Quantcast
Utah

Marriage debate fills the halls of the Capitol

Comments

Return To Article
  • truthfullyspeaking kaysville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 4:52 p.m.

    This country was founded on Christian beliefs and morality. Homosexuality, and subsequently, gay marriage, flies in the face of both.
    John Adams said: "Our constitution was made only for a MORAL and Religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
    You do not have the" right" under to Constitution to marriage. The people of the State of Utah voted by an overwhelming 66% to keep gay marriage out. You are trying to use back door tactics to try to push thru a liberal agenda that the people of Utah don't want. You have your civil unions which give you all the same privileges as marriage without the destroying the sanctity of it. I support traditional marriage.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    @Cats...Your self description is dead on perfect regarding yourself and the countless other right wing religious fanatics..."Somewhere in time" Wrong. It's 2014! Don't you believe it is about time that you realize this?

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    It seems that this should not be an emotional religious issue, but rather a legal issue; after all, marriage is only recognized if first taken out by a legal license. Also, this issue is now at the Federal Supreme Court, thanks to Utah pushing it. Religion and government are not co-joined, but separate in our country. Too much money has already been spent on a legal issue that cannot be defended by religious books, and already ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. Soon the Utah out-of-state lawyers will admit this publicly - after all none of them have won a case which ruled in favor of what traditional marriage. Sad loss for Utah's tax dollars with a price-tag start of two million dollars. Thankfully Utah County legislatures Saturday remarked that they would flush this SSM issue from their budget having seen the losing battle in California - instead they will concentrate on education and hopefully someday the homeless youth in our state (and sadly, 40% are LBGT youth kicked out from religious homes).

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Feb. 1, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    "If this is a battle for the hearts and minds of Utah's voters, my suggestion is that proponents of SSM would do well to listen and try to understand why some oppose their views rather than attempt to simply shout them out of the public square."

    We know their views. We have listened to those ideas our who life. We come from the same families, attended the same churches, work in the same offices, and live in the same neighborhoods.

    For many of us we felt like we had to hide some horrible truths about ourselves until we woke up and realized those truths weren't horrible. What is horrible is the way we are abused, denied protection, condemned, and abandoned because of those truths.

    If you are asking us to understand your view, I would like you to understand that most of us already have that background knowledge. We would like to turn that plea back to you and ask you to try and understand what it is like to be on our side of the issue. I think our pain is so much deeper.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Feb. 1, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    "Your point only supports the findings that gayness is caused by severe emotional hurt or abuse at an early age--not genetics."

    I know of many studies that dispute this claim, but I will humor you a little bit. If, like you say, we are gay because of severe emotional hurt at an early age, is that an excuse to discriminate against us? Instead of fighting us as adults, wouldn't a much better mission be to protect our children from emotional and physical abuse?

    By your reasoning I could imagine some people saying "well, they are used to being abused, so we don't need to change anything."

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Feb. 1, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    "Could it not be possible to be a 'sympathetic neighbor' and at the same time oppose a lowest-common-denominator redefinition of marriage?"

    You do see how your choice of words can create some contention, don't you? When you define another couple's relationship the "lowest-common-denominator," you making us somewhat less than everyone else. That's not being a sympathetic neighbor; that's not empathy.

    What we need in this community is a monthly day of service where gay and straight neighbors come together to clean garbage from their streets, work together to get rid of tagging and graffiti that is creeping up everywhere, serve meals at the local homeless shelter, and do whatever it takes ti make Utah the best state in the nation. We need to get to know each other and realize that we are all God's children and we all deserve civility, respect, kindness, and equal protection from those things that really harm a society.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    Folks can "rally" all they want. It will make no difference to the Federal Judiciary. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. The steady march towards equal treatment of LGBT Americans under the law is inexorable. Marriage equality in all 50 states is coming, no matter how many anti-gay rights rallies there may be.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:57 p.m.

    "Secondly, children need male and female role models to help them avoid same sex attraction."

    This is 100% wrong. People are attracted to whoever they are attracted to. If it happens to be someone of the same sex, so what? It's not your life.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:55 p.m.

    @ Alfred

    That same argument was used in the Loving v. Virginia case. It didn't work then and it won't work now....

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Jan. 30, 2014 6:22 p.m.

    JSB, you haven’t heard “a logical response to this concern from anyone supporting gay marriage” because your argument is specious. Marriage requires two unrelated consenting adults. That leaves out your three or foursomes. And perhaps you can explain how marriage equality will lead to social chaos, crime, child abuse, and higher taxes. Massachusetts has had marriage equality for ten years. Last time I checked they were doing just fine.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Jan. 30, 2014 6:15 p.m.

    A two parent household is certainly better than a single parent household, for logistical, financial, and emotional reasons. It does not follow that the two parents have to be of opposite sexes.

    But for those who think that there's something special about having a father and mother, please tell me what efforts you are making toward getting children yanked out of their homes when one parents skips or dies.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    wrz: A marriage certificate is important to hold a family together in the event there are children to raise. Homosexuals can't have children... at least don't think two men can.

    -------------
    Can they raise a child? Are any gays in Utah raising children? (hint: Read the caption under the picture that goes with this article.)

    Actually, gays are raising over 200,000 children right here in America. But you do not want them to be raised in the most stable, legally recognized homes. Why?

    Is defending the use of your special word so much more important than these kids?

    Families come in all sizes and shapes. Lets support ALL families and offer the best our government can give them - marriage and the stability that goes with it.

  • sctrojanfan72 St. George, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    Humans make mistakes. Unfortunately, even though we don't have enough research on the impact of same-sex marriages on individuals and families, the day will come when that impact will be made clear. What we do know and get as humans is design, in fact we utilize design everyday to our benefit. We also know that when we go against design that we get into trouble.

