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

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
waikiki_dave
Honolulu, HI

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.

riverofsun
St.George, Utah

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?

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@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.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

@ 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....

politicalcents
West Jordan, UT

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.

SoCalChris
Riverside, CA

"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?

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

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!

Ranch
Here, UT

@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.

O'really
Idaho Falls, ID

@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.

E Sam
Provo, UT

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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Euroskeptic
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@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?

keepamericafree
salt lake, UT

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.

keepamericafree
salt lake, UT

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.

nycut
New York, NY

@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.

Euroskeptic
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@ 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.

Innovate
Spanish Fork, UT

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?

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. 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.

to comment

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