LDS Church, other faiths say same-sex marriage opposition not due to bigotry


Return To Article
  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    April 13, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    Our poor and sick society has reached the point that we call good evil and evil good.Let us stand for traditional marriage and be proud to do so!

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:58 a.m.

    @ David, Standards are set to be sought after, even when they are not always met. This is certainly true in marriage.

    Are you suggesting that it's fine to lay out the red carpet inviting convicted felons, drug alcohol and spousal abusers into civil marriage? Then target ONLY same-sex couples with vile anti civil-marriage animus?

    You said: "The state should establish and maintain the ideal marriage and family situation for children, even when it is not always attained."

    You don’t have a rational or logical argument, it is animus.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 9:52 p.m.

    First, there it the higher rates of domestic violence within their relationships. Next, you have the high rate of gay or bisuxuals in positions of authority abusing children.

    This statement is so blatantly false. As a mental health care provider, that is not the case statistically, nor in real life. Most abuse and domestic violence comes from heterosexual predators.

  • Boy Scout South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    @moreman, I think that you fail to see what polygamy really was. When the LDS church practiced polygamy, it is not like the FLDS church now. We practiced polygamy because the Lord's law commanded it for a period of time. The people that did practice it, weren't overly thrilled to accept that calling, and they were the people closest to the prophet. There was not Child molestation involved. Polygamy was also to help make certain that all of the women in the church were cared for.

    Also I think that you will be surprised that soon after Gay Marriage is legalized, people will begin to want to be able to marry multiple people once again. LGBT stands for Lesbian Gay Bisexual, Transexual. Once LG are satisfied, they will move on to BT.

  • Crotty Kid Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    It's not necessarily bigotry that drives people to oppose equal rights, but it sure is dogma. Dogma that teaches people not to think for his or herself and not to question authority. How many of these people would automatically change their belief if their authoritative religious figure changed theirs? There are many bigots that oppose equal rights and also there are those that aren't inherently bigots but act as such because of weak minds and a desire to worship and follow authority instead of using love, charity, reason and logic to help them decide.

    Also, don't claim that the authority is God just because a religious authority is saying it. With that logic, you can also say that God was speaking through Brigham Young when he said terrible racist things that the church now opposes and clearly states that it was his opinion and not doctrine.

  • MoreMan San Diego, CA
    Feb. 15, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    The church lost ALL credibility with the "polygamy" thing about marriage that the churches 2 original prophets practiced. It's like letting a convicted child molester define "molestation" after "meeting God" in prison.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Feb. 14, 2014 9:57 p.m.

    @Liberty For All
    "Hundreds of thousands of people suffering from same-sex attraction have been fixed or improved their condition through psychological counseling, and medical treatments like Depo-Povera (reducing sex drive in males)"

    First, I suffered through four marriages - including two temple marriages - while trying to pretend I was straight. I was miserable, the women I was with were miserable. I have been with a wonderful guy for almost five years now, and am happy and content.

    Second, over the last few years the groups claiming to "cure" same-sex attraction have one-after-the-other shut down, admitting their "cure" rate was abysmal and most often temporary.

    Third, suggesting chemical-castration as a cure is pretty radical. No thanks, I'll take happiness over life as a drone.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    "Our nation's uneven but dogged journey toward truer and more meaningful freedoms for our citizens has brought us continually to a deeper understanding of the first three words in our Constitution: we the people. "We the People" have become a broader, more diverse family than once imagined. Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed. We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect."-Judge Arenda Wright Allen

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Feb. 14, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    I think I understand Danclrksvll when he says "God has pronounced his judgement on gays and their lifestyle" . . . I don't agree with it, but I understand it. So then, if that is the "definition of truth" to those in opposition to gay people and their expressions of love toward each other, then let them cherish it, believe it and revile in it; but STOP trying to legislate your beliefs on to gay people in their pursuit of a civil right to marriage equality.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    Feb. 14, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    The issue here is really about the definition of truth. As an active Latter Day Saint, God and His Word have already pronounced judgment on the gay lifestyle, once and for all time. We are to flee any type of sexual immorality as Christians, period! If we insist on putting on a parade for gay marriage we may as well throw a party for getting drunk, fornication, and adultery, and throw all moral restraint under the bus. No type of sin has a protected status in God's moral universe, and ALL of it leads to spiritual death without Christ atonement.

  • A Run South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 7:57 p.m.

    All those people out there who say we are going to lose and know it are probably very right in a legal perspective. The world is slowly turning that way, and even in Utah, where our constitution forbids Same sex marriage, we can see that happening in order to satisfy the National constitution, and there is nothing wrong with that.

    Where you are all wrong however, is that as a church we can legally continue to forbid same sex marriage within our buildings, and that will stay true. Go ahead an legalize it, give everyone equality. I realize where you are coming from. But just remember that Legal equality will not always satisfy God's desires, and sometimes the Government is wrong.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    The state should be able to marry any two consenting entities.

    Churches should marry those who God says should be married.

    Gays get their rights

    Others get salvation.


  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 3:36 p.m.

    You seem to misunderstand the role of chaplains in the military. They aren't there just to minister to their own flock. They provide their services to all of the troops in the command where they're stationed. In Korea, I (a Jewish medic) often played the chapel organ for our Catholic chaplain while he was conducting Protestant services. In many ways, the military is a unique situation as compared to civilian life. We looked out for all of our people and tended to their needs; not just our own. In combat, I've said last rites for a Catholic soldier and in a civilian assistance mission, baptized a baby for a woman who had just delivered it. (For those unaware, the Catholic church believes that it doesn't matter if the person performing these things believes in them, just so it's done properly.) The point is, a chaplain, like a medic, isn't there to take care of his own needs, but those of the soldiers. If he can't take care of someone's religious needs, his duty is to find someone who can; not to abandon his calling.

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Suppose that the federal and state governments decided that home ownership is valuable to communities and society at large. Suppose that they created tax exemptions for mortgage payments to promote home ownership.

    Allow that there are protections like inheritance rights that are granted to homeowners and not to renters.

    Now suppose that renters wanted to change the legal definition of home ownership to include renting. Suppose they claimed that their civil rights were being infringed.

    What is the most logical solution? To redefine home ownership and mortgage? Or to address the specific rights that renters ought to have?

    (Before anyone says that these two are not analogous because home ownership is a choice, I assert that for many renters home ownership is not affordable, and thus not an option.)

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    The fact that something was done a certain way for a long time isn't a very good reason for insisting that we do it that way now. For about fifteen hundred years, the Catholic Church pretty much had Christianity to itself, providing the basis for the same "tradition" argument, but I don't see any of the Christians who make that argument here deciding that it's a good reason to change their religion and join the Catholic Church. For that matter, until Christianity showed up on the scene, Judaism was the norm. I'd continue, but I think you can all see where I'm going with this argument. Bottom line is that things change as society evolves. If it didn't, we'd be riding camels,wearing robes, and buying our wives with sheep or herding sheep for our future father-in-law (who might well worship idols) in exchange for one of his daughters.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Feb. 13, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    Bigotry = Intolerance = Prejudice; look it up in the dictionary. If you are the benefactor of a civil right (marriage), but support a policy that denies other people that same civil right, then by definition you are a bigot. Don't try to sugar coat the topic and justify your exclusionary attitude by saying you love the sinner, but hate the sin; if you want to promogulate the belief that marriage is only between a man and woman, then keep it in your place of worship and out of the public courts.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Feb. 13, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    To state that you oppose marriage equality, but hold no animosity toward gay people is equivalent to saying in the days prior to 1978, that you support the Church's position that blacks should be denied the priesthood, but you have no prejudice or bigotry against African americans. If you support a policy that denies another person to have the same rights as you, then you are bigoted and prejudice against that person or group of people. End of discussion.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    Feb. 13, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    @sharrona, lamenting the potential loss of "torn" chaplains:

    Being a military chaplain is not volunteer work. It's a well-paying gig, and if you accept the gig, it's a duty. I'm sure there are plenty of other ecumenical-minded chaplains who would love the chance to serve our troops, ALL of our troops, for an annual pay of $56,900 (including "subsistence allowance").

    There are at least two-dozen denominations to recruit from, chaplains who not only don't object to performing same-sex marriages, but may have even done one or two already. More importantly, chaplains from these denominations are more likely to respect and honor the religious heritage of ALL of our troops, unlike the reports we're hearing of those Evangelicals who tell them they're going to burn in purgatory if they don't convert.

    If you can't do the job, get out of the way. There are others waiting to sign up.

  • Baker Boy Westminster, CA
    Feb. 13, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    RedShirt stated the following about gays:

    “First there is the higher rate of domestic violence within their relationships. Next you have the high rate of gays or bisexuals in positions of authority abusing children.”

    Whenever I read such a statement, I would like to see some source to validate that claim, and not just any old source, but a citation from a reputable study by a trusted source.

    Otherwise, why should any of us believe what RedShirt is asserting?

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    RE: RanchHand/AQuaker said, "chaplains" If they don't want to serve) all members in our armed forces, get out.”

    Southern Baptists have nearly 1,500 chaplains more than any other denomination or faith group. There are 234 priests are active duty chaplains. About 25%t of all personnel in the armed forces are Catholic, 8% of military chaplains are Catholic. LCMS, 214 and Mormon 75. Plus other Chaplains that would not perform gay marriage, or the great majority would be forced to “get out”.

    Your view would devastate the military, especially the frontline troops.
    Same-sex couples account for less than half of one percent of couples in the armed forces and “such a small group cannot be allowed to mandate policy for all.”

    RE: renatastar:.. we are created in God's image[spiritual],…why does *he keep making gay people?

    Rom 5:12 , just as sin entered the world through one man(Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. The fall of man.

    Mt: 19:5 (Jesus) a man will leave his *father and *mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’=*Children

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    To "RanchHand" so waht you are saying is that it is ok to be bigoted towards or discrimininate against people that could pose a threat. Well, lets look at the LGBT community.

    First, there it the higher rates of domestic violence within their relationships. Next, you have the high rate of gay or bisuxuals in positions of authority abusing children.

    If you think the LDS church is bigoted towards gays, why is it that they specifically tell the local leaders that they are to accept gays into full fellowship in the church? They don't expect anything out of the gays that they don't expect from every other member. If anything, they bend over backwards to make gays feel accepted. (You probably will now complain about members, but that is just a strawman argument becuase the members are not acting in accordance with church policy or doctrine.)

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 13, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    @Liberty For All

    NARTH and the Family Research Counsel both file amicus briefs for the anti-gay side. How convenient for the court. They won't have to go far if they're looking for evidence of animus.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    Feb. 13, 2014 7:28 a.m.


    You really do need to read "Animal Farm" some day. By "improved by Depo-Provera" you mean chemically castrated. This was a not uncommon alternative sentence offered to sex offenders as well as to male homosexuals who offended no one other then the sensibilities of the non-participants. Alan Turing, the computational genius who cracked the German "Enigma Machine" and saved untold thousands of Allied lives in WWII was a subsequent victim of this "treatment," a treatment so dehumanizing it led him to suicide.

    I'm not sure if all the old court and medical records have ever been analyzed to see how many people were castrated, lobotomized or administered ECT ("shock treatment") to "cure" them over the years, or where your supposed number comes from, but we don't still destroy people like that.

    Mutilation of our fellow humans, whether physical, psychological or chemical, for simply having the propensity of falling in love with otherwise-marriageable, consenting adults that don't fit your model of who they're SUPPOSED to fall in love with, is a crime against humanity. No mainstream professional medical, psychological or sociological organization supports such physical or mental maiming anymore.

  • loaf Boise, ID
    Feb. 13, 2014 5:51 a.m.

    To Ranch

    You mentioned "choosing" to be "straight" or "gay". I acknowledged that some people feel they don't have any control over it. And someone should never be abused or hated because of it.

    But just because one has feelings of attraction to someone of the same sex doesn't mean it's wise or good to act on those feelings. All human beings deal with feelings that, if acted on will result in eventual self-destruction even if at the time, seem alluring.

    Anger is a very strong feeling that, if one chooses to act on, can cause people to do things that absolutely ruin their lives and the lives of those they love, causing incredible regret and pain.

    You seem eager to cast away a notion of God, but even if someone doesn't believe in God, shouldn't they at least consider what the effects of their actions might be and whether or not it's the best for others and for themselves?

  • loaf Boise, ID
    Feb. 13, 2014 5:51 a.m.

    Many people who are FOR traditional marriage DON'T hate those on the other side of the issue. We're not all "haters". Some of us are trying and want to follow Christ's injunction to "love one another". We're not better than anyone and want happiness for our fellowmen.

    We feel that choosing to ACT on same-sex feelings is harmful, not in a looking down our noses way,(all of us in this crazy thing called humanity are in this together. I think all of us have gut wrenching dilemmas, challenges and heartaches, where we're faced with tough decisions) but we're trying to ask ourselves what we feel is good for everyone involved.

    As I mentioned before- As a parent I know loving my children doesn't mean it's okay for them to O.D. on candy or video games even though they really want to and like to. We set limits on behavior BECAUSE we want what is best for the individual and others.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 2:09 a.m.

    @ Born In Bountiful, Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” The last case was two women in Windsor.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Feb. 13, 2014 2:03 a.m.

    No prejudice? No animus? No willingness to distort evidence?

    Snips of an article in the Washington Blade:

    ...The Mormon Church joined other major Christian groups on Monday in filing a legal brief supporting bans on same-sex marriage in Utah and Oklahoma, although they rely on a study that authors say shouldn't be used as evidence against same-sex marriage.

    ---"Child Trends has been diligent in noting that it is inaccurate to make conclusions about the well-being of children being raised in same-sex households based on our study on heterosexual households" Walter said. "As noted, this was not part of the study. In fact... our information was being misrepresented."

    The study was also cited in the legal brief that the state of Utah filed last week before the Tenth Circuit in favor of its ban on same-sex marriage. The research also comes up in at least one other friend-of-the-court brief that was signed by social scientists and Mark Regenrus, who produced a discredited study against same-sex parenting.
    what would Jesus say?

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 2:01 a.m.

    “Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons,”- District Judge Heyburn

    Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused —even angry—when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer. Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons. The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith, definition of marriage, while accommodating others....

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 11:05 p.m.

    Read the legal amicus brief from NARTH (National Association for Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality).

    Hundreds of thousands of people suffering from same-sex attraction have been fixed or improved their condition through psychological counseling, and medical treatments like Depo-Povera (reducing sex drive in males).

  • Baker Boy Westminster, CA
    Feb. 12, 2014 10:50 p.m.

    ‘Born in Bountiful’ wrote the following “this is not an equal protection argument”.

    However the federal judges in the Utah Amendment 3 case, and in the Oklahoma case, both cited the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment to the U.S. Constitution in their rulings.

    The Oklahoma judge called the ban on same-sex marriage “arbitrary and irrational”.

    State courts in California classify sexual orientation as a suspect class, and in Connecticut and Iowa, state courts classify sexual orientation as a quasi suspect class. So there is precedent for heightened scrutiny in those states.

  • Baker Boy Westminster, CA
    Feb. 12, 2014 9:52 p.m.

    Whenever I see in these comments the word “homosexual” as opposed to “gay”, coupled with the term “lifestyle” I know immediately that the person writing them is going to be expressing disdain towards gay persons, and gay rights in general.

    The term ‘lifestyle’ is particularly offensive because it suggests that gay persons ‘choose’ to be gay. Let’s get something straight: it’s not a lifestyle. It’s a life!

    I would ask anyone at what point he or she ‘chose’ his or her sexual orientation and would any straight persons call their lives a ‘lifestyle‘? The notion is absurd, and again, offensive.

    So, please all of you who may support amendment 3, try to treat with some respect those who might be gay and don’t support it.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Feb. 12, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    All this rhetoric of preserving traditional marriage.

    Suppose for a moment that LGBT marriage stopped tomorrow - for whatever reason and through whatever means - that it was banned.

    Then what?

    Would traditional marriage then, be saved?

    It would be the restoration of what, exactly? Back to some make-believe world where things are ideal?

    Banning marriage from LGBT couples has the effect of placing energy and resources where it need not be. Preserving traditional marriages - let's say - if we speak about heterosexual couples will only result in doing exactly that - preserving traditional marriage for heterosexual couples.