    I suspect that the day will come that we will recognize the impact of going against design in relation to this issue.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 30, 2014 7:05 a.m.

    @Mr. Bean:
    > "Behavior is a choice, sexual orientation is NOT for most..."
    > All sinful conduct is a choice. Bank robbery is a choice... as is murder, even if predisposed.

    The "choice" relevant to this discussion is each person's right to define "sinful conduct."

    You may see someone's sex life as sinful, they may see that as nothing of the kind and none of your business.
    You may think some parents are better than others. Again, you don't get to say who is allowed to parent and who is not.

    Comparing gay marriage to roberry, murder and so on has not been successful. Those are crimes with victims that cause demonstrable harm. Gay marriage has no victim and causes no harm (beyond the insult to your beliefs its existence may present to you).

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 30, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    @Mr. Bean
    "One thing, children with same sex parents are disadvantaged because they will more likely be teased and shunned by their 'heterosexual parented' friends."

    This sounds familiar:

    "One thing, children with *inter racial* parents are disadvantaged because they will more likely be teased and shunned by their *racially pure parented* friends."

    This argument didn't work before and it doesn't work now.

    The existence of racism and homophobia in others is not justification for continuing racist or homophobic practices, such as preventing some people from marriage simply because of existing prejudice.

    The problem is prejudice, not gay or interracial marriage.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 30, 2014 12:21 a.m.

    @wrz: said, "A marriage certificate is important to hold a family together in the event there are children to raise. "

    You should really read your state's laws. Utah Code Title 30, Chapter 1 describes marriage. Nowhere does it contain language even remotely resembling what you suggest. In fact, I'm unable to find any stated purpose whatsoever.

    Marriage is a voluntary arrangement to bind two people into one household with certain legal rights and responsibilities. It is not a requirement for, nor conditional upon, child-bearing. It is not mandatory for child rearing. Nor is it difficult to dissolve a marriage, even when minor children are present. Your rationalizations are not supported by your state's laws. And, by the way, your state's laws are impermissibly discriminatory according to the District Court's reading of the U.S. Constitution.

    Your marriage laws are child-agnostic. And, your family laws regarding children (child support, etc.) are marriage-agnostic. Neither depends on, nor is based on, the other. And, these are the civil laws that we're talking about. There's no basis to deny marriage on the issue of prospective issue.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:35 p.m.

    @O'Really: said, "Also, just because a long list of churches have abandoned a clear commandment from the scriptures..."

    That's quite insulting to over two dozen Christian denominations. Unless you think you're God Almighty, you don't have an inside track on which religions have "abandoned a clear commandment from the scripture," thank you very much.

    Every denomination, every religion, can interpret scripture according to their own leadings. My religion, for example, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), has a very straightforward and clear approach to following the Lord and a very direct and personal relationship with Him. But, we won't criticize anyone else's dogma or sacred texts. We only hope you can use your religious foundation to find the Light.

    As far as your own self-righteousness goes... If you are that enamored of the Old Testament, you should know it contains 613 commandments. (Ask any Rabbi if you don't believe me.) I wonder how your selective citation of one while ignoring hundreds of others would be respected by those who actually worship with the OT.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:10 p.m.

    @No H8 - Celebrate:
    "Slippery slope arguments are considered to be logical fallacies."

    If there's no slippery slope alotta folks who would like to marry would be denied... such as polygamists, polyandrists to name two.

    "Sky will fall argumentation has no basis in law."

    That the sky will fall has a basis in fact.

    "Parent and child and brother and sister relationships are not intimate relationships and therefore are not legal civil marriages."

    Who said it has to be intimate? Many people marry today for many other reasons besides sex, intimacy, children, etc.

    @A Quaker:
    "Why is it, in your view, terribly unimportant for a gay or lesbian couple to have a marriage certificate, yet so important to you that they don't?"

    A marriage certificate is important to hold a family together in the event there are children to raise. Homosexuals can't have children... at least don't think two men can.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:40 p.m.

    @No H8 - Celebrate:
    "Where do sovereign rights take priority over the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process? Where is one particular religious view supposed to be codified into civil law?"

    All citizens currently have equal protection. Anyone can marry provided it's one man/one woman. This rule applies across the board to all. No one is left out.

    If you're saying that equal protection has to include SSM because they love each other and want to be together for any number of other reasons, you have to say it also applies to any other combination of loving relationships... such as polygamy, polyandry, siblings, children, etc., all of whom are now denied marriage.

    The Supreme Court has put itself into a quandary with the DOMA ruling where the right to define marriage is a state and not a federal government responsibility. It can't now say oops, states can't define marriage after all. The Court can't open the door for gays and not open it for other loving combinations.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:42 p.m.

    @O'really

    Marriage IS between man and woman or the species would cease to exist. It's simply the way it is. No animus on my part. Only logic.

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

    For your argument to carry weight, one would have to assume that only those legally married can have children...

    Plenty of teenagers can be offered as counter-examples...

    No it does not take marriage, simply a sperm and egg.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:21 p.m.

    @ Evidence, Not Junk... Even the most learned historian of marriage who completely discounts the Bible and the beliefs of millions in this country, is still missing the boat. Marriage IS between man and woman or the species would cease to exist. It's simply the way it is. No animus on my part. Only logic.

    Also, just because a long list of churches have abandoned a clear commandment from the scriptures doesn't make what they are doing right. I feel for them when they have to face their maker and explain their actions.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:58 p.m.

    @wrz: If, as you say, it shouldn't be important whether a family headed by a same-sex couple have some piece of official legal paper in their closet, then why is it important to you that they shouldn't be allowed to have it in the first place?

