Quantcast

Comments about ‘Gov. Herbert: Utah faces challenges but 'the state of our state is strong'’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 29 2014 6:55 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
HeresAThought
Queen Creek, AZ

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 easily quanitified.

Chester Brough
Providence, Utah

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 the state?

dmcvey
Los Angeles, CA

@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.

Pete1215
Lafayette, IN

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?

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

The repubs in Utah have a platform of hate and bigotry. So does the organization they take their marching orders from.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

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.

Soren Simonsen
Salt Lake City, UT

@Chester

You'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.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

@FatherOfFour

You 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.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

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.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Chester Brough

Providence, Utah

Why 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?

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

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.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@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 same-sex marriage.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Cats

Somewhere in Time, UT

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.
-----------

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.

Rational
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Joemamma
W Jordan, UT

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.

riverofsun
St.George, Utah

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.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

@ 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" now.

to comment

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