    What need is there to ban LGBT couples' marriages when heterosexual couples want to preserve theirs?

    Ban the Smith Family from getting married because the Jones Family wants to preserve their marriage. Huh? The whole time, the Smiths do not want to marry the Jones, but the Jones feel their marriage threatened. Is anyone touching the Jones' marriage?

    Preserve marriage and look after the Jones' marriage, but don't ban the Smiths from getting married.

  • Born in Bountiful Provo, Utah
    Feb. 12, 2014 4:30 p.m.

    That we as a society have become accepting of homosexuality does not elevate a lifestyle to a protected group status. What other group or lifestyle will seek to take advantage of the same claim? Can society not say that we will uphold certain values? This is not an equal protection argument. Nudists cannot claim that they have the right to enter public places, such as courthouses, with modifying their behavior. If you want certain rights in our society then you have to act a certain way. A US citizen can carry a gun. Others cannot legally carry a gun in this country. Both groups are people, both groups are entitled to certain rights, but not all rights while in this country. There are a myriad of other examples. Society can protect itself and can enact laws that some people will never like.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 4:24 p.m.

    @The Owl;

    Quaker said it way better than I did. Those so-called "chaplains" who refuse their duty to our service members are doing everyone a disservice. If they don't want to serve all members in our armed forces, get out. They can go act in their church in any manner they please, but the military chaplaincy is NOT a branch of any church, but rather an amalgamation of all of them.

    @Liberty For All;

    The "proclamation to the family" is not law. It has no relevance.


    Once again, the Christian god is not the only god in this nation. He has no more relevance than any other god.


    You are the one who is incorrect. Anyone harming others suffers consequences of their actions. LGBT are NOT those criminals you are comparing us to. You are once again being offensive and the DN allows you to post your offensive comments. Yes, your church is bigoted toward gays, they've done everything they can think of to oppress and deny civil rights to LGBT.


    WHEN did you choose to be straight?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 12, 2014 4:02 p.m.


    "Granting same-sex couples protections and freedom from discrimination is a separate issue that should be pursued in a way that does not change the definition of marriage."

    Remedial legislation regarding protections and freedom from discrimination doesn’t address the central issue of establishing legal recognition of spousal relationships between members of the same sex. Some opponents argue that broadening the scope of legal marital status beyond present restrictions effectively redefines marriage. That view is not shared by many proponents of same sex marriage. That’s why Federal Court review to resolve the matter is looking increasingly inevitable and perhaps desirable.

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 2:25 p.m.


    By seeking to define marriage no one is forcing religious beliefs on anyone. No one is infringing upon rights and liberties. No one is seeking to control conscience. No one is seeking to suppress the freedom of the soul. No one is seeking to make homosexuality illegal.

    By defining marriage Utah is simply defining what relationship it will promote with the benefits of a legal status of marriage.

    By supporting this legislation the Church is promoting a measure that they feel is good for families and society; in accordance with the mandate in the Proclamation to the World.

    (Granting same-sex couples protections and freedom from discrimination is a separate issue that should be pursued in a way that does not change the definition of marriage.)

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    @Lane Myer

    Thanks. Your explanation makes sense, if you frame the question as one of denying rights.

    I would argue that the state is seeking to define marriage for the purpose of defining exactly what relationships the state wants to promote with a privilege; rather than seeking to deny rights.

    As for laws restricting felons and sex offenders, aren’t these issues for separate legislation? Why should this amendment be conditional upon the existence of laws preventing other conditions from harming children?

  • Manzanita Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 12, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134 Verse 4 reads:

    4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

    I truly hope that one of the amici for the same-sex marriage advoctes will cite the above scripture for the proposition that the LDS Church's current activities are wholly inconsistent with its canonized doctrine on the impropriety of religious activity that seeks to impose through the law its convictions on others.

    I'm an active, believing member of the Church, and even I can see the duplicity in the Church's arguments.

  • LDSareChristians Anchorage, AK
    Feb. 12, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    renatastar posted:
    Marriage should be a civil contract regulating property onership, taxes and benefits. I have no idea why churches think they have a say so over it.
    Churches have a say, because Marriage is religious in it's origins. It's been the last 200 years or so that governments have gotten involved, tied government benefits to it and muddle everything up.

    Personally, if I had the power, I'd completely sever any government connect to marriage. Let them create a whole new realm of legislated benefits which do not involve marriage as any criteria.
    But, since marriage and government are now so tightly interwoven, I doubt such could ever happen. At best, we can only insist there be some comparable civil tool put in place.

  • LDSareChristians Anchorage, AK
    Feb. 12, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    RanchHand posted:
    You didn't address the issue of poor people (not good for children) being able to marry; felons (certainly not good for children) being able to marry; spouse/child abusers (not good for children) being allowed to marry. Why only the gays?
    I fail to see the relevancy of associating the gays with these subgroups. As you have all these subgroups among the gays as well.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 12, 2014 1:14 p.m.


    We already have separation of Church and State.

    Marriage is already "cut in half."

    A church wedding doesn't count unless it occurs concurrently with a civil marriage.

    A civil marriage (with license, witnesses, etc.) always counts, without a church marriage.

    The reasons society grants legal status to married couples are manifold, but mostly because society benefits over and above what single individuals provide. Marriage creates a strong household, one less likely need financial support or abandon children, or become homeless, and more likely to care for elder relatives of both spouses, as well as to support and care for each other during setbacks that an individual can't handle.

    Recognizing them as a household unit, as a vital resource for each other, lessens the burden on society, as well as recognizes that they are next-of-kin. Family.

    It'a a net gain, not a cost, to society.

    Your other arguments are false. Churches have discretion as to who they perform rites for, and can't be sued. Ever been to a Jewish wedding at a Mormon temple? Me neither. As for the Public Accommodations law issues, sorry, but we don't have segregated lunch counters anymore, either.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 12:57 p.m.


    Salt Lake City, UT

    Many are claiming that the state’s purpose for defining marriage for the benefit of children is disingenuous because there are marriages allowed that don’t produce children, or other laws that don’t benefit children. These marriages and other laws are beside the point.


    Please understand what "simularly situated" means in regards to equality under the law.

    If a couple who cannot have children naturally is denied a privilege (marriage) because of that condition, then all other simularly situated (cannot naturally bear children - including infertile and older couples) should be treated equally under the law. Since they are not treated equally under Utah's law, there is definately a problem with the 14th amendment and Utah's Amendment 3.

    If a gay couple is proved to harm children by raising them in their home and is denied marriage because of that, then we must look to other situations where we know that harm can come to children and see if Utah treats those couples the same way. Look at child molesters. Can they marry and raise children? Yes. Murderers? They too can marry. Why are just gays prohibited? This is a big problem to explain.

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    Many are claiming that the state’s purpose for defining marriage for the benefit of children is disingenuous because there are marriages allowed that don’t produce children, or other laws that don’t benefit children. These marriages and other laws are beside the point.

    A law can be genuinely enacted for a stated purpose even if all applications of the law do not satisfy that purpose. And the state does not need to be 100% congruent in all of its laws. Other laws have no bearing on the genuineness of the purpose of this law.

    Legislators can genuinely define marriage for the benefit of children even if some marriages do bear children.

  • guitarbabe Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    IT'S NOT ABOUT BIGOTRY...it's about defending freedom of conscience.
    *Because the equal right laws will infringe on the rights of churches and the freedom of their parishioners to follow their conscience (people will get sued for teaching and following their own beliefs in their own churches).
    If you don't understand the importance of being able to follow your conscience than you don't understand the history of this struggle for religious freedom.

    Why are we still fighting about this?
    It's also about equal rights.
    *Because according to the law, married and single citizens are NOT treated equally (as proponents of same-sex marriage have kindly discovered for all of us).

    On both sides there is name calling, accusations, and trying to define why we believe the way that we believe...as if we can actually convince anyone else of it--it isn't 'what' we believe, but the protection of our right to believe that is important. Can anyone else see that both sides have valid arguments?

    Don't we truly want a solution that will preserve ALL of our rights and liberties?

  • guitarbabe Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    The only solution is to cut marriage in half.

    Yes, let’s go “Solomon’s Wisdom.” Separate church and state.

    CHURCH: Sees marriage as a sacred ordinance. Like baptism, marriage also has rules (# participants, gender, age, authority).
    *If same sex marriage is enforced then opposing churches must perform them. Opposing photographers, bakers, etc., would be forced to participate or get sued.

    STATE: Sees marriage as an institution that allows certain benefits (taxes, medical, death, family, housing, legal protections).
    *Singles vs. marrieds have different rights, so yes, we should ALL have these rights if we are citizens, even if we don’t hold romantic attachments to anyone.

    Should equal rights interfere with freedom of conscience or vice versa? No.

    1. Everyone should be equal (including singles). Give everyone the rights or no one.

    2. Give marriage to the people where they can perform it in their private institutions, churches, etc., according to their own conscience.

    "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Feb. 12, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    Thank you. Flattery it is. (I too admire A Quaker for her/his reasoning skills and measured tone.)

  • NiteMist Hayward, CA
    Feb. 12, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    Marriage is a GIFT from God to us; the Quality of our marriages is a GIFT from us to Him.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    Feb. 12, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    RickLT says,
    "To say traditional marriage is bigotry is laughable. Even the most debauched societies of history did not allow same-sex marriage."

    The only thing laughable is your certainty.

    From before Rome until the 16th Century in the Catholic world, and the 18th in the Anglican, there were no marriage ceremonies or registrations. Other than affairs of state (royalty), all marriages were common-law. We can't know with any certainty who married whom.

    As for your debauchery, you need to update your history. For several years now, a number of nations have moved to extend marriage equality to same-sex couples. Currently included in these "debauched" countries are the very staid Canada, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, and the very Catholic nations of Spain, France and Portugal. And eight others and portions of two more.

    Massachusetts may be liberal, but judging from their superior marriage-stability statistics and low divorce rate, they're far less debauched than Utah. There's no sign that the last 10 years of allowing a previously neglected minority of their citizens to also marry the ones they love has hurt society in any way.

  • juangone SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    I know comparing two groups is unfair, as the challenges and details are not the same. In fact I am totally against comparing gay rights to the civil rights movement. I find it very insulting to think that what the African-American people went through is anything close to what gays go through. Gays have every chance in the world to be succussful in school, the work-place, and to participate in whatever activity they want. African-Americans didn't have anything close to that.


  • juangone SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    As has been mentioned many times, there really is no current proof that a person is "born that way". I have no proof for sure either, although I do know several friends and acquaitances that have come out and said they were gay, only to then change their minds and become heterosexual again. I mention that because I really don't believe it's the same for everyone. There are so many different factors that might trigger it, and there have been many studies that would support that (ie abuse, tramatic life experience, wanting to be accepted, experiementation, etc.). So I just can't agree with people that argue this is how they are all born, so we need to accept it. It's not a valid argument, because that's not how it is for many people.

  • renatastar Pittsburgh, PA
    Feb. 12, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    Juangone: The rights and privileges that come with marriage are important. Same sex partners need that protection. For heterosexual couples, there is no discussion regarding inheritance, property ownership, pensions, taxes, etc. Because of my profession, I've seem cases where same sex partner who built businesses and bought properties as a couple lose everything due to the sudden death of the other partner. I've seen a family denying visitation rights for someone who had been the half of a couple for 54 years!!! This is wrong and it needs to be addressed. Those are civil rights. Those are matters of equal rotection uder the law.

    Feb. 12, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    To say traditional marriage is bigotry is laughable. Even the most debauched societies of history did not allow same-sex marriage. In Rome, quiet same-sex trysts were allowed, but never marriage. Marriage to a brother or sister, or a horse (Calligula) was a horror to them. Saying it's bigotry is like saying putting up two stop signs on a minor cross street of a major intersection is bigotry against those that choose the street less traveled, since it impedes their progress. Clearly, those signs are there to protect the traffic on the main thoroughfare. It's for the public good......just like one-man/one-woman marriage is good public policy (for the last 5,000 years of human civilized history.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    If all the homosexual proponents wanted was equality, they would seek to change laws that benefit married couples, such as the death tax, end of life decisions, tax codes, etc.

    That is not what they want, and many posters here have told us that.

    It amazes me that those who deny God want his servants to perform a religious rite for them. They say it is about equality, but it isn't. They want to mock those who are religious, grind everyone's noses in their violation of nature, and demand that we endorse them for it. They seek domination, which is the opposite of equality and freedom.

    I hope that those who have been more than tolerant, and are now embracing this power grab by the homosexual community, will see it for what it is, plain pure bigotry, oppression, and power mongering.

  • renatastar Pittsburgh, PA
    Feb. 12, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    Dan Taylor: If you believe we are created in God's image, have you ever asked yourself why does he keep making gay people? Do you think he wants to tell us something? I've been married for 38 years. We have 4 children and 3 grandchildren and to this day, I've never heard an argument that would convince me that a gay couple marrying is somewhat detrimental to MY marriage.
    About your fictitious example: Life finds its way (from Jurassic Park). Life always finds a way to perpetuate itself. We have in vitro fertilization already. And that society will progress, because gay people have been affirming live all around us: they are raising children, they are scientists, teachers, judges, artists, doctors. They are just like everyone of us, trying to "progress the good in society" every way they can. It's a pity you can't see it.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 8:22 a.m.

    To "RanchHand" but you are wrong on every front.

    For example. A sex offender is denied their "freedom of association" when they are restricted from living close to schools and parks, and put their name on sex offender registries. Why don't they get equal protection? Why do they have their "rights" cut short compared to non-sex offenders?

    As for polygamists, lets look at what your ilk wants to do. They want to say that you can marry the person that you love. Marriage is no longer defined by anything biological, but by emotion. You are now saying that a person can only love 1 other person at a time. That is very bigoted against polygamists, since they are capable of loving more than one person at a time. If a 2 gays can love eachother enough to be married, why can't a group of people do the same? You are denying them their basic right to marriage.

    To "Red Corvette" the irony of your statement is that those that typicall call others bigots are usually the biggoted ones. The LDS church is not biggoted towards gays. This can be seen by the gay travel magazines that promote Utah.

  • renatastar Pittsburgh, PA
    Feb. 12, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    Aunt Lucy: For billions of people living in this 21st. century, "because God said so" is not good enough reason for denying civil rights to other human beings. The Bible condones slavery. We know slavery is an abomination. The Bible preaches vengeance "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". We know forgiveness is the right thing to do, every single time. The Bible says "if your child disobeys you, the child should be put to death." We know this is lunacy. Are we wiser than God?
    We cherry pick the Bible, choosing the parts that support our own beliefs and bigotries. Horrible crimes have been committed in the name of God throughout the centuries and we have not witnessed any manifestation of outrage. As a Brazilian poet once wrote "God, oh! God, where are you and why you don't answer me? In which world, in which star do you hide, wrapped in the sky?" His name was Castro Alves. He was writing about a slave's lament.
    "Because God said so" is not acceptable for all the people going through persecution, torture, and murder on this planet because of the way God created them.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 12, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    @A Quaker, regarding those opposed to equality: "Their primary objection to marriage equality is letting gays and lesbians share the word "marriage" with them."

    As far as I can tell, this is the absolute bottom line. After all the smoke-and-haze deflection arguments have cleared away, we see this is *precisely*, *exactly* the heart of the matter.

    Does it sound stupid? Does it sound completely mad to have this much upheaval and strife because Utah's religiosity objects to sharing a word?

    You bet it is. It is completely barking mad. I am with A Quaker: those that embrace legal bigotry had better pray hard, because the defense the state has mounted has no prayer whatsoever. It is doomed, with absolutely no hope of prevailing.

    As it should be, because at the end of the day, Amendment 3 is just one big insulting awful package of pure hatred for the LGBT community and human beings with working souls. It’s actually impressive, in the same way ebola-tipped bullets fired into crowds of baby seals is impressive: just overwhelmingly, unremittingly awful on multiple levels.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    RE: RanchHand,In the name of your god? True,

    Acts 5:29 We ought to obey God rather than men.

    1 Cor 6:9 do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.

    I was on Military bases in the western U.S. for over 30 years. Military families in base housing have a more conservative and moral culture.