    I mean, is it important, or isn't it? If it's not important at all, as you suggest, then why don't you want them to have it?

    I'd be interested to see if you can put together a coherent answer of the sort which might hold sway in court. Why is it, in your view, terribly unimportant for a gay or lesbian couple to have a marriage certificate, yet so important to you that they don't?

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:54 p.m.

    "Can any of you provide a rational argument defending the proposition that same-sex marriage (SSM) harms children?"

    One thing, children with same sex parents are disadvantaged because they will more likely be teased and shunned by their 'heterosexual parented' friends.

    Secondly, children need male and female role models to help them avoid same sex attraction.

    "Polygamy and Polyamory are not considered immutable characteristics (race, sex, and sexual orientation)."

    Has nothing to do with 'immutable.' Has to do with who loves whom... at least according to many same-sex supporters.

    "Behavior is a choice, sexual orientation is NOT for most..."

    All sinful conduct is a choice. Bank robbery is a choice... as is murder, even if predisposed.

    "The 9th Circuit court of appeals, as a result of Windsor, determined sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny..."

    So should polygamy, polyandry, etc. There's a list somewhere showing who might love whom and would like to live together as marrieds.

    "You missed the argument about immutable characteristics, the practice of polygamy is choice."

    Not so. In the animal world of deer and elk, the male usually rounds up several females. There's some 'immutable' for ya.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    RedWings: " Homosexuality cannot propogate itself. Is it by definition an abberation that is gleaned out by natural selection. I believe that Darwin had some things to say about this...."

    And yet homosexuality is a remarkably persistent trait in the population. There is apparently some selective value for it. Evolutionary theory has advanced in the past few decades, well beyond Darwin's initial ideas. Altruism, group selection, epigenetics, etc. don't fit within a simple Darwinian fitness model. It is overly simplistic and inaccurate to argue that homosexuality is an evolutionary aberration.

    Badgerbadger: "Churches can perform SSM if they want. No one will get arrested for doing it, even in states that don't recognize SSM. It is not banned. What they cannot do if force someone else to honor that marriage."

    A marriage ceremony without legal recognition is pointless. It does nothing for the children or the couple except in their hearts. A church-only wedding without legal weight does not provide hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and scores of other legal benefits to the couple and their children. It's worthless and not a reasonable alternative.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 5:54 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger. "It is you and your ilk seeking to make your 'god' the god of all."

    You may be surprised to learn that there is no God in civil marriage law. So you are incorrect meaning your argument is irrationally based on nothing more than animus and discrimination

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 29, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    @equal protection:
    "I want the full menu of rights."

    You've go full rights... Everyone has, when it comes to marriage... pick one person of the opposite sex.

    Wait! There are others without full rights... polygamists, incestuous persons, siblings, first cousins, a grandfather/daughter, etc.

    If you're going after full rights, why not full rights for everyone not just same-sex?

    @oragami:
    "If this really is about the children (it changes every other day) then what about considering the interests of those children already being raised by same-sex parents."

    Why do children need to know that the two people they are living with have a piece of paper in an album hidden in a closet someplace that says they're married? Just live together as wife/wife or husband/husband and let it go at that.

    @Sneaky Jimmy:
    "Once you arrive at this epiphany then a person with a soul and a heart cannot wish to deprive two loving people the chance to be married..."

    Are you talking about polygamists, perchance?

    @JSB:
    "If we expand the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, where does it stop?"

    There is no stop... until marriage is completely obliterated.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 4:57 p.m.

    Junk Science,

    Churches can perform SSM if they want. No one will get arrested for doing it, even in states that don't recognize SSM. It is not banned.

    What they cannot do if force someone else to honor that marriage. But why should they? It is a religious rite, and has not bearing on anyone not of that religion. It is called freedom of religion.

    It is you and your ilk seeking to make your 'god' the god of all.

  • AD_student Utah, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 4:18 p.m.

    This was a fantastic event with over 1200 supporters. The speakers really showed that defending Amendment 3 is defending children's rights and protecting government's interest in families.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 29, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    I'd like to commend the Deseret News for publishing a balanced, factual article that tried to capture the scenario accurately, without papering over some small but important details.

    It was interesting to read about the very different nature of the two demonstrations. The indoor demonstration, using the Capitol Building, was restricted to an invited crowd and was provided professionally-printed signs, just like a professionally-organized political rally, which sounds like that's how it was run.

    The outdoor rally, in the cold, against Amendment 3, sounded much more grass-roots and home-made, and more impassioned. The contrast was significant, and also ironic. Those outside were rallying for those who are currently being kept outside of full participation in Utah's society, whereas those inside want to keep the outsiders out.

    And, the passion shown by the outsiders was an important thing to note. It is those people's lives that are being held in the balance. Nothing will change for the insiders, whether they win or lose their battle, their personal lives will be unaffected. But the outsiders stand to gain or lose everything, because the right to family IS everything.

  • Marsha N. SANDY, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    I don't believe Uahans are hate-filled people. They simply don't want homosexual relationships to hijack the respected, God-appointed title of "marriage", which has forever been used to indicate a man and woman united. Governmental approval of behavior is often mistaken as being moral and acceptable. We have the same problem with governmental approval of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuan. They may be legal, but not beneficial to society as a whole.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 3:53 p.m.

    @standfirm "I support traditional marriage and I believe that the family is ordained of God and that marriage is between one man and one woman."

    As long as you respect the religious freedom of other religion's and their God to honor and perform legal same sex civil and religious marriages, and that no religious view should be codified into civil law as per constitutional laws of equal protection and due process for ALL Americans, then I support your religious right in your own church to discriminate against anyone you wish as doctrine dictates.

