legal protection? Many small businesses, Pastors
and churches could not survive financially if they have to defend themselves in
The real problem as I see it is that the homosexual community wants to force
same sex marriage on the religious community. In the process they also want to
force all who are religiously opposed to supply facilities and services
regardless of the business' religious position. I expect eventually that a
church will not be able to refuse to marry a homosexual couple, under threat
that the church will loose its tax-exempt status...and the churches, including
the LDS faith, will cave to the economic pressure. It will take only one law
suit and the right bunch of "Progressive" judges to turn the First
Two wolves and a goat do not get to vote on what's on the dinner menu.This is why we have a constitution - to protect the rights of the
minority from what's currently popular with the majority.
Well soon they will have no choice! And we all have a more happy and equal
The only reason why young people are more accepting of gay marriage is due to
being hammered constantly in universities and colleges to accept it.. It's
pure peer pressure not wisdom.A young man at church during one of our
metings expressed his views on the matter by saying that he got so much pressure
from friends that he felt like caving into agreeing with gay marriage.The
bottomline is, the issue it's being forced unto young people by making them
feel guilty for being honest.. Alinsky tactics are being used such name calling,
ridiculing, and shaming people into agreeing with gay marriage.I will
advise young people to stay true to their religious principles and analize the
concept of gay marriage from a secular prospective as well as religious and the
answer will always be the same.. gay marriage does not offer any benefit to our
society, infact history shows that societies that accepted and embraced the gay
lifestyle will eventually dissapered go to ruin and self destroy.
Goooooood for you, Governor Herbert?
I'm probably like most people and couldn't care less what people do
with their lives as long they don't interfere with mine. That's the
problem with gay marriage though, while some gay couples are happy to keep their
sexuality in their bedroom where it belongs, too many gay folks make their
sexual preferences their entire identity, and try to force their attitudes
towards homosexuality on others; such as the gay couple in Colorado who sued a
cake shop for refusing to make their wedding cake.The fact is that
to many, homosexuality is a sin and against the doctrines of their various
religions. Supporting homosexuality is also seen as a sin. Therefore, I think
if we're going to have gay marriage in our society, it is prudent that we
also implement laws protecting the religious rights of those who feel the moral
need to distance themselves from it. Disrespecting the rights of
religious people is no less myopic and bigoted than disrespecting the rights of
homosexuals or anybody else.
It doesn't matter what the majority thinks. It's what's right,
fair and within the law. Discrimination and bigotry are illegal. It's
pretty simple. What if the "majority" of the population outside of Utah
decided Mormonism couldn't be practiced. Would that be OK? The
fundamental rights of the individual are bound by the constitution.
Consider the source of this poll. The poll the Tribune conducted showed that 48
percent of Utahns approve of gay marriage. Anyway it doesn't matter
because we don't get to vote on peoples rights. If that were the case then
the majority could reinstate slavery or deny women the right to vote or outlaw
the practice of certain religions.
"72 percent said laws should be passed to protect churches, synagogues and
other places of worship from having to perform same-sex marriages."I sincerely hope this finding is in part a testament to how rattled
religionists are at the growing challenge to religious dogma and authority.
As a resident, tax payer, worker, community member, and church attender in the
state of Utah, I appreciate this poll and article above all others in the past
month. These polls reflects the opinions, feelings, beliefs and attitudes of my
neighbors and fellow state citizens, and not the opinions of those outside this
state. That is what I was seeking several articles ago, and unfortunately
berated by my out-of-state friends for. Thank you DN/KSL and Dan Jones for
conducting this survey.Yes, times are a changing, we see that in the
poll numbers. However, it also seems likely that with the same rulings going on
in different stares lately, the citizens of Utah recognize that Judge Shelby
should have immediately stayed his decision and let this go to SCOTUS to
determine constitutionality and States vs. Federal rights.IMHO, I
believe this ends up being a States Rights decision and the citizens of Utah and
all other states will be allowed to choose and vote according to the dictates of
their own conscious.
"if gay marriage were legal, Utah should pass laws to protect places of
worship from having to perform weddings for gay and lesbian couples." That
is already the case. Quit pandering to the mob. If the State of Utah had the
right to control everything they wanted in Utah you would eliminate the
Constitution. If other states had the same right(s) they may eliminate
religions that they don't like, such as those that label their religion(a)
Now I know that this is how polls work, but it seems crazy that only 700ish
people in the state were asked their opinions. Such a poll needs to be
scrutinized as the information might be, and probably is, very flawed. For
instance, here are a few questions that need to be asked: Were those polled
spread out across the state or from specifically chosen locations? What was the
primary religious beliefs, if any, of the people polled? How were those polled
selected? Were those polled part of the voting process in 2004? I am not trying
to say that the statistics are incorrect, but I am suggesting that we should
always be weary of such a poll.
The article failed to mentioned that more LDS members than every before support
This nicely sums up the reasons why rights accrue to individuals before mobs or
states. If all it took was a simple majority to overrule the constitution, Utah
would be a very different place today. We're americans first, and I'm
not giving up the rights and freedoms that are inherent in being american no
matter how many locals disdain them. I am grateful for the protections offered
by the constitution against the will of a utah majority.
Heaven help us all if that 22 percent were to ever become a majority.
When same sex marriage becomes legal in UT. no additional laws will be needed to
protect any religion. Ample protection already exists under the Constitution. UT
should not let UT politicians continue to pull the wool over their eyes and
needlessly spend their tax dollars for frivolous endeavors. By all accounts tax
dollars are needed in UT's public schools and shouldn't be spent on a
crusade to no where. Wake up Utahns
I saw a poll published by the SL Trib a few days that found very different
results. It found support v opposition to gay marriage to be exactly equal. I
wonder if both polls just found what they wanted to find?
it is absolutely astounding that anyone could believe or led to believe that
anyone's religious freedom is being infringed upon. Even more so is the
crazy belief that the government is going to force any church to marry anyone.
It is absolutely inconceivable! But what is of interest is how a religion
operates that they can get into the consciousness of people that they would
believe such utter and complete nonsense. That is the scary part of certain
religions. How can you possibly believe it?