    RE: A Quaker, Vietnam: Chaplains are very important to the morale of the men:
    Chaplain Watters was fatally wounded while ministering to fallen comrades under intense fire near Dak To in 1967.
    Iraq: Chaplain Vakoc after celebrating Mass(communion) with troops in 2004, they were attacked and he died from his wounds in 2009.

    I’m a Vietnam Veteran (AF infantry). When were attacked, The majority I was around prayed, in Jesus name.
    I.e.., Defensor Fortis:
    "Lord, you have called us to be guardians of a nation founded on your principles. Whatever our tasks as Security Forces men and women, we do them to serve you and our nation. You bless those who obey you, Lord; Your love protects them like a shield."

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 12, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    I am pro-SSM and therefore necessarily pro-marriage. If I didn't think marriage was a good thing, I would be trying to convince ALL of my family and friends to avoid it.

    I don't believe that most anti-SSM's are bigots. I think the beliefs they hold on this issue are bigoted. One belief does not a bigot make.

    I also don't believe that most anti-SSM's act out of hatred. I believe them when they say they believe they are acting out of love. I do not agree with their definition of love and I believe that their definition leads them to inflict great harm without seeing it as such. But I believe harm is what LGBT and SSM advocates are proving in courtrooms across the land.

    I hear the genuine concern that religious liberty is being threatened. I think religious privilege rather than religious liberty is being challenged, and I think that these privileges have been unconstitutional all along. So I believe the efforts my side of the argument are making actually serve to PRESERVE and STRENGTHEN religious liberty, and I believe this will be borne out in the end.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    The Proclamation to the World is doctrine that cannot be ignored. Society will be much better off when we can codify this wonderful word from the Lord into our civil marriage laws.

  • The Owl Ogden, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:10 p.m.

    I'm amazed that liberals have reduced themselves to advocating what RanchHand states..."No LGBT military couple should have their religious leaders refuse to perform services for them". Are you suggesting that religious leaders be arrested or just shamed for refusing to perform a gay marriage ceremony against their conscience? Liberals pride themselves on how "open-minded" they are so long as others agree with their narrow point of view! This sounds like a proposal coming out of Russia - not the USA. Liberals continue to use false arguments of "equality" to support their misguided causes and then charge those who disagree with being bigots. Of course, it worked in the last election with the supposed "War on Women" waged by Republicans because of an ignorant electorate. I suggest you think through the consequences of changing long-standing traditions like marriage before jumping on the bandwagon. Were President Obama and Hillary Clinton bigots a short 6 years ago while running for President for having the same stance on marriage that many of us still have? And comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement should be offensive to any black person as this is a ridiculous comparison.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:08 p.m.

    Having read all the arguments and accusations here against gay people, and against marriage equality for same-sex couples, I am truly disappointed in the poor reasoning and lack of basic decency in some of the comments. Not to mention the level of hypocrisy.

    They cry "selfishness" while being selfish. Their primary objection to marriage equality is letting gays and lesbians share the word "marriage" with them.

    They cry "intolerance" while being intolerant. It's fine for them to call gays and lesbians name, to baselessly accuse them of all manner of evil, to defame them in every way possible. But if anyone points out their animus and bigotry, the bigots cry "oppression" and "religious freedom."

    They trumpet "children!" as their battle cry, but can't answer why they don't care about children in heterosexual marriages. Or in orphanages. Or in single-parent homes.

    My advice: pray. Pray hard. Because your arguments don't have a prayer of their own.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:03 p.m.

    @ The Owl

    Unwed people, regardless of sexual orientation, can already adopt in this state. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of children in this state being raised in loving homes by same-sex parents. Allowing these couples to be married will benefit these children because they will have two legally recognized parents. This alone renders the "for the children argument" completely null and void. Also, a lot of people have said that same-sex couples can't have rights similar to traditional married couples. Amendment 3 explicitly forbid civil unions for same-sex couples as well as marriage.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:00 p.m.

    @donn: As far as I'm concerned, the Evangelical chaplains of whom you speak can't leave the military fast enough. Since the large influx during President GW Bush's Administration, they've been notorious for disrespecting the denominations of our troops and pressuring them to convert. I don't know how well-represented Mormons are in the military ranks, but I'm surprised you haven't heard the stories by now.

    Military chaplains are there to serve troops of every denomination, not just their own. Whatever religious mission they have in civilian life must be relegated to the service of everyone once they join the service, be they Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Jewish, Islamic, Mormon or Hindu. There is no "one true religion" in the military. These are volunteers from a diverse nation, not a Crusade.

  • Guam_Bomb BARRIGADA, GU
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:54 p.m.

    How can if be fair that the spouse of a married couple who has been married for 30 years can make end of life decisions when a gay couple who are legally denied the right to marry are not afforded the same right. As long as property rights, inheritance rights and all the rights that are extended to married couples are denied to same sex people then the government is withholding those rights from gays. If marriage were simply a religious rite then there would be no argument. But it carry's legal protections that should be extended to all.

    I am LDS and I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I realize that the religious aspects are separate from the legal aspects. Maybe government should get out of the business of marriage.

  • Elms OGDEN, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:20 p.m.

    Typically racists are accused of racism, misogynists of misogyny, and bigots of, well, bigotry. Usually if one is not acting in a bigoted way, one will not be accused of bigotry. Perhaps the accusations say something, quite possibly correct, about those pushing so hard to deny gay people their civil rights.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:10 p.m.

    Who cares about who the state marries. Give people benefits and what ever. Who cares.

    The moment they start trying to accuse churches of discrimination for not marrying them... this is the moment I have lost all faith in any sort of equal rights...

    The only problem I have is that sometimes It looks like it's not just equality but legislated acceptance that people are after.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:00 p.m.


    No LGBT military couple should have their religious leaders refuse to perform the services for them it performs for everyone else. You don't think that it is bigotry, to refuse to perform your duty for those offering their lives for your protection? In the name of your god? Not much of a good example, imo.

    And, you are wrong about the 'morale in the military' being reduced. I work with many service men/women in my job (many of whom are LGBT), and they're not showing any reduction in morale that I've witnessed.

  • The Owl Ogden, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:52 p.m.

    The main point that many are missing is that legalizing gay marriage will also grant "equal rights" to adoptions. I believe that every child deserves a mother and a father as evidence shows this is the best environment for child rearing and establishing gender identity. Gay marriage, where children will be routinely adopted, would amount to an experiment that could have devastating consequences. Numerous studies show the importance of having mothers and fathers in the home. No one is proposing taking children away from loving families who become nontraditional, but most would concede that having a mother and father provides the best environment for kids. That is what the briefs are addressing. This whole debate should be about what is best for children rather than what is in the self-interest of adults seeking validation of their lifestyle! No one is suggesting that 2 consenting gay adults cannot love one another or have a relationship with many rights similar to married couples. But they don't need marriage to provide those rights as these concerns can be addressed in other ways. Society may vote to change the definition of marriage, but in the end, a gay relationship is something quite different.

  • klr56 Kent, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:39 p.m.

    As was said before..."just because it is legal, does not make it moral." We are certainly seeing the fulfillment of prophesy. They call "good evil and evil good."

  • donn layton, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:11 p.m.

    RE: RanchHand, “You're just fine with you pushing your beliefs on us though. Hypocrisy at its finest.”

    Your view is significantly affecting the moral and the retention of the military.

    Over 2,000 Evangelical Christian military chaplains says its members will not perform homosexual “wedding” ceremonies. The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty said that it is joining the Catholic Archdiocese for Military Services to say “no” to the September 30 Pentagon directive authorizing military chaplains to do homosexual “marriages.”

    They have decided to leave the military. No American service member should be forced to deny their religious beliefs.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    Wilf 55,

    1 - We love others, even if they don't return it
    2 - We find agreement, seek after good things, etc
    3 - We try to build friendships, not burn bridges
    4 - Christ established a doctrine of peace, not contention

    If every time someone didn't like the church we reacted with contempt, we would lose our way. It may not be the way the world does things, but it's our way.

  • renatastar Pittsburgh, PA
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:36 p.m.

    I think it's time for god to come down from the heavens to clarify this mess. Does he want gay people to be treated like second class citizens here and be persecuted, tortured and killed abroad? If he hates homosexuality so much, why does he keep creating homosexuals? He needs to stop sending these mixed messages.

    Marriage should be a civil contract regulating property onership, taxes and benefits. I have no idea why churches think they have a say so over it.

  • SkiFloat Park City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:27 p.m.

    The Constitutional Amendment 14 must be respected - and has been ruled unconstitutional. UCLA Williams Legal Institute has statistics for SSM divorce rate which is 1/2 the rate of those divorces from traditional marriages. Nice comments 10CC - makes perfect sense - cute couples at 80 years wouldn't be allowed to be married due to non-bearing child state - great points.

  • Baker Boy Westminster, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:23 p.m.

    I sent the following comment earlier in the day today, and received a message from you that the message was being held for further scrutiny. I'm not sure why, and I haven't seen it posted:

    While the Mormon, Catholic, and other faith traditions may not see their support of amendment 3 as bigoted, the increasing acceptance of gay persons throughout America and in several other western nation, makes it more difficult for those opposed to total equality to make their case for denying it to gay people.

    It certainly doesn't help those opposed to full equal rights that current controversies such as Russia's harsh laws aimed at gay people, are in the news, especially at the time of the Olympics. It certainly doesn't make Vladimir Putin look very good.

    Nor does it help that several countries in Africa and the Middle East sentence gay people to exceedingly harsh punishments, up to and including the death penalty.

    It also doesn't help that the arguments against same-sex marriage and other full equality measures have not been proven to be terribly convincing, especially in the light of Constitutional protections.

    The die is cas

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:20 p.m.

    @nycut: 100% guilty! Yes, we are in 100% agreement, mea culpa :( Honestly, I wasn't sure if I was ripping off A Quaker words, or nycut words. Between the two of you, you both about have this discussion handled!

    Erm... I'm going with flattery. :)

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:12 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal: Thanks for the response. A pink herring maybe. SB89 is relevant to the amicus brief argument that limiting marriage to male-female couples furthers state interests.

    From the amicus brief: "A gender-neutral marriage definition unavoidably changes the message and function of marriage by altering it to serve the interests of adults. That would be a case of those in power (adults) using law to bring about change that is self-serving... But we do agree that changing the legal definition of marriage would alter the way society views marriage, making it adult-focused rather than child-focused... Transforming marriage into a relationship primarily directed at adults... will further deepen the devastating effects.. with the devaluing marriage as a child-centered institution." pp. 17-19

    By mandating sterility as a condition to marry, SB89 decouples marriage from procreation. It creates a gender-neutral marriage definition stamped with the state's own imprimatur (the couples may be male/female, but by mandating sterility gender doesn't matter any more). In other words, it says gender-neutral marriage furthers a state interest. The state can no longer claim otherwise with a straight face and the amicus argument fails as irrelevant.

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:20 p.m.

    I support Marriage Equality. All adult men have the right to marry an adult woman who consents to the arrangement, and all adult women have the right to marry an adult man who consents to the arrangement. Because nearly all people on the planet fall into those two categories, equality has been met.

    The definition of Marriage has been pretty well set for the last 2000 years. Only in the last 15-20 have we seen dictionaries start to change it. Even today, the vast majority of law dictionaries still retain the 'man/woman' definition.

    It's like the US has stepped into a Twilight Zone episode where words no longer mean the thing they have always meant. Next we should change the definition of "car" to include things that have a low melting point, or the word "water" to mean "a sharp metal utensil used for descaling a fish".

    The vast majority of "Rights" granted through the marriage contract can be obtained through other legal vehicles. Which leads me to believe that this fight is not about 'Rights', but about a group of people wanting society to condone/accept their lifestyle and behavior.

  • Happyinlife PROVO, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:10 p.m.

    I agree holdtotherod, it's great to see churches standing up for their beleifs.
    The world may be going topsy tervy, but we knew it would happen... *sigh*

  • nycut New York, NY
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:09 p.m.


    To our comment, I would add that people expressing bigoted viewpoints seldom benefit from the observation that their viewpoints are bigoted, since those viewpoints most often stem from low-level prejudice that they haven't yet examined. It's always a struggle to help someone see their own blind spots without alienating them completely.

    "I support traditional marriage" is an easier position to stake out than "I need to examine my actual knowledge of gay people and their lives."

    I have some hope that comments on these boards help with that.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:07 p.m.

    Those who are defending traditional marriage say the words that they aren't bigoted, but then they want to give one group of people a different set of privileges than they want for themselves.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:03 p.m.

    Adultery opposition not due to bigotry either.

    Some people can't draw the line between right,and wrong.

    Pathetic! No wonder our society is having problems!

  • nycut New York, NY
    Feb. 11, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    @Meckofahess asks:
    "Why can't people get along without pushing their beliefs on others? The majority of Utah's citizens do not want the minority gay community forcing their beliefs on them!
    Why must the gay community intrude on the rights of others who wish to live differently than they do? We need to live and let live and not try to force peaceful citizens to accept amoral and objectionable beliefs."

    Good question. But you've got it backwards: Amendment 3 doesn't say "only gay people can get married-- no heteros allowed.”

    But yes, why DO people keep pushing their beliefs on others?

    Live and let live means people marry who they love, and raise the family they want the way they want.

    OK, so you don't like the neighbor's petunias. Well, they're none of your business and they're not growing in your yard.

    That's the "live and let live" part.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    Laura Bilington,

    Actually, what I stated regarding the anatomic and physiologic impossibility of two women joining together to conceive a child, or two men joining together to conceive a child, is accurate. It is absolutely impossible, and not meant to be. We were not created for such a relationship. It has never happened, and will never happen.

    In this life nothing is perfect. I suppose 5% of heterosexual relationships are unable to have children. It may be more or less than that.

    But I can guarantee you that 100% of homosexual relationships are unable to bare children.

    Gay marriage proponents like to point to the scientific techniques of artificial insemination or other medical techniques that make it possible for gay women to carry and bare children. However, I maintain that it is not meant to be.

    I suppose it is possible for science to attach an arm to a tongue and have it thrive there. But it is not meant to be that way. And though same may want that, it doesn't make sense.

    Again, 100% of gay marriages are unable to conceive and bare children.

  • JeffreyRO555 Auburn Hills, MI
    Feb. 11, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    The religionists don't seem to understand the legal argument. It's not about what marriage is, but rather, can the state let some, but not others, marry. Those folks not allowed to marry cannot be denied the right to marry unless the state has a rational public purpose in doing so. I can see where opting for a procreational argument seemed like a good bet, but it doesn't explain why senior citizens and other infertile couples are allowed to marry.

    Why would a state not allow a gay couple raising children to marry, but would allow a childless senior citizen couple to marry? It sure doesn't seem like the state of Utah doesn't really have the interest of children at heart in this.

  • Ophelia Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 4:46 p.m.

    Almost ten years ago, my son told me he was gay. I prayed, fasted, and attended the temple weekly, hoping for his "change." Well, the change did happen. But it was my heart that changed. I completely love my son and his partner, and I know God loves them too. So, stop the needless prejudice. It's okay. Let them marry.

  • sukiyhtaky us, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    So when evangelicals and Baptists cite the Bible in calling out the LDS church as being heretical because of flawed doctrine and the work of the devil and, I might add, the LDS church doing the same of other faiths citing the same Bible, does that mean they are all doing it with love and admiration for one another...especially when calling for prejudicial behavior towards one another?

  • nycut New York, NY
    Feb. 11, 2014 4:05 p.m.


    Your comment included:

    "People who consider themselves good-hearted (who obviously are in many ways) find themselves characterized as small-minded and bigoted, not recognizing they've behaved in small-minded, bigoted ways - expressing ignorance and prejudice, rushing to enshrine their religious views in exclusionary laws targeting the object of their prejudice - are hurt by charges of mean-spiritedness."

    "While arguing the *right to their beliefs* exempts them from charges of bigotry, they fail to see that those *beliefs* are the REASON for their bigotry. This creates pathos. Like fish that do not know what water is."

    I'm not sure whether I'm insulted or flattered that you used my words to express an opinion we share. I do think it's polite to add something like "As Nycut said in a related post..." when you quote someone else so extensively.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 4:00 p.m.


