Advocates rally and 'roar' for anti-discrimination bill


Return To Article
  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    March 9, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    @SallyOMalley quoted some information from the website of American Vision.

    American Vision teaches Dominion Theology, and has the open goal of a theocratic government in the United States with the death penalty for many groups and individuals who oppose their interpretation of biblical law.

    This is not rumor or innuendo, research Dominion Theology and the groups that teach it. Read their goals for this country and the many groups they list as enemies or threats.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 8, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    @ LoveBug "..... then your telling a Christian that their God is discriminatory and that is far from the truth."

    But whose God dictates civil marriage law?

    The following Christian churches love, embrace, honor and perform same-sex marriages:

    Affirming Pentecostal Church International
    Alliance of Christian Churches
    Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
    The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
    Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
    Community of Christ
    Conservative Judaism
    Ecumenical Catholic Church
    Ecumenical Catholic Communion
    The Episcopal Church
    Evangelical Anglican Church In America
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
    Inclusive Orthodox Church
    Metropolitan Community Church
    Old Catholic Church
    Progressive Christian Alliance
    Reconciling Pentecostals International
    Reconstructionist Judaism
    Reform Judaism
    Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
    Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
    Unitarian Universalist Church
    United Church of Christ
    Unity Church

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    March 8, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    @Ted H

    "You contradict yourself."

    There is no contradiction. The fears that are being spread are that any man can simply decide to claim to be a woman and then be allowed to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing facilities. That is simply not the case. The text of the bill says that the burden of proof will be on the person requesting the use of those facilities. It will require medical documentation.

    It would be your burden to prove that you were the actual owner of the my home. Do you have mortgage documents? Do you have the title stored away somewhere? Do you have evidence to prove that the majority of voters elected you President of the United States?

    Quite frankly, these arguments are used by people who don't care to exhibit any form of empathy for people who are in any way different. Our community would be a much better place if we stopped making light of the serious issues others face and started trying to be a little bit kinder to one another.

    March 8, 2014 12:34 a.m.

    As a Christian I feel I am being forced to accept the behavior and lifestyle that goes against what the word of God says. If you consider that discriminatory then your telling a Christian that their God is discriminatory and that is far from the truth. I believe we are at the end of times and the Bible specifically talks about who will inherit the kingdom of heaven and who will not. It would be a disgrace to other states if Utah were to be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah, because we are representing the lifestyle of those cities. I always took pride in living in the State of Utah. Recognizing we represented good family values, the commitment to education, but most importantly representing how we lived our lives-leading by a Godly example, where are we going?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 7, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    " Why does them having 'sex' make their relationship so much more special and valuable to society than my relationship to my siblings, or my parents?"

    Our courts have determined that a right to marry someone for which there is no intimate attraction is no right at all. Moreover, sexual orientation for most people is not a choice, it is fundamental to ones personhood and identity, and requirement to change sexual orientation in order to marry is unconstitutional. Religious belief, on the other hand is considered a choice. No evidence exists that a desire to marry 3 or more people, dogs, cats, parents or siblings is an innate characteristic, like gender, race and sexual orientation. Therefore, the government is not obligated to recognize every type of relationship a person may seek to enter.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 7, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    @JSB "Children can and do thrive in a lot of different kinds of “families” but, for the sake of the rising generation, we should strive for the ideal, not just the selfishly convenient."

    Then you need to propose a parental fitness test in order to obtain a civil marriage license. Ideal must include criminal record checks, income and educational attainment. All known predictors of ideal child outcomes (the rising generation).

    Meanwhile, please explain how excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage makes children thrive more ideally in opposite sex civil marriages? Please describe the process in as much detail as possible so I can understand.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    March 7, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    If this bill ever sees the light of day, how do I explain right from wrong to my children when a man dressed as a woman followings my daughter in the restroom?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    March 7, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    @ RedShirtMIT: "Aren't we tying to make things equal for everybody? Why should gays be able to get all of the benefits of marriage just because they want to legitimize their sexual relationship, yet 2 best friends cannot get the same benefits. That is not equal and it is not fair."

    Sir, your above argument is intellectually dishonest. That, or you are being willfully obtuse.

    That said, your one comment does indeed completely reveal animus toward homosexuals: "Why should gays be able to get all of the benefits of marriage just because they want to legitimize their sexual relationship?"

