Quantcast
Utah

Utah group launches campaign to promote same-sex marriage with personal stories

Comments

Return To Article
  • brianben Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    The Mormon Church may dictate the beliefs of its own members, but there are people of other faiths and non-believers who disagree with them on this issue.

    It's fine if Latter-day Saints don't believe that same-sex couples should marry -- then, very well, don't allow for that in YOUR church -- but it's not your right to decide that for those who believe differently.

    Many of those in the Protestant and Jewish faiths believe that civil marriage rights should be extended equally, to their gay and lesbian family members -- many of whom are already raising children, AND whose children deserve the protective rights that come with "marriage."

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 23, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    @tim_the_tool_man_taylor

    "Do they really expect to be treated as equal after having chosen to enter into an inferior relationship. (Inferior in the sense that they cannot reproduce)"

    =========

    This is where you are wrong.
    This is why you will fail.

    With a Divorce rate of 50% - even amongst us Heterosexual, single married couples -
    Defending Marriage means Cleansing our own inner vessels and staying Married first,
    and stop worrying about what over people are saying or doing.

    He who has no sin, cast the 1st stone.

    Until "traditional" marriage is 100%,
    no one has any right to complain.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    March 21, 2014 9:07 p.m.

    @Fred Vader:

    I think we have some misunderstanding of terms here.

    Anthropology shows same-sex activity in every culture and among every group through history and into prehistoric times. In some cultures the same-sex attracted sub-groups were open in their activities and some were even seen as holy or special or shamans. In other cultures that sub-group was hidden, criminalized, even killed. In many cultures mating was such a strong imperative that all were expected to marry - often in arranged marriages with little or no choice - and some, including those who were same-sex attracted, had more fulfilling side relationships.

    The idea of "homosexual" as a separate identity was developed in the last century, along with a wide array of new understanding about the human mind and experience. Saying the homosexual identity was "created" does not mean there were no gays before that time, it means the understanding of "gay" as a distinct subculture or group was recognized and began to be developed.

    This is pretty well known in the media and is not hidden from society in general.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 21, 2014 4:24 p.m.

    nycut wrote:

    "Sexual orientation exists on a continuum. For most, an exclusive or primary attraction to the opposite sex becomes clear; for a distinct minority, the same sex; others find more flexibility."

    You do a beautiful job if introducing and elaborating on the idea of sexual orientation as it exists on a continuum. The fact that there are indeed individuals who "find more flexibility" (and this appears to be true particularly of women) has allowed some to point to this relatively small group of individuals and say that ALL gays could and should change. This is unfortunate and ignores the fact that those who fall more decidedly on the homosexual end of the sexual orientation continuum, have little prospect of change. Fortunately, in our modern world, there is less and less pressure to change (or pretend to change).

    Oh, and one more thing. The Michigan Marriage Equality ban has just been ruled unconstitutional. Another domino has fallen.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    Our comments should be thoughtful. All of my life I have loved being Mormon. I have reached a point when I know I have to let go and I don't know how! I don't know how! Thoughtful? I am not doing it any more and I think that I have stopped hoping! I am tired! We, as gay people, don't deserve what is happening and we are better than what people think or say we are! Don't tell me that I don't know that! Don't tell me that such degrading beliefs come from God!
    What do you say to people who degrade you? What do I say to people that look at me in such a disgusting way?
    It is wrong! Do whatever you need to do, but it wrong! It is wrong to treat us like we are nothing!

  • nycut New York, NY
    March 21, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    @FredVader:

    Sexual orientation exists on a continuum. For most, an exclusive or primary attraction to the opposite sex becomes clear; for a distinct minority, the same sex; others find more flexibility.

    Orientation, and its intensity, varies. Erotic attraction and capacity for romantic love is the same.

    Prior to the advent of modern psychology, little framework existed for discussing human sexuality. But just as the subconscious mind existed before it was so named, so did sexual orientation.

    Economic survival, religious adherence, and social acceptance have long been reasons to alter or hide one's preferred behavior.

    People knew which sex attracted them. Many lived lives we'd recognize as "gay," albeit better hidden.

    Today, plenty of homosexual people choose NOT to stifle their natures, preferring to love who they love and fully be who they are.

    Some still see something to gain by choosing a heterosexual lifestyle, repressing their natural attractions through force of will or endurance.

    This fact remains: a great many people on this planet say they're gay and were born that way.

