there is no place in our society for hatred and bigotry," Herbert said. Than
why is the state spending millions of dollars to deny the rights of a large
group of its citizens?
Herbert is becoming a RINO governor just like Huntsman. Selling out principles
to appease the left who will never like him anyway. Yes we need to improve air
quality, but no matter what you do short of killing jobs, shutting down
industry, and taking food out of the mouths of children the militant leftists
will not be satisfied. They hate for the sake of hatred.
Many are beginning to see that irrational same-sex marriage bans sugar coated as
"states rights" but grounded in vile animus, hate and prejudice do not
pass constitutional muster. Much like the historical personal views of every
caring, thoughtful person who just happened to hold deep and strong personal
views on where African Americans should sit on public transportation, who they
should marry, or their use of separate drinking fountains and educational
institutions. The defense and support of Jim Crow laws could be similar to
same-sex marriage bans today, and most likely undeserving of respect or
tolerance when it comes to civil marriage and public accommodations law
discrimination. The position of Virginia's AG might be a better model for
Utah's Governor and AG, by showing leadership and respect for all of
Utah's citizens. In the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu: “I am not
interested in picking up (Governor Herbert's) crumbs of compassion thrown
from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu
I found the call for civility to be very dubious! Watching nearly every GOP
official jumping up to applaud the call for civility was insulting. In my
opinion, the ONLY reason they miraculously and suddenly are calling for civility
toward Gays & Lesbians is because of the years of well documented attacks
and insults they have hurled at these Utah families may vary well be used in
court to prove that Utah's officials have shown "Animus" toward
these citizens.Utah's long history of demonizing Gays &
Lesbians may very well be the unraveling of their anti-gay amendment 3.
Tonight's disingenuous attempt to appear civil, was only a smoke screen to
cover up years of abuse.
To truth in all its forms 10:22 p.m. Jan. 29, 2014there is no place
in our society for hatred and bigotry," Herbert said. Than why is the state
spending millions of dollars to deny the rights of a large group of its
citizens?---------------------That's exactly what I
was going to say but you beat me to it. Good and true comment.
Re: "Than [sic] why is the state spending millions of dollars to deny the
rights of a large group of its citizens?"Short answer? It
@truth in all its forms: "there is no place in our society for hatred and
bigotry," Herbert said. Than why is the state spending millions of dollars
to deny the rights of a large group of its citizens?"It appears
that many in UT. feel denying rights is not bigotry and hate as long as they can
justify it with their religious rationalization. It matters not to these folks
that there are also many that do not share their beliefs. These anti's have
no respect for the Constitution of this country. They are drug store
constitutionalists. They pick and choose who and what rights should be granted
as long as it suits their ideology.
But, the governor said, the state is being hindered by federal overreach.There is no Federal Overreach when the purpose is to have complete
equality for all Americans gay and straight.
to make accusations of hatred or bigotry is to incite hatred and bigotry. Learn
your opponents argument before you make accusations.
"Truth in all its forms"Protecting traditional marriage is
not a from of hatred.
In our efforts to define marriage, why is the State not taking a more active
role in the fight against polygamy?Why is one fight 'good'
for Utah and the other not?
How can one say, "If your loved one is in the hospital ill, I don't
want you to be able to visit them. But I don't hate you?"How can
one say, "I want you to have completely different tax laws, separate
Medicare and Social Security standards, and 140 other laws that help me but are
never allowed to benefit you in any way. But I don't hate you?"If
I said I didn't want Mormons to be allowed to marry one another, but I have
nothing against them, would that be OK? Of course not. No one looks at someone
they like, love, or just tolerate, and says let me deny you basic civil rights.
In the 1950's could they say that they loved the blacks, but were just
This sounds like the Governor's response to Lockhart's speech. Well
Governor Herbert lied when he said his budget calls for increasing teacher
salary by 61 million dollars. That was an increase in the WPU of 2.5% most of
which will be used to pay for the state mandated increase in district
contribution to the state retirement fund. From what is left of the WPU
increase the cost of increases in transportation, heating, electricity, etc etc.
must come from that same WPU increase. He knows that money does not go directly
to compensation but he said it did anyway. If he really wants to see teachers
get a 2.5% raise he should create a line item like was done 10 years ago which
mandate a specific amount of dollars be placed on the teacher salary schedule.
