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
Nice, CA

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?

Provo, UT

Morality. That's it. GG/

Albuquerque, NM

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.

Bob K
portland, OR

"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.

bountiful, UT

too bad the minority rules.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT


bountiful, UT

too 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!

Sasha Pachev
Provo, UT

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.

Bill McGee
Alpine, UT

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?

West Richland, WA

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 hypocrisy.

Bored to the point of THIS!
Ogden, UT

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.

non believer

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!

Vernal, UT

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.

Collingswood, NJ

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?

to comment

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