    If you have some need to doubt that, or feel compelled to demand they make choices you think you'd make, the issue is yours.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 21, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    @ RedWings

    "It is even illegal in CA for therapists to provide this type of treatment!"
    _____

    I'm sure you (and your church, if you have one) don't want to be responsible for spreading inaccurate information, so let me clarify:

    So-called "Reparative Therapy" is considered unethical and ineffective by all the major mental health organizations because the claim that one's sexual orientation can be changed from homosexual to heterosexual is unfounded and unsupported by scientific research. One may, if one chooses to, work to suppress a homosexual orientation and function with an opposite sex partner, and one can find therapists here in California (and elsewhere) who will help you do that -- provided you are an adult.

    The California law you are referring to specifically concerns itself with so-called "Reparative Therapy" for --minors--. Once one is an adult, one is presumed to be in a better position to evaluate and make decisions in this regard.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    March 21, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    @RedWings
    "But those who do not want to be, who want to obey the commandments of their God, let them get help and healing!.."

    Changing ones religious belief has a much higher degree of efficacy rather than advocating what is for most, an immutable characteristic. In fact, especially for minors has been shown to be harmful, hence the anti-change legislation in several states and validated by the courts.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    March 21, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    I am not one to go for the "liberal media" line, but in the case of same-sex attraction there is so much misinformation and outright lies in the mainstream media. Thak you, Fred Vader, for helping to point his out.

    The fact is, thousands and thousands of former "gays" now lead happy and productive heretosexual lives, married and with children. That there are men and women who have overcome this is hidden by the media. They refuse to report it. It is even illegal in CA for therapists to provide this type of treatment!

    If it were accepted that one can change from gay to straight, the whole argument for gay rights collapses like a house of cards. This is why the media censors the facts and reality.

    If you want to be gay, be gay. But those who do not want to be, who want to obey the commandments of their God, let them get help and healing!!

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    March 21, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    @Kalindra: The point being that there is no such thing as "I was born gay" or "God made me this way"...if that were true, then why is there no historical showing of a gay minority prior to the 19th century?

    The "born this way" concept has been foisted upon society, simply because 19th and 20th century medicine didn't want to hurt people's feelings. And now the 21st century has bought into the fable. I suppose this falls under the category of "tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth".

    That is the real danger of "gay marriage." The truth that folks don't have to follow society's trendiness is continually stamped down, leaving confused folks with the false belief that they have no other option than to be gay. Having SSA does not make you gay. No one is "born that way"

    Don't give up folks. Do the research...don't buy into the fable!

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 20, 2014 11:55 p.m.

    @ Fred Vader: And your point would be what? That as society has grown and learned we have become more aware of differences and more willing to let people be true to themselves? Why is this a bad thing?

    The 19th century also saw the official end of slavery in the US, the invention of the telephone and the phonograph, the start of the Mormon Church, and Standard Time became Standard Time.

    And prior the the 19th Century, basketball did not exist. Neither did the Republican Party.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 20, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    @Fred Vader " "gay identity" is a 19th century creation."

    Identity and ones sexual orientation are two different things.

    We have that today with homosexuals claiming to be only "same-sex attracted." and then, because of religious or or other expectations, may go on marry someone of the opposite sex. Many of these marriage are train wrecks in the making. Others, who may be bi-sexual and view their religious and family values and expectations more important than their sexual orientation.

    I was one of them, 100% a gay man with a homosexual orientation but in denial and married a woman. My lie went like this "sure I'm attracted sexually only to men" but I'm certainly "not" one of those homosexuals. Thank goodness my wife had the courage to leave and years later I could accept my own sexual orientation. Living a lie may be a choice for some, it is now not my choice.

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    March 20, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    I find it curious that with all of these "gay marriage" lawsuits and news articles, there has been no information reported on the fact that gay anthropologists and historians, who are also gay, have stated that a "gay identity" is a 19th century creation. In other words, there were no gay minority groups prior to the 19th century. This seems entirely contrary to the claim that people are inherently gay.

    The historical argument is that there are no facts which support the claim of "inherently gay." These gay anthropologists and historians claim that the "inherently gay" theory was created by 19th century physicians, who did not know how to treat these claims by their patients. So they made it up.

    They have noted that in those instances prior to the 19th century where folks were engaging in same sex behavior, they were also engaging in heterosexual behavior, because those cultures did not separate the two. In otherwords, those who engaged in same sex behavior did so from a bisexual standpoint, not same sex alone.