Where, in any legislation at any state or federal level do we see forcing of
religious groups to perform same-sex marriage? I can't find any, but I can
find a great deal of writing that states the exact opposite: religious groups
are not forced to perform any act or service concerning marriage that goes
against their tenets. Why, then, the constant harping from religious groups
about this subject? Fear, of course, and ignorance, which breeds and feeds on
fear--a vicious, destructive cycle. And, of course, I must believe that many
religious individuals and groups use the existing argument as an attempt to
force their own religious and personal ideas on others; an activity that was
observed by the framers of the Constitution as a threat and dealt with in the
So 57% think they should have civil unions and yet 54% would still vote for
amendment 3 that expressly prohibits and bans civil unions. That right there is
pure animus towards gay people. They are so intent on discriminating against gay
people that they would pass an amendment prohibiting something that they
themselves believe gay people should have.
I would bet that the majority of people in the South, and perhaps the entire
U.S., were opposed to civil rights for minorities in the early 1960s.
Regardless of your views on the issue, and you are entitled to believe as you
wish, if this is an equal rights under the law issue, then a poll is
meaningless. The Constitution is the prevailing authority, which is what
conservatives want. The application of the Constitution does not apply only on
those issues you like. It doesn't work that way, at least not in the U.S.
This is how a democracy dies. To say that the basic moralities of the majority
are subject to the whims of the minority and their lifestyle choices is to kill
Although the LDS Church is certainly a majority in Utah and has great influence,
people who are not members or part of the church should be able to choose how to
live their lives without being looked down on and discriminated against through
unconstitutional state laws. This include same sex marriage and anything else
that doesn't follow the doctrine of the LDS Church.
majority opposes sin ? well it is about time !
Tyranny of the majority...enough said.
Utah congrats on not being bullied or persuaded by the left and progressive
parties. How thankful we should be to have the vision of this moral break down
and realize that it does nothing for family values nor perpetuation of children.
I believe every person has freedom of choice and it should be honored within the
laws provided. I am glad to hear the silent majority speak and truly wish it
would happen all over this nation, I believe it would make a difference in many
things and in the progress of most people.
I think it is a stretch to say the "majority of Utahns against same-sex
marriage" when the sample size was only 746 Deseret News/KSL readers. The
results are totally inconsistent with several other polls I've seen.
In the end, the argument that gay relationships are just like straight
relationships is clearly false and can only be argued by the willfully blind.Utah should not participate in mass obfuscation of reality
With all due respect to Mr. Johnson, I believe he is constructing a straw man
argument. Speaking only for myself as a gay person and an
observant Jew, the line between religious rites and civil rights is bright. My
partner of many years and I married in a mainstream Reform Jewish temple-- the
very same temple where he had become bar mitzvah decades earlier. It was
important to us as observant Jews to receive the blessing of our community, our
families and of God. We were pleased that we didn't need to go searching
for a rabbi willing and able to marry us. Had our rabbi said, "no", we
would have had to go elsewhere.All that said, our religious marriage
was never recognized by the state in which it was performed. For that, we
needed a civil marriage license. When citizens of our state approved marriage
equality for us, we married civilly. Now our relationship is protected legally
under the law.Two separate issues. No church is required to marry
anyone who doesn't conform to its rules and dogma. The state, on the other
hand, must be open to all, and protect us all equally.
This is not a pure democracy.The 10th amendment is in the bill of
rights as originally penned by the founding fathers of our constitutional
republic.This 10th amendment is a provision which gives the states
and the American people the RIGHT to retain all powers not delegated to the
federal government.Protecting and guarding the public morals and the
public health are to be responsibilities of the state governments.Judge Shelby is in violation of the bill of rights.Obamacare is in
violation of the bill of rights.
Anyone else notice how these numbers are about 10 points off every other survey
on this topic, even KSL reader surveys? Makes me wonder if they split up the
survey pool by geography instead of population e.g. half the population lives in
the metro area so they should represent half the survey vs an even number of
respondents should be from each county etc. Also, anyone notice how
this survey says that a majority supports civil unions but then a majority also
would vote yes on Amendment 3 today even though it outlaws the civil unions they
support? That tells me the either this survey is a mess, or that a lot of
Utahans who support A3 don't understand it. Eh, either way, with these
numbers, Amendment 3 would never pass muster today. To many Utahans are waking
up to the truth: the fact that someone is different than you is not a good
excuse to restrict their freedoms especially when it comes to something as
personal as love and family. .
The whole idea that public opinion matters is a sensationalized sound-bite that
trounces the constitution. Public opinion did not favor a woman's right to
vote. In southern states prior to 1860 or so, public opinion did not appose
slavery. Many of the amendments to the constitution came to be as result of what
the founders could not for see. this is one of those issues. What sadden's
me every time an issue like this comes up is often respondents forget or
don't know how to prioritize and discriminate their person morality in a
way that protects the rights of the minority in regards to the constitution.
Fortunately, we have the US constitution to provide that guidance.
There is no such thing as "same sex marriage". Call same sex unions
whatever you want, but two does or two bucks legally bound is not marriage. I
am for equal protection in terms of taxes, medical/visitation rights, housing,
employment etc. The equal protection clause should not be ignored. But
don't destroy the biologically based, historically supported, lifetime (and
beyond to many) commitment of a man and a woman by destroying the meaning of the
The article is misleading.Last I checked there are around 2.9 Million
people in Utah, and this poll was done with 746.That's 0.0002% of
Utah's population, hardly a minority let alone a majority.If
you look, 918 same-sex couples were married and I'm pretty sure they
approve of same-sex marriage.You can make anything a majority if you
pick and choose who you poll.
Today's editorial in this paper bemoans the number of children being raised
by single parents and concludes with says this observation:"Children raised in homes led by married parents are much more likely than
others to avoid poverty and be emotionally and psychologically well-adjusted.
