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
A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@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 integrity.

isrred
South Jordan, 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."

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?

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

Saying and doing are two different things.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

So what is motivating the governor's position if it isn't hatred and bigotry?

RBB
Sandy, UT

@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.

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

Joemamma---The guv was conspicuously absent at the SSM rally inside the Capitol.
Just as he was absent when Swallow resigned.

dalefarr
South Jordan, Utah

Governor Herbert, like all politician, should be evaluated by what they do, not by what they say.

Paddycakes
South Jordan, UT

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.

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

@dalefarr

Then there is nothing to rate him on.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

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.

ValiesVoter
LONG BEACH, CA

@ Paddy cakes

Then 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.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@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.

ouisc
Farmington, UT

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.

tgurd
Gonzales, LA

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 about that.

SlopJ30
St Louis, MO

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.

Randyman5775
Kaysville / Davis, UT

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.

jjtotten
Washington, UT

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.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ 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.

Yorkshire
City, Ut

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.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@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.

to comment

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