  • brotherJonathan SLC, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    By allowing civil unions, we respect others rights to legal partnerships.To allow other citizens the right to chose for themselves what lifestyle they would embrace is not the same as teaching their choice as a recommended way of life to your children. So we walk a delicate path of protecting individual rights of choice and defending our own right of choice in our schools and other places of gathering.
    Tolerance for others rights with respect for our choice when it comes to teaching our own children the principles of a happy fulfilled life, obeying the commands of our conscience. Because of the fact that children are impressionable and do not have founded psychological beliefs in experience and outcomes, we who have the responsibility to nurture and guide belief structure have the ultimate say in what should be and not be taught as a viable lifestyle for them until they are adults. Homosexual partnerships without science intervention cannot produce offspring, this is the facts. So nature has female and male as a parent structure and is the natural means of raising young humans to adulthood. Beyond those facts this is fairly new territory, protecting freedom of choice for both.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    Meckofahess

    Salt Lake City, UT

    As I have posted several commnets suggesting a possible benefit to finding some "middle ground" where the rights and needs of both the gay and straight community could be addressed
    -----------

    Meck, I have been reading these boards for a long time. When the vote for amendment 3 was looming, many on the gay side pleaded not to include the second portion of the amendment - the part that denies gays even any recognition of their relationships. They asked for those who agreed with them not to vote for this amendment and to have it reworded without denying even civil unions. They were told no in no uncertain terms and were quite vitriolic and intolerant about their beliefs. In fact, of those who voted, 66% were in favor of denying gays any recognition by the state. So much so that it is enshrined in our state constitution.

    I think that conpromise ship sailed away with that vote, don't you?

  • standfirm Ogden, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 3:02 p.m.

    I am pleased that that both sides have a voice. Free speech is a fundamental right and it should be honored and respected by all! It seems that loud, shrill voices want to be the only voices heard, and anyone voicing otherwise is labeled as hateful, bigoted and religiously pious. Civility and discourse are processes that allow this country to thrive. I have a gay son that I love and support, though I do not agree with his choice to marry, I welcome him and our new son-in-law into our home and our lives. We differ in our beliefs and opinions, we are on opposite sides of the issue on same-sex marriage, but we love and respect the views of one another and we love each other. I support traditional marriage and I believe that the family is ordained of God and that marriage is between one man and one woman. I also love and respect our son and our new son-in-law.

  • girl.in.slc Salt Lake , UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    Civility is such an interesting request for a group of people whose lives have been diminished by the majority for far too long.

    Let's put your marriage to vote, tell you you're immoral, degrade your lifestyle, kick you out of your families, excommunicate you, tell you to live your life alone, not allow you to adopt your kids, not allow you to live under the peace of mind that a state-recognized relationship provides, and then tell you that it's biology that makes it ok for us to do it- not bigotry.

    5 kids act up in a rally, big deal! Sure, they pushed the envelop and made it awkward for you.

    I'm sure you'll find solace from your poor grief in the warm embrace of your opposite-sex spouse, wrapped even closer by your state-sponsored marriage certificate, alleviated in the fact that those gays will know their place-- separate and not equal.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    @ Heleson "We the people of the State of Utah have sovereign rights. Our forefathers established government declaring independence to choose laws they considered pleasing to God."

    Where do sovereign rights take priority over the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process? Where is one particular religious view supposed to be codified into civil law?

    The 10th Amendment (States Rights) does not take priority over the 5h and !4th amendments. Never has and never will (See Loving v. Virginia states rights to keep their own miscegenation laws struck down as just one of hundreds of legal cases).

    Slippery slope arguments are considered to be logical fallacies. Sky will fall argumentation has no basis in law. Only the facts as they currently exists are valid. Parent and child and brother and sister relationships are not intimate relationships and therefore are not legal civil marriages. Theft and murder are harmful and abusive. Same-sex marriages (unlike legal opposite sex spousal and child molestion marriages) are considered to be harmful and abusive.

    I ccould go on, but as stated by other commenters "there is simply no rational justification whatsoever for your aniumus and discrimination."

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 2:02 p.m.

    @windsor "If the SCOTUS makes SSM the law in all 50 states, it will still not change or effect what the actual heart of this whole issue is..."

    As far as the constitutional guarantees provided by the Constitution, it very much will be the heart of the issue.

    Your religion's constitutionally protect right not to marry someone of a different faith, or race, or sexual orientation and gender will still be protected. The sky did not fall when interracial marriage bans were struck down, and they won't when the hateful same-sex marriages are too.

    And that my friend, is the "heart" of the issue.
    --
    Wants of the individuals? What about the marriage rights of opposite sex couples who do not want children and can civil marry (you don't ban those "wants of individuals" marriages) or the thousands of same-sex families raising children who need spousal health care, pension and social security benefits, just like opposite sex couples? Wants of individuals indeed.

    As stated by another commenter, "There is simply no rational basis for your animus and discrimination." Homosexuals want the full menu equality, not the compassionate crumbs thrown to them by their masters.

  • HENELSON lindon, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    We the people of the State of Utah have sovereign rights. Our forefathers established government declaring independence to choose laws they considered pleasing to God.
    “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …. it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”
    If the LGBT gets its way, overturning the voice of the people and we legalize immorality, what is next? What if others push to legalize their belief in marriage between parent/child or brother/sister. What if others claim their belief says its ok to steal, murder – do we legalize this too? My fellow citizens – this is a slippery slope.
    WE the people, choose Amendment3 for our safety and happiness. Thank God America - Utah was founded by faithful people.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    One group cares about society and the other groups focuses on the wants of individuals.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    politicalcents said: "....So give them a civil union-let them have tax benefits, healthcare benefits, etc. and just get them out of the way so we can get to more pressing matters."

