Comments about ‘Marriage debate fills the halls of the Capitol’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 28 2014 10:40 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Idaho Falls, ID

@ EqualProtection You know perfectly well what they mean by "traditional marriage". But I'll explain anyway. Man and woman- that's it. Not man and man or woman and woman. That's what marriage has always been. The only combination that has survived the test of time over thousands of years. Yours is another nonsensical talking point of the SSM crowd.

@ Sneaky Jimmy Very slowly now...some people are attracted to their same gender. Some are attracted to the opposite gender. At some point everyone decides whether or not to act on that attraction. Those with same gender attraction can choose to never act on it just as heterosexuals ( priests, nuns, et al.)choose to never act on their heterosexual attractions.

It IS a choice! Everyone makes it. Gay or straight.

Shelley, ID

dmcvey: The proponents of traditional marriage felt very much threatened at the rally.

Those who are spraying others with glitter ought to be charged with assault - it is a crime against another person. To breathe in that stuff would be deadly. To force someone to breathe glitter in is a crime.

Provo, UT

We are past the point of civility. Certainly appears to be true of the few angry dissenters.

This is a case where the glaring exception proves the rule.

The standard of traditional marriage will endure through all challenges, in spite of every effort by the few deviants to discredit the ideals of the majority. Mr. Reyes asserted this in his speech outlining legal recourse by the State of Utah, to the thunderous applause and assent of the rally crowd. It was a high point of the evening.

Brian Utley
Freedom, IN

Why is the unscientific, unsupported assumption advanced that these relationship changes, in the name of marriage, will cause "dysfunctional homes, more poverty, more crime, more child abuse, more divorce, more venereal disease and higher taxes"? Talk about nonsense! Right now "traditional" marriage (which isn't "traditional" at all) isn't doing so hot, either. Why don't we just do everything we can to support love, love, love, wherever we are lucky enough to find it...and start dealing with all the reasons why we can do something, rather than why we can't?

Somewhere in Time, UT


I encourage to you view Dr. Lopez's video. You will understand why he feels the way does. He suffered a great deal of damage by being deprived of a male role model. He had no idea how to behave like a man and consequently was drawn into a gay life. He states that he doesn't believe he would have done this if he hadn't been raised in a gay environment. He is now married and doesn't believe anyone is born gay. The reason gay supporters oppose what he says is because they don't want to hear it. And, of course, if you don't want to change your behavior, it is always easier to claim you can't help it because you were born that way. No scientific study has ever concluded that anyone is born gay, including studies of identical twins.

St. George, UT

To the supporters of Amendment 3: Can any of you provide a rational argument defending the proposition that same-sex marriage (SSM) harms children?

If gay couples already have children (and more of them in Utah do than in any other state) then what outcome do you believe best supports their well-being? Denigrating their parents by castigating them as "Evil"? How do you think those children feel when you deny THEM equal protection under the law and use the rhetoric of sin and evil when referring to their parents and families? YOU are the ones harming children!

Children of gay couples will be empowered and uplifted when their parents are allowed to be married. Gay marriage is good for these kids. In fact, I strongly suspect that if Mr. Rodriquez' parents had been brought in to the protective social and civil bonds of marriage, his experiences would have been much improved. Again, by denying equal rights under the law, YOU are the ones harming children!

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT


I have an adopted brother who, even though he had a mother and a father in the house he grew up in, had the very same feelings of damage by not knowing his biological parents. He has no idea who his biological father is. It made him feel inferior in many ways. Those feelings have actually help him become a very successful person.

Twin studies show that about 50% of identical twins are both gay. That does not mean that they both do not have a gene or genes that influence their homosexuality. It means that one has had this gene "tripped" or turned on. If you check into indentical twins with type one diabetes, you will find that only about 30% of them are both diabetics. We know that type one diabetes is a genetic disease, but the other twin has not had their gene for diabetes turned on. Check out those studies and it will change your mind regarding using twins for examples. Actually, 50% is a very high percentage of both having the same trait!

equal protection
Cedar, UT

re: "If we expand the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, where does it stop? If homosexuals can marry because they are presently committed to each other, why can't polyamorous families (two or more adults of different sexes) be allowed to marry also?"

The slippery slope logical fallacy argument again. Civil rights are never dependent upon what someone else might ask for (allowing African Americans to vote, then women are going to want to vote). Polygamy and Polyamory are not considered immutable characteristics (race, sex, and sexual orientation). Un-like ones choice in religion or morality.

Therefore, courts have determined that the government is not obligated to recognize every relationship a person may want to enter.

Logan, UT

"We are the 66 percent," a reference to Utah's constitutional definition of marriage that was passed by 66 percent of voters in 2004.


Amendment 3 not only bans SSM, but also bans civil union.

According to DN its own recent survey, now, majority Utahans already support civil union for same sex couples, and similar survey conducted by Salt Lake City Tribune shown 72% of Utahans support such compromise. However amendment 3 has clearly made it impossible, which is exactly why amendment 3 has to go.

Brigham City, UT

"We are past the point of civility..." Sad

Murray, UT

As we celebrate and support marriage we strengthen the homes children are born into. The marriage rally was in support of all marriages between and a man and a woman. That includes support to heal marriages in trouble.

Pointing out that some homes are less than ideal is no excuse for failing to seek the best home possible for each child. Settling for second best is not the goal here.

Children adopted by married man and woman couples are always wanted as well, and the children get a MOM and a DAD.