@ truth in all its forms"there is no place in our society for
hatred and bigotry," Herbert said. Than why is the state spending millions
of dollars to deny the rights of a large group of its citizens?"I think your should be talking to Mother Nature, not the government. In the
history of the earth no same-sex couple has ever been able to make a child. The Declaration of Independence addresses "unalienable rights,"
or rights that are inherent to an individual or group. "Family," or the
ability for a GROUP or CLASS of unions to create a child is inherent to
heterosexual couples, it is inherently absent in individuals (it takes two) and
absent in same-sex couples (NO two same-sex people can create a child).Civil Unions are the appropriate mechanism for same-sex couples. INDIVIDUALS
can choose to love and spend their life with anyone they wish, but no same-sex
individuals can create a child. Civil Unions address that fundamental,
All of these critics of traditional marriage are skewing the issue. Gays are
not just asking to do as they please, they are asking for everyone to CALL IT
what THEY want us to call it, to adopt their definition in place of the
traditional definition of marriage. Even if you disregard the fact that God
instituted this definition of marriage (in the name of "freedom of
religion") they still have no right to force everyone to throw out our
definition, which was adopted through a constitutional, democratic process, and
"...Let me be clear that while I support traditional marriage and will
continue to defend Amendment 3, there is no place in our society for hatred and
bigotry."Defending Amendment 3 IS hatred and bigotry. It denies
fundamental rights to individuals and families. They may different families than
my LDS family, but they are still families who love, who share, and who dream.
It's a bit naive to use a quote like that of Madison to speak
of the limits of federal powers as defined by the Constitution, but each and
every Amendment is part of the Constitution, and the powers and role of federal
and state governments have been clarified over time. When Amendment 14 was
passed it thereafter became unconstitutional for states to deprive its citizens
of equal protection, which Utah's Amendment 3 does. I am a
Mormon, and though my Mormon religion does not, many religions both recognize
and perform same-sex marriages, so Amendment 3 not only deprives citizens equal
protection, it also deprives religious societies their freedom of religious
practice and expression guaranteed by the very first Amendment.
I don't know why the religious freedom angle isn't being considered in
the marriage equality discussion. Supporting Amendment 3 based on any religious
tradition—both by those who voted for Amendment 3, and those now defending
it—is establishment of religion by law. Denying religions that recognize
and perform same-sex marriages their ability to marry is prohibiting their free
exercise of religion. Both contradict the First Amendment. Governor
Herbert, and every other elected official in Utah, has taken an oath to obey and
defend the US Constitution. Supporting Amendment 3 is not obeying and defending
@Civil:So, based on that reasoning, heterosexual couples should have
to provide proof of their fertility before they can be married? Otherwise, they
too should receive a civil union? I wonder, does that mean that if a woman has
a hysterectomy or a man has testicular cancer, their marriage should be
downgraded to a civil union?
To say that defending Amendment 3 is bigotry and hatred is analogous to saying
that denying a driver's license to the blind is hatred and bigotry. One
wonders if such statements aren't rather projections than perceptions of
It's difficult to separate one's feelings from this often
controversial debate topic. Matt Walsh wrote a blog on this topic which was very
poignant and insightful: "Marriage was a monogamous institution between two
people who, in principle, could create life; which meant that marriage
functioned as the foundation for the family. The family, in turn, functioned as
the foundation for human civilization." "[...]If gay
marriage ought to be legal BECAUSE we can’t tell someone who to love, and
BECAUSE it’s consensual, and BECAUSE it doesn’t affect you, then
that logic can be used by any other group to legitimize and legalize their own
lifestyle choices, so long as they can realistically argue that their version
fits all three qualifiers. Clearly, polygamists should be next in line.
Arguably, they should have been first." I honestly believe that many who
fiercely argue for SSM leave out this entire portion of the argument that
clearly redefines what normal is, or will be if this measure is passed. I also
believe that arguing from emotions rather than facts denies the other side a
fair opportunity for rebuttal, as emotions are often subjective and aren't
The right to marry anyone, your cousin, uncle, sister, multiple wives, is not a
protected right within the 14th Amendment; if you check with legal scholars,
they will relate to you that marriage, and formation of it, and related family
law was intended to be a state issue, reserved just for them; see the 10th and
11th amendment analysis during the 1987 Constitutional Convention notes. You
need to read why the State of California lost before the Supreme Court; it was
not on the right to marry, it was a procedural question--who had standing, and
suffered direct harm by reversal of Proposition 8. The Governor, decided in his
wisdsom not to defend the decision, just because of personal views; you do not
get to pick and chose which law to defend if you are the chief legal counsel for
@Snapdragon, you're not "defending traditional marriage". Your
heterosexual marriage is not in danger and is not being threatened. You're
not "defending traditional marriage" you're denying citizens equal
rights and protections.