    Sex offenders harm other people. We ARE NOT sex offenders or addicts and it's very offensive for you to compare us to them. Polygamists already have the right to marry one person. The right to marry the person of our choice is not a "new" right, it is one you already enjoy and we are soon to enjoy as well.


    Would you be happy if we required you to marry someone of the opposite sex? No? Then why demand we marry someone of the opposite sex?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    davs says:

    "I only ask that my beliefs and opposition to same sex marriage be treated with respect also."

    --- Your beliefs are one thing; using them against other American citzens is quite another. I will not respect your beliefs if you're going to use them to deny me equal civil rights.


    They don't understand the word "all"; to them it means "only those we like".


    When did you "choose" to be straight? Were you born that way? If so, how come it's so hard to understand that we're born this way?


    As religion "encourages the lie" that gays are sinners.


    You didn't address the issue of poor people (not good for children) being able to marry; felons (certainly not good for children) being able to marry; spouse/child abusers (not good for children) being allowed to marry. Why only the gays?

    Meckofahess says:

    "Why can't people get along without pushing their beliefs on others? The majority of Utah's citizens do not want the minority gay community forcing their beliefs on them!."

    LOL. You're just fine with you pushing your beliefs on us though. Hypocrisy at its finest.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:38 p.m.


    "....The majority of Utah's citizens do not want the minority gay community forcing their beliefs on them!. Why must the gay community intrude on the rights of others who wish to live differently than they do?...."

    At least the majority is finally finding out what it feels like to be on the other end.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:31 p.m.

    Actually Judge Shelby did not base his decision on "animus." He said the rights of the individual under the 14th amendment trumped the interests of the State of Utah.

    By the way, Nevada gave up its attempt to defend their law a earlier today because the 9th circuit declared that Gays are a "suspect class." I suspect you will see something similar in the 10th circuit.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    Most European countries and Mexico also have a civil ceremony requirement. A marriage in Mexico is legal only if it is a civil ceremony. The religious ceremony occurs later. The purpose behind a civil ceremony is to provide state (government) recognition of the union. I wish our country would move to this system so that regardless of sexual orientation every union would result in equal secular, civil benefits. Then each religion would be free to impose upon their congregation whatever restrictions they wanted for purposes of solemnizing the marriage in the eyes of god.

    To put this in perspective for Deseret readers, imagine if marriage that took place outside the Mormon temple was invalid on a civil level but valid on a religious level. Would you feel your marriage equal to the marriage of your catholic neighbor even though your catholic neighbor gets additional tax deductions, insurance benefits from their employer, the ability to pass their estate tax free to their spouse upon death, and a whole host of other benefits that you would be denied?

    That is why this argument is about equality rather than the procreative abilities and parenting skills of the partners in the union.

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    Same sex cohabitation is not marriage - any more than opposite sex cohabitation is marriage.
    Anyone can get married. No one is denied that opportunity. They can marry anytime they find some one of the opposite sex that is willing to marry.
    Please do not respond that same sex attraction is involuntary because that concept is (1) not proven and (2) not germane.
    It is asserted by many that they can't help being attracted to the same sex and/or that they have always been attracted to the opposite sex. Neither belief has been proven. Some parents and others accept these assertions far too easily. No genetic link has been proven.
    Even if it were proven, such attraction is not germane to legislatively derived law - including the Utah amendment enacted by the voters on their own behalf. Taking action on homosexual attraction is a choice. Abstaining from such action is also a choice.
    That choice is not significantly different than any other sexual choice that society has chosen to legally sanction. We do not accept "I can't help it" as a legal excuse for those choices.
    The State of Utah need not accept it in this instance.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal: You wrote, "The ONLY issue presently before the courts is whether or not Amendment 3 is rationally related to the state's democratically-defined interests..."

    False. The rational basis standard of review is not applicable. Rather, the more stringent heightened scrutiny standard applies. This was the standard of review that the 9th circuit court of appeals stated was to be used in reviewing laws that target gay people, in a case decided in late January. The 9th circuit panel said that the decision in United States v. Windsor requires a heightened scrutiny standard.

    This recent development is exactly the reason the Nevada AG and Governor said their legal arguments were no longer tenable under the law.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    To "Ranch" you are wrong. The problem is contradiction within the interpretation. Read the Cornell University Law school article on the equal protection clause. In their article they state that "The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights."

    Now before you start crying civil rights, lets look at the ramifications. Look at sex offenders, they are being denied their right to live next to schools and parks. Polygamists are being denied their right to marry as many people as they love and care about. What about addicts that are denied rights, or ex-cons that are also denied rights. What about women using the men's bathroom. What right is being protected by denying them access? What about a teacher and an 18 year old student, why can't they have sexual relationships just like everybody else?

    Do you really want to flood us with new rights?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    Why can't people get along without pushing their beliefs on others? The majority of Utah's citizens do not want the minority gay community forcing their beliefs on them!. Why must the gay community intrude on the rights of others who wish to live differently than they do? We need to live and let live and not try to force peaceful citizens to accept amoral and objectionable beliefs.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    Re: "Provide a rational, nonsophist explanation of how the legislature's overwhelming passage of SB89 in 1996 conforms to the "child-centric" model of marriage . . . ."

    You're changing the subject. Typically, that happens when one runs out of persuasive arguments on the real issue. But, let's humor the question -- the correct answer is: who cares?

    The ONLY issue presently before the courts is whether or not Amendment 3 is rationally related to the state's democratically-defined interests, including -- but certainly not limited to -- optimizing the child-rearing environment.

    And, it clearly is.

    Whether aged cousins should be allowed to marry is a whole other issue. Interesting, perhaps, from an academic standpoint, but entirely unrelated to the issue before the courts -- whether or not the state's valid, recognized interest in promoting an optimal child-rearing environment is rationally related to Amendment 3.

    Whether it's rationally related to SB89 [1996] is a matter of surpassing indifference to today's legal argument. And, conflating unrelated arguments, for or against unrelated issues is typically referred to as a "red herring."

    The question clearly qualifies.

  • Clifton Palmer McLendon Gilmer, TX
    Feb. 11, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    The US Constitution does not give any branch of the Federal government any power to define or legislate marriage -- so anything any Federal employee says or does on the subject is unconstitutional.

  • LDSareChristians Anchorage, AK
    Feb. 11, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    Kalindra posted:
    That would be fine if they actually wanted to focus on children - but they don't. They deny marriage to same-sex couples with children while granting it to heterosexual couples without children. Obviously, marriage is about more than children.
    We ARE focused on the children, a SS environment is not the best for children. Hence the discouragement of such by denying marriage.

    The fact that some heterosexual couples are unable or choose not to have kids is irrelevant to the debate. If children arrive, the environment is statistically most correct.

    To Hemlock at 9:48p 10Feb2014 I agree 100%.

    To panamadesnews at 10:08pm 10Feb2014 Right on!

  • loaf Boise, ID
    Feb. 11, 2014 2:08 p.m.


    Everyone deals with urges that aren't good that will cause harm to self and others if acted upon. That's why we have laws- to protect.

    Denying people civil rights, like the Jim Crow laws, were horribly unjust. Having a certain skin color is not an action and it doesn't hurt anyone.

    I think many have problems with homosexuality because having sex with the same gender is harmful to the individual and to those around them. It encourages the lie that it doesn't matter what we do, that anything goes and who cares what the eventual ramifications are for individuals or society.

  • spaghetti Boise, ID
    Feb. 11, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    I don't understand why people compare homosexuality to race. Homosexuality is a feeling and an act. Race just is.

    I know some homosexuals feel they were born this way. All human beings, regardless, should be accepted and loved. But being accepted and loved does NOT mean that any feeling one has is right, should be acted upon and accepted. As a parent I know loving my children doesn't mean it's okay for them to O.D. on candy or video games even though they want to and like to. We set limits on behavior because we love.

  • Ariz Madison, AL
    Feb. 11, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    @PunkJones "The references to the 14th Amendment are convoluted because the Amendment itself identifies restrictions to sex, age, salvery "

    You might want to re-read the 14th Amendment:
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    There's nothing in it about previous status of servitude, gender, age, religion, skin color, hair color, favorite flavor of soda, etc.

  • davs KANAB, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I have thought about this issue and I feel that if I am going to rely on the scriptures as the word of God, then I, as a believer in God, must try to keep his commandments. The Proclamation to the Family states, "The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." I believe this to be revelation from God to his prophet. I have nothing against and do not judge those who choose a same sex relationship. They are free to choose their own path. If they can get a law changed so they can legally marry, it is their choice. I only ask that my beliefs and opposition to same sex marriage be treated with respect also.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 1:31 p.m.


    Is it going to kill you to accept that other people marry the person they love? I don't care what your scriptures say. This is America. We are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. We also have religious freedom and are not beholden to your version of religion. Nobody is telling you to have a gay marriage. You aren't being hurt if someone else has one.

    @grounded and rooted;

    "Legitimate concerns"? How, exactly is SSM going to affect you personally. (not at all).


    You believe it? You abide by it; stop trying to force others to abide by it.

    @bleeding purple;

    Denying others what you enjoy is bigotry. Not simply the beliefs.


    The 10th amendment REQUIRES states to adhere to the rest of the Constitution (look up 'prohibited').


    Our marriages are not "bad behavior".


    Civil Unions aren't allowed in Utah either.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    You live in a society, you're going to deal with things you don't like. I live in Utah, and i'm an atheist. So I know how you feel. But you're talking about two separate issues. One is a legal context, the SCOTUS needs to decide if gay marriage bans violate the 10th amendment. The other is a social context, and frankly, you can't stop that. Let me give you an example, I'm an atheist, and a lifelong Utahn. So that means most of the state totally disagree's with me in terms of religion. But I don't get to MAKE them agree with me. I don't get to MAKE them pass laws that I agree with as an atheist. I don't get to change the cultural makeup of the state, even if I disagree with it. The fact is young people don't care if someone is gay, and they don't care if they get married. Culture is shifting, and you will have to learn to deal with not holding the majority opinion on this issue.

  • Utahdane Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    I am tired of judges reading things into the constitution that are not there. The 14th amendment was simply to ensure that every individual had basic rights guaranteed by the federal constitution. If the the 14th amendment was really a total equality amendment there would have been no need to have an amendment giving women the right to vote. Abortion, pornography, gambling, drug laws, marriage are not part of the federal constitution. By the way if you want to talk about equality where is my equality as a straight white singe mormon male. I have none. I have to keep my mouth shut at work and other places because you see I do not have 14th amendment rights.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    "One way that gay rights has gained huge support is to claim it is about equality. That is not accurate. This is about additional rights. It has no merit when claiming it's about inequality. I, as a single man, have the exact same rights as any gay man. I can only marry a woman. He can only marry a woman. I can't marry a man. He can't marry a man. "

    Was getting rid of interracial marriage bans a movement for "additional rights" rather than "equal rights"?

    "a democratically-recognized interest in fostering what is best for its citizens. "

    And yet single people (even single gay people) can adopt. Infertile couples can marry and marriage has no requirement to have children. Statistical averages aren't used to limit any other kind of marriage (after all, it's a well-established fact that children in poor families have lower test scores and higher crime rates, should we ban poor people from marrying because of averages too?). You're just not consistent. The arguments against same-sex marriage are not consistently applied when it comes to marriage and family law in Utah, so they seem more like excuses.

  • Svoboda_Religii West valley City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    I am sure that gays will have the right to marry in every state before long.

    I don't hate anybody, but if I disagree with the gay community, they hurl all sorts of insulting labels at me. What will happen next?

    Suppose every state gives the gays this right. Is that enough? Or will they insist that everyone who continues to feel that it is wrong is punished in some fashion?

    This is what I feel will happen. I fear that many gays will want to decide what's for dinner, and force those who don't like the food to eat it anyway or face consequences.

    Fun days ahead!

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    It's absolutely bigotry. Plain and simple.

  • friends2you District Heights, MD
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    Interesting comments. I find it amazing how well this new view on marriage is playing out. Interesting that bestiality isn't included as those who practice it want to make love to their animals and love them dearly, or a brother and sister cant marry even though they love one another and of course most of human existence young women at age 13 were already pregnant yet the LBGT community does not include equality towards these people and their values, very bigoted on their part to claim equality. Where is the plural marriage as Muslims practice and other societies?
    For those who toss human history to the wind, all their forefathers and mothers, most religions values and beliefs it amazes me to think they think their ideas are right and 10's of billions are wrong. Love the person not the action, follow natures procreation design and your better off especially with the Children.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    @ Rebe:

    If what you said it true about gays not wanting to change the definition of marriage and only wanting the rights afforded by marriage, then why don't they just push to expand the rights already given in Civil Unions?

    Doing so would be a much easier approach and a lot less controversial. But since that hasn't been their approach, it's obvious they want more than that. They do want to change the current definition of traditional marriage and to force the rest of their agenda on everyone else.

    By not allowing others the right to believe as they prefer to (and whenever different from their own beliefs), they themselves are demonstrating bigotry and causing resentment. Suing others for such things as not wanting to take pictures of their controversial ceremonies isn't conducive to wanting mere acceptance. It's pushing an activist agenda.

    In taking the approach they currently are undertaking, they may eventually get the law to force others to legally accept their lifestyle, but they are causing the hearts of others to turn against them. By forcing their non-traditional views on others, they are understandably causing resentment toward both them and their agenda.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    "The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons"

    I love that a pro SSM person is comparing homosexual partners to this group. It doesn't help your case.

    Unalienable rights - inherent rights you are born with. Our government is not the author or creator of these rights, but it recognizes these as preexisting rights.

    Religious rites - ceremonies performed by churches for religious purposes.

    Marriage is a religious rite, not an unalienable right. The state should be separate/neutral.

    Child's right to a father and a mother is an unalienable right. Children are ALWAYS born to a father and a mother, even if the father's contribution passes by test tube to the mother. It is a right we are all born with. Adoption to families with less than a father and mother is a violation of children's unalienable rights.

    It is a shame that the religions need to defend themselves against the false accusation of bigotry (they did it very well!), especially when it is anti-religious bigots making the accusations.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    I find it funny - and strange - that anyone would think it a valid argument that slavery and marriage should be equated in any manner. I also find it to be false logic to believe that something, because it is traditional, is inherently evil. Gravity has been around for a long time - it isn't evil - it just is. Most human beings have chosen to walk on two feet, therefore, is that tradition evil and outdated? Should it be compared to slavery. False thought is what causes slavery - not tradition.

  • PunkJones Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    I find it rather disingenuous that this appeal has been framed as LDS Church vs. the same-sex marriage lobby when there are 28 separate briefs filed and the LDS Church is only 1/6 of one of those filed briefs. The references to the 14th Amendment are convoluted because the Amendment itself identifies restrictions to sex, age, salvery - thus cherry-picking out an opinion based upon sex from an Amendment that clearly uses sex as restriction in other ways, muddies the waters. This should prove to be good legal theatre if nothing else.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal, 2/11 9:23am: "The better model would be the legal, Constitutional approach... The proof is in the pudding -- America is not at war with itself over sovereign immunity, slavery, female suffrage, ..."

    Generally agreed (imagine that!), but the counterargument is "Justice delayed is justice denied." Do you think that the slave in 1850 or the nonvoting woman in 1910 was better off justice-wise than their descendants today? How long should an oppressed group wait for public opinion to catch up?

    procuradorfiscal, 2/11 10:28 am: "This current crop's only tools are transparent sophistry and snark."

    Spoken by one personally familiar with both.

    Now your homework: Provide a rational, nonsophist explanation of how the legislature's overwhelming passage of SB89 in 1996 conforms to the "child-centric" model of marriage presented in the state's brief and the amicus briefs described in the article. Prior law already provided for "responsible procreation" by prohibiting marriages that were prone to genetic defects. So why carve out a small exception and specifically endorse and mandate nonprocreative marriages other than to acknowledge that sometimes marriage can be about satisfying adult needs and not just children?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    @grounded and rooted

    "it's hard to respond to condescending and patronizing comments like this. We are not children, but intelligent adults with legitimate concerns."

    You have elected to take my comments as "condescending and patronizing"... perhaps some introspection is indicated to determine why you feel this way.

    That having been said, your point is well taken; I appreciate that many posting here are indeed intelligent adults who believe they have legitimate concerns. I understand this.