They are even, one might say, more likely to “value themselves as fully
human.”That is a point on which there should be no
confusion."How can the Utah government and LDS church justify
their emphasis on children's welfare against their intractable opposition
to giving civil rights to those children being raised by two loving same sex
parents? It's untenable, and suggests that their opposition to SSM is
just animus cloaked in religious doctrine. They don't have a leg to stand
I hope this poll helps relieve the concerns about religious protection in case
of legalized same-sex marriage. 72% of people said laws should be passed to
affirm that churches cannot be compelled to perform SSM. 22% said those laws are
not necessary.Mr. Johnson's interpretation of that 22% is confusing:
"It makes me feel like if a same-gender couple goes to an orthodox Jewish
rabbi and says, 'Marry us in your synagogue,' the 22 percent would say
he has to say yes."No, I don't hear anyone saying this. The 22%
recognize that laws already protect religious liberty and their right to
discriminate. The government already cannot interfere in a church's rites
or ordinances, including marriage, so 22% of people believe additional laws to
affirm this are not needed.In any case, it is clear that there is no
conspiracy to compel churches to perform or even accept same-sex marriages. I
hope that this fear at least can be put to rest.
This is irresponsible journalism. Omitting the fact that the 1st amendment of
the US Constitution is what's stopping service providers and churches from
having to be involved in any same sex marriages appears to be purposefully done
to create shock value among readers without Constitutional law knowledge.
Further you allow a lay person's reading of the poll to inform your readers
about the intentions of the 22% to suggest to your readers that 1/5 of Utah
think same sex couples should be able to force involvement of churches and
merchants against the practice. That is clearly wrong. Rather than letting
people without knowledge of the legal underpinning or basic statitstical
analysis capabilities to comment on polls of this importance is irresponsible
journalism as it leaves readers less informed than they had been prior to
reading. I suggest using basic research and qualified input next time.
I'd like to explain, from my point of view, why so many people are against
laws that "protect" churches from having to conduct same-sex marriages.
We already have a law that does that. It's called the First Amendment. I
wonder if people don't trust the First Amendment. Churches already have the
freedom to pick and choose who can and who cannot marry (or be baptized, or
attend, or hold office ... ). That's why Catholics aren't suing to
marry in the temple. It's the reason Mormons aren't suing to marry in
the Madeline. So making an extra law to reinforce the First
Amendment is like bracing the granite walls of the temple with 2x4's. I'm gay. I think you should have the freedom to set whatever rules
you want inside your faith. I have those same freedoms. The Constitution agrees.
Putting the entirety of the legislative system to work just to send a message to
gay people saying, "Yeah but, we really don't want you in our
church." Is as hurtful as it is redundant. It's like going out of your
way to specifically tell someone you hate them. Ouch.
I really need some help here. I hope someone with a traditional opinion on this
matter can answer this for me. My religion embraces same sex marriage. I
thought the First Amendment protects us from the government passing laws which
favor one religion over another. Is that not what the HR3 does? I know you are
trying to protect your religious beliefs but does that have to come at the price
of suppressing my religious beliefs?
This entire issue, on which we're spending so much public time, attention
and money, could be solved by ending government licensing of any private,
domestic partnerships ("marriage," "domestic partnership",
etc.). This would end, as well, government's conferring preferential tax
treatment and providing other differential legal benefits based on such
licenses. Obviously, the domestic relations bar (i.e., divorce lawyers)
wouldn't be happy, but the savings to society would be immense. If
individuals want spiritual sanction for an interpersonal union, they can go to
churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. to get it. But keep the government out of
it.The only serious argument I hear on this relates to the welfare
of children. But child support and welfare obligations of parents exist
independently of whether parents have a licensed marriage. And
government-licensed unions obviously have been no guarantee that children will
be raised in the 1950s-style conventional households that supporters of
government-licensed "marriage" appear so ardently to desire.
@Kings Court"The Salt Lake Trib. also did a poll on Gay Marriage four
days ago and found that it was split 50/50 on the issue. So I wonder whose poll
is accurate. "I think somewhere around 40-55, closer to this
poll than the Survey USA poll (Tribune). Same-sex marriage support in Utah is
usually more than a dozen below the national average in polling. @wrz" There's nothing in the US Constitution about marriage.
"So the federal courts were wrong to strike down interracial
marriage bans, in your opinion?@Joemamma"The only reason
why young people are more accepting of gay marriage is due to being hammered
constantly in universities and colleges to accept it.."Young
people were also at the forefront of the civil rights movement too."infact history shows that societies that accepted and embraced the gay
lifestyle will eventually dissapered go to ruin and self destroy."That's not even accurate.
I shake my head when I read that people believe churches will be forced to marry
SS couples. Churches are protected from this...just like a Jewish couple cannot
demand to be married in a Catholic church. I think these people are being
"Chicken Little". Now as for commerce..we have local non discrimination
laws. And yes, sexual orientation is one such minority, along with race, creed,
color and disabilities. Do you think these businesses should have the right to
discriminate against these other minorities?
I cringe a bit when people say something like "marriage has been the
foundation of civilization for the past "6000 years". Societies and
cultures that many would consider to be uncivilized also recognized the distinct
but equal roles that fathers and mothers have in the raising of children. I
would presume that the same was true before the dawn of civilization.Perhaps in the next generation will approve SSM. But at least, it won't
be my generation that decides after 100,000 years of human society that children
don't need a father and a mother.
@jrp7sen What makes you think that the same people who oppose same-sex marriage
don't also oppose divorce? Just because it isn't in the news five
times a day doesn't mean people don't care about it.Regarding the myriad questions about polling, polls differ because the
questions in each poll differ and because the people being asked in each poll
"....and say if gay marriage were legal, Utah should pass laws to protect
places of worship from having to perform weddings for gay and lesbian
couples."So right now the LDS church restricts who has access to
their temples. Only members in good standing are allowed to enter past the
lobby. No one has tried to force them to allow straight non mormon couple to get
married, or to allow friends and family that aren't LDS to be able to go to
the wedding. Since getting gay married is against the LDS rules it would make
them ineligible to be married in the temple. Since the LDS churches right to
allow whom they want to get married in the temple hasn't changed, it seems
like a second law would be overkill.