Marriage, for heterosexual couples, is a public statement of intent to form a
stable relationship, so that the resulting children can have a decent
environment in which to grow up (which is important to society). From what I
have read, guy-guy homosexual marriage is not expected to reduce the
sex-partners per year count. Does this mean we are throwing out the definition
and intent of the term marriage? Is the resultant label (married) now to have
no operational meaning?
The repubs in Utah have a platform of hate and bigotry. So does the organization
they take their marching orders from.
The headline applies to that person who interrupted the prayer at the rally
supporting traditional marriage. What's good for the goose is also good
for the gander. Just because someone supports traditional marriage doesn't
make them bigoted. Interrupting a prayer is hateful and bigoted. Yep it goes
both ways. Tolerance is not acceptance.
@ChesterYou're right that "marriage" is not a protected
right per se. It's all of the other rights that are legally granted by
official recognition of marriage as a state institution that are protected
rights—from legal rights, to financial rights, to tax benefits, etc., and
including the granting of a marriage "license" itself. Those are the
rights that are protected. But there are also many, many institutions, religious
or otherwise, that both recognize and perform same-sex marriages, and their
protected rights are denied when a law excludes a specific class of citizens, as
is the case with Amendment 3.
@FatherOfFourYou say "If I said I didn't want Mormons to be
allowed to marry one another, but I have nothing against them, would that be OK?
Of course not". What? How is one Mormon marrying anothr even
close to being equivalent to two people of the same gender marrying each other?
Two Mormons marrying each other is religious compatability. Two same-gender
persons marrying each other is biological incompatability.I would
add that standing for traditional marriage is not hateful toward anyone. If I
vote for higher taxes that doesn't mean I hate people who oppose higher
taxes. Let's work to understand the legitimate needs and
concerns of each party. If gays would acknowledge that straights have needs and
rights too when it comes to the definition of marriage and related laws, perhaps
we could find some solutiions to each other's needs. But for
the gays to continually ignore our concerns and only trump their own is nothing
short of disengenuous.
Oh by the way, all of you crabbing about how Amendment 3 denys "rights"
ought to read the 10th Amendment. It has a nice conflict with the 14th
Amendment. Kind of like some of the rules of Baseball.
Those who claim support of Amendment 3 is hatred and bigotry do so because they
don't have any good arguments other than to spew hate and try to shame and
intimidate others into silence. Civil Unions are the route to go
for those who want to enter into same-sex relationships. That will give them
all the legal rights they want. Children have the right to have a
mother and father whenever we can make it possible. Please, everyone, go to
youtube and see the comments of Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez who was raised in a
lesbian home. His story is profound.
Chester BroughProvidence, UtahWhy did Virginia lose in
Loving v. Virginia then? Why could the Supremes tell Virginia who can marry in
their state?Did Civil rights outweigh state rights? Shouldn't
it do so here, and if not, why?
dmcvey: "you're not "defending traditional marriage. Your
heterosexual marriage is not in danger and is not being threatened. You're
not "defending traditional marriage" you're denying citizens equal
rights and protections."By your definition, we have absolutely
no right to try and fight counterfeiting money in this country. The $20 bill
that my neighbor just printed out on his laser printer should be legal just
because it didn't change the legitimate $20 bill I have in my wallet? We
can't deny the counterfeiter's rights just because he chose to
"earn" his $20 differently than I chose to earn mine? Really?Just like a flood of counterfeit money can undermine the value of a
nation's currency, diluting the definition of marriage will certainly
affect traditional marriages for generations to come. It is incredibly naive to
think that it won't.
@Meckofahess"If gays would acknowledge that straights have needs and
rights too"This straight person doesn't have needs with
regards to this issue, and half of straight people in the nation support
For all of you who are saying that marriage is to raise children, why does Utah
law allow first cousins to marry (with all the rights and privileges given)ONLY
when they can prove that they will not have children? It is a legal Utah
marriage, but only granted when they are infertile.Can we just give
that same marriage to gays? Or the one for all older couples that have no
physical means of producing a child? Or how about the one to the young couples
who never want to raise children? Can we let gays have that Utah marriage?