    People who consider themselves good-hearted (who obviously are in many ways) find themselves characterized as small-minded and bigoted, not recognizing they've behaved in small-minded, bigoted ways - expressing ignorance and prejudice, rushing to enshrine their religious views in exclusionary laws targeting the object of their prejudice - are hurt by charges of mean-spiritedness.

    The resulting cognitive dissonance is the source of their angst.

    While arguing the *right to their beliefs* exempts them from charges of bigotry, they fail to see that those *beliefs* are the REASON for their bigotry. This creates pathos. Like fish that do not know what water is.

  • Jared NotInMiami, FL
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    Constitution: "Banning gays from marrying is clearly against the 14th amendment of the US Constitution."

    No, it clearly is not against the 14th amendment. It might be against your interpretation of the 14th amendment though. The 14th amendment was controversial when it passed (1868) and has been controversial since that time. It's been used for both good and ill over the years. If one thing is clear it's that the 14th amendment (specifically, the equal protection clause) is not clear for any given issue.

  • Objectified Tooele, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    @ daehder1:

    At it's height, polygamy was practiced by only a very small percentage of LDS members and has never been "covered up", as you put it.
    In fact, in it's official web site at lds.org it openly talks about polygamy as being a part of the history of the church, it's reasoning for bringing back the plural marriage as it was practiced throughout most of the Bible's history, and when and how the practice was again ended. There is no "coverup" whatsoever.

    You stated "Mormons believed that the best setting for raising children was with one man and several women". That is an utterly false statement. If not, then please provide any credible evidence for your statement. No Church leader has ever even insinuated such an idea, let alone stated anything like that.

    I don't know what your definition of "not so long ago" is, but the Church has officially disavowed any practice of plural marriage for about 120 years... which is about half of the entire timeline history of our country. So it was actually quite a long time ago.

    In order to be viewed credibly, please do some research before commenting.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    Nevada is letting it go.

  • juangone SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    Secondly, I have a real issue with the way "Hate" is being used to gain support. Just because somebody doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, they are labeled as a bigot and full of hate. So of course anyone that is hearing of this will think, "well I dont' hate them, so I have to support this cause." I can certainly say I don't hate any gay person. In fact I have huge respect and love for many people that are gay and close to me. If a parent doesn't want their child to be allowed to do something, does that mean they hate their child? Not at all. Right or wrong, it's not fair to use this tactic to gain support for the cause. "You don't support my cause, so you hate me." Yet it's been used, and honestly most people are afraid to speak out about it simply because they are afraid of being labled as full of hate.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    Re: "I do not understand the state's reasoning."


    Its reasoning is based on the state's interest -- a democratically-recognized interest in fostering what is best for its citizens. That interest is democratically defined by the state, not by LGBT activists or agenda-driven liberal judges. Minority liberals may agree or disagree, but fortunately, they can't overrule.

    The only matter here at issue is whether Amendment 3 is rationally related to that state interest.

    And, it's simply not honestly arguable that any action to optimize the child-rearing environment is not rationally related to fostering the best child-rearing environment. So, it's not honest to assert Amendment 3 is not rationally related to a valid state interest.

    Liberals may assert the state's definition is too broad, too narrow, too late, too soon -- whatever. But, not that it's invalid. That's not theirs' to decide.

    Once you cut through the emotion, bullying, and sophistry, the answer is clear -- there's no Constitutionally protected "right" to same-sex marriage.

    If LGBT activists want that to change, their only legal resort is to the legislature.

    Anything else is cheating.

  • Uncle_Fester Niskayuna, NY
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    While I agree that such opposition is in fact not due to bigotry, the real problem is that where advocacy groups are permitted to define the terms, the media by and large just reprints their definition irrespective of anything other than that strained often inappropriate and itself bigoted usage. It is entirely possible to disapprove of gay marriage on a host of rational grounds not related to morality or religion. That said, it's also not inappropriate to rely upon moral grounds and pose the question to the advocates, who defines morality?

  • juangone SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    Just a few comments:

    I have no problem with people fighting for things they believe strongly in. But I do have a problem when it is done in a way that is misleading.

    One way that gay rights has gained huge support is to claim it is about equality. That is not accurate. This is about additional rights. It has no merit when claiming it's about inequality. I, as a single man, have the exact same rights as any gay man. I can only marry a woman. He can only marry a woman. I can't marry a man. He can't marry a man. We both have all the same rights when it comes to marriage and any other aspect of life. They are in fact fighting for additional rights, that would then allow both of us to marry a man. But by using the term "Equality" to gain support, it's very misleading, and of course for anyone that has a heart, why wouldn't they support a cause that involes equality?

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    I would be more than happy to allow the gay community have their 'precious piece of paper',
    but they are not just after that, they want to force me and like minded to celebrate
    their bad behavior. Note the suing of those who do not want to be a part of this
    celebration,- photographers,bakeries, etc. Let them be married, but allow me to choose who
    I want to offer my services too under conditions that are offensive to my own beliefs.
    Shopping around for someone to sue seems to more their intent than celebrating their

  • MountainLion44 Eagle, ID
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    It's nice to hear the why of Marriage. "No other institution joins together two persons with the natural ability to create children for the purpose of maximizing the welfare of such children." I would say I have emperical evidence that this statement is correct. My wife and I have had the natural ability to have children and we are, and continue to be, grateful beneficiaries of this Great Plan of Happiness.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    It is sad that people are forgetting that this current battle is more about State's Rights. The problem as stated in the original ruling is the 10th ammendment and the 14th ammendment to the US constitution.

    One says that if it isn't in the Constitution that it is up to the states to decide. That is also what the SCOUS said in the DOMA ruling.

    Now we have the 14th Ammendment that specifies equal protection.

    So, the questions are what is not being protected by prohibiting gay marriage recognition and can one ammendment trump another ammendment when the rights conferred are in contradiction.

  • Rebe Herriman, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    As an active LDS member, I believe that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. However, I cannot support a bill that denies rights to a minority based on my religious beliefs. If Civil Unions provided the same protections, rights, and responsibilities as marriage, the many homosexual people I know would be satisfied. One said to me, "I don't want to change the definition of marriage. I just want the same rights as those who marry, and Civil Unions do not provide that." Our Constitution protects minorities from being suppressed by the majority based on "beliefs." It isn't the other way around, as I've seen by many comments that say, "The majority voted and they said no to marriage for gay people." That is unequal and don't we believe in equality under the law? We may not agree with the lifestyle, but who are we to deny others their rights (don't we believe in free agency)? If the government weren't involved in marriage, this wouldn't even be an issue.

  • Ariz Madison, AL
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    "It is offensive to equate the struggle of civil rights in the last two centuries with the current same gender marriage issue."

    I think it is absurd to recycle the same arguments from those who opposed advancements in civil rights then criticize people for making comparisons between the gay rights and civil rights movement. The arguments proffered by those opposing gay rights are no different than those who argued against racial discrimination. The only thing that's changed is swapping out skin color with sexual orientation. To dismiss the comparison is to say those were really good arguments but they were just applied to the wrong issue.

    Gay rights may affect a smaller number of people. I see that as a sign of progress. It means we've learned lessons from what went on in the middle of the last century and before. Fewer people are effected by injustice as we move forward. Forgetting the lessons learned in the civil rights era is far more offensive than making apt comparisons.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    why is it today that the LGBT community can protest and that's all fine and good but when Churches protest they get pounded by the media? It is wrong and it is pervasive throughout the media. The anti-Christian bigotry in this country is real ...it is ugly ...it is led by the media and supported by Democrats. Most of all it is anti-American because America is a Christian founded nation...like it or not!!

  • BlueEyesBrittany Paris, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    Comment to lovely

    Just because we are sick and tired of religions persecuting homosexuals and women, does not mean that we do not want that marriages between a man and a woman should be sacred, faithful and committed. I think any woman who loves her husband and wants a family wants this precisely but why persecuting homosexuals. Just because homosexuals exist does not prevent those who want to have a family to defend values of marriage, fidelity, committment, love and respect to exist.

  • bleeding purple Santa Ana, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    Airnaut ... you give this definition ...
    noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries.
    bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

    To all of you who say I am a bigot because I prefer marriage between a man and a woman ... doesn't this go both ways? How nice, we are all the same after all - a bunch of bigots! woo!

    Feb. 11, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    @jeclar2006 "Seems to be the appropriate word in the English language for LDS and 'other faiths'..."

    Seems to be that, by your definition, there are plenty of bigoted comments on this board in support of LGBT as well. A more correct definition for you is " bigot: anyone who disagrees with my opinion".

    I believe homosexual behavior to be a sin. You obviously do not. What makes your belief any more valid than my opinion? Who is forcing their beliefs on whom?

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    I am no expert on scripture but I wanted to take the opportunity to clear up misconceptions presented by many who have posted scriptures on this thread. The Old Testament was the old law and was fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The new law removed much of the "letter of the law" and replaced it with "spirit of the law". No more counting steps and killing people but the new law was more strict in some ways. Not only is adultery wrong, even lusting after a woman is now wrong. The moral wrongs remain.

    God loves everyone, He hates sin.

  • utahboni Ogden, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    I think it is a slippery slope when religious people start to believe that they have a right and obligation to enforce what they believe to be God's laws and intents. Nearly every mass atrocity ever committed since the beginning of recorded time was done so by people who believed they were the emissaries of God on earth.

    I've never actually understood how people who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing entity, also believe he has to delegate law enforcement to mere mortals.

  • Objectified Tooele, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    @ riverofsun:

    You're letting yourself get confused too easily. The LDS church has always advocated marriage as being between men and women... people of opposite gender uniting together in holy matrimony.
    It (the LDS church) has never accepted (nor is there evidence of God ever accepting) marriage being between people of the same gender. Please read Leviticus 20:13 and 18:22 in the Old Testament and Romans 1:26-27 in the New Testament. Where God stands on the issue is indisputable.

    @ Tiago:

    The Church isn't fighting against gay people, nor look at them as "the enemy". What they are fighting is changing the traditional definition of marriage, which has it's roots as a holy institution originating from God. And now a relatively small group of people are trying to change all of that. In so doing, they lessen the sanctity of marriage.

    @ Turtles Run:

    It is not a proven fact that gay people were born that way. And until it is, it's just another theory advocated by gay activists. Gays have indeed changed.

    @ ValiesVoter:

    The existence of God has been established. Maybe not to you. But to many of us, it truly has.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    I do not understand the state's reasoning. If they say it is all about the children, why do they allow gays to conceive (which many do, btw) or adopt. Both are perfectly legal in Utah. But, instead, they will not allow gays to marry - even if they are raising children!

    Will someone explain to me how this protect any children at all?

    It sounds to me like they are just protecting the status quo...and their right to have all the privileges of marriage for those that they deem "worthy" instead of treating all citizens as equal.

    Am I wrong? Anyone?????

  • BlueEyesBrittany Paris, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    If religions had been and were more concerned about insuring that women are treated proplerly in the first place, maybe they could have a say in the matter.

    I, as a women, find homosexuals to be very nice and lovely people, far better than many heterosexuals i know who abuse women, cheat on them, even kill them and sadly enough in some cases with the help and support of their God, (as it has been since the beginning of time) while the men are given a privilege and double standard status.

    So frankly, i think Utah and other religious people should use their efforts to ensure that men no longer abuse women in any way and are faithful and let the homosexuals live their lives since, to be true, they are no worse than what many men, religious or not do.

    I know some lovely homosexuals. I know some horrible heterosexuals so some people are in no good position to lecture others on how to behave.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    Thank God we are waking up and refuse to be steam rolled by persons who want to destroy God's definition of Marriage.When a nation collapses it does so from the inside. The final symptoms of a fatal moral disease is an addiction to sexual perversion by a majority of the people who either practice such things or give praise to those who do so.There are millions of us from all faith traditions who utterly refuse to bow down and worship this false doctrine of so called ''gay marriage'' and will defend the integrity of Holy Scripture as it relates to such matters,and we will defend the Holiness of our God who has wisely given us both a warning if we are disobedient or a blessing if we speak the truth on this issue, and live like we should.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    Traditional marriage is alive and well -

    Whatever is not working in heterosexual marriages - it's not because of the gays.

    For people who are afraid of same-sex marriage, don't worry, gays don't intend to marry you, unless you want that.

  • bbc SLC, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    "The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Lutheran Mission Synod say they bear no "ill will" toward same-sex couples." Riiightt....

  • jonjonhill elverson, PA
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    If you believe in the Bible and the word of God as interpreted by the holy prophets of time, then one believes that marriage is ordained by God between the two, man and woman and no other. It is that simply and that easy, no spin, no debate, only the true word of God. I don't understand how one can debate God's word or those of the Holy Prophets? It is not truth.

  • Nelson D Garland, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    Religious belief, in the form of a majority vote, does not trump the Constitution. In this “free” land, you may believe and live as you wish, but you have no right to compel your neighbor, by force of law, to live as you do, nor to deny them to live differently. If religious entities choose to define marriage in a certain way, that is their business, but by what authority do they have the right to define marriage for those who are not of their faith? It is common knowledge that the majority of Utah's population is LDS (about 63%), and that Amendment 3 passed by a majority vote of 60%. It is pretty clear that religious belief, and the state’s majority faith, were determining factors in the passage of an unconstitutional law. Just because you may be powerful or able to rally others to your cause, does not make it right for you to push the little guy around. That's called being a bully. The Founding Fathers knew all about bullies, that's why we have the Constitution.

    I don't think God likes bullies much.

  • daehder1 Parker, AZ
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    It wasn't too long ago that the Mormons believed that the best setting for raising children was with one man and several women. Why do they try to cover that up? I actually don't understand why that was so bad, but the xians forced them to give it up.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    Re: ". . . the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment . . . ."

    Yeah, of course it did. Its justices were appointed by politicians that expected exactly that ruling, along with hundreds of other reliably liberal, thumb-on-the-scale rulings, as the quid pro quo to secure their appointments in the first place.

    That analysis is, not just flawed, sophomoric, and biased, but embarrassingly so.

    In the old days, liberal activist judges knew how to couch their biased, legally unsupportable opinions in disingenuous, but wildly soaring, somewhat inspirational rhetoric. This current crop's only tools are transparent sophistry and snark.


  • grounded and rooted China, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    It will be okay, Utah. Really. Breathe deep. Relax.

    it's hard to respond to condescending and patronizing comments like this. We are not children, but intelligent adults with legitimate concerns.

  • shesaidohkay Utopia, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract." Oliver Wendell Holmes

    I love to read these comments but surely you know this is a waste of energies. Bigots are never hateful just like racists have no animus towards that not so pale they were born superior to. Comparing this situation to civil rights issues will go nowhere. I'm certain many of these "anti gay" folks would prefer blacks marry "their own" and sit at the back. "God's chosen" have little need for self reflection.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    Since the church is talking about its definition of marriage and saying they are not showing bigotry, I guess now it depends on what my definition of bigotry is on whether I believe them or not.

    Things I'll also consider in my decision is how the church came clean with its stand on blacks and the priesthood by saying it was a policy based on Brigham Young's belief about blacks and not a revelation from God.

    I'll also consider how Utah came into the nation as a slave territory because Church leaders talked how slavery was ordained of God and supported in the Bible.

    Of course having all the other organizations weighing in with the church might give the Church more credibility but there have always been other churches and organizations that have supported discrimination based on skin color or race.

    So I look at bigotry not so much as what a group says it is or is not but by looking at if that group really wants to deny something to another group that they themselves enjoy.

  • netteO Taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    I think that people and organizations that don't agree with same-sex marriage should work on securing their own rights rather than trying to control others on this point. -It appears to be inevitable that ssm will be an acceptable part of our society- but will those who disagree because of faith reasons be forced to accommodate? like bake cakes, take pictures and perform ceremonies against their conscience?

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    It's biology, not bigotry.

  • Ted's of Beverly Hills Las Vegas, Nevada
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    It seems to me, more than anything else, the Church is adding it's "testimony" in defense of true marriage not strictly, nor primarily, for the sake of political posturing, but to show obedience to the Being whose footstool this earth truly is.