    Think about what you have just said here... do you believe heterosexuals only marry to "legitimize their sexual relationship"? Of course not. So why would you want to apply this standard to the homosexual community? Do you see the disconnect here?

  • SallyOMalley Bozeman, MT
    March 6, 2014 6:56 p.m.

    "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way." None of the people fighting for special gay rights wants us to know that it's a choice they are making.

    (I say special gay rights, because the lesbian woman has the same right as a heterosexual woman to marry a man, and a gay man has the same rights as a heterosexual man to marry a woman. Gays want a special right to marry someone of the same gender.)

    I quoted the above from american vision dot org, but my comment was denied due to the link. I am not linking here, only providing the source I used for the quote.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 4:41 p.m.

    Somebody needs to stop this. I say that from my heart. This is not what life should be and some of you need to listen to us! We shouldn't have to experience these things! It destroys people and it destroys relationships! Sometimes it changes life and it is never the same again! Keep the beliefs you need to keep, but somehow it needs to change! You have to allow us to live our lives and let God be our judge! We can take responsibility for our own lives and we can face God with it! Somebody has to see how wrong it is! People do their bad deeds and they walk away from us and we are the ones who have to deal with the pain! They dismiss what they do by using their beliefs! People can't see or feel it because thery don't take time to understand! we can say it is wrong. It is our lives that are on the line!
    We are meant to care about each other! Surely people see that what is happening does the opposite! So much is lost! We can't make people care!

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    I have lived here all my life! I grew up among these people and when I love somebody, it never goes away! I realized that one day when we were talking about a friend who did something really bad to me and then hasn't spoken to me in 25 years! I was still thinking about him and some friends asked me why I still cared. I realized that it would always be there. I will always love the members of the church and I feel tremendous pain to see what they are doing and to experience all of the contempt they have for us and knowing how bad they think we are is devastating! How could they believe such degrading things and then they are obsessed with the bad things they are doing! We have to face discrimination from the people we love! What are we supposed to do? It is so wrong and they don't see it! Instead of passing an anti-discrimination law, they want to pass laws that allow them to discriminate against us! It is so very wrong!

    March 6, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    RBB, some people called for a boycott of a movie based on one of Orson Scott Card's books; you call that discrimination.

    Some people also called for a boycott of Disney when they first offered benefits to same sex couples. Was that discrimination as well?

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    March 6, 2014 3:22 p.m.

    To "TheTrueVoice" but that is not equal. Aren't we tying to make things equal for everybody? Why should gays be able to get all of the benefits of marriage just because they want to legitimize their sexual relationship, yet 2 best friends cannot get the same benefits. That is not equal and it is not fair.

    Don't you want to treat everybody equally? Why don't you want to be fair?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    March 6, 2014 2:46 p.m.

    @jsb, 2Cents: You might enjoy reading the Amicus brief of 40 Family Law Professors. (Hollinger, et al, filed March 4.)

    "Utah’s marriage ban, however, does not further child well-being or responsible parenting. As Amici demonstrate, Appellants’ arguments to the contrary lack any basis in history, law, or logic.

    "Utah’s marriage ban actually undermines its interests in children and child welfare. The ban does not assist children in any family, but it does inflict direct and palpable harms on same-sex couples and their children who are denied access to hundreds of important benefits under state and federal law.

    "Finally, even if there were any rational reason to believe that the ban would induce better behavior by different-sex couples, both Utah authorities and the U.S. Supreme Court have foreclosed the punishment of children as a means to influence adult behavior."

    In sum, marriage rights and children's rights are two separate issues, and one doesn't determine or fix the other. Utah used to try to do this with illegitimacy laws, but SCOTUS shot those down long ago.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    March 6, 2014 2:38 p.m.


    I'm not a doctor but I do work in the medical field and I can tell you that yes, medical professionals use a very simple way to determine whether someone is male or female at birth and that yes. And yes, most very young children understand this. Yes there are rare cases of people who dont "fit" those definitions, but those still are the definitions used.

    "Finally, before one even gets to definitions, one might have to sort out questions like -- is someone fully male or fully female? "

    You're getting ahead of yourself, how could we determine if somoene was fully male or female if we didnt know what male/female was to begin with?