CatsSomewhere in Time, UTThose who claim support of
Amendment 3 is hatred and bigotry do so because they don't have any good
arguments other than to spew hate and try to shame and intimidate others into
silence. Civil Unions are the route to go for those who want to
enter into same-sex relationships. That will give them all the legal rights they
want.-----------Cats, you know bettern than that. Amendment 3
will not let Civil Unions or anything even close to or looking like a marriage
be legal in Utah. Your post in non-sensical.
@SAS"So, based on that reasoning, heterosexual couples should
have to provide proof of their fertility before they can be married? Otherwise,
they too should receive a civil union? I wonder, does that mean that if a woman
has a hysterectomy or a man has testicular cancer, their marriage should be
downgraded to a civil union?"That is the typical fallacy of
division argument. The fact that SOME heterosexual couples are infertile
doesn't change that fact that as a class or group heterosexuals can produce
children and homosexual couples cannot.
JoeC: By your definition, we have absolutely no right to try and fight
counterfeiting money in this country. The $20 bill that my neighbor just printed
out on his laser printer should be legal just because it didn't change the
legitimate $20 bill I have in my wallet?-------Oh Joe, these
marriages have legal papers, issued by the State of Utah, stating that these two
people are married. Commitment ceremonies are more like the forgeries you were
talking about.All gay couples who have been married by a state
legally are really married, accepted by our US Government and able to claim
"married" on their tax returns. You may not accept them and that is
your right, but they are legitimate marriages.
When the governor made the comment about bigotry and hatred was he refering to
gay community??They're the ones that show the most hatred and bigotry
by interrupting our protest, being disrespectful, which is the opposite of what
we did when they had their protest.
There did not seem to be much "rah rah" from the Governor last night.Unsaid words sound as though he is resigned to SSM becoming the law in Utah.
He had a polite, short statement, not the same sounding "Yes, we can",
as a few weeks ago.Actually, the Governor was quietly stating the obvious.
@ Civil (& Cats):"Civil Unions are the appropriate mechanism
for same-sex couples."Maybe someone will have responded by the
time this comment appears, but I have to ask, what does Utah's Amendment 3
say about Civil Unions? -- It forbids them.Back in 2004 NO
compromises were on offer. When the citizens of Utah had the chance to exclude
same-sex couples from --ANY-- protections, ANY recognition under the law, they
did that by a large majority. So listening to the Governor's speech, I have
to say spare us all this pained, earnest hand-wringing about "civility"
@Cats: By your logic, Amendment 3 is unconstitutional, since it bans civil
unions.@Flashback: The 14th Amendment modifies and trumps the 10th.
Go read the Constitution. All of it.@Meckofahess: Alas, your
"concerns" are pretty much limited to, "How can we continue to
discriminate against homosexual men and women if we're forced to legally
recognize their marriages? How can we continue to tease and torment gay
children and children with gay parents?" You know... you're not in 7th
grade anymore. Maybe it's time to grow up.@HeresAThought:
While it would be extremely abnormal for you or I to run off and find a gay
date, that's because we're not gay. But, for a gay person who can
only form romantic bonds or find their life partner in a member of their own
sex, it's perfectly normal for them. I do not judge my brother or sister
on the basis of my own nature. Nor is it my position to judge my brother's
God-given nature, especially when he is peaceful and lives with personal
"Those who claim support of Amendment 3 is hatred and bigotry do so because
they don't have any good arguments other than to spew hate and try to shame
and intimidate others into silence.Civil Unions are the route to go
for those who want to enter into same-sex relationships. That will give them all
the legal rights they want." Which are ALSO banned by Amendment
3...So you just make the point even more clearly about amendment 3
being about bigotry. You, yourself just admitted, that they should have certain
rights (civil unions in this case) and yet you STILL support Amendment 3. How
is that not bigotry?
Saying and doing are two different things.