  • MDurfee OREM, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    The issue isn't about equality. It is about using the boogeyman of discrimination to shout out religious voices and stances on morality. It is about forcing everyone who disagrees with their morality or lifestyle to shut up. A law limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't keep anyone from loving each other or having a relationship, or even raising children. It does keep them from suing business owners for discrimination if they so much as utter a word of support for traditional morals or refuse to participate in gay ceremonies. Business owners who even dare state support for traditional marriage are being boycotted, threatened, and sued all across the U.S. (Case in point, Chic-Fil-A) If you don't believe it, try reading the news.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    "Old Testment
    Leviticus ch. 18 vs 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Pretty clear on that one,"

    That's why I never tell men "no, of course that dress doesn't make you look fat".

    What's the point of quoting one piece of Levitical law when so many other pieces of it are ignored by Christians today? (And for good reason, who'd want to be in charge of kicking women out of town for a few days each month?)

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    "The accusation is false and offensive," according to a 53-page court brief. "In truth, we support the husband-wife definition of marriage because we believe it is right and good for children, families and society. Our respective faith traditions teach us that truth. But so do reason, long experience and social fact."

    I agree. When people communicate or observe across a cultural barrier they have to keep an open mind. If you see something that doesn't match your cultural paradigms be open minded enough to conclude, "Well this is different. Maybe I can learn something from being exposed to diversity." What happens instead is people say, "Well this is different. Something is wrong with those people!" It is the heigth of cultural intolerance to conclude that someone's religious or cultural beliefs are the result of them being bigots.

    People have learned nothing from 25 years of diversity.

  • ValiesVoter LONG BEACH, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:45 a.m.


    You used a key phrase: "They are not mutually exclusive."

    Why do you feel your support of traditional marriage competes with and necessarily excludes same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage?

    I support traditional marriage (although the word "traditional" feels like code to me). I revere the marriages of my parents, siblings, and other relatives & friends, yet I see no conflict with also celebrating the marriages of gay couples. For me, it is a matter of embracing the full humanity of gay people. I think the past stigmatization and marginalization of gay people is a bad thing and I'm glad even the LDS church seems to have recognized this.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:42 a.m.


    "....It is God who provides the means whereby sinners can be changed, transformed to new creations...."

    Looks like both sides are waiting for the other to be transformed into new creatures.

    Marriage between a man and a woman is not diminished by broadening the scope of traditional marriage to include a group that is presently denied. In time, the country will shed its more irrational fears regarding some of its citizens.

  • evansrichdm west jordan , UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:36 a.m.


    Let me be claer,

    It is being forced on me that I got to accept gay marriage as socially acceptable or else I am a bigit, am I right with that line of thought. Now as far as my God base on the Bible, Book of Mormon has made it clear in those writing that being gay or acting on gay feeelings is worng.
    Old Testment
    Leviticus ch. 18 vs 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Pretty clear on that one, but hey you tell God that he is wrong. Tell if he changes his mind on this one.

  • Turtles Run Houston, TX
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    lehiaggie wrote: To tell me otherwise is akin to telling someone that is Gay or Lesbian that they can change the way they feel.


    No it is much different. Homosexuals were born that way. The desire to not want everyone to enjoy equal treatment under the law is a learned behavior. A behavior that can be unlearned with education and understanding. A person cannot change their sexual orientation no matter how hard they try.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    Doesn't this get confusing?
    Those on this forum who say "we must listen to God about marriage", mystifies many of us.
    We hear that marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
    According to the LDS scriptures, Pleural Marriage was initiated for the LDS by God. This was the norm for LDS people in the 1800s.
    Although it is "not on the earth now", doesn't it say in Doctrine and Covenants scriptures that Pleural Marriage will be the way marriage will be in the after life for those who are have "followed God's word"?
    Isn't this why the numerous polygamous off shoot groups who left the LDS Church abound here in Utah?
    Because of this, one would think that LDS people, perhaps, would have a more open mind about the term "marriage?
    Wow, this gets confusing!

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    From the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa: "The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children."

    Utah's case is in trouble.

  • Turtles Run Houston, TX
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:27 a.m.


    Love Everyone,

    Wish it could be so, but I am being told by pro gay marriage people I am a bigit for my personal beliefs.

    Well if a person believes other people do not deserve to be treated as equals based on some inherent trait of those people: color, ethnicity, nationality, sex, or sexual orientation, then what would you call it.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    Re: "Isn't this exactly what opponents of mixed race marriages said in their time?"

    And, if they did, so what? They were wrong.

    Now, back to the subject at hand . . . .

    LGBT activists are never going to accept logic and reason. If they do, they lose.

    So, they attack. They bully. They use disingenuous sophistry as their primary tactic. Just as the pro-abortion crowd did before Roe v. Wade.

    But, if they think they'll actually win anything by their anti-Constitutional tactics, they should consider what the similarly collusive Roe v. Wade accomplished -- 40 years later, and we're still at war over the rights of the innocent unborn.

    The better model would be the legal, Constitutional approach. It acknowledges that the legislature, not a contrived, collusive case before a dishonest, agenda-driven judge, is the proper forum in which to have the necessary discussions, make the necessary case, and arrive at the necessary consensus.

    The proof is in the pudding -- America is not at war with itself over sovereign immunity, slavery, female suffrage, the legality of income taxation, succession in the presidency, or the voting age.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    This is interesting as a study in which groups the church chooses to tolerate and align with and which it classifies as the enemy.
    We have huge doctrinal and even moral disagreements with some of the churches we've partnered. Some of them have called us names and actively preach against. I'm actually glad to see that we can overlook differences and see the causes that unite us. Most Mormons would be happy to have a Baptist or a Catholic at a BBQ or as a neighbor and I think that's great.
    I'm surprised though that the church insists on classifying the gay people who want to marry as the enemy and fighting against them. These are also good people, who support monogamy, faithfulness, marriage, and families. Many of them are also religious. In Utah, many of them are part of LDS families. It seems like we should be natrual allies. Why are we making them the enemy?

  • Fyodor Mikhailovich Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    I would like to point out that you should identify your Lutheran church reference as the Missouri synod. The main stream of the the church, the ELCA is not joining the law suit and is in fact in favor of same sex marriage. Please be clearer in your reporting.

  • lehiaggie Lehi, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    In these comments I am told that I am a bigot, that I have feelings of hatred because I support traditional marriage. But deep down in my heart I feel none of that. What if I can truly care for those in the LGBT community and still support traditional marriage. They are not mutually exclusive. The only evidence I have is in my heart.

    To tell me otherwise is akin to telling someone that is Gay or Lesbian that they can change the way they feel.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    No one wants to be thought of as a bigot, but most people probably are, at least to some extent. No one I know is perfect. And yes, maybe I'm a bigot, but I don't want to be.

    Everyone has opinions about how the world should be. And the idea of homosexuality is just repugnant to a lot of people. That attitude is changing now, but it's not changing quickly.
    Personally, I would have preferred to see the whole gay marriage issue placed on a back burner, because this nation already has more important (in my opinion) and pressing issues to deal with, and we really don’t need something like this to further divide the nation.

    Well, against my wishes, the world saw fit to take this issue off the back burner and place it at the forefront. It's here, it's near, it's the Q word, and it's not going anywhere. And now everyone has to confront it.

    So now what? Just get used to it I guess.

  • frugalfly PULLMAN, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    It is offensive to equate the struggle of civil rights in the last two centuries with the current same gender marriage issue. To do so is offensive to those who struggled for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It represents a lack of education by the "drum beaters of the moment". Please don't clump these together. What some same sex marriage people want is a narrow specific legal status. What african americans wanted was ability to eat, have homes, education, dignity, employment, security, and opportunity. That opportunity was shut to them on every front in every facet of life and in every way imaginable.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    It really doesn't matter what reasons (no matter how specious) these religions use. The fact is, they are seeking to deny American Citizens equal rights, opportunities and protections under the law. These churches will not be forced to perform or sanction marriages they don't approve of. The real concern is that, just as the Mormon Church was viewed to be bigoted for their stance against black men holding the priesthood (and that view was justified, the church has now admitted the whole thing was because Brigham Young was a bigot), their anti-gay views will be viewed as bigoted and backwards.

    I don't really care how the church or its members view gay people. I care that they are trying to make their religious views the law.

  • ValiesVoter LONG BEACH, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    @ Flashback

    The existence of "God" has not been established, let alone what any such entity's opinion is of the intimate arrangements of consenting adults.

    If you have a personal concept and belief in such an entity, I say live it! love it! BE it! -- but do not try to reach into a secular constitution and legislate your version of this entity above others'.

  • donn layton, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    RE: Tethered, WHICH IS CHANGEABLE, yet blocking other mutable characteristics from being protected!

    Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever. (Hebrews 13:8).

    While God does not change, sinful men must change in order to enter into the kingdom of God. This “change” is from one who is a vile sinner, deserving of God’s eternal wrath, to a forgiven sinner, who now stands clothed in the righteousness of God, through faith in Christ.

    It is God who provides the means whereby sinners can be changed, transformed to new creations, forgiven, justified, having an imperishable hope. What is required of men is to repent, to cease thinking and acting as they once did, acknowledge their sins, and trust in Jesus Christ.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    A lot of heterophobic people on the forum today as well as a lot of apostates. You don't want God to have a voice? That's fine but he should have one.

  • Jan Jones West Valley City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    Isn't this exactly what opponents of mixed race marriages said in their time? It has nothing to do with bigotry. It's just the way it's always been, and what the Bible advocates.

  • Justizia SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    Thanks to all those who wrote and filed amicus briefs. The LBGT community I'm quite sure will target those who have stood up for their beliefs. For tolerance to them is only a one way street. It takes courage to know you are going against a vocal group that only tolerates what they want to hear and then retaliates with words of hate while claiming they don't. The gay groups want so much to make this about them rather than about the definition of marriage. They want to play the victims and say their "rights" are being abused. If the courts allow the definition of marriage to mean nothing, why can't anyone claim the "right" to marry? Why not groups of people? Is there any reason to limit it to two people? Why not minors? Why does it have to even be with other humans if "love" is the only requirement. I've seen people who really love their pets.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    Understand that each side of this issue is pushing their own sense of what is right and wrong. Wisdom is often lost in a "think tank" where every possibility is not just sorted through but is considered of equal value. Wisdom knows, for example, why everything that is liquid should
    not be called water and licensed for human consumption. In this way discrimination is essential to preserve human life. "same-sex marriage" should not be given license or sanction.

  • 1A-all the way SLC, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    @airnaut quoted -
    noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries.
    bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.


    "I don't know --
    Seems like it fits the definition precisely."

    For which side??? sounds like the gays intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. (not including the laws of the land)....ouch, that one turned on you :-0

    Anyone can tell which side has more hatred toward the others by what is being said on here.

    Heres another pointless argument..."Are you married when you cross state lines? We can't allow state-by-state non-recognition of marriages or you, yourself might end up divorced by driving to California or someplace other than where you were married." No comment necessary :-0

    And don't get people started on the similarities of the civil rights movement.. You do not want to go there, dont even think about bringing that up. That would be shameful on you.

    Have a nice day..I know I will, because I love living in the state of Utah. :-)

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    @ tethered

    An excellent point you are making there. And remember churches have legal status due to governmental approval, you do not.

    You need to be better recognizable as an organization.
    This issue goes back to political partisanship, it is void from the beginning.

    I am not for your cause, but I can not recognize your voice as you are not belonging to some defined organization. Your "community" goes beyond recognition.

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    How instructive to see what proponents can list as examples of traditional cultural practice. They seem to be quite familiar with deviant practices that have been outlawed or are unpopular, even in aberrant small social groups.

    It would seem obvious that those who advocate change to traditional standards bear the burden of proof that what they are proposing is a substantive improvement.

    I note instructive parallels with "Modest Proposal" by Johnathan Swift in 1729. Swift clearly understood that none of it was to be taken seriously. The problem with the modern advocates that oppose traditional marriage standards is that it seems they fail to recognize the satire of their arguments.

  • Kiboo South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    I'm with U-tar - gay eagle scout, gay football player, gay rights activists and on and on and on. You want to be gay, fine, be gay. I don't care. But the incessant stories about gays is getting really, really old.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    David, you stated “In a homosexual relationship, anatomically and physiologically is it simply not possible to have children. It is not meant to be.”

    This quote is eerily reminiscent to what was said at the trial of the mixed race couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

    When marriage equality is the law of the land, your reasoning is going to sound as quaint as the judge in Virginia did in 1968.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    The actual facts, all religion aside, is that men and men, women and women don't go together biologically, physically, or anatomically. Never have, never will.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    Question LDS people. Why is gay marriage different? Plenty of things you don't believe in doing are 100% legal. Coffee, liquor, pornography, cigarettes, tattoos, piercings on men, more than one ear piercing on a woman and R rated movies are all legal, but your church has said that you shouldn't do that stuff. What is so different about gay marriage? I don't see rallies at Wal Mart trying to make Folgers illegal, Utah doesn't seem to have a problem taking the money I spend at the State Liquor Store, even though it's against the LDS religion. So what is so different about this one issue?

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    I find it quite amusing that many of these letters tout traditional marriage in Utah and years of "long held tradition". Doesn't anyone ever remember polygamy? Thousands of Mormons are the products of this "traditional marriage"! Lets not forget our history OK?

    My forebears had multiple wives which acted as single parents while they were breeding new populations. They were neglected in many cases, placed in poverty and ignored for years at a time. They managed to survive. I guess an LBGT couple raising good well adjusted children really isn't so bad.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    "The brief also expresses concern that a finding against SSM bans “would necessarily declare that Utah and Oklahoma voters hold views on marriage that are irrational or bigoted,” and that this would “malign their deeply held convictions” and thus “demean” them. "

    As you point out, it's a poor argument. Change the subject from SSM bans to integration and the states from Utah and Oklahoma to Mississippi and Alabama, and consider whether the idea of "maligning their deeply held convictions" about race would be a good reason to sustain segregation. People always have deeply-held conviction about many things. Unfortunately, those convictions are sometimes incorrect or wrong. Essentially, the brief is asking the court to make a ruling in one direction to keep from hurting someone's feelings. Imagine the derision the Supreme Court would have been subjected to had it sustained segregation to spare the feelings of the good white folks of the south. It boggles the mind that a licensed attorney would put forward such an argument in apparent good faith. Had he done it in law school, the professor would have given him a failing mark and laughed in his face.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    Every day, it is all gay. Can't we stop with the stories? How much do we have to endure?

  • Cole Thomas Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    Perhaps next you guys could ban taking the lord's name in vain? I mean, if you're going to force the rest of us to abide by your religious beliefs, why not go all the way?

    Maybe we could also ban tattoo parlors? I mean, if a kid sees someone with a tattoo, that could send the wrong message, right? And as we've established, it's all about the kids with you guys. We gotta protect the kids. From EVERYTHING!

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    ". . . opposition not due to bigotry" ?

    LDS leadership, many (though not all) Mormons, many (though not all) Utah voters and most of the organizations that signed on to this brief are in the very unfortunate position of having their own anti-gay statements, arguments and actions already out there. So many past anti-gay statements and attitudes are congealed in print, searchable at the click of the mouse, that trying to un-ring the animus bell at this point, simply can't be done. (I appreciate that a good team of lawyers would work vigorously to counter the perception, though).

    Personally, I try not to use words like "hate", "bigot", "homophobe", etc. -- not that those words don't fit in many cases, it's just that it tends to halt conversation and is not very productive.

  • tethered Salem, OR
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    Is there ANY leader of ANY religious group who will publicly acknowledge that religion and faith isn't solely biological and can change over time?

    After all, if people could not change their religion, then how come Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists have various forms of missions...

    Whose goal is to convert other people into THEIR religion!

    Yet these legal briefs filed by religious groups rely on the fact that are "a protected class", while noting that homosexuality is not "a protected class".

    This is a clear case of Protectionism... The groups who have legal rights, trying to block others from attaining legal rights.

    And intermixing religion & law to further their unique status.

    WHICH IS CHANGEABLE, yet blocking other mutable characteristics from being protected!

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    @johnthomasjones 9:31

    "Are the State's interests in responsible procreation and optimal child-rearing furthered by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying?"