Children are people with rights. God/nature gave every child the unalienable right to a Father and a Mother. We should not violate that right.

Salt Lake City, UT

"He had no idea how to behave like a man"

Behave like a man... what is that supposed to mean? The only way that could make sense as a complaint is if you had patriarchal views as to how men and women are supposed to act and you thought there were problems with women working or something like that.

slow down
Provo, UT

Somehow this seems like a scene out of you-know-where. One gets the feeling that dialogue is almost impossible, since people refuse to address the issue with a common set of terms. But maybe that is inevitable; maybe some issues engage moral and/or metaphysical worldviews at too fundamental a level. I would just say this: could it not be possible to be a "sympathetic neighbor" and at the same time oppose a lowest-common-denominator redefinition of marriage? To me that makes a lot of sense, but only because I am particularly resistant to letting other people set the terms of a discussion for me in advance. Are we way beyond the point for such subtleties?

Shelley, ID

re: equal protection: the use of polygamy negates the discussion because polygamy is still about marriage between two sexes, not one. The "right" to marry may indeed be a "right", but what makes it "right?" Just because we say so? The Constitution guarantees rights and equality, but it does not guarantee outcome. Marriage at the time of the founders was a given - between a man and a woman. The state promotes traditional marriage because of outcome - stable people, stable families, more stable communities, more stable nation. That sounds harsh, I know, but the obnoxious behavior at the rally is a visual reminder of why a society wants stable families.

Oragami: The rational argument for traditional marriage is because of history. There are different versions of history, of course, depending on the intent of the author, but one needs to read ALL the sources of history, and make up one's own mind and judgement in the realm of history, not just one source. Read them all.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ O'really re "You know perfectly well what they mean by "traditional marriage". "... Man and woman- that's it." AND "It IS a choice! Everyone makes it. Gay or straight."

"Marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman, and religion has never had any bearing on the legality of a marriage. Marriage has historically been used "punitively" to demean disfavored groups, legally enshrined gender roles in marriage had been disestablished during the 20th century. Changes in the institution of marriage had mainly involved "shedding inequalities" e.g., women as chattel." - Prop H8 Court testimony.

Behavior is a choice, sexual orientation is NOT for most, I suspect you recognize your own sexual orientation for the most part is NOT a choice (like which socks your going to wear each day). The 9th Circuit court of appeals, as a result of Windsor, determined sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny, just like discriminatory classifications based on sex.

Your arguments have no basis in fact or in law. Support of Jim Crow laws are similar to same-sex marriage bans today, and undeserving of respect or tolerance when it comes to civil marriage and public accommodations law.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@Chinyacre re: "the use of polygamy negates the discussion because polygamy is still about marriage between two sexes, not one. The "right" to marry may indeed be a "right", but what makes it "right?" Just because we say so? "

You missed the argument about immutable characteristics, the practice of polygamy is choice. You ignore the states interest in preventing harm and abuse in closed FLDS like communities, where because of religion, is under-reported. Your argument about stable families is negated because it ignores the marriage rights of opposite sex convicted child molesters and spousal abusers. You ignore the stable families of same-sex couples and the scientific consensus of every (not just one or two) main stream medical, psychological, and sociological organization on child outcomes.

Marriage has been determined to be a fundamental right 14 times by SCOTUS. You ignore the heart of the issue, which is equal protection and due process, why is that?

Saint Louis, MO

"Us v them" is not the answer or the question. This is a matter of the rule of law. It is admitted by the Supreme Court and especially by the "swing vote" of Justice Kennedy that "the people" have the right to make the laws based on states' rights. This was a two-thirds decision and not even close. If a vocal minority is allowed to make the laws, then we no longer have a democracy. This issue first goes to the Appeals Court and then will undoubtedly go to the Supreme Court. The strategy of the left is ensconced in the philosophy of Marx and Lenin. You rate two theses and the violent confrontation of the two will create a viable new thesis. The problem is the issue of morality and the belief that religion is the "opiate of the people".

Somewhere in Time, UT

Dear Lane Myer:

You need to actually look at some of these studies. NO study ever conducted concludes that anyone is born gay. Also, I dispute your figures. Studies show that in identical twins there is only a 20% chance that both will be gay. In addition, your point only supports the findings that gayness is caused by severe emotional hurt or abuse at an early age--not genetics. Unfortunately, political correctness has made it very difficult for these studies to come forward. Please, view Dr. Lopez's video. For those who are unafraid of the truth, it is very enlightening.

New York, NY

In criticizing the tone of pro-equality protesters, you suggest they heed Ghandi's metaphor: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

Your analogy falls flat.

There is no movement to deny marriage to heterosexuals.

There IS, however, a big group of heterosexuals holding a knife, called Amendment 3, in the faces of a much smaller group of gay people, while saying they want respect for their :"beliefs" that gay people simply shouldn’t be allowed to see.

Salt Lake City, UT

This issue is really emotionally charged - I believe the Federal Attorney General has ruled nationally that SSM marriages are recognized and legal - why is Utah still upset - it's a done deal in our nation and probably Utah having pressed it to the federal court system will allow it to be accepted statewide nationally. There are an estimated over 5,000 homeless youth in the State of Utah - let's fight for their voice - let's get them shelter, food, education - this issue is much more valuable to the life of a child that cannot represent themselves. Think Utah - prioritize!

to comment

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