So what is motivating the governor's position if it isn't hatred and
@Bored, when exactly did the State allow polygamous marriage? It is not hatred
or bigotry for the state to defend a law that provides certain benefits to a
relationship between 1 man and 1 woman. Anyone who wants to enter into that
relationship gets the benefit. Those who chose another relationship - polygamy,
same-sex couple, two sisters who live together, do not get that benefit. If
same-sex couples want those benefits, they should be fighting for them for all
alternate living arrangements. The failure to do so is due to hate and bigotry
according to the same-sex lobby's rational. This is less about legal
rights than the desire for acceptance. Simply put, whete A does not equal B,
A+B does not equal A+A or A+B+B+B.If same sex couples want equal
status, they should be fighting for equal status for all living arrangements and
stop the hate and bigoyry against others who choose a different lifestyle.
Joemamma---The guv was conspicuously absent at the SSM rally inside the
Capitol.Just as he was absent when Swallow resigned.
Governor Herbert, like all politician, should be evaluated by what they do, not
by what they say.
Irrespective of political correctness, there is in fact a place in society for
embracing the precepts of Christianity and rejecting 'humanism' to
please the miscreants of society. It is better to please God than man. If we
don't stand for something, we fall for anything, and sadly, the parts of
the government want to please all men, when in fact they end up pleasing none.
Sadder still, is the 'silent majority' willing to sit down and say
nothing to defend the precepts of their God for the sake of peace. Peace,
peace, when there is no peace. If only we loved our God as much as the pagan
loves his. Our Lord never instructed us to defend and embrace evil, wickedness
or debauchery in society, but clearly in His Laws, Statutes and Judgments, He
clearly condemned these acts, and we should too, regardless of the consequences.
It is better to suffer the contempt of pagans and humanists, and embrace the
real love of God and His directives as codified in Holy Writ.
@dalefarrThen there is nothing to rate him on.
I think we all can be thankful that Mitt didn't become president and then
have the gay marriage situation explode to ensnare the White House and hamper
Mitt's ability to handle other national and international issues. Can you imagine the protests and rallies (both for and against gay
marriage) that would be held in front of the White House, demanding Mitt to act
on either his religious beliefs or executive duties for equal rights of all
citizens? The LDS Church and Utah would have been under very harsh
national/international public scrutiny, especially in light of Russia's
Olympics and Putin's policies against gays. The concurrent news stories
would have been a public relations nightmare for all involved. With
the bigotry and hatred card now being played in the media, and Herbert's
acknowledgement of it, this gay marriage situation would have been a much bigger
disaster for a Romney Administration.
@ Paddy cakesThen I invite you to take all those points and
arguments into court and see how effective they are. And once judgements are
handed down, if you're LDS, try to do the work of reconciling the judicial
results with your 12th Article of Faith.
@SAS:"So, based on that reasoning, heterosexual couples should have to
provide proof of their fertility before they can be married? Otherwise, they too
should receive a civil union?"Assuming that we want be totally
mean-spirited as a society then how would we enforce it? When an infertile
couple shows up to get married, (assuming that even they know and many times
they do not), how will the clerk know?I love my sister, how come I
can't marry her? Why is it that one very small minority of
non-procreational unions (same gender unions) can receive a special status as
being equal to procreational unions when the vast majority of non-procreational
unions cannot?Same gender unions are a lot closer to being like all
the other non-procreational unions than the opposite gender unions that are
called marriage. If we call same gender unions between homosexuals marriage,
then to meet constitutional muster we have to call all non-procreational unions
'marriages' also. Then marriage means nothing because everyone has
one. It has lost its importance as the means in which society promotes the
raising of children by their parents as being a societal good.
From Wikipedia. Bigotry: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats
or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on
the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national
origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic
status, or other characteristics.Wanting to deny rights to a portion
of a population based on their sexual orientation is bigotry. If the Governor
says there is no room for bigotry, he should drop the appeals process
immediately and get back to the work that needs to be done in Utah.