    If you think that is what Gays and Lesbians want--and will be happy with, and are pushing for--and are somehow going to "get out of the way" you haven't been watching this battle very long or very closely.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    equal protecton said: "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?"

    Because that is NOT the heart of the issue.

    And has no bearing on the heart of the issue.

    If the SCOTUS determined it is a fundamental right a 100 times or a 1000 times, doesn't matter.

    If the SCOTUS makes SSM the law in all 50 states, it will still not change or effect what the actual heart of this whole issue is.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    @ Innovate, "Why is it so important that Congress or a United States Judge speak for God in determining whether or not marriage between same gender couples should be accepted? "

    Which God? What about the religious views of God for the following religions who honor and perform same-sex marriages? Why discriminate against these religions and ban their right to perform these unions? There is simply no rational justification for your animus and discrimination.

    Affirming Pentecostal Church International
    Alliance of Christian Churches
    Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
    The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
    Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
    Community of Christ
    Conservative Judaism
    Ecumenical Catholic Church
    Ecumenical Catholic Communion
    The Episcopal Church
    Evangelical Anglican Church In America
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
    Inclusive Orthodox Church
    Metropolitan Community Church
    Old Catholic Church
    Progressive Christian Alliance
    Reconciling Pentecostals International
    Reconstructionist Judaism
    Reform Judaism
    Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
    Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
    Unitarian Universalist Church
    United Church of Christ
    Unity Church

  • Innovate Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:11 p.m.

    Equal rights should not be an issue when it comes to same gender marriages. We are all different: Marriage is not available to everyone: children younger than 18, those who are cognitively disabled, siblings, and the list goes on. The challenge is that same gender marriage is not sustainable. If a culture seeks acceptance of same gender marriage wherein the majority of people accept it and choose it for themselves, the response would be devastating to future generations. There would be fewer of them with fewer choices for a marriage companion who shares similar morals and perspectives on marriage and family. So, in reality, marriage between heterosexual couples is on the line.

    Sustainability responds to three primary pillars: social, economic, and environmental. Right now, this issue places the social and environmental pillars on the line because the disruptive social sub-culture of same gender marriage is infiltrating the standard of the family environment. How can same gender couples reproduce off-spring that share the same genetics and good attributes of each spouse? Isn't it true that a same gender spouse who gives birth to a child while in a same gender marriage is being untrue to their same gender spouse?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    As I have posted several commnets suggesting a possible benefit to finding some "middle ground" where the rights and needs of both the gay and straight community could be addressed. I have gay friends and I believe they are sincere in their concerns. Unfortunately, it appears that many in the gay community who post comments herein have become very vitriolic and tilted toward intolerance toward regarding our concerns. I think there are many heterosexuals of "good will" who want to see a "win-win" solution to this issue. Sadly, I fear that the gay citizens are offending our good will by resorting to bullying and disingenuous tactics. As I have said before, even if SSM is forced upon us by the courts, it doesn't mean we will be accepting toward those who bullyed us. You can try to force me to be your friend, but it doesn't mean I will be your friend - and that likely will lead to unintended consequences.

  • Innovate Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    I am saddened to see that there is even a dialog about marriage between same gender couples. Why is it so important that Congress or a United States Judge speak for God in determining whether or not marriage between same gender couples should be accepted? I thought separation between church and state was the law?

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    @ Oreally "Because some renegade gay judge or whoever it was in the Prop 8 court in CA says " Marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman" does not make it so. Because someone with a law degree says something doesn't make it right or even factual."

    Actually, Nancy Cott's facts were NOT disputed, not even by the opposing side. She easily recalled dates, facts, historical accounts, and past precedents. Cott presented the anti-miscegenation laws, which banned white people from marrying minorities, as a historical parallel to discrimination against lesbians and gays. Cott knows more about marriage history in the United States than perhaps anyone alive. The other expert witness brought by the plaintiffs, Yale Professor of History George Chauncey, had been Cott’s dissertation advisee when she taught at Yale prior to coming to Harvard.

    I strongly suggest that Dr. Cott knows more about the history of marriage than either of us, more over not one, but many have used her expert testimony.

    There is simply no rational justification for your animus and discrimination.

  • Euroskeptic Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    @Ranch "There comes a point in time where enough is enough. That point is well past now. Enough is enough. We shouldn't have to beg for what is our right. You expect us to be civil while you deny our rights? That isn't "civil" of you."

    That's fine. I understand you see it that way. However, the result is that you have lost the goodwill of people like me (and I am far from alone) who still have a sense of fair play and decency by which they try to live their lives. Just because you grew tired of making your case and things weren't moving quickly enough for you doesn't make the bullying tactics and intolerance ok.

    I don't recall the "We've Had It Up To Here and the Gloves are Coming Off" speech by Martin Luther King.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    @RedWings
    "Place 500 gay men in a city away from anyone else and in 50 years you have a ghost town. Homosexuality cannot propogate itself. Is it by definition an abberation that is gleaned out by natural selection.
    Place 500 gay men in a city away from everyone else, and in 50 years you’ll have another 500 gay men born to heterosexuals outside the city."

    * * *

    Your comment shows a slim understanding of evolutionary reproduction.

    In many species, including humans, non-reproductive members ensure the success and survival of a given line, which can explain why evolution would produce processes by which some individuals would be less inclined, likely, or capable of reproduction.

    Homosexuality does not need to “propagate itself” through direct reproduction: it happens as a result of heterosexual reproduction.

    Place 500 gay men in a city away from everyone else, and in 50 years you'll have another 500 gay men born to heterosexuals outside the city.