    I can tell you're really trying hard to be philosophical about this - and thats fine. You appear to be well intentioned. And perhaps you're onto a good idea that will change the world as far as societies seperate genders or not.

    But what is more relevant and applicable to this article is what this bill proposes.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    March 6, 2014 2:21 p.m.


    Are you looking for a reason to take offense? Biologically, the main reason for sex is reproduction and in the human species this has evolved into a heterosexual pair bond called marriage. Sex within the heterosexual pair bond not only is the way a zygote is formed, it can also enhance the strength of the commitment of the bonded pair. If babies don't come, that doesn't mean the couple don't have a strong pair bond. For practical legal reasons, the definition of marriage should be as simple and clear as possible in order to to avoid unnecessary confusion and protect the traditional family and the institution of marriage. That's why the definition of marriage has been a legal exclusive relationship between one man and one woman. This is simple, uncomplicated and protects the institution of marriage and family while preserving the best environment for children. Anything else becomes unnecessarily complicated and then where does it stop? You and your spouse are legally married which is as it should be. But, what will happen if marriage becomes John and George and Greg and Sam? Or those four plus Suzie and Sally? Do you really want this?

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    Noah preached for 100 years while building his ark, but it didn't do any good. Indulging in evil was the cause, none of that whit is purported by artist license.
    That night in Sodom, they were yelling outside Lot's door demand access to his male visitors.
    It's not the piece of paper they want, it's acceptance of their chosen life style. If the government capitulates to them, then they will be 'knocking on our doors' next.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    March 6, 2014 1:28 p.m.


    My spouse and I cannot have children; we cannot "unite the sperm and egg...." The argument you offer for continued marriage discrimination is fallacious so long as you continue to support and allow folks like my spouse and I to marry. Further, your "it's about children" argument impugns my relationship with my opposite sex spouse and I take great offense at that.

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    March 6, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    Article states "My parents tried to show me that their relationship was normal, and I learned that," Smyth said. "But the rest of the world showed me that there was discrimination..."

    Teaching that same-sex marriage is not what God intended is a religious right. It is not discrimination. I agree that people should not be turned away from housing, and other essential needs, but I will still teach my children that marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not discriminate against people who believe otherwise, we both should have the ability to believe what we believe is true in our hearts.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 6, 2014 12:38 p.m.


    So to be clear, you have a definition of male and female, it's widely shared and it's so simple even a 3-year-old can understand it.

    My whole point is that the binary understanding of "male" and "female" maybe doesn't serve us so well. I maintain that questions of "male" and "female" are scientifically (and socially) complicated. Answers to those questions might involve endocrinologists, gynecologists, experts in internal medicine, experts on gender and even psychological experts.

    Also, when you add up the constellation of occurrences and situations that might make determining true gender problematic, it's not even all that rare.

    Finally, before one even gets to definitions, one might have to sort out questions like -- is someone fully male or fully female? if not, what should society's approach to that person be?

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    March 6, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    The Maxwell quote shared above perfectly illustrates why anti-discrimination laws are necessary: the majority has a natural tendancy to discriminate -- even thought they once may have been subjected to it themselves. "Today, in place of some traditionally shared values (like equality) is a demanding conformity pushed, ironically, by those (in the local majority) who eventually will not tolerate those who once tolerated them (the national majority)."

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    March 6, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    @RedShirtMIT: "Imagine you have a roommate that you love, but are not interesed in having sex with, and trust to make medical decisions for you if you were incapicitated."

    I realize you are being facetious, but if this was a genuine concern, I have three word for you: "power of attorney". Problem solved.

    "Why is it that you can't claim your roommate as a dependant for health insurance?"

    Primarily because that is ILLEGAL, unless your roommate is *actually* your full-time dependent, and you declare him as such on your IRS 1040 form.

    "and why is it that you can't have the same protections that the gays now get?"

    Erm.... you realize "the gays" currently have no protections, right? That is the what SB100 is all about.It will correct the situation where "the gays" are not afforded the protections you currently enjoy right now.

    Example: you can not be fired Utah for simply being heterosexual. But your gay co-worker can be fired just for being homosexual. The two of you are currently being treated unequally under the law. SB100 seeks to correct this inequality.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    March 6, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    To "Tekakaromatagi" it is worse than that. Imagine you have a roommate that you love, but are not interesed in having sex with, and trust to make medical decisions for you if you were incapicitated. Why is it that you can't claim your roommate as a dependant for health insurance, and why is it that you can't have the same protections that the gays now get? Is the fraternal love and commitment for your roommate any less valid than the gays?