@ Bruce A. FrankLet's be honest. You cannot show a single case
in which a church has faced pressure to violate their own religious beliefs.
Businesses, yes, but those don't have rights. The religious community does
not have a legal monopoly on marriage. Nobody's religious rights are
violated if I get a gay marriage, just like mine aren't violated if you get
a straight marriage. No church is being forced to provide facilities or services
to accommodate beliefs with which they disapprove. All laws that have expanded
services to minorities, such as the contraception mandate, have explicitly
provided exemptions for churches. Sorry, but religious freedom is more under
threat from radical evangelicals trying to use the state to ban mosques or
police departments that use religion as a basis for systemic discrimination and
spying.@ ClintonThe problem is that some claim religious
rights where there are none. You don't have a religious right to government
support of your faith, or to impose your faith on others. Heterosexuality is
forced on others ALL the time. Our culture is saturated in it. If straight
people don't have to hide their sexuality, neither should gay people.
Hello, Dennis,You said, "Discrimination and bigotry are
illegal," however, that isn't entirely true.Bigotry is not
illegal because you can't legislate how somebody feels about somebody else.
For example, it is perfectly legal for me to have unflattering feelings and
opinions regarding police officers from Baker County, Oregon. It is also legal
for me to discriminate and deny services in my business to certain people, which
is why the shoeless and shirtless in our society are so repressed.What we cannot do, because it is explicitly spelled out in our laws, is
discriminate against somebody because of their religion or their race. However,
we discriminate all the time against people's sexual preferences, such as
laws that prevent polygamy, so doing so is obviously not illegal.
@kolob1 No, that really isn't the case, and a quick search on Huffington
Post alone will show you plenty of examples where churches and businesses have
been sued for refusing to service homosexual couples. Therefore, we obviously
need explicit laws in place that bolster the Constitution and defend the rights
of people who don't want to support same-sex marriage in their churches and
businesses, since activist judges don't seem to be deterred enough by the
There seems to be a little matter of the Constitution and the separation of
church and state involved here. Perhaps if the people of Utah feel very deeply
about this matter they should petition to leave the United States of America
which would allow them to live under a theocracy.
@ LovelyDeseret - What is moral about discriminating against another human being
for no rational reason?@ Esquire in re: the meaninglessness of the
poll: I agree with your point: A poll isn't relevant to the Constitutional
issue at hand. What it is useful for is to reveal the movement of hearts and
minds in the direction they always go when knowledge and information begin to
win. They "bend towards justice."
People have the right to decide for themselves; not others. I know this can be
a terribly difficult concept to grasp. But this is how it works. Yes,
religious freedoms should still be protected. But it should not be necessary to
withhold rights from one party in other to protect the rights of another.
We're smarter than that. We can figure out a way.
The problem with polls is in the way the questions are ask. Example:1. Do you oppose same sex marriage? Most will answer
Yes.2. Do you oppose personal freedom? Most will answer NO. 3. Do you oppose the personal freedom to marry someone of your own
sex?4 Do you oppose the use of the word marriage for same sex
marriage?5. Do you oppose giving same sex partners the same economic
advantages that traditional marriage partners have?
Sad. Those who argue for traditional marriage and against SSM are called
"haters" and "wolves" in the comments. Is this in keeping with
the new Desnews policy?
Has any society prospered with "gay marriage", as a norm?
I think this poll confirms a trend that those who follow this issue on a
national basis have noticed. Utah seems willing to compromise on this issue -
far more than other states. All three recent polls show a majority favor Civil
Unions (something Amendment 3 precludes by the way).To quote a
previous Deseret News article:"Utah is seeing the same kind of
movement that we see in the United States generally," said Chris Karpowitz,
a BYU political science professor and fellow at the center. "We're
getting massive change in public opinion in a very short period of time."
"What makes Utah voters different," Karpowitz says, is that they are
moving "not toward full support of marriage equality but toward civil
unions." (Deseret News July 9, 2012)
When will we ever learn to accept that one person forcing their belief on
another that holds different beliefs is never right. Our ancestors fought a
revolution to assert their rights against the tyranny of the king. Denying the
minority equal protection under the law is just as tyrannical.
I am pretty certain that this headline would have read the same fifty years ago,
only with "segregation" in place of "gay marriage."When states decide that they aren't going to protect the right of all
it's citizens, then it's the job of the Federal Government to step on
and do it. Just like the Little Rock Five.
@ LovelyDeseretThis country is not, nor has it ever been, a
democracy. We are a republic and are ruled by the Constitution.
The Governor’s statement at the end of the article shows irony –
Governor now states he upholds the law, yet previous news articles show this
governor and Utah A.G. disallowed government officials to uphold Shelby’s
ruling and even closed government offices to same sex couples. Federal A.G.
Holder had to issue a federal statement to uphold Shelby’s ruling in Utah
to override their non-compliance once again to recognize the Utah SSM marriages,
allow them to continue paperwork with driver licenses, SSN, etc. Whether the
Utah governor and Utah A.G. will be prosecuted for these multiple infractions
are unknown, but indicative of the government hypocrisy existing in Utah. This
poll is also interesting, as 26% of SLC are composed of same-sex parents
according to UCLA Law Review, SLC has been one of the top gay city for the past
five years, and religious fervor has minimized throughout the years. Other
polls printed recently show the opposite. Is this why the state needs more time
to prepare their appeal - are they unable to find legal means to support the
In following this lawsuit I find it unusual that a judge would not order an
immediate stay (like in Oklahoma) for such a controversial situation. Also, the
original date of 1/7/14 was suddenly changed to late December.Also, the number
of people who were married in a couple of days indicates maybe they were
notified, in advance, that the date change and lack of a"stay", were
coming! As time goes by it looks very suspicious.