    Why is the media keeping this information quiet?

  • intervention slc, UT
    March 19, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    @jsf

    I don't know what the first post said but Matthew sheppards death was the result of a hate crime, as evidenced by the official records, and any claims to the contrary are just an extension of that hatred.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 19, 2014 9:56 p.m.

    @Meckofahess
    Salt Lake City, UT

    A valid constitutional argument will be most helpful to your cause. Otherwise, how many thousands of times can one beat a dead horse hoping by some off chance, another nickel falls out? Before it looks rather foolish to everyone else?

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    March 19, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    @Meckofahess.

    Abraham Lincoln addressed supporters of oppression and those adamant in maintaining the status quo, when he said:

    “It cannot have failed to strike you that these men ask for just the same thing, fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they and all others shall have.”

    Gays and Lesbians, and their children too, whose voices are in harmony with constitutional guarantees, also ask for fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as it is the power of the nations courts through constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection, they ALSO shall have.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    March 19, 2014 9:31 p.m.

    @ Meckofahess "..we respectfully ask the gay community to stop trying to impose their beliefs and ideas on us.."

    In other words, it is "perfectly rational" to hold gays and lesbians morally and legally responsible for any failure of heterosexuals to act in a manner others may wish them to behave?

    The right to marry someone for which there is no desire of intimacy, is simply NO right at all. The public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights and not in the vile animus of discrimination.

    Historically, the State has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. These include: facilitating governance and public order by organizing individuals into cohesive family units; developing a realm of liberty, intimacy, and free decision-making by spouses which “the state does not enter; creating stable households; assigning individuals to care for one another which limits states requirement to care for the vulnerable; and shaping the people who compose the citizenry. In every state, the capacity to marry has never turned on ability or willingness to procreate. Neither age nor sterility has ever been a bar to marriage; nor has inability to bear children been divorce grounds.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:51 p.m.

    Jsmith5151

    You said: "we will never stop fighting for our rights until we have them. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry some of your gender. Otherwise, stop trying to impose your beliefs on others who don't share them".

    Given your statement I think you can certainly understand that we straight folks will never stop fighting for our rights and we respectfully ask the gay community to stop trying to impose their beliefs and ideas on us - who do not share them - please.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 19, 2014 7:00 p.m.

    @Jim Cobabe

    " But I do not accept the argument that these sad people will suddenly find the solution to all their unhappiness in same-sex "marriage".

    My dear Jim, we are not a sad people. On the contrary we are a gay people.

    My partner of 33 years and I are not married but we are very happy together. Homosexuality does not make us sad. Bigotry makes us sad. I want to make sure that when I die my partner and hopefully by then my husband will be able to enjoy my retirement, our properties will be for him without fears of my brothers and sisters, nephews to argue against his right to inheritance and vice versa.

    I have an excellent health insurance beccause of my job. Yet, my partner is not allowed to enjoy that privilege, who all heterosexuals in my job have.

    Jim, LGBT are fun, people like you have forced us to enjoy every moment we can. As I said we are not sad we are gay.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    March 19, 2014 6:58 p.m.

    @Cookie999 "I understand same-sex attraction can be a difficult set of feelings to process correctly... I still believe that the inherent order of the universe..."

    Correctly according to who?

    I believe we live many lives, and experiences from past lives, including gender and attractions, play out in this life and, in turn, impact the next life. I believe my sexual orientation and my gender expression are part of my growth, from past to present to future.

    Furthermore, I have seen these kinds of patterns playing out in others as they, too, work on issues from past lives for their growth and development.

    I also believe that the relationships we have in this life are based on long-term "family group" spiritual relationships with agreements to help each other grow, and that the relationships existed in the past and last beyond the grave and through many cycles.

    Finally, while I firmly hold those beliefs, it would be wrong to force you to believe the same thing - you have to work out your own issues through your many lives. And, please understand, it is wrong for you to try and compel me to follow your beliefs.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    March 19, 2014 6:27 p.m.

    @Jim Cobabe, 4:34 p.m. March 19, 2014

    >>>>

    For years I've been a supervisor in a nursing home with strong gay-affirming policies. My job included hiring. During interviews I talked about the opportunity by describing how my husband and I had moved to Cleveland and I was hired and promoted.

    People regularly asked if it was "okay" to be out and open on the job; two people actually cried at the thought of working in a place where they could be open about their relationship and not have to live in fear of being found out.