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    March 6, 2014 11:19 a.m.


    Bringin up those rare cases(which I've never denied exist) is disengenous and frankly hurts your argument unless your basis for supporing people who are one gender but claim to be another is presence of such physical ambiguity because as we both know not all people who are confused about their gender have such physical ambiguities.

    It all comes back to what is the definition of male and female. To present cases that dont fit into the definition widely used doesn't help unless you are presenting a new and better definition.

    So what is it values? If you dont like the definition of what makes someone a male and what makes someone a female that most people use, propse something new.

    But you havent.

    And again, "whatever someone says they are" is not a better definition. Medical professionals get things wrong sometimes. No one argues that.

    But to Chris's point, if competent medical professionals say Chris B is a human and not a dinosaur, I'm going to trust the doctors even if Chris "identifes" as a dinosaur.

    So, propose a new defintion of male and female if you'd like.

  • Brightenpath Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 6, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    From LDS General Conference:

    "Another friend served an outstanding mission, followed by rigorous academic training. He hoped to have a family. His trial of faith: feelings of same-sex attraction. He wrote me, "...Living [the law of chastity] is a challenge, but did we not come to earth to confront challenges and to show God our love and respect for Him by keeping His commandments?"
    "Trial of Your Faith", Elder Neil L. Andersen, LDS General Conference, October 2012

    "Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism."
    "Protect the Children", Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Conference, October 2012

    That said,

    "Today, in place of some traditionally shared values is a demanding conformity
    pushed, ironically, by those who eventually will not tolerate those who once
    tolerated them."
    "Repent of [Our] Selfishness", Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Conference, May 1999

    "Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
    As to be hated needs but to be seen;
    Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
    We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
    - Alexander Pope (1688–1744), Essay on Man, Epistle ii, Line 217
    Conferences: 10/1979, 04/1989, 04/1993, 04/2006, 10/2002 and others

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    March 6, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    @New to Utah - "Perhaps [Sen. Urquhart] has forgotten that 2/3rds of the voters approved the constitutional amendment"

    This article is about an anti-discrimination bill that the legislature has refused to hear this session even though it is widely supported by Utahns. It is not about same-sex marriage.

    In February, the Deseret News reported the following:
    "Utahns overwhelmingly favor a statewide nondiscrimination law, according to a Deseret News/KSL poll this month.
    The survey found that 72 percent of residents say Utah should make it against the law to fire someone from a job solely because they are gay or transgender. It also showed that 67 percent favor a law that would make it illegal to deny a person housing solely because they are gay or transgender."

    Sen. Urquhart is representing the people of Utah.

  • Ted H. Midvale, UT
    March 6, 2014 10:15 a.m.


    You contradict yourself.

    "The bill will not open up our restrooms, dressing areas, shower facilities, and locker rooms to anyone who simply decides to identify as the opposite gender" but then go on to say: "if an employer has reason to believe that an applicant's or employee's gender identity is not sincerely held, the employer may require the applicant or employee to provide evidence of that gender identity"

    According to the bill, yes, if someone identifies as a certain gender they would be allowed in that restroom/locker room. So how is that not opening to anyone who decides to identify as the opposite gender.

    But more than that, as Chris so correctly points out, what does "identify as" prove?

    What if I identify as the owner of your home?

    What if I identify as the President of the United States.

    See how silly this is?

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 6, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    @ Ken,

    It's all so simple for you, isn't it?

    Let's take your hypothetical 3-year-old. As this child grows and matures, should his/her understanding remain the same (on this or any other subject)? -- should it remain fixed, black & white, binary? or should this child be let in on the fact that the subject is more complex and nuanced than he/she was capable of understanding at 3?

    As far as "competent medical professionals" go, judging by your comment, I'm not sure you know what they've said on questions of gender, human sexuality, etc. Here are 3 well-known persons who may challenge your understanding. Look them up:

    1.) Carolyn Cossey XXXY (Klinefelter’s)
    2.) Julia Child XY (CAIS)
    3.) Caster Semenya

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    March 6, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi: "How come I can't marry my sister or my parents? I never said I was going to have sex with anyone. I love them a lot. Why can I not get recognition for being committed to the people that I love?"