It would appear that the majority of Utahns, if this poll is correct, are also
opposed to the US Constitution. How else would you explain the total
disregard for the protections of the 14th amendment? Anyone
providing buisness services to the public must do so to all members of the
public. Discrimination for whatever reason is ugly, immoral and
wrong. If you advocate for the right to discriminate, then you have some
Bruce Frank stated: "The real problem as I see it is that the homosexual
community wants to force same sex marriage on the religious community. "_______________Bruce, do you have any actual evidence to support this
claim? I have been following this issue for a while now, and I have yet to see
a single example of any gay people "forcing themselves on the religious
community" that you claim. In fact, it is often the other way
around with various religeous communities forcing their particular beliefs on
others. Which, if I am not mistaken, is exactly what you are trying
to do here. Please don't take this as a personal attack, but it
is this type of attitude that you share with many others, an attitude that your
view is the only acceptable view, that is the real issue here. Same sex marriage
will have exactly zero impact on your life. So what is the basis of your
objection to it?
Bruce A. Frank--you got it all right except 'the LDS will eventually
@ OatmealI haven't seen many "loving" comments from the
traditional marriage crowd.
"Where, in any legislation at any state or federal level do we see forcing
of religious groups to perform same-sex marriage?"Where, in any
legislation at any state or federal level do we see that flowers or wedding cake
businesses are required to serve anyone they don't wish to serve?If a business can be required to serve a gay couple, then, to be fair, a
church can be required to perform Same-sex marriages. After all, marriages are
not considered a part of freedom to worship or establishing a religion as
outlined in the 1st Amendment.
@Riccar, re: " have seen this gay rights agenda go from domestic
partnerships, to "everything but marriage", to gay marriage. Each time
with the attachments that churches and certain businesses would not have to
service gays....."Just replace "gays" with "African
Americans" for the appropriate perspective. Then research Public
Accommodations law, meaning Catholics cannot refuse service to Mormons because
of strongly held religious beliefs.. Understand better?
"Sad. Those who argue for traditional marriage and against SSM are called
'haters' and 'wolves' in the comments. Is this in keeping
with the new Desnews policy?"Funny, I keep seeing this claim
being posted, but I keep missing the evidence. Maybe a few people are calling
others names, but it isn't happening nearly as often as people would make
you believe it is.What we are really witnessing is that people are
challenging each others' comments. That doesn't mean they are being
called haters or wolves. Yes, some have been called bigots, but isn't that
the risk one takes when they say that one group of people doesn't deserve
the same rights the rest enjoy?
If the percent of people who wanted to permit civil unions now, and the percent
who had voted for the proposition that was against them are the same, this makes
me wonder something disturbing--did the people who took this poll even read what
they were asked? Of course, they may have not been the same ones--it was an
incredibly small sample to be representing enven a state this size. Still, it
would have been a larger number who voted, I should hope, on the proposition,
and I'd like to think that those who answered a poll question would have
been interested enough to also have voted. Which, sadly, leaves me with the
question nagging me even more loudly--did they read those questions--or simply
answer with knee-jerk responses? And one other thing...the question
of kids being browbeaten into being in favor of marriage equality at college--my
sixth grade teacher said, "a man convinced against his will is of the same
opinion still". Maybe the student needed to protect himself from judgmental
adults back home, and it was the best excuse he could come up with on short
If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry anyone your own
gender. Problem solved.
@iron&clay;The 10th Amendment PROHIBITS violations of the US
Constitution by the states, thus, Utah's amendment 3 is invalid. Read it,
states do NOT have the right to over-rule the US Consitution.@carman;You're right. Instead of calling it "same-sex
marriage", we should just call it "marriage". That's what it
"The Purpose of Marriage is Not Procreation" Incorrect.The
Purpose of Marriage is Not ONLY Procreation Fixed it for you.To deny
that reproduction and a stable family unit is not a PART of what marriage is
about is to deny history.To claim that marriage is ONLY about
"love" is to ignore history entirely.Marriage for love is a recent
development in human society. Indeed, in many parts of the world, it still
remains an oddity rather than the norm. Developing love AFTER marriage was the
hope, but it was not deemed a necessary part of the relationship. To get
married solely for ‘love’ or ‘benefits’ is incorrect.
Procreation is a necessary part of the marriage relationship. If a person wants
to enjoy the blessings of marriage then do it right! Artificial insemination is
a copout. In GM it is impossible without a surrogate mother. And what kind of
normalcy are you giving children with a female dad or a male mom?Dictionary: Father… male parent; Mother… female parent.Male: sex producing sperm cell or male gameteFemale: sex producing egg
cellsChange definitions of male & female like was done with
‘marriage’ (same sex) then maybe. Good luck!
"Majority of Utahns against same-sex marriage..."Of course
they are. If a person wants to marry they can't choose choose a sibling, a
child, an aunt or uncle, or a son or daughter. And they can't choose a
group of people, such as polygamy. And they shouldn't be able to choose
someone of the same sex. There's alotta restrictions to who can marry
whom/what."...and say states have the right to decide"Of course states do. It says so in the US Constitution. There's
nothing in the US Constitution about marriage. It says powers not specifically
identified in the Constitution as federal powers are reserved to the states and
the people. The right to define marriage is such a power delegated to the
states. Some contend that the Constitution says you can't discriminate.
Utah's marriage law does not discriminate. It applies to all citizens
equally. In fact, carving out and allowing one particular marriage combination,
such as same-sex, would introduce discrimination against all other possible
"This is how a democracy dies. To say that the basic moralities of the
majority are subject to the whims of the minority and their lifestyle choices is
to kill democracy."This is also how morality passes... Ben
Franklin said: 'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.' John
Adams said: 'Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'"This entire issue, on which we're spending so much public time,
attention and money, could be solved by ending government licensing of any
private, domestic partnerships ('marriage,' 'domestic
partnership,' etc.)."Marriage is not a religious function.
It's a contract between two people. Marrying is a government function
authorizing and acknowledging a contract and can be preformed by government
personnel and religious leaders alike. Thus, it is not a protection under the
@ Bruce, "The real problem as I see it is that the homosexual community
wants to force same sex marriage on the religious community..."Do you see the LDS church forced to marry Catholics or Jews in their temples?
Fear not, the first amendment is and remains well and good, sky will fall
argumentation is without merit.