1st comment I have is why is anyone that speaks against same sex marriage a
hater?? I have over the years seen more laws put in action by minorities than
any other time and the result has been more and more laws and big government
involved in the lives of a country that has prided itself on freedom. Do you
people who continue cry unfair, haters, racist, and every other remarks that
cause dissensions truly look at who starts this garbage? People join in the cry
and raise the fists of unfairness for the most part don't even know the
actually happenings, the just join the mobs. Look at where this nation has gone
thru the giving of more government to us, are we any more free? No. Are people
better off? NO has the cases of those that sought redress been done even though
they have been awarded their desires? NO for the most part, nothing but division
and hatred do I see spread by omission or commission its still the same. Think
Man, this stuff writes itself. Does the D-News have a futuristing
comment-producing robot programmed specifically for the SSM debate? It's
the same tired arguments, over and over: "You hate so-and-so," "No,
I don't; so-and-so hates me!" Civil unions this, purpose of marriage
that, biological incompatability, Proclomation to the Family yadda yadda yadda,
society spiraling into oblivion, etc. etc.Thing is, it's not
really much of a debate anymore. One side has lost; it just doesn't know it
yet. In 20 years we will all be going about our lives, SSM marriage will be
legal across the US, and no-one will give it a thought. The entire population
will not turn gay, the picture-postcard, angel-blessed "traditional"
marriages will still be chugging along (along with traditional abuse,
traditional infidelity, and traditional divorce), and my grandkids will wonder
what they hey all the fuss was about.We'll have some new Issue
Du Jour to bicker about, and the alarmist protectors of "traditional"
whatever will still fight the inevitable. Good times.
Hmmm ... Hate and bigotry cut both ways folks. Just because conservatives
aren't for gay marriage, or clamoring to vote for SB100, doesn't mean
we don't care about your so called "large group of citizens". If
you take the time to READ THE BILL, you'll find it has more loopholes than
a pair of lace undies. It's poorly drafted and needs work. I understand
completely your desire for change, but insulting conservatives isn't going
to get it done any faster than conservatives insulting you. An old saying
applies here -- "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion
still." You won't change minds by ranting and making uninformed claims.
There is a great lie being used in society today as somewhere along the way
people are no longer entitled to hold dissenting views. If a person has a view
different than someone else it is interpreted as “well you hate me.”
It is certainly possible to hold a divergent view and still affirm and accept
the other person. Disagreement and respect are not mutually exclusive.
@ Randyman:You wrote: " You won't change minds by ranting
and making uninformed claims." I don't think you
understand. The LGBT community is not concerned with changing people's
minds. We just want to have the same rights as heterosexuals do,
marry the person we love. I will defend the right of people to
dislike SSM. But I will fight people who deny me privileges given and financed
by society, which by the way means my taxes.
dmcvey said "...Your heterosexual marriage is not in danger and is not being
threatened." For you and all others who are apparently still
confused..... The term "defending traditional marriage" is
CODE for: 'We KNOW that hetero marriage is not going to be threatened
by SSM. But we also know that by allowing SSM that same-sex sex will come to be
perpetuated and foisted onto children and teens and society at large as
something which is acceptable, moral and normal'.You must
recognize that there is a whole segment of the population that are all for
treating Gays and Lesbians kindly & allowing any tax rights, monetary
rights, end of life decisions etc kinds of things to same sex couples. But it also time to recognize that same segment of the population will NEVER
agree that same-sex sex is acceptable or normal or moral. Their efforts to stop
SSM or oppose it at every turn is solely to keep that societal shift from
happening.So maybe we can just get past the argument that heteros
somehow think SSM would effect them, or their marriage, or traditional
marriage.Hope that clears that up.
@Meckofahess" If gays would acknowledge that straights have
needs and rights too when it comes to the definition of marriage..."What I'm hearing is that SSM opponents have the need and right to
believe their hetero marriages are special and sacred. What has never been
satisfactorily explained is how this belief gets affected at all by granting SSM
rights. It's your belief. It's up to you to hold it sacrosanct. I
and many others have never believed what you do and this won't change even
if your side of the issue wins. So how does this impact your belief? You get
to believe whatever you want. Instead, your protest suggests that the strength
of your belief is dependent on societal approval or sanction, which makes me
question the degree of confidence you have in your belief.