    This represents a complete logic failure.

    This argument is simply a "straw man", a common type of informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

    So your straw man fails, at least to those who understand that your proposed consanguineous relationship with your sister/parents is still viewed as incest, which is ILLEGAL in this country. That is just one reason it fails.

    The other reason your straw man fails is that your relationship with your sister and parents are already defined by law: they are your immediate blood family.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    Sen Steve Urquhart in my opinion seems to identify more closely with the Utah Democrat Party than the Republican. He advocates similar legislation as Obama. He should consider switching his party affiliation. Perhaps he has forgotten that 2/3rds of the voters approved the constitutional amendment favoring traditional marriage. Judge Shelby,ruled from the bench that he knew better than the people which the Supreme Court finally blocked. It is time to cool down
    and see how things unfold. Utahan's don't approve of discrimination as whole but they also have a right to determine the laws they want to live under.

  • Ted H. Midvale, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    ChrisB - Stick to the political articles and stay away from sports. You're the man! My wife has the right of privacy in public locker rooms. So do my daughters.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    @Values Voter - you're right. And it would similarly take some extraordinary evidence that a man who has been determined to be male by competent medical professionals to prove he is a female.

    It's not rocket science. Most 3 year olds know the differnece between male and female.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    FatherOfFour, Your analogy does not hold up. There is no law which prevents you from hiring a homosexual. The proposed law says you have to hire, rent to, etc., homosexuals, transgenders, etc. whether you want to or not. Do you want a man, who decides he wants to be a woman sharing a bathroom with you female employees. I know many women who are not comfortable with that. If they decide to leave, there is nothing I can do as an employer. I lose good employees because the guy wants to be a girl.

    What about if your 6'3" 270lb salesman suddenly wants to wear miniskirts and lipstick? He should be free to do what he wants at home, but I should be free to associate with whom I want and I should not have to hire someone who will turn off my customers so I can validate his lifestyle choice. Your rights do not trump mine.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 6, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    @Chris B,

    So -- your claim is that you're a flying purple dinosaur? That's a rather extraordinary claim. I would say that requires some rather extraordinary evidence. In the absence of any extraordinary evidence, (or any evidence at all), I would take your claim about as seriously as I take the claim that Santa Claus exists -- except I've actually received verifiable gifts from Santa Claus, so my belief in him may be more justified.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    I believe the issue at hand is the anti-discrimination bill, not gay marriage.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 6, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    How come I can't marry my sister or my parents? I never said I was going to have sex with anyone. I love them a lot. Why can I not get recognition for being committed to the people that I love?

    Or is marriage only about sex. I can understand if a man and a woman get married which is a relationship where one would expect as a natural part of the relationship that they will have sex. So there could very well be children involved. The wife will have to give up her career to bear the children and to care for them. The children are the next generation so we give this relationship benefits.

    Now if two men or two women have 'sex' somehow, why do they get a recognition that I don't get loving my parents. Why does them having 'sex' make their relationship so much more special and valuable to society than my relationship to my siblings, or my parents? I am a legal stranger. I am a new kind of second class citizen.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    March 6, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    Remember the four "R"s of success?


    If you carry these four "R"s then you will do just fine in Utah.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 6, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    "Therefore, it is discrimination unless I am treated as a flying purple dinosaur at all times. "

    Hmm, You raise an interesting point.

    The incredible hulk is sometimes a man and sometimes a giant green hulk.
    Superman transforms from a mild mannered reporter to the man of steel.
    The Green Goblin morphs from respected scientist to a super villain.
    And one would be remiss to leave out Underdog.

    See, these are complicated issues.
    I will clear my schedule today as more pondering is definitely warranted.

    March 6, 2014 7:49 a.m.


    No Arizona tried to pas a bill, which the governor vetoed, that would allow any type of discrimination in the name of Christianity. You want to turn blacks away from your lunch counters, say you're a Christian. You want to refuse service to Hispanics, say you're a Christian. You want to open up a seething torrent of blind hatred towards gays and lesbians, say you're a Christian. It allows you to discriminate as much as you want. It failed in Arizona, but it would have easily passed in Utah.