Irrespective of how one feels on the issue of same sex marriage, I find it
amusing that some post that we (the voting populace) do not get to vote on what
rights we or others get.That is entirely false. Since the dawn of
our republic we have decided what we would consider rights and what we would
not. To believe that it is now different is absurd.The founders
decided what rights would be part of the constitution. Others have been added
since. Other countries have decided otherwise and different rights are
recognized (or not). Rights are what we agree to recognize. Nothing more.For over 200 years we did not recognize a right of gay marriage. It was
not a right. Now, the pendulum appears to be swinging that way. That is
because people are deciding it is a right. It reflects a shift in popular
opinion.If you want to know what innate human rights you have go to
a totalitarian country and agitate for change. The answer will be provided to
you very quickly. The answer is none.
Dan Jones is a respected, mainstream, professional polling organization, but I
have a serious question about the survey methodology. Public opinion surveys
such as this one are typically anonymous. I have participated in opinion polls
many times, being called by Jones or other survey agencies for political or
marketing research and have never been asked for my identity. So how is it the
reporter was able to quote two respondents to the survey, one on either side of
the issue? Were poll respondents informed that the poll was not anonymous?
Were they given the option of identifying themselves? Or did the reporter
randomly call people until he found two people who had participated in the
survey (which seems statistically unlikely)? Anonymity or the lack thereof
would have a significant influence given the sensitive nature of the survey
If the first amendment supports the right of gays/lesbians to boycott
restaurants because of their beliefs, why doesn't it also support clergy
who choose to boycott performing gay marriages? If you force clergy to perform
marriages they don't agree with, you need to force gays to buy food at
restaurants they don't agree with. The gate swings both ways.
Really: Actually all you have to do is read the comments in favor of Same-sex
marriage. We are said to love our fellowman because we don't favor
same-sex marriage. We are said to be bigots and hateful consistently. Either
you are ignoring these facts or your head is buried in the sand. When we speak
we are told that our religious views have no place in the public square that we
don't love the constitution.Now for inter-racial marriage and
same-sex marriage. In the late 1800's Congress and the US Supreme Court
defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Thus they outlawed and made
it a crime for anyone in this country to enter into a polgymous marriage. When
they ruled inter-racial marriage equal the Supreme Court did not redefine
marriage as between one-man and one-woman. DOMA again didn't redefine
marriage but stated the same as Congress and the Supreme Court had already
ruled. Marriage in the United States was define as marriage between one man and
Alfred, businesses are licensed by the state, religions are not. There in lies
@Alfred: "Where [at the] state or federal level do we see that flowers or
wedding cake businesses are required to serve anyone they don't wish to
serve? If a business can be required to serve a gay couple, then, to be fair, a
church can be required to perform Same-sex marriages."Different
issues."When followers of a particular sect enter into
commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own
conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the
statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity." United
States v Lee (1982) "We have never held that an individual's religious
beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting
conduct that the State is free to regulate." Employ. Div v Smith (1990)Translation: state or federal statutes may impose obligations on
businesses (ex. anti-discrimination laws) and even though an owner may feel
compliance would violate his religious beliefs, he cannot refuse and look to the
Constitution for absolution.Now, if a state law requires a church to
admit or marry anyone against its wishes, that law would be slam-dunk
@ AlfredThat would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Business owners
cant discriminate against who can buy their cakes, or who can sit at their lunch
counters. Also, the Civil Rights Act has had zero effect on religion, so your
fears in that respect can be put to rest.
I don't feel that a poll set up by the Deseret News is a scientifically
I should hasten to point out that the "majority" isn't always
right, and the "majority" shouldn't always have their way. I think
we have far bigger fish to fry now that struggling to protect people from
themselves. Nearly every attempt to legislate morality has failed miserably,
and we should be concentrating on the wrongs that are perpetrated upon UNWILLING
this is actually quite humorous. The tit for tat about whether the citizens of
the state can decide an issue or not is meaningless if the action is immoral!
The real issue is whether something will stabilize or destabilize a country. If
something that is wrong is given the right under the law to be O.K, then it
really doesn't matter whether it is Constitutional or not, does it? In
fact, you might as well dump the Constitution in the ocean. laws that are
immoral will destroy a country. IT IS THAT SIMPLE!
Every man in Utah already has the "right" to marry. It just has to be
to a woman. And every woman in Utah already has the right to marry. It just
has to be to a man. We are not withholding the right to marry for anyone.
Everyone already has the right to marry.
When this is all over, if and when marriage equality carries the day, those who
are so adamantly opposed might seriously wonder if they truly wanted the
democratic-republic style of government that this country is, with the distinct
separation of church from state that has caused many of its fine citizens to
wonder about its most obvious secular nature. Perhaps there will be a hue and
cry over the "Godlessness" of it all. Sadly for those folks, it is what
it is, and what it is not is a theocracy. Should anyone want one of those, and
then believe it is possible to design one, I'm sure he or she and a group
of like-minded individuals could find suitable land upon which to form that
theocracy. But I don't believe it would be as wonderful as the dream, nor
as secure. So lick your wounds, mourn awhile, and stay here in this messy but
free, secular democratic-republic with the rest of us.
For those of you that don't understand, majority is not the issue here.
It's the legal rights of citizens of the United States.
@ banderson"The real issue is whether something will stabilize
or destabilize a country."Did you ever notice that the decline
of the U.S. is correlated with the rise of fundamentalist-type religiosity? I
think a strong argument can be made that religion has had an undermining effect
on our country. It certainly has shown itself hostile to knowledge and growth.
How is this moral or good? Frankly I think it is more often the
case that we are moral and good DESPITE religion than because of it.
@ldschristian 10:56 p.m. Jan. 19, 2014Every man in Utah already has
the "right" to marry. It just has to be to a woman. And every woman in
Utah already has the right to marry. It just has to be to a man. We are not
withholding the right to marry for anyone. Everyone already has the right to
your argument back to the 1960s in Virginia:Every Negro (using the
term of the time) in Virginia already has the "right" to marry. It just
has to be to a Negro. And every Caucasian in Virginia already has the right to
marry. It just has to be to a Caucasian. (The same argument being made for any
racial designation in Virginia at the time. ) We are not withholding the right
to marry for anyone. Everyone already has the right to marry.That
argument was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Article 14 to the US
Constitution says ". . . nor shall any State . . . deny to ANY person within
its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws" (emphasis added).