    "Sad" is what I feel about having to live in fear of mistreatment because of who I love. "Sad" is what I feel about having to hide my relationship so I can keep my job, or family, or home.

    "Sad" is getting better and will continue to improve as we move through the legalization of "same-sex-marriage" and on into "marriage" for everyone, without qualifiers.

    The ripples of acceptance and safety SSM will generate wont cure all problems, but will cure many kinds of "sad" and "fearful" and "hurt."

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 19, 2014 5:31 p.m.

    @Jim Cobabe "...But I do not accept the argument that these sad people will suddenly find the solution to all their unhappiness in same-sex "marriage."

    Is that why interracial couples wanted to marry the one they love?

    Is that why opposite sex couples choose to marry the one they love?

    It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity. 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.”

    I strongly suspect most same-sex couples, just like other couples don't look to "marriage" as the solution for "all their unhappiness. Some, may even want to be treated equally under the law.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    March 19, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    @The Authority Richfield, UT
    "Yawn. It seems between one and three percent of the population get between 40 and 60 percent of the media attention."

    Take the case of 3 starving wolves and a delicious lamb voting though the political process on what to eat for lunch. The screaming minority seem gets the majority of the attention, while the majority is simply trying to enjoy a quiet dinner.

    "A nation's greatness can be measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    March 19, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    I have no doubt that groups with an interest in promoting this cause can find people who identify as "GLBT", and who are willing to share stories about unhappiness and deprivation. These unfortunate individuals have my sympathy. But I do not accept the argument that these sad people will suddenly find the solution to all their unhappiness in same-sex "marriage".

  • pbunny Salt Lake, UT
    March 19, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    Hi Cookie 999, your comment reads: "In my opinion, whatever 'union' or 'marriage' people of the same gender enter into in this life will not endure past the grave. So no matter what happens in any state or country, divine law will not be changed." Have you not read the bible? Do you not know that Jesus said, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven"? That is the divine law. No marriages will endure beyond the grave, our genders are just for this world.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 19, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    @ Outside View "I expect that gay marriage will continue to be more legally acceptible. At that time I hope that gays will stop seeking out people and business that dont agree with their lifestyle to try and punish them. People should hve the right to not be forced to "partcipate" in gay marriages."

    To be fair, would you ALSO say the same about interracial marriages in public accommodations law?

  • The Authority Richfield, UT
    March 19, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    Yawn. It seems between one and three percent of the population get between 40 and 60 percent of the media attention.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    March 19, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    @Meckofahess "Please try to understand that it is not reasonable to try to manipulate society to believe that all things are equal when in fact they are not equal for biological, anatomical, religious and other commons sense reasons."

    Yet you support laying out the legal civil marriage red carpet for opposite sex couples convicted of horrific crimes, spousal, drug, alcohol and child abuse? Don't these marriages also define the real meaning of the institution of marriage?

    And your worried about loving same-sex couples and what they will do to the definition of marriage? What about the traditional gender defined "institution of voting" and how voting was redefined in to a genderless institution when women were granted the right to vote. Can you see how the redefinition argument is at best, a logical fallacy?

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    March 19, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    @Stephen "A state's authority over marriage law is "of central importance." (U.S. Supreme Court, Windsor case (2013) 133 S.Ct. at 2692.)"

    To regulate yes. To willfully discriminate through vile animus, no.

    Windsor- State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, MUST respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, SUBJECT to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

    "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 Allen

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    March 19, 2014 3:22 p.m.

    @SG "I believe that even when the courts decree that same sex marriage is good, such decision is contrary to God's plan and commandment. As a believer in the Bible and it's teachings, even the story of Adam and Eve, I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, any other is contrary to God's commandment."

    But what would Jesus say?

    "LGBT men and young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less." - Episcopal Church

  • nycut New York, NY
    March 19, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    @joemamma: "So you tried bullying us, ramming it down our throat, calling us haters, bigots...disrespected our beliefs traditions and religion, and now that you're losing the fight you want to try a different approach?"

    The logical arguments in favor of marriage equality are well known and have been clearly articulated the many court cases progressing across the country.

    The positive shift in public opinion, even among those with conflicting personal religious beliefs, shows they've been persuasive. Yet some of the most vociferous objectors still feel gay marriage constitutes some kind of personal attack.