    If there were laws in Mississippi, Alabama, or South Carolina, that side you could refuse to hire Mormons, or deny them housing. We would hear about it everyday on Deseret News. But deny the same things to gays and that's ok.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 7:41 a.m.


    Can you prove I am not a flying purple dinosaur?

    You cannot.

    Therefore, it is discrimination unless I am treated as a flying purple dinosaur at all times.

    Please do not discriminate against me for identifying as a flying purple dinosaur.

    thank you

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    March 6, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    "My parents tried to show me that their relationship was normal, Really? Not in my world!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    March 6, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    @KnowItLiveItLoveIt: You are not the only one who loves God. Nor are those who oppose civil rights and marriage rights for gay people the only ones who love God.

    The struggle for equality is supported by many people who love God at least as much as you claim to. We see it as our spiritual and civic duty to follow His commandments to love our neighbors, to leave judgement to Him, and not to question His motives. Further, by inviting gays and lesbians to worship with us, we've learned that the love of God is just as strong in them as it is in us. We see God's love and their love of God in their relationships, just as surely as it is in ours.

    There is one source for all the love in the world. That universal source, God, doesn't parcel it out with an eyedropper, or only allow those who brashly claim devotion to have any. It's freely available to all. But, I don't understand how you can claim to love God when you refuse to see God's love in those you wish to ostracize.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    March 6, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    Did they really "roar"? Every day it's like a circus with these folks, and why is it the headline everyday?

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    March 6, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    Is the purpose of marriage to help to provide the best possible environment in which to raise children? Or is it to provide legal recognition of a relationship between two or more adults who claim to love each other? That’s the issue here. The long-term result of changing the definition of marriage will be recognition of multiple partner (3 or more adults) “marriages” and families. Children can and do thrive in a lot of different kinds of “families” but, for the sake of the rising generation, we should strive for the ideal, not just the selfishly convenient. I am very concerned that gay marriage will eventually lead to making marriage meaningless and the concept of family destroyed on the altar of some fuzzy concept of “we love each other and want to live together.” Whether, homosexual and heterosexual, it is selfish to behave in or strive for legalization of behaviors that will lead to more and more children living in dysfunctional homes.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    March 6, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    If you cannot discriminate against sexual orientation does that mean that a family with children must rent their basement apartment to a pediphile? Pediphilia is his sexual orientation and discrimination is bad - right?

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    March 6, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    And please make sure that the bill has an express exemption to allow discrimination against anyone who expresses their opinion in opposition to homesexual conduct - like the American preacher in Scotland who was arrested for saying that homosexual behavior is a sin, or Orson Scott Card who had the audacity to say he supports traditional marriage. It is not an anti discrimination bill. It is a you must accept us bill.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    March 6, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    Didn't Arizona try to pass a bill to prevent discrimination Christians have faced recently? That's hardly how you convince people to support anti-discrimination bills.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    March 6, 2014 6:18 a.m.

    I suggest that people read the text of the bill and then read the comments of their own arguments against the bill to see if they actually match. The bill will not open up our restrooms, dressing areas, shower facilities, and locker rooms to anyone who simply decides to identify as the opposite gender. The text of the bill actually says "if an employer has reason to believe that an applicant's or employee's gender identity is not sincerely held, the employer may require the applicant or employee to provide evidence of that gender identity."

    I will admit that I don't understand a lot about gender identity issues, but I am sure it is very sensitive for anyone dealing with the complexity of their situations. I will leave it up to the medical professionals skilled in those areas to make proper judgments about that and do my best to treat everyone with the dignity they deserve.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    March 6, 2014 5:53 a.m.

    JSB, it is discrimination because none of your arguments work. Sex is one means to reproduction, but reproduction isn't the only reason we engage in sex. Sexual orientation has no bearing on whether one is capable of being a good parent. Children have a greater chance of thriving in the context of any stable, loving relationship, no matter the gender of the parents or their biological relation to the child. Allowing gay people to marry doesn't change the definition. The definition isn't dependent on gender.

    Both sides of this argument believe they are fighting for a health society. We've tried your way. It has caused needless devastation of lives, needless loss of potential. Children shunned and kicked out of their homes; adults fired from jobs; children and adults harassed, assaulted and worse, all because of a characteristic that they did not get to choose. All of this will wane over time as LGBTs are acknowledged and treated as full-fledged and equal citizens. Can you say this for your side of the argument?