    Thank you. This is the simple question that completely destroys the State's argument.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    @evansrichdm says:

    "If you are going to force gay marriage on us ...,"

    --- The moment that someone tries to force you to gay marry, I'll be the first horse in the cavalry to your rescue. Until then, nobody is "forcing" you to do anything except accept others rights.

    @Virginia Reader;

    And what if your "god" isn't?

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    The "traditional" version off a single man, single woman marriage is contemporary version of marriage. The word "traditional" is nothing more than a code word for bigotry, just as some NFL teams use the word "distraction" as another word to mask bigotry. It is beyond me that so many people would put so much effort into denying people the right to form a civil union, because in the eyes of the courts and governments, that's all a marriage license is.

    Feb. 11, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    This article hurts the gay community...More people standing behind the definition of marriage....you can see by so many likes on comments against it.

    Tis is a good one @kjb1 says this "The fact that they're talking like this means that they're grasping at straws. They're going to lose and deep down, they know it."

    Really...do you really think the other side knows deep down that they are going to lose?? Why even try, if its "deep down".

    Here is the bottom line with all respect and dignity....Lets talk about tradition, and how it always was... Beliefs define values of a society, and values determine the law in a society. Why is that so hard to understand. So many people value marriage between one man and one wife.

    As soon as the majority wants the law changed, to allow gay marriage, most of this fight against it will be gone...plain and simple.

  • Sank You, Doctor Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    I know it: "Don't believe me? Go ask your bishop if you're loved. You may be surprised how powerful you'll feel it."


    My bishop actually told me not to come to church anymore. I made everyone feel uncomfortable and he could see what the effect of not having even one person talk to me was doing to me. That was in 1985. Maybe things are different today?

    When I called him one night, he told me to quit calling him. It was ruining his life. Just accept my excommunication and go on with my life.

    I have.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    The religiosity in Utah is truly showing desperation by claiming they are not engaging in bigotry.

    What they are doing - defending Amendment 3 - is the *very* definition of bigotry.

    Those that demand the state continue to engage in legal discrimination against a minority population of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens had best start preparing themselves for the inevitable.

    Your ability to deny your fellow citizens their civil rights is ending.

    Take a look at your next door neighbor, Nevada. They are doing it correctly, and your AG should take a lesson from the Nevada AG. "After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable," Nevada AG Masto said in a statement.

    Guess what? The animus-laden arguments that Utah has wasted $2,000,000.00 to pay these out-of-state lawyers to draw up are the *exact*, *same* animus-laden arguments that have already been thrown out of court.

    There can be no hope of Utah continuing its state-sponsored discrimination.

    It will be okay, Utah. Really. Breathe deep. Relax.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    The most advanced democratic countries in the world have already legalized same-sex marriage or are in the process of legalizing it -- because mature democracies support tolerance and equality. At the other end, fanatic Islamic and dictatorial African nations that persecute and incarcerate gays and lesbians and abhor same-sex marriage -- because tolerance for people who are "different" is not part of their mind-set. Isn't that difference between two kinds of countries telling enough?

  • Dan Taylor Keyser, WV
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    It's like asking someone to except you putting leaves in the gas tank of the ambulance that you're in instead of gas. It's telling you it is just the way the leaves were made and that they can't help it. Furthermore, the leaves should have those rights even though it won't (at this time) make the ambulance get you to the hopsital in time to save your life. The leaves feels that you should except it in your gas tank because it's the only way to be fair to the leaves and yes there are those that believe trees have spirits, so we must look out for thier rights as well. Right?

  • Dan Taylor Keyser, WV
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    No court case will ever fix the fact that Gay people have no way of producing children. 5 million gay people on their own planet will all be extinct and gone within 110 years give or take a few. It would be a barin waste land. My point here is the entire gay lesbian way of thinking is contrary to life itself. It doesn't work plain and simple. It cannot progress the good in society because it can't progress society. It must have straight people to help it to even exist at all.

  • djk blue springs, MO
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    why do people from the community whom believe that being gay is correct always scream 'biogotry and unfair' ? they only see what they want to see. just like other groups whom scream racism. look, they know they are not in the right with their choices so the guilt makes me respond in unkind ways.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    Like it or not, the argument is inherent bigotry. The only way to resolve this is to separate the civil and religious functions. All should be treated equally under the law, and for religious beliefs and practices, the churches may decide for themselves. Note also that even if the State of Utah prevails in the short-term, this issue will never go away. It would be best to accept equal protection under the law and move on. That way, religious groups will have no need to beat their chests, and gay/lesbian couples won't feel a need to protest or otherwise draw attention to their actions (like a gay marriage ceremony at the Grammys - I don't tune in for that purpose). It's time to normalize.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    Bigotry by any other name would stink as foully.

  • Dobby Fresno, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    As Mama always said, hate the bigotry but love the bigot.

  • Constitution Is King Brigham, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    I find it amusing that these people who want to ban same sex marriage are okay with existing gay couples living together OUT of wedlock (they're not trying to ban that), and they're okay with existing gay couples raising children out of wedlock (they're not trying to ban that, either). Marriage of parents (straight or gay) provides security for children. The folks opposed to allowing existing same-sex parents of children to marry, are directly harming those children.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    For such a non-issue as bigotry, the churches opposed to SSM are sure expending a tremendous amount of energy to reassure everyone.

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    It's quite interesting that both the LDS Church's brief and the State of Utah's brief assert that a primary purpose for limiting marriage to heterosexuals is to ensure that children are raised by their biological parents. Unfortuantely, the actions of both the Church and the State show that they do not really believe this. Both organizations would deny marriage rights to a gay family where the children are biologically related to one of the parents (a quite common scenario). And yet, both organizations would grant marriage rights to an adoptive heterosexual family where the children are not biologically related to either parent (also a very common scenario).

    The actions of the Church and State, rather than their words, conclusively show that their marriage policies are not designed to ensure children are raised by biological parents. Instead, the policies are designed to ensure that children are raised by two different genders. Whatever the merits of requiring two different genders, THAT is the issue for the court, not biological relationships.

  • Dan Taylor Keyser, WV
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    I don't see how this situation is so hard for the gay and Lesbian people to understand when it comes to raising children. It is a well known fact that children learn from their parents. They not only learn the about life, but they learn mannerisms and thought processes as well. When a father clears his throat many times his little boy will clear his. When a mother puts on lipstick her young daughter will want to do that as well. This is a well known fact of life. With that in mind, I have always heard gay people say such things like, "If I could be straight I would, but it's the way I am", or "I wish I didn't feel this way but I do". Growing up in a gay lifestyle only sends the message to a child that that behavior is right, or ok and then if ever thinking about relationships when they get older, they will obviously lean in that direction. Now, if that were right, in a few short decades the human race would become extinct because we all know that Gay people can't contribute to life on earth.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries.
    bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.


    I don't know --
    Seems like it fits the definition precisely.

    As for "it's been that way for Centuries"...

    So was Human Sacrifice,
    and Stonings,

    That arguement doesn't hold up to current scutiny.

  • evansrichdm west jordan , UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    Love Everyone,

    Wish it could be so, but I am being told by pro gay marriage people I am a bigit for my personal beliefs.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    Excellent point, Wilf 55. How quickly Mormons forget the downright hateful comments that were made by Tea Partiers about Mitt Romney's religion, before he became the Republican candidate. They didn't vote for him because they liked him, let alone because they respected his right to choose his own religion; they voted for him because he wasn't a Democrat.

  • Twin Sister LINDON, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    I so appreciate those who have come together to support and defend traditional marriage--for their expertise, intellect, wisdom, and common sense. They have put into words my feelings exactly concerning this highly volatile subject.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    As Ronnie Reagan would say, "there we go again". The "state system" is a big problem for efforts to create a national religion based on "liberal views". Cokie Roberts of ABC stated yesterday on NPR that the reasoning behind the decision by Eric Holder to offer federal acceptance of gay marriage in every state is a political one. She stated that gay marriage is very acceptable in the young. Mr. Holder wants the young to vote in the mid term election. He sees this as a cause that may rally the voting bloc. Since the young are easily brainwashed, that is the reason for efforts to control the education system and to reform it based on federal standards. "Education" is a "state function" under the U.S. Constitution. These efforts are all aimed at creating a perfect society and negating the "opiate of the people".

  • UT Brit London, England
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:36 a.m.


    "Let the proponents of redefinition iterate things we have done as human beings for thousands of years that aren't the right thing to do."

    Pre-arranged marriage has been practiced for thousands of years and continues. Slavery has been practiced for thousands of years and continues. Its the culture to molest young boys in parts of Afghanistan and its been going on for centuries. I could carry on and on and on and I will if you wish.
    "Its been done for thousands of years" is one of the worst reasonings I have heard.

    I do not care if people want to have a same sex marriage, it has no impact at all on my marriage or my family. Stopping same sex couples from having legal rights with their partner and children seems cruel, even going by Utahs standards.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    David from Centerville:

    In some heterosexual marriages it is impossible to produce a child, for whatever medical reason. These couples often see artificial insemination as a solution.

    It turns out that lesbian couples also have that avenue of reproduction available to them.

    Why should the state decide that one situation is legally sanctioned and receives the benefit of various tax & legal benefits, while the other is not?

    Doesn't this arbitrarily hurt the child produced in the second circumstance?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    Sal, civil rights are not for states or churches or voters to decide. You can marry the person you want to marry. It sounds like it wouldn't have bothered you if a Samoan man and black woman in Montgomery couldn't have married because the state of Alabama hadn't gotten around to repealing their laws against interracial marriage--because it isn't your ox that is being gored.

  • Virginia Reader Ashburn, VA
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:18 a.m.

    This issue goes much deeper than any of us realize. God ordained marriage between a man and a woman and we don't question God - even if it doesn't make sense. God is God and if he gave us life and a world to live on than surely he can tell us what is right and what is wrong. I feel for those who are opposed to my views, I know it is not easy, but I fear God more and his judgments.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    David, a two parent family--where the parents love and respect and are committed to each other-- is the ideal situation for children raising.

    When gay marriage is legal across the country--and that will happen sooner than you expect--life will go on; the sun will rise and set. But we will be a fairer and more just society. And the children of gay unions will know that they were wanted.

  • evansrichdm west jordan , UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    God has said what God as said get over it. People still believe in God and follow his commandments, get over it.

    If you done wnat to follow God that is your right, but dont get all high and migthy if other want to follow God and voice their belief, even if it by just living their belief. People have a right to be against gay marriage and voice it, just like those for gay marriage have voiced their opinion. Then in the next life both sides can try to explain their position to God and reap their rewards.

    If you are going to force gay marriage on us then let those that want more then one wife or husband get marriage, but I am sure the gay marriage people will have a fit over that.
    Also who is to say that old people that marry is this life wont be able to have children in the next? Will a gay couple be able to produce children in this life or the next based on science?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    @LovelyDeseret: It is the religious beliefs and the people that hold them which are trying to force people into second class status, not the other way around as you apparently claim. I'm sure Justice Sotomayor will work to support the rights of ALL people, not just the religous.

    @Sal: Would you also recognize the fact that a marriage reco0gnized in once state would, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit clause in the US constitution, be considered legal and binding in another states, regardless whether that marriage could be formalized under that state's laws?


    I've read, studied and analyzed the amicus brief. There's nothing new or different in it; just the same arguments and "facts" produced before. I do wonder about one thing -- the religions reprsented in the brief claim that their positions are not the result of animus or bigotry, but the those are evident in every argument. I wonder whether they don't recognize their animus, or are just trying to ignore it so they look better in their own eyes. Either way, it's really sad to see them make an argument that just isn't true.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    Scoundrel 8:47 pm: You forgot to mention how inappropriate it would be to believe anything President Obama said...

  • DaveRL OGDEN, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    The brief was neither accurate or convincing, prejudice & bigotry is still wrong no matter how lawyers try to paint it. One is free to have their own beliefs but to try impose those beliefs on everyone is not only wrong, it is disgraceful to think in the 21st century some still believe this is the right way as dictated by God.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    We are not bigots and we don't hate you. We just want you and your children to sit in the back of the bus, and use your own drinking fountains, and stay out of our country club. We can be friends - in fact, some of my best friends are gay - but I wouldn't want my brother to be one and get married.

    It is especially telling that some of the same groups that supported "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" are now upset that Gay men and Lesbians aren't willing to settle for domestic unions. My husband and I have been together for 5 years. I want to know that he and I have the same protections as our married neighbors. No more, no less.

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    Same-sex marriage advocates: Admit it. Today, you support homosexual marriage because so many people demand it; the hue and the cry for it has "come out of the closet." Therefore, your logic insists, it must be allowed. Tomorrow, when enough people demand it, will you also support a revamp of the term, "marriage" to include unions with multiple partners? Can you, with greater wisdom and insight than traditional marriage supporters have, predict and promise a beneficial effect on society if that occurs?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:51 a.m.


    I don't care what Boyd Packer says. I don't care what your bishop says. I don't care what your god says. I care what the US Constitution says. Equal treatment for all citizens.

    @Hemlock & panamadesnews;

    A marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. You need to stop focusing on what other people call their marriages and work on your own.


    That's pretty rich, calling us "selfish" when all we want is to enjoy the privileges and protections you enjoy - that you want to keep for yourself.


    "The law of god" is irrelevant. This is civil, secular society we're discussing; not religious law.


    Are you married when you cross state lines? We can't allow state-by-state non-recognition of marriages or you, yourself might end up divorced by driving to California or someplace other than where you were married.

  • Dark Reaver SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:51 a.m.

    I find all the claims in the article and the comments about being for the betterment of the children disingenuous.
    You claim that SSM will hurt the children, yet in Utah, 1 out of 8 children go to bed hungry. Lunches are taken away from children in school and thrown in the trash.
    There is a rainy day fund, it should be empty as long as ONE child does not get 3 meals a day regardless of the reasons why they are hungry.
    1 child dies every 10 seconds on this planet, THAT should be your concern if you actually care about the welfare of children, not whether or not they have one father and one mother, or two or more of the same or different sex parents.
    What do I see in Utah? Hungry children not considered worthy of money hoarded for a "rainy day".

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    Now they say that this is not about bigotry. How they carve themselves out of the bigotry assessment ia amazing. For years they waged this war against the gays behind closed Church doors (Mother Jones expose). They fought hard to enact Prop 8(California), they enacted Amendment 3 (Utah)and they said that "gays " were an affront to Utah for insisting that their marriages be recognized after Judge Shelby's ruling. All these steps afforded the Church the opportunity to demonstrate their "love" of their gay members. They failed in all of these earlier attempts and they are failing now. They should have kept their word when they said they were neutral after Judge Shelby's ruling.The LDS Church is not now neutral, has never been neutral and will never be neutral.

  • Incite Full Layton, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    Seen a lot of bad reasoning in this thread.

    One person argues that there's so much divorce and bad heterosexual parenting that gay marriage cannot possibly "worsen" existing marriage. That's a poor argument, because it is taking the worst examples of nongay marriage and claiming it compares to the best examples of gay marriage. That's specious unless gay couples are claiming that there will be no gay divorce, which we already know to be false from states that have attempted this social experiment.

  • Robert Johnson Sunland, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:44 a.m.

    Opponents of inter-racial marriage would also argue that their beliefs are not based on bigotry. Saying it, doesn't make it so. As far as raising children, it doesn't take a specific bodily organ to raise a child. It takes commitment, patience and love. Same sex parents in many ways are probably BETTER parents than heterosexual couples, because their conscious decision to raise a child often entails overcoming a number of hurdles, so it requires a lot of commitment and patience in the process.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:30 a.m.

    Of course it's bigotry. If you deny someone the privileges you enjoy simply because of your beliefs then you are being bigoted against that someone. Bigotry; Utah's bylaws.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:30 a.m.

    I am pro-Gay marriage and I want to go to the concept of free speech when it comes to saying opposition to Gay marriage is not based in bigotry.

    With the First Amendment, we must accept and allow that speech we do not think appropriate because we are a pluralist society---we accept that more than one idea has value even if we disagree with it. In order to preserve free speech for everyone, we must allow for the free expression of thoughts and speech for everyone, especially if we disagree with those thoughts and expressions. It is the only way to truly ensure free speech.

