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

Return to article »

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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Spanish Fork, UT

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?

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@ 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

City, Ut

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.

City, Ut

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.

Gilbert, AZ

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

lindon, UT

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.

No H8 - Celebrate
Salt Lake, UT

@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.

No H8 - Celebrate
Salt Lake, UT

@ 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."

Salt Lake , UT

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.

Ogden, UT

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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT


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?


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.

No H8 - Celebrate
Salt Lake, UT

@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.

Marsha N.

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.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

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.

Utah, UT

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.

Murray, UT

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.

Phoenix, AZ

@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?

"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?

"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.

No H8 - Celebrate
Salt Lake, UT

@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

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

to comment

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