@ Meckofahess "same-gender persons marrying each other is biological
incompatability."Does civil marriage law excludes opposite sex
couples who may be "biologically incompatible?" Assisted reproduction
is a legal option. Could your discrimination be better expressed through
reproductive law? Same-sex couples actually have children. Marriage is NOT
defined by those who are excluded from the institution. Otherwise, why do we
allow felon adult child molesters and spousal abusers to marry? @Cats "Children have the right to have a mother and father whenever we can
make it possible." Then your issue is with changing reproductive law and
NOT civil marriage law. Please think about it. @RBB
"polygamy, two sisters who live together, do not get that benefit." The legal rationale for same-sex couples and their children, is that
restricting marriage to the opposite sex or the same race based on immutable
characteristics (race, sex and sexual orientation) is not either fair or
rational. Therefore, the law does not require governmental recognition of
friendships or other relationships (cohabitation) a person may want to enter
that may or may not involve intimacy. Understand better? Also, your slippery
slope arguments are not valid argumentation in law, they are classified as
ValiesVoterYou comments are loaded with presuppositions: I am NOT
LDS, nor have I ever. I embrace one of the historic Christian churches, so your
comments about LDS documents/doctrine, I have no knowledge. BTW, you have never
seen an LDS write as I. I don't take my arguments before the courts where
the Constitution and righteousness little exist, and the Bible says we
(Christians) shall be hauled before the courts for speaking righteousness, and,
as many have, be imprisoned or worse. I speak truth, you speak lies. Your
words shall, one day, be witness against you. Additionally, I have only support
for LDS, albeit, they seem to becoming ensconced with false sense of
'love', preferring the doctrine of pleasing men, than pleasing God.
They, nevertheless, are some of the finest people I have met.
"While I support traditional marriage and will continue to defend Amendment
3, there is no place in our society for hatred and bigotry." This stunning statement represents the absolute height of political hypocrisy.
Since Dec 21st of last year, I have read a lot of disingenuous
statements by those who would deny equal rights for their fellow citizens - but
none come close to this statement. I will stop short of saying that
Amendment 3 is hate-filled - having animus against a group doesn't actually
require hate, it only requires indoctrination.There is no question,
however, that Amendment 3 promotes bigotry. It creates an environment that
allows legal discrimination against a minority segment of lawful, tax-paying
Utah citizens.Honestly... the state knows it is going to lose this
appeal. The entire SSM issue was, for all practical purposes, decided upon last
year when SCOTUS ruled on the Windsor case. As we have seen in many, many states
since then, the courts are no longer willing to accept dogma-driven arguments
that have their basis in animus. If the ultra-conservative state of Virginia
can see this, Utah should be able to, as well.
Bigotry is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions
from oneself".It seems to me that the gay agenda is completely
intolerant of any opinion about marriage except the one they want. While the
pro-marriage agenda has given the gay agenda both time and deference. Imagine if a pro-marriage rally was held in San Francisco?
I don't think the gay/lesbian movement is analogous to the civil rights
movement. However, those for the gay/lesbian movement have tried to make it
common place to assume it is the same. My reasoning is simple. If you sit at
my diner and order dinner, I have no way of knowing you are gay, unless you make
a big deal of it. During the civil rights movement, it was pretty easy to tell
someone was black, even if they never told you. For this reason I don't
believe gay/lesbian should be considered a protected class. However, they are
winning the argument by getting people to believe their original (but flawed)
assumption that being gay/lesbian is the same as being a woman or a person of
clear ethnicity. I personally don't agree with the assumption. That does
not make me a hater. It makes me a logical thinker.
@JMHO Gay rights are civil rights. Naaa.. who would ever say
that?"29 states had laws that allowed gays to be detained by the
police simply on the suspicion they were gay. In California and Pennsylvania
they could be confined to mental institutes, and in seven states they could be
castrated. Electroshock therapy and lobotomies were sometimes used to
“cure” homosexuals. Professional licenses could be revoked or
denied on the basis of homosexuality, so that professionals could lose their
livelihoods, and they could not work for the federal government. Most states prohibit marriage equality but any legal recognition, and adoption
in some states. The legacy of virulent homophobia and legal inequality still
looms large in many parts of this country, and will for many years to come.Critics of gay marriage would be wise to learn the history of
institutional homophobia in America and how it helps drive today’s gay
rights movement, just as institutional racism inspired and drove the civil
rights movement. Utah will come to understand the fundamental injustice of
subjecting gay and lesbian Americans to their own form of Jim Crow rather than
sharing in equal rights for all." - D Lampo
If you find yourself not able to visit your partner in a hospital, this is not a
result of hatred. This is a separate issue. Don't let the issues get
confused with emotions.
@ Paddycakes: Notice the word "if" in my comment:". . . if you're LDS, try to do the work of reconciling . . .