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    March 5, 2014 11:34 p.m.

    I know one thing for sure... which is that we are broken without God. I know this from my own life, from my friends, and even from my examination of those around me.

    When we participate in things we shouldn't, the spirit withdraws from our lives. But we need His help and guidance. We need His love to feel a spiritual happiness not found anywhere else. The only way we can invite God into our life is by giving Him a place in it. When we replace what we shouldn't be doing with what we should be, we are inviting God into our lives.

    We need to preserve love and kindness. Most of us agree on that. But we need to preserve marriage also. If we don't, there will be more hatred and pain in our lives. It's up to us. We either keep the commandments and receive everything our Heavenly Father has to give us... or we reject Him and face the consequences which are inevitable.

    God DOES love us. But we need to love Him in order to allow ourselves to feel it. If we love Him, we keep His commandments.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    March 5, 2014 11:07 p.m.

    @JSB: In all your many posts, you've never explained how allowing homosexuals to marry would have any of the feared results you keep suggesting.

    I strongly recommend you read the Amicus (Friend of the Court) brief filed by those states which already accept civil same-sex marriage. It's signed onto by the Attorneys General of 15 states and the District of Columnbia, and decisively disproves every single one of the reasons and assertions in the Utah State brief in support of restoring Amendment 3.

    It's their actual experience versus your fevered, unfounded worries.

    Heterosexual marriage and birth rates in those states are up, not down. Divorce rates are down, not up. Absolutely none of the scare tactic "justifications" to deny gay people marriage have any basis in fact. To say otherwise is either speculative, delusional, or intentionally misleading.

  • G-Day-M8 WVC, UT
    March 5, 2014 10:41 p.m.

    The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 5, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    HIDDEN(its not mentioned hardly ever) in this bill would allow any person to go in any locker room or restroom they want as long as they say they "identify" with that gender, regardless of the gender they actually ARE

    I can "identify" as a flying purple dinosaur. That doesn't mean I AM a flying purple dinosaur.

    Similarly, a man may "identify" as a woman

    That doesn't make him a woman any more than my identifying as a flying purple dinosaur makes me a flying purple dinosaur.

    Therefore I cannot support this bill in good conscience.

    Women deserve to only have women in their locker room.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    March 5, 2014 10:20 p.m.

    Is it discrimination to want a healthy civil society and to oppose those who want to undermine it? The purpose for sex is reproduction: 1) to unite the sperm and egg; and 2) to help the zygote to develop into a mature adult individual. In the human species permanent heterosexual pair bonds have evolved because it takes a long time to train human children into mature, responsible, productive adults. Humans who grow up in a home where there is a strong heterosexual pair bond are more likely to mature into well-adjusted adults than if the heterosexual pair bond is damaged, corrupted or missing. In the past this heterosexual pair-bonding has been called marriage. Societies, recognizing the important contribution married couples make to the community, have passed laws that promote and protect this relationship. Changing the definition of marriage will not change the biological reality of the need for strong, heterosexual pair bonds if we want well-adjusted children and a strong, healthy society.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    March 5, 2014 10:19 p.m.

    This article presumes the Supreme Court will accept the (same-sex) marriage equality case. That may not happen. If Circuit Courts of Appeal rule uniformly, citing earlier Supreme Court precedence, such as Romer, Lawrence, Loving and Windsor, the Supreme Court may accept it as settled law. It would take disagreement between the various Circuits before SCOTUS would need to step in. They may very well grant cert anyway, but bear in mind that the stay in Kitchen was only granted by SCOTUS to last until the 10th Circuit hands down a ruling. Doesn't sound to me like they're itching to hear this case.

    The ruling from the 10th Circuit might be Utah's final ruling if the State loses.

    I note that the Court has given Schaerr's crew the 7 day and 5000 word extensions they asked to have for their answering brief. This is the second extension they've been granted now. The Court is clearly taking great pains to entertain every request of Utah. This will doubtless make it even less likely that there will be grounds for higher appeal.

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    March 5, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    Does anyone really think these people are just to go quietly away? Not when every court in the land grovels at their feet and businesses want to stay out of court.

    These "tolerant" folks are no more: they want everything they can force government to givem in exchange for the rest of us being "inclusive".