  • keepamericafree salt lake, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    The pro gay marriage groups say that they are not asking for anything different than what everyone else has....however marriage has always been between a man and a woman for thousands of years and now all of a sudden they want to Change it completely!
    If you want to live that kind of lifestyle than that is your choice but don't ask us to legitimize it by calling it "marriage". It is not the same thing!
    If we do not have boundaries than we have nothing but chaos.

  • keepamericafree salt lake, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:19 p.m.

    This argument is not about the love two gay people have for each other at all! It is about
    Children! We can not call a union between a gay couple the same thing as a union between a man and a woman because it is not the same!
    If Gay marriage is legitimized than that means that when a married man and woman seek to adopt a child and a gay married couple want to adopt the same child....who is going to get the child if both couples are considered "married"
    If you don't give the child to the gay couple then you are discriminating against them. But study after study has proven that children are better off in a traditional home with both a mother and a father. You think it is only about you but it isn't. there are so many other factors that this debate will effect. Please look at the bigger picture for a bit and recognize the huge impact this would have on everything else.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    @Red Wings "Assisted reproduction" s biology, but not natural. Place 500 gay men in a city away from anyone else and in 50 years you have a ghost town.

    Where is natural a requirement of civil marriage law for opposite sex couples? You want to deny the use of assisted reproduction to couples you dislike for no rational reason? Or, do you think voting on civil marriage law for same-sex couples will do the trick? Same-sex couples actually have the ability to "naturally" procreate, but in civil marriage law, no one is required to procreate in order marry. Why do you have a double standard?

    Place 500 women in a city far away from anyone else and in 50 years you will have a ghost town, AND they really DON'T have to be Gay or Lesbian. Why single out and target only homosexuals for the animus?

  • Euroskeptic Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    @nycut - I believe most understood that I was referring to the ugly truth that some who support same-sex marriage cry and call for compassion, understanding and for others to recognize their rights, while simultaneously trouncing about like a bull in a china shop, running roughshod over people's livelihoods and trampling their right of conscience. Hence, the analogy of an "eye for and eye" - you don't overcome bigotry and tyranny with more bigotry and tyranny.

    If this is a battle for the hearts and minds of Utah's voters, my suggestion is that proponents of SSM would do well to listen and try to understand why some oppose their views rather than attempt to simply shout them out of the public square. That is why I no longer support gay marriage as I once did.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    cats:

       "One group of researchers studied identical twins and found that, of 56 sets of identical twins in which one member was gay, the other twin was also gay in 52 percent of the cases. That means that nearly half the identical twins of gay men were not gay, so it suggests a strong but not determinative genetic component (Adler, 1992) In Thomas Bouchard's study of identical twins separated at birth, there were three pairs of male identical twins in which at least one was homosexual. In two out of three cases, the other twin was homosexual also, despite being raised in a different household and never seeing his twin brother during childhood.""
       
       
       Psychology: An Introduction
       by Russell A. Dewey, PhD

    Your studies?

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    It's hardly surprising that the 'traditional marriage' crowd was more respectful and less angry than the 'marriage equality' crowd. There's really nothing at stake for the 'traditional marriage' crowd. It's an issue of purely academic interest. But yes, being denied basic human rights can get someone riled.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    @equal protections Because some renegade gay judge or whoever it was in the Prop 8 court in CA says " Marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman" does not make it so. Because someone with a law degree says something doesn't make it right or even factual.

    But here is some truth not based on manmade law or fact. Just simple truth that anyone who is being honest with themselves can recognize. "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." GK Chesterton

    Something to think about.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    @Euroskeptic;

    There comes a point in time where enough is enough. That point is well past now. Enough is enough. We shouldn't have to beg for what is our right. You expect us to be civil while you deny our rights? That isn't "civil" of you.

    @HeresAThought;

    "Utah's laws should be respected when supported by the voters."

    Not when they're in violation of the US Constitution.

    @Cats;

    You should do a little research on the statistics associated with identical twins. The prevalence of BOTH being gay is statistically significant. You also need a course in biology and genetics. There are numerous factors involved during development that affect the outcome of each twin.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    They are all saying that traditional marriage involves one man and one woman. Most of these people are Mormon, and the biggest part of their beliefs, including the Book of Mormon came from Prophets who clearly did not believe in this traditional marriage! Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were so far from traditional that it would make same sex marriage a non issue! Also, I do believe that the Church still allows a man, after losing his wife to death, to marry a second wife in the temple! Who knows, if the second wife dies, I am sure he can be sealed to a third! You people are giving us a lecture about traditional marriage! Give us all a break, please. Most of us gay people here in Utah were born into Mormon families. We went to church every week and we went to seminary and went on missions and then fell flat on our faces when we tried your traditional marriage! In other words, we know how it all works. It truly is an insult hearing what you say when we all know that amendment 3 was specifically formed to discriminate!

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    "Right to marry" is a slight of hand. What it means is a supposed right to re-define marriage to accommodate gay people and a supposed right to society's approval of homosexuality.

    Not that long ago the cry was -- it's none of your business how I live my private life (I agree).

    Now it's -- I have a Constitutional right to society's approval of my lifestyle.

    And we're seriously supposed to believe there is no slippery slope?

  • politicalcents West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    My real issue is that this issue is so large right now. Homosexual individuals make up less than 1% of the US population. We have MUCH more than 1% of the population underemployed and unemployed (23% and rising), starving, illiterate, in poverty, homeless, etc. The list goes on. As much as I understand that homosexuals are people (which I do, I have a brother that is homosexual), there are more important things to deal with. So give them a civil union-let them have tax benefits, healthcare benefits, etc. and just get them out of the way so we can get to more pressing matters.