"I used it because this site has a large LDS readership, fully
understanding not all here are Mormon. For you I would say, try to better live
by your Golden Rule. Also, issuing threats of religious judgement are not
effective for those who don't subscribe to a religious world view, whether
it be Christian, (or more nearly Christian, if I'm understanding you
correctly). LDS, or anything else.
Herbert is becoming a reasonable governor just like Huntsman. Selling out
principles to appease the right who will never like him anyway. Yes we need to
improve the air quality, but no matter what you do short of killing jobs,
shutting down industry, and taking food out of the mouths of children the
militant republicans will not be satisfied. They hate for the sake of hatred.
@Ksampow "...they are asking for everyone to CALL IT what THEY want us to
call it, to adopt their definition in place of the traditional definition of
marriage." Marriage is simply not defined by those who are
excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon child molesters and
spousal abusers to civil marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in
the institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry. There are no
Interracial marriage licenses. There are no Felon Marriage licenses. There are
no infertile marriage licenses. By being allowed to participate and/or
strengthen the existing institution, there is only ONE marriage license for all.
Nothing has been re-defined. Even "traditional voting" was
NOT re-defined by allowing women the right to vote. Understand better?The "redefinition argument" is complete nonsense. @
Snapdragon "visit your partner in a hospital, this is not a result of
hatred. This is a separate issue." Try accessing the 1100 state and
federal benefits, spousal heath care, hospital visitation, end of life decision
making, pensions, social security etc. with your partner and without a marriage
license, then you may understand why a civil union is not enough let alone
desirable. Marriage is universally recognized.
Let the state vote Let The People Speak! remember We The People!
I hope the legislature ( election year beside the point ) has the courage to NOT
impose more taxes on the people ...gas tax, income tax or any other tax.
Keeping taxes at levels that attract businesses WITH JOBS for Utah's people
will do far more to raise revenue than any tax increase would provide. What we
need the most (fat chance with the present national administration) is permits
and ability to wisely develop the world's largest deposits of oil right
here in our own state. In addition, I hope the State will stick to the will of
the people and vigorously present the majority's desire for traditional
marriage and family in the courts.
Seriously Gov Herbert? I didn't know you were on that side of the isle. In
a time when the economy is hurting, you want to give in to the save the planet
myth? Utah has been like this forever and we choose to try to clean the air
now? My salary and benefits keep taking hits and now you want to raise the costs
on bringing my car up to code, raising the price of gas, and basically raise
taxes. Raising requirements on businesses will raise the price of goods. Energy
is going up because we can't use coal any more. Free mass transit? Guess
where we get the funds for that. Looks like we'll be looking for a
replacement in the Governor seat.
As other comments have mentioned, this article is ironic considering their
desperate emergency attempt to stay SSM. I just attended an Eggs n Breakfast
with legislatures this morning who say they are looking to California, flushing
out issues that are unconstitutional instead of spending money and time to make
them constitutional, and trying to get the real issues into the mix - possible
issues such as UVU 40 million necessary monies, gender bathrooms in the public
school system, transportation gas hike, more science/math/physic competition
into the public school system, and air quality. Somehow the 5,000 homeless
youth were forgotten in their important issues.
Civil, I don't think that anyone is questioning the fact that same sex
couples cannot have biological children without assistance. But as Ruth
Ginsberg so succinctly pointed out, "If the man and the woman are both over
55, I assure you that there will be very few children coming from that
marriage". Are you in favor of limiting marriage to couples of a fertile
age? You haven't said that, but I don't know what else to make of
JoeCapitalist, same sex marriage has been the law for 10 years in Massachusetts.
If the state really had gone south in a handbasket, the anti's would be
gleefully quoting the dire statistics--but they don't. Is this because
it's the law, and people today can't understand why the Utahns are
making such a fuss about it?It has been repeated that the 2004 law
was approved by 2/3 of the voters of Utah. That was ten years ago.
There's no chance that it would get that margin today, if it even passed
To all the folk who trumpet the complementary nature of male and female body
parts--let's suppose same sex marriage were the law in Utah. Do you
seriously think that, say, straight men will start marrying other men, now that
it's legal? And that fewer babies will be born because of this?I'll tell you one thing that will change. The suicide rate of young gay
men will go down.
Flo-Jay, if the good citizens of the state of Oklahoma voted to collect property
taxes from all Mormon churches in the state--while the (dominant) Baptist
churches got off scot free, you wouldn't have a problem with it? Because
the people voted for it?