Separate but equal isn't equal. The Supreme Court decided that a long time
Ha. I am so glad that tax benefits and a few other rights entailed true
happiness. All of that pure love and righteous love. Gay people were only
prevented from experiencing true bliss in this life because the government had
not yet given them tax breaks, or a marriage license. Yes! This is great. If gay
marriage is allowed in utah, then only now will gay people be truly happy.
Interesting, can this be true, did the sky really not fall? From the SacBee:
"Not a single one of those 900 marriages took place in LDS temples or
other places of worship. Just as was true in California, before Prop. 8,
civil-marriage equality does not infringe on religious freedom.
Churches—including the LDS—remain free to refuse to marry any couple
that does not meet their doctrinal requirements for marriage.Those 900
Utah couples were married in public courthouses and in churches that support
marriage equality. And, thankfully, Americans are—rather
quickly—coming to see that marriage equality is no threat to religious
freedom. In fact, marriage equality will actually strengthen the First Amendment
rights to freedom of religion, as those religious organizations who support
marriage equality will finally be free to practice it."
Bruce says: "The real problem as I see it is that the homosexual community
wants to force same sex marriage on the religious community..."ldschristian says: "Every man in Utah already has the "right" to
marry. It just has to be to a woman. And every woman in Utah already has the
right to marry. It just has to be to a man. "From where I stand,
it is the religious community trying to force opposite-sex marriage on gays.@CBAX;Have you ever had to worry about what is going to
happen to you or your significant other if one of you dies? You have legal
protections in your relationship that we do not. This is extremely stressful.
@LovelyDeseret:"This is how a democracy dies. To say that the
basic moralities of the majority are subject to the whims of the minority and
their lifestyle choices is to kill democracy."There are so many
inaccuracies and stereotypes going on in this one sentence, it boggles the mind.
Example: to assert that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" immediately
disqualifies you from the discussion due to lack of knowledge. Many of those against marriage equality fail to realize that we are not a pure
democracy, we live in a democratic constitutional republic. That means that the
people can vote to make the laws of the land, as long as those laws comport with
the US constitution and do not trample upon the rights of free citizens.
Utah's Amendment 3 utterly failed legal scrutiny, and that's why it
was struck down. This same situation occurred in Oklahoma, with similar results
after the 10th Appeals Court rules in favor of the Shelby decision.
Even convicted spousal abusers, and adult child molesters have a fundamental
right to marry, but a same-sex couple? Oh no, the sky will fall, society will
collapse and religious freedom will be destroyed. Seriously?
Salt Lake Tribune indicates their poll at 50%.
In 1967, the residents of the United States were polled as to whether
interracial marriage should be legal, and the vast majority said no. Then along
came Loving v Virginia and interracial marriages were legal (much to the loud
grumbling of many racists throughout the country). We are at a
"Loving" moment. Marriage equality is legal in 17-19 states (Utah and
Oklahoma currently on hold) and DC. In a couple of decades, when SCOTUS paves
the way for marriage equality in all 50 states, are people going to admit they
were against it? Liars and hypocrites probably won't. And yes,
marriage equality IS going to be the law of the land, much sooner than you
think. Even in Utah...
It's been my experience that when "majority of Utahns" oppose
anything it's because they are "told" to by the leaders of the
predominant religeon. I've experienced this through family members who are
very active in "the" church of which I am not as active as I once was
since I started to think for myself and come to my own conclusions.We, the
faithful are told that we are put here to prove ourselves righteous and worthy
of the return to "heaven". By doing everything you are told to do by the
religeous leaders, you don't experience anything but day to day life. Make
up your own mind, your own decisions, mistakes and learn from them. That's
what you are "here for".
Sounds like the same "states rights" arguments made by Virginia when it
went so far has trying to jail mixed-race couples for getting married out of
state and them moving to Virginia. The Supreme Court found that such
anti-miscegenation laws violated the 14th Amendment and will surely do the same
with same sex marriages.Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment
provides:All persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Why do religions think they "own" marriage? Marriage exists outside of
marriage all over the world. If a religion is anti gay marriage then don't
perform them. Trying to make laws to enforce your religious beliefs is wrong on
every level. Just because the LDS faith doesn't want to accept gay marriage
should have absolutely NOTHING to do with the law of the land.
Let's step back and let our religions or lack of religious belief rule
where they should - in our own lives and Churches. Many feel Islamic law should
be the rule of law in countries but what about the other churches? Religion in
this corner, government in that corner. May the 2 harmoniously co exist. That is
how it should work. Personally I see this as the right to pursuit of
happiness. As long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others, well,
butt out. Not your business. Your ox is NOT being gored.
I sense a lot of fear of equality. Fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of
all. We have seen this throughout the history of this fine country. Personal
religious beliefs should not be the reason to deny equal rights and benefits to
others who may believe, think or live differently. If that were the case we
would be no different than some countries in the world where only one religion
is accepted and there continues to be war and discrimination against anyone of
an opposing faith or belief. Religion has been the cause of nearly every war in
the world, whether it was the Christian wars centuries ago to the wars we see in
the world today. Giving equal rights to those who do not have it will not stop
any religion from believing as they wish. It does not infringe on their rights
and they do not have to perform any ceremony that differs from their teachings.
Where do these destructive myths come from?RiccarMoses Lake,
WA"...attachments that churches and certain businesses would not have
to service gay marriages.... photographers, bakery shops, caterers and Pastors
that are in legal trouble for not providing service to gays... pressure on a
school district to insert gay curriculum into the classroom."A--- Let's be clear that churches and businesses are separate issue. No
legislature and no judge could make a church marry people who do not fit its
rules, but if a person or a church owns a business open to the public, it must
obey the laws.B--- In some more liberal areas, where everyone knows there
are Gay people and Gay couples, they appropriately inform kids about the
community, not teach them sex. Remember, some kids know they are Gay at 5, and
deserve to be told they are OK.Bruce A. FrankSan Jose, CAThe real problem as I see it is that the homosexual community wants to force
same sex marriage on the religious community.C--- Actually, the real
problem: some churches are afraid that their own members and their own kids who
are Gay will want to be treated equally.