    I admit am morally against same-sex marriage, and will always have my personal opinions about it. However, I have the same opinion about many things that are legal. We are taught correct principles and left to govern ourselves. Should we choose to follow a path we know to be wrong, we will bear the consequences.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    @ Eliyahu: 66% of the voters passed Ammendment 3. Sounde to me like Rep. Christensen is representing the voters just fine.

    @ equal protection: "Assisted reproduction" s biology, but not natural. Place 500 gay men in a city away from anyone else and in 50 years you have a ghost town. Homosexuality cannot propogate itself. Is it by definition an abberation that is gleaned out by natural selection.

    I believe that Darwin had some things to say about this....

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    @JBQ " Justice Kennedy that "the people" have the right to make the laws based on states' rights."

    No they did not. in Hollingsworth v. Perry — California's constitutional H8 amendment initiative barring same-sex marriage. The decision allowed same-sex marriages in that state to resume after the court ruled that the proponents of the initiative lacked Article III standing to appeal in federal court. The Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."

    Civil rights are simply NOT determined by the outcome of an election. Where did you get that idea? Three starving wolves (66%) and a delicious succulent lamb (34%) cannot legally vote on what to eat for dinner. It is a violation of the 5th and 14th amendments (due process and equal protection). The 10th amendment (states right) does not trump the 5 and 14th amendments.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Just read an article about the FLDS forcing a non- FLDS family out of their community here in Southern Utah.
    Is this what we want Utah known for?
    Will Utah become a state that only wants what it wants and others "need not apply, not to mention try to live in Utah!
    Or is it already known that way to the rest of the country?

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    I saw this same specticle at the Hawaii State capitol back in 2013; those who would deny marriage equality to gay people were the most vocal and rude crowd I have ever seen assembled in such an outward expression of disgust and loathing for the gay minority. It was pathetic. More and more, day by day, this debate is being defined as a civil rights issue and it will go down that way in history. Don't be on the wrong side of history Utah.

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    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!

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    @Euroskeptic:
    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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    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.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    "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".

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    @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?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    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.

  • slow down Provo, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    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?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    @Cats
    "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.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    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.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:30 a.m.

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

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    "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.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    Cats,

    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!

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    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!

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    Lagomorph:

    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.

  • Brian Utley Freedom, IN
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    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?

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    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.

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    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.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • HeresAThought Queen Creek, AZ
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    It sounds like in 2004, UT voters spoke their minds about what they wanted, which was a traditional definition of what marriage is, and what marriage isn't. Like JSB said, if the line is erased between hetero and homosexual marriage, then that line doesn't just encircle those two types of relationships, but has to now be redrawn to include (and exclude) whatever else people may find acceptable or off limits. I've yet to hear a valid argument about this topic that doesn't include disparaging terms like "bigot" and "homophobe" to mar the traditionalists as insensitive and reproachful. This ad hominem approach is disdainful and lacks merit; furthermore, it is not helpful in coming to an agreement we can all live with. I believe in traditional marriage because to me, it is sacred. When God joined Adam and Eve, He sanctified and approved this family unit as the basis for all human organization. I'm not saying there isn't a way that federally, same sex couples can't enjoy the same protection under the law. As a state though, Utah's laws should be respected when supported by the voters.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    Badgerbadger: "Too bad he didn't think about 'his?' children's desire to have what everyone else is getting, a Mother and a Father."

    I would maintain that having two parents period is much more important than having one of each sex. It's more about sharing workload than gender modeling. Consider that there are no "accidents" with same sex couples. Every child is wanted. Can't say that about straight parents. Given that about half of marriages end in divorce, straights are doing more than there share of ensuring that children are denied a mother and father. The percentages show that political effort would be better spent shoring up hetero marriages than fighting gay marriage, if you sincerely want to help children.

    Cats: "Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez was particularly powerful with his appeal in favor of children's rights to have both a mother and a father. Being raised in a same-sex home and living in the gay community for 40 years, he knows whereof he speaks."

    I haven't seen the video you cite, but it seems like he has turned out pretty well despite his alleged limited upbringing. He is his own counterexample.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    The people who claim to be "supporting traditional marriage" aren't really being honest. Marriage between heterosexuals is not threatened here. They aren't "supporting traditional marriage" they are trying to prevent gay people from having equal rights. Marriage equality won't make heterosexual marriage illegal.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    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? Already there are hundreds of thousands of these "families" in the USA anxiously looking forward to the recognition of gay marriage so they can receive legal recognition. Or what will prevent three or more people of the same sex to marry? Before long, the word "marriage" will have not any meaning at all. What we will have is social chaos: lots more children being raised in dysfunctional homes, more poverty, more crime, more child abuse, more divorce, more venereal disease and higher taxes. This is a legitimate concern. I've yet to hear a logical response to this concern from anyone supporting gay marriage. Doesn't he state of Utah has a legitimate interest in preventing this kind of social disruption and abuse of children.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    People are still making supremely ignorant, arrogant comments about choosing to be gay. If one stops and thinks logically then that should be a choice for everyone. If you are heterosexual ask yourself when you made that choice. It's just they way you are. Once you arrive at this epiphany then a person with a soul and a heart cannot wish to deprive two loving people the chance to be married.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    @play by the rules

    "I will stand with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob on this issue."

    You do recall, of course, that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had multiple wives. Can we assume this means you're in favor of polygamy?

    Rep. LaVar Christensen seems to think that our legislature has been elected to represent either God or Christianity, rather than the voters. This is a republic; not a theocracy, and Rep. Christensen would doubtless be outraged if another representative announced that he was backing a measure in the name of Krishna, Shiva, Allah or Mohammed.