    Much like free speech, not everyone has to agree with Gay marriage for it to be on the same level as other rights like speech or the right to bear arms. Why? Because the Supreme Court has on more than one occasion upheld marriage as a fundamental human right. Not a fundamental religious right or fundamental heterosexual right---a fundamental human right.

    It doesn't much matter why people oppose Gay marriage. Those who oppose Gay marriage may not be bigots, but they are opposed to equality.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    The brief claims that the positions of these religions isn’t about being anti-gay. It’s about being pro-marriage. “That support [for traditional marriage],” the brief states, “predates by centuries the controversy over same-sex marriage and has nothing to do with disapproval of any group.”

    The brief also expresses concern that a finding against SSM bans “would necessarily declare that Utah and Oklahoma voters hold views on marriage that are irrational or bigoted,” and that this would “malign their deeply held convictions” and thus “demean” them.

    This attempt to decouple their position on marriage from centuries-long denigration of LGBTs is insulting to the intelligence, as is the suggestion that the opponents are the ones in danger of being victimized here. I think the followers of the religions represented by this brief are being poorly served. I think the leaders of these religions have lost their moral credibility on this issue.

  • aunt lucy Looneyville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    "No valid reason but God said so." In my book that's valid enough and end of story. If god says homosexuality is sin, then to me it's sin. God will not be mocked.

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:23 a.m.

    Court Brief includes:

    "...groups joined together to rebut the contention that their belief in marriage between a man and a woman is borne of bigotry. The accusation is false and offensive..."

    Thank you, thank you! Whatever hate you are feeling, is devised in your own heart. Don't throw these awful intentions at us. Supporting Traditional Marriage is not a form of hatred!

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 6:09 a.m.

    First understanding what LGBT community is saying is very important.

    They don't like to be molded into a setting, which is bewildering and strange to them.
    It is up in the head to fight about the definition of marriage, and one line of view will not change the other to comply.
    They are in despirate need to equalize the law for SSM, because the whole world is demanding to put on a "social revolution", why come short of that?

    Second the people of Utah are afraid that political mainstream is going to endanger safety for their children and education. They want to stick to what is known and not reconsider their family values each morning over and over again.

    Conclusion. The miracle or solution to this fight is in the change of mind, as people have set their mind on what they think definitions of marriage should be. You cannot change the mind of the people, unless to offer them something instead.

    A Roundtable such as in Syria would be a good idea, and that to be for a while.
    Pushing each other into corners will increase the tension over time.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:59 a.m.

    Societies have had marriage well before Christianity existed, all over the world. The institution provides a stable situation in which children can grow. Since man-man marriage will have no expectation of a drop in the sex-partners per year count, the stability portion of marriage will cease to be meaningful.

  • bradk77 sandy/USA, 00
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:59 a.m.

    I just don't understand why supporting traditional marriage has to be tied to opposing gay marriage. How does gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage? There are no shortage of licenses available. Many heterosexual marriages have zero procreation opportunity, so that is not an issue. What am I missing? What harm is it if two adult women marry? Giving them normal legal protections associated with marriage does not diminish or limit those same protections enjoyed by traditional married couples. Just because traditional marriage is best doesn't mean non-traditional marriage is harmful.

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:52 a.m.

    I find the argument "marriage should be between one man and one women because that is how it has been for centuries" to be quite compelling. There are many cultural practices that have persisted for centuries, because they have been found to have merit. We do not need to debate about the societal value of marriage, since the historical evidence and legal precedent is so overwhelmingly in favor. The burden of proof would seem to be upon those wishing to invent something new. Let the proponents of redefinition iterate things we have done as human beings for thousands of years that aren't the right thing to do. Supporters of traditional marriage will keep on demonstrating the lasting benefits.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:49 a.m.

    We hear the right claiming. "Marriage is between one man and one woman. It has been that way for centuries. It is Gods will"

    Coming from the religious in Utah, doesn't that ring a bit hollow? Didn't your church founder "change" the definition?

    It is like everyone on here "conveniently" forgot that when making their marriage argument.

  • Johnny Moser Thayne, WY
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:42 a.m.

    I wonder if those on either side of the debate who are so strongly certain and confident that the other side is going to lose have considered what they will do when they are wrong and the courts decide against them?

    What will the LGBT and the Rainbowers do if the SCOTUS decides they are wrong and it is really a State's Right issue?

    What about those religious organizations and those on the other side of the argument?

    Sadly, the "I'll burn the mothers down" attitudes and riots in the streets people don't seem to be in the religious camp; so whose being the bigot and whose being unreasonable?

  • windsor City, Ut
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:36 a.m.

    The inconvenient truth too hard for the for LGBT to accept is that those who oppose SSM do not do so because of:

    Religious belief or religious control

    The truth is hard to accept and hard to bare.
    To claim it is these other reasons is easier for them.
    And so that is why they do it.

  • Dennis Harwich, MA
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:25 a.m.

    Equality, human rights and religion never mix.
    This is a constitutional issue not a religious one. Just because the Church has an opinion doesn't mean it's important or worth listening too when constitutional issues are involved.
    I'm always astounded at the "pick and choose" mentality when it comes to scriptures.
    Let's look at the same book that mentions homosexuality that is so fervently rendered as the word of God.
    Exodus 35:2 :
    "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."
    Shall we gather up a militia and start executing everyone that work on Sundays?
    The Bible says so. It must be true.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Feb. 11, 2014 5:23 a.m.

    Its always bigotry when equal rigths are denied!

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:17 a.m.

    Why, why, why, why?

    So much fuss over a small number of taxpaying citizens attaining their rightful equal rights?

    As every court has found, all the legal arguments boil down to:

    A-- Religion-based objections (not constitutionally relevant)

    B-- Desire of some citizens to hold onto negative opinions of other citizens (not nice)

    Let's get real, folks, please!

    The big problem is that some religions have doctrines which do not allow equal status to their own members and children who are born Gay, and have COMPLETELY lost sight of what Jesus
    Christ would say and do. He would welcome the Gay people, His children who have been persecuted and oppressed, and toss out the "religious" folks who refuse to repent of their part in that.

    The meaning of the story of the camel, the needle, and the rich man:
    ---When you get so full of how right you are, how virtuous you are, how much better you are than others, how your church has the right to control society, heaven is NOT where you are going.

  • cambodia girl Phnom Penh, Cambodia
    Feb. 11, 2014 3:11 a.m.

    "More focus on satisfying adult needs will not benefit vulnerable children." How true that is. It is all about the adult needs. Why wouldn't the Gay and Lesbians want children to be raised by a mom and a dad? They had that opportunity.

    Gay marriage - The thought makes reason stare!

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:35 a.m.

    I find it sad that my church, the Mormon church, cooperates with churches that, for the rest, despise my faith as blasphemous. It is an illusion to think that the Mormon church will gain respect from these other institutions and be recognized by them as a truly Christian church. Perhaps in Utah and a few other states for opportunistic reasons, but never on a worldwide level. Moreover, all of this costly, temporary cooperation is for a lost cause.

  • Epinephrine Grand Forks, ND
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:21 a.m.

    I just don't understand how you can be LDS and support gay marriage. Does this mean more and more church members are doubting the Proclamation to the World, church leadership, revelation, etc.? Aren't these things that church members should live their lives by and believe in?

    The real conflict I am trying to understand as related to gay marriage Utah is not between religious vs. non-religious but between religious vs. religious.

  • Constitution Is King Brigham, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:09 a.m.

    When LDS folks defend their own religion, does that mean they are attacking traditional Christian religions?.... NO it doesn't mean that.
    When Gay folks defend their right to marry, does it mean they are attacking traditional marriage? ... NO, it doesn't mean that.

  • Constitution Is King Brigham, UT
    Feb. 11, 2014 12:07 a.m.

    If 49 states voted to ban Mormon temple marriages, I wonder how many Mormons would be defending those 49 states' "Rights": to do something that is clearly against the US Constitution? Banning gays from marrying is clearly against the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. States do NOT have the right to overrule the US Constitution.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 11:43 p.m.

    @ Badgerbadger

    It's funny how you know that same-sex parents harm children, when not a single lawyer has been able to prove that point in court.

  • ultragrampa Farmington, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 11:43 p.m.

    Hey now Sal - don't go bringing the concept of "immorality" into the debate. If there is actually such a thing as immoral behaviour, then the LGBT gang's obfuscating arguments of "we want our rights" become moot.

    Regardless of how they want to phrase their arguments in order to obtain their "right" to "marry," if their behaviour can be ultimately still be defined as "immoral," they will never win in the poll of public opinion.

    And in my opinion, sexual contact between LGBT persons is immoral.

  • Cole Thomas Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 11:17 p.m.

    Words are meaningless. Actions are what count. Saying it isn't bigotry doesn't magically make it so.

    Do you have any other religious beliefs you'd like to force upon the rest of us, Mormons? Perhaps you'll want to band drinking coffee next? Maybe shopping on Sundays?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Feb. 10, 2014 11:13 p.m.


    Do you mind explaining how people who hold religious beliefs would be forced into "second class status"?

    They'll still be able to marry whoever they like and have as many children as they decide on.

    They'll still be able to raise those children based on whatever moral tenets they choose.

    How will legal recognition of same-sex couples prevent from happening that in any way?

    In fact, with the exception of knowing that you can't use the law to force others to live by your beliefs, how will two men or two women marrying affect you at all?

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 11:09 p.m.

    Should single people be permitted to marry themselves? Then their children will be blessed by living in a married home. But how does that help the children? Or the adult?

    Calling single people married is completely silly. Yet if we redefine marriage to include same sex couples, why not include single people too?

    Both are equally silly and should not be done.

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Feb. 10, 2014 11:07 p.m.

    News Flash: The Governor and AG of Nevada announced today that Nevada is dropping its defense of the state wide gay marriage ban. The quote from the AG's office is "the state's argument cannot withstand legal scrutiny." This statement came today in a motion filed w/ the US 9th Circuit court of Appeals.

    According to the AG's office, based on their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this position is no longer defensible in court.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 10:59 p.m.

    Let the people decide state by state whether to uphold traditional marriage or not. There will be less divisiveness if this process is allowed to play out. Witness the hatred, contention, and anger Judge Shelby has stirred up by circumventing the normal democratic process. It has been years of contention and anger since the courts decided Roe vs Wade--should have left it to the people. They were approving abortion state by state. The same is happening with gay marriage.

    As Americans abandon God and religion they are gradually accepting of most immoral behaviors.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 10, 2014 10:51 p.m.

    I wonder if Justice Sotomayor will be persuaded by the religious issue. I doubt she wants to force religious beliefs and the people that hold them into second class status. She might be the wild card.

    It is good to see these religious groups uniting in a common good. I look forward to the day that marriage is once again cherished and respected.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    If polygamy is a red herring, then so to is the fact that in some heterosexual marriages children cannot be conceived. It is beside the point.

    One major purpose of marriage is to fulfill the law of God and to have children, raise them within a family, with a father and a mother.

    The fact that in many cases those ideals are not present does not mean that we should aim for the lowest common denominator and normalize the breakdown of marriage and families. I am sure that in most of those marriages where having children is not possible, the husband and wife feels great pain.

    In a homosexual relationship, anatomically and physiologically is it simply not possible to have children. It is not meant to be.

    Standards are set to be sought after, even when they are not always met. This is certainly true in marriage.

    The state should establish and maintain the ideal marriage and family situation for children, even when it is not always attained.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    Those who favor calling unions between same sex couples 'marriage' have only their self interest in mind. They want societal endorsement for themselves. It has nothing to do with what is best for society or children. It is 100% selfish.

    If there are children involved, the 'parent(s)' have selfishly denied the children a father or a mother for their own gratification.

    Even though some marriages don't last, (it would be better if they did) that is no excuse for normalizing relationships as parental when they are not, hurting children in the process.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 10:27 p.m.

    Call it what you will, it manifests itself the same.

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 10:12 p.m.

    To Hemlock:

    Very good points. I agree 100%.

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 10:08 p.m.

    Re: Church Member

    There are also things that are done now that are not the "right thing to do". Gay and lesbian relationships cannot be considered marriages because they cannot be solemnized by the conjugal process. The uniting of gay and lesbian partners should be considered "unions" and such unions might be given all of the benefits that marriage partners enjoy. But to consider them marriages is a real stretch for the reason stated above as well as many more reasons not mentioned in my posting.

  • LittleStream Carson City, NV
    Feb. 10, 2014 10:02 p.m.

    Heterosexual marriages end in divorce 50% of the time, tearing the children between their parents. Heterosexual marriages and partners sexually abuse, physically abuse their children. With the scientific capabilities of artificial insemination we have today, any gay couple can have children. Gay couples do not turn their children into gay children. These are all issues that I struggle with on this issue. I also don't believe people who are truly gay (as opposed to bisexual)turn into heterosexual. When we quote the bible on this subject, why then do we choose other parts of the bible to ignore?

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 9:48 p.m.

    The brief's assertion is not "dishonest and desperate." It is acknowledging that marriage is between a man and a woman - a biological reality to become "one flesh." Anyone wanting to have legal rights and commitments to another person, irrespective of gender, is free to make those commitments. Co-opting the term "marriage" is disingenuous and deceptive.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 10, 2014 9:42 p.m.

    They keep focusing on this idea of children and claim that marriage should be child centric not adult centric.

    That would be fine if they actually wanted to focus on children - but they don't. They deny marriage to same-sex couples with children while granting it to heterosexual couples without children. Obviously, marriage is about more than children.

    I really don't worry myself with what a church I don't belong to thinks about marriage or anything else - but they should not be able to use the law to force me to follow their religious teachings.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 9:34 p.m.

    Are the State’s interests in responsible procreation and optimal child-rearing furthered by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying?


    Then why is the State and it's backers fighting so hard to prevent same-sex couples from getting married? ANIMUS pure and simple. Quit hiding behind these stale arguments and religious privilege.

  • johnthomasjones St. George, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 9:31 p.m.

    Are the State's interests in responsible procreation and optimal child-rearing furthered by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying?

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 9:28 p.m.

    “We do not reject you. … We cannot reject you. … We will not reject you, because we love you.”
    -Boyd K Packer

    The problem with hard feelings is that it's hard to see clearly. But the message is clear!

    God placed leaders on the Earth for our benefit. When messages of encouragement and hope are given, we have a choice to accept the conditions of the truth or reject them. We can't change the truth, we can only choose whether we will live by it or not. As a law of happiness, or code of conduct, it can be hard to live. It can even be hard to want to live by. But along with positive messages we are given something much more- Every General Conference the brethren remind us of their love for us and our Heavenly Father's love. There is no hatred found in these messages. What is found is open arms and love; a plea to return, yes, but a plea to return to something good.

    Don't believe me? Go ask your bishop if you're loved. You may be surprised how powerful you'll feel it.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 9:24 p.m.

    Why is it okay for a single person to adopt a child in Utah but allegedly harmful if a same-sex couple does so? The lack of consistency suggests that this is all just an excuse to try and justify a same-sex marriage ban.

  • Uncle Rico Provo, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 9:05 p.m.

    Most homosexuals are not for equality, they are for what they want.

    Most oppose people like Cody Brown who has multiple wives. Shouldn't he have rights to marry multiple people if he wants?(all consenting adults)

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    It is a church or a political organization?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Feb. 10, 2014 8:32 p.m.

    I feel it's best to judge people on what to do, not what they say. They can sugarcoat it all they like, but they still want to enshrine their own personal biases into law based on no valid reason besides "because God said so."

    The fact that they're talking like this means that they're grasping at straws. They're going to lose and deep down, they know it.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 8:26 p.m.

    I find the argument "marriage should be between one man and one women because that is how it has been for centuries" pretty funny. Slavery has been around for centuries, should we allow that? Women have been treated inferior to men for centuries, should we continue that? Since when does doing something for a long time make it the right thing to do?? There are many things that we have done as human beings for thousands of years that aren't the right thing to do.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 8:22 p.m.

    This whole line of reasoning would be credible if senior citizens were not allowed to marry, if childless marriages were easily dissolvable - on the basis of not being able to produce children (or unwillingness to adopt children) - and divorces where children were involved were much more difficult to obtain.

    Since none of these things are true, the argument is pretty flimsy, no matter how many churches, citizens, or even Vladimir Putin's opinion, not withstanding.