I hope bias was written into the question, its the basis of the right of the
state.Every state, all 50, have the constitutional right and
obligation to establish moral and social standards and why there are no federal
laws that dare to challenge all social and moral standards because of the
variety of cultures and values that immigrants thorough out the expanison of
this country in its divine destiny.Our forefathers knew that morals
and social standards of immigrants varied by country they came from and this
right was given to the states to create and maintain standards that society will
live by. So the state do have the right to discriminate the moral and civil and
economic values of its residents. Its also why there are no federal
laws that establish moral and civil laws. It was believed that people have the
wisdom to defeat dishonesty and immorality without the need for these laws.
Truth and humanity would defeat the unwanted and this is our right. It is our
right to be biased, prejudiced, in profiling to establish law and order and rule
of law. Fair is not a right and not all laws can be fair to all.
What people tend to forget you can not force God to change his mind. His laws
well prevail no matter what anyone has to say on the matter. Human rights or no
Human rights Gods laws are for us all to follow even if you don't believe
in them or not and his judgement comes to us all even if you don't believe
in them.To Bruce A. Frank San Jose, CA: The LDS church well NEVER
give in and perform same sex marriage, even if it losses its tax states it well
not marry same sex couples. God has said this is an abomination and you can not
force a church to perform that which God has said is a sin. For if any church
givens in the well face the wrath of God and which wrath do you want to face the
wrath of a sinner or the wrath of God?
Morality. That's it. GG/
It is sad that some people don't even know the history of their own
state:1. Utah was Never a slave state. Slaves were not allowed nor
believed in by the majority that were ..... wait for it..... Mormons!2. Utah was the Second state to allow voting rights for Women and at the time
the majority that were..... wait for it....wait for it.....Mormons!3. So when the Mormons speak up and have already done so by a VOTE against gay
marriage, I would Pay Attention and try to understand their point of view why
they are voting that way. Try to live civilly with your neighbors
with out name calling and learn some history.
iron&clayRIVERTON, UT"The Deseret News recently published an
article about same sex marriages in North Nigeria where the records show that
the percentage of AIDS per same sex couples is over 4 times higher than among
heterosexual couples.The state of Utah has the power to guard the public
morals and the public health as mandated by the 10th amendment to the
constitution.Therefore, based on incidence of AIDS, no marriage
certificates should be allowed for homosexual couples."Are you
saying that Americans should suffer consequences because people in Nigeria have
HIV?And, if it were true that some people have HIV and want to
marry, would that not discourage the spread of HIV to allow them, and encourage
it not to allow them?How does one guard the public morals by
refusing someone the right to marry? If they are in a relationship anyhow,
doesn't it help the public morality if they get married?I am
disappointed to see folks reaching so far for rationales.
too bad the minority rules.
mrjj69bountiful, UTtoo bad the minority rules.------------------Actually, the Constitution rules. It is the
supreme law of the land. If a state passes a law that is directly
against something in the constitution,(say, like, equality under the law for
all), it will not pass the judicial review of said law. Pretty simple and yet
brilliant. Got to love our Constitution!
Why do we apply the idea of N wolves and 1 goat, N > 1, voting on what is
for dinner to gay marriage, but do not apply it to let's say, tax laws? You
could argue that the progressive income tax structured so that the minority top
earners are taxed at a much higher rate is exactly the wolves voting to have the
goat for dinner. In fact, there are many instances of conflict between a
majority and a minority that are resolved in the favor of the majority to the
chagrin of the minority, and we are not talking about wolves and goats. I am
inclined to think there is some agenda behind it that has nothing to do with
logic, the pseudo-logic is only being used to sell it.
The opinions of the citizens of the State of Utah - even if 100% of them agree -
are completely irrelevant if their opinion violates the constitutional rights of
anyone. A cornerstone principle of the constitution is to protect the minority
from the tyranny of the majority.Given our history, you would think
we would be especially careful to avoid anything that even remotely resembles
denying anyone their rights. "Religious freedom" can easily be turned
into a cudgel used to bludgeon others.For example, a few years ago,
Rev. Pat Robertson began a drive to prevent anyone that was not Christian from
holding public office, because, as he explained, the constitution was founded on
Judeo-Christian values and non-Christians were incapable of appreciating or
understanding that foundation. He singled out Buddhists, Muslims, and Atheists.
BTW, he also does not believe that Mormons are Christians.That may
seem far-fetched, but what if the majority of folks in a Bible-belt state agreed
with that sentiment? Should they be allowed to ban Mormons from running for
office or voting if enough people agreed with that sentiment? Once you blur the
line on individual rights, how do you protect anyone?
I am sadden to read so many words of hate from those clamoring for a more
"civil" discourse.Some say Judge Shelby's decision was
judicial tyranny.Worse than judicial tyranny is dogma-driven tyranny
that tells people (who are not members) how they should live.Worse
than judicial tyranny is a group of people, once persecuted for their
non-standard beliefs and practices, persecuting others for THEIR non-standard
beliefs and practices. It represents the absolute height of
I don't have a problem with the premise in this article... the danger of it
comes via our history. The article's topic, same-sex marriage,
could easily be replaced with segregation or slavery... to me that's where
the danger lies.Just because a State feels a certain way on an
issue, does not make the State, it's citizens, or their Constitution right.
Being in the majority on an issue, does not give you the final say on what
'right or wrong' is. It does give you the responsiblity to find
'the right' and do it.
So states should be the ones to decide and be able to not recognize legal
marriages performed in other states..... Sounds just like the argument for
slavery 150 years ago! it is a state decision!
If you have to go through the government to be able to do something, it should
not be considered a right in the first place.
I'm curious to find out if Mr. Johnson is equally/conversely surprised or
offended or up-in-arms that anyone thinks that religions should force the
government to do things?