    I saw all the same arguments used years ago when the "defense of marriage" issue was interracial marriage. They didn't fly then and they won't fly now. And unless people are prepared to take some sort of legal action against the millions of single-parent homes with children, the "children need two parents" argument is clearly just a pretext.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    For marriage, not against anyone... says the signs held up by people who are directly against marriages (and anything similar like civil unions since Amendment 3 banned those too) for same-sex couples.

  • Euroskeptic Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    "We are past the point of needing or wanting you to understand, it is clear that the tears, heartache and devastation do not speak to your hearts," she said, addressing opponents of same-sex marriage. "We are past the point of civility, as calling us unnatural, asking us to stifle our love and promoting only one type of family as traditional is beyond being civil."

    This is precisely why I have become unsympathetic toward same-sex marriage. At one point, I was a supporter who lost friendships over my views on SSM. However, as the movement has developed I have watched it become an ugly smear campaign, void of any even attempt to understand or compassion for those who disagree. The tactics and rhetoric used by proponents of SSM are more akin to those used by Tammany Hall than to those employed by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, leaving any comparison to the civil rights movement farcical and lacking.

    Indeed, as Gandhi (to whom they should look more closely for inspiration) said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    They have never found that their is anything in one's 'biology' that determines that one is 'gay' though they had certainly made many efforts to find some link. All have failed. Even more recent studies on identical twins where one became gay and one not failed to determine that one is born 'gay.' Biology is biology and one is female or male though sometimes something happens in development where one is born with the sex organs of both. But their chemical makeup still is male or female. Simply put. If one has chosen to live a gay life style they have that freedom of choice. But all applicable research still shows children do best ideally in a traditional family situation, as long as it is within a 'good' or 'healthy' situation.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    From the article, a homosexual partner with children said "We are not asking for something different or special, just what everyone is getting."

    Too bad he didn't think about 'his?' children's desire to have what everyone else is getting, a Mother and a Father. He freely took that from them, without thinking about what they would want.

    No surprise that there was a rude and uncivil outburst from the SSM side. They have progressively become less tolerant over the last few years. I posted that it was likely on Monday. I am no prophet, it was just easy to see coming.

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    I will stand with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob on this issue.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    I was at this rally. The only ones who were disrespectful of anyone were the LGBT protesters and hecklers. They were REALLY tacky. BTW, there were a lot more than 700 people there in support of traditional marriage.

    Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez was particularly powerful with his appeal in favor of children's rights to have both a mother and a father. Being raised in a same-sex home and living in the gay community for 40 years, he knows whereof he speaks. I encourage everyone to go on youtube and listen to his story.

    It was stated at the rally that our country has gone to a very dark place. That is true and if we don't turn it around, I'm not sure how much time is left for us as a nation or as a civilization.

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:27 a.m.

    I saw a very large group of Traditional marriage backers who were respectful and well behaved. I saw another group filled with hate with posters of religious symbols slashed out. It spoke volumes of the two sides of the argument.

  • Elms OGDEN, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:20 a.m.

    Being "for traditional marriage" does put oneself against gay people and their civil rights, contrary to Amendment 3 supporters' claims. It's like someone saying in the 50's that they're "for white rights", but "definitely not against black people, heavens no". There's no good way to sugarcoat discrimination.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 29, 2014 5:43 a.m.

    The anti-constitutionalist religiously aligned must come to the understanding that no religious rationalization makes their position right or legal under the Constitution of the United States.
    I applaud the young people at the rally that challenged the anti's and reminded them that their continued discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:34 a.m.

    If this really is about the children (it changes every other day) then what about considering the interests of those children already being raised by same-sex parents. Do you propose to take them away from these couples? What about same sex couples getting married is bad for the kids they are already raising? I see that as a very important and valuable step toward protecting those kids from harm. How, exactly, will kids who would otherwise be in a home with their biological parents, be harmed by this? Are same-sex couples going to steal children from heterosexual couples?

    Look people, none of the arguments the opponents are presenting are logical. They are driven by a religious mandate, pure and simple. Allowing same-sex marriage in the state of Utah would undermine the very foundation of the Mormon religion. THAT is why, despite presenting no compelling evidence that children are at risk, these people are so afraid. This is an existential threat to their religion. It is time to call a spade a spade.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:45 a.m.

    These arguments simply have no common sense and are not grounded in reality.

    1. "Biology is not Bigotry." Assisted Reproduction is Biology and legally available for both opposite sex and same-sex couples, therefore civil marriage is not logically limited or defined by biology or body parts.

    2. "Every child deserves a mom and a dad." Civil marriage law doesn't make that determination for same-sex couples, adoption and reproductive law are obviously the correct legal tools. Marriage discrimination only hurts same-sex families, without legal rights, spousal health care, end of life decision making, social security and pension benefits to name just a few of the approximate 1100.

    3. Some explain to me what they mean by "We believe in traditional marriage"...which tradition? History is riddled with dozens of different variations...and exactly are they trying to protect it FROM? Historical view provides perspective; "We are not against anyone, we simply believe in marriage for only those of the same race."
    -------
    In the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu: “I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.”

  • Illusory Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:36 p.m.

    I enjoyed attending the traditional marriage rally this evening, and loved seeing so many people coming together to voice their support of a child's basic right to a mother and father.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:28 p.m.

    Why do protesters have to show ill-mannered action when the other side of traditional marriage just want to meet and express their views in an honest and straight-forward manner? Let every man have his turn to say what is in his heart. To be disruptive during a a man's sincere speech is very disrespectful and does nothing for your cause!

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:15 p.m.

    It's so sweet that so many showed up for the "battle", but....um....this is only going in one direction. On the one side there is an argument, and on the other there isn't.