Comments about ‘Poll: Majority of Utahns against same-sex marriage and say states have the right to decide’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 18 2014 10:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
City, Ut

Bruce A. Frank--you got it all right except 'the LDS will eventually cave' part.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Oatmeal

I haven't seen many "loving" comments from the traditional marriage crowd.

Phoenix, AZ

"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.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@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?

Kearns, UT

"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?

Sacramento, CA

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 notice.

sandy/USA, 00

If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry anyone your own gender. Problem solved.

Huntsville, UT


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.


You're right. Instead of calling it "same-sex marriage", we should just call it "marriage". That's what it is.

Draper, UT

"The Purpose of Marriage is Not Procreation"
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 gamete
Female: sex producing egg cells
Change definitions of male & female like was done with ‘marriage’ (same sex) then maybe. Good luck!

Phoenix, AZ

"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 combinations.

Phoenix, AZ

"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 1st Amendment.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ 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.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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 topic.

Provo, UT

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.

Maryville, MO

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 one woman.

Mission Viejo, CA

Alfred, businesses are licensed by the state, religions are not. There in lies the difference.

Stephen Daedalus
Arvada, CO

@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 unconstitutional.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Alfred

That 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.

truth in all its forms
henderson, NV

I don't feel that a poll set up by the Deseret News is a scientifically sound survey.

to comment

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