    The political dominance and worldview of Utah's cultural majority has been challenged by this issue and emotions have been high. Personal stories can help teach understanding of the realities of gay people's lives-- especially beneficial for those who know few, if any, actual gay people. This could make acceptance easier for everyone.

    There is a benefit to seeing gay people-- and their families and friends-- less as hypothetical strangers and sinners and more as the actual people next door.

    So perhaps the shift from logical arguments to personal stories is happening now because the battle is, in fact, nearly won.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    March 19, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    Stephen Kent Ehat:

    Assuming that this is a serious question, there are consanguinity laws which restrict the marriages of close blood relatives, because children born to these relationships are at substantially higher risk of birth defects. If you think that these laws are unduly restrictive, (particularly if one partner is sterile), you certainly may sue the state to force it to change its law. I don’t think there are many people out there who would be your co-plaintiffs, however.

    Re: the threesome, marriage laws in the US restrict you to one partner because of the belief that this is the ideal arrangement for a stable society. Under the current law, you and your spouse can adopt Phyllis; if you wish to marry her, you can move to a country where this is legal or you can sue the state to change its law. Again, it would help if you had a serious argument as to how polygamy would benefit the society.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    I completely understand why many people have religious objections to same-sex marriages. But I'm baffled by their insistence that those religious tenets be enshrined in secular law. If you, your family and your chosen church oppose same-sex marriages, that's fine, but please don't force others to conform to your religious views. You probably wouldn't appreciate it, either, if other religions dictated that you had to comply with their religious requirements under penalty of law.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    March 19, 2014 2:12 p.m.

    TA1 Brings up an excellent point. How can one defend Traditional Marriage with "Traditional Marriage is what God wants" when 50% of them end in divorce and Infidelity in one form or another runs rampant? Or is Divorce and Infidelity part of the tradition? Are there not those who are currently cheating who are against SSM?

    I know we have all seen the picture of the man dressed in a pink tutu dancing down the street in a random pride parade. Not a great representation I assure you but we have also seen the prominent Minister, Bishop or Man of God who was exposed for cheating on their wives. Some of which were very out spoken on the ills of Homosexual behavior. I believe one such outspoken preacher in Denver was caught cheating on his wife with a person of the same sex? Not a great representation either. Lets agree not to judge an entire religion/sexual orientation on the stupidity of a small few of it's members.

    How can traditional Marriage be defended when Marriage its self is not traditional?

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    March 19, 2014 1:42 p.m.

    Are my Mormon friends paying attention? Soon the Supremes will declare equal marriage rigths the law of the land,dont be left behind!

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    March 19, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    Joemamma: "OK. So you tried bullying us, ramming it down our throat, calling us haters, bigots, and every name in the book.. Disrespected our beliefs traditions and religion, and now that you're losing the fight you want to try a different approach?"

    Sir, this statement is simply whistling in the dark. Do you really believe Marriage Equality is "losing the fight"? In fact, it is quite the opposite.

    Counting the Tennessee SSM ban that was tossed out just last week, there have been a total of 38 federal court cases involving marriage equality since the Windsor decision last summer. What is the scorecard for these cases where marriage equality prevails?

    It is 38-0.

    They are not losing. They are winning. They are winning huge. Detractors need to come to grips with the fact this debate is over. Once the appeals process runs its course, it will be the Law of the Land.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    March 19, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    Laura Bllington,

    Where do you get, "The Church used to dismiss gays as devil possessed. Now the Church acknowledges that no one chooses their gender orientation --i.e. that Heavenly Father created them gay--and that that is OK---as long as they lead celibate lives."

    We might as well say that God created liars, thieves, murderers, adulterers and fornicators too, since "those who abuse themselves with mankind" are often listed with the others in scripture, as long as they don't lie, steal, murder, commit adultery or fornicate.

    Quote the passages from which you derive your mistranslation, or misiteration of what they actually said, which can mean something much different from the way you put it.

    For example, the long quoted phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the 1st Amendment. Nor, would I assert, is it even what the religious clause in the first amendment was written to mean. That was just a phrase of someone's interpretation of one aspect of the religious clause of the 1st amendment, and not the first amendment itself!

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    To Diligent Dave
    The meanings of words change over time. The meaning of marriage now encompasses two consenting adults of either gender. Society also changes over time. People from 100 years ago wouldn't recognize our society because we have gone through enormous change in that time, women can vote, blacks don't have to sit at the back of the bus, we can communicate instantly with people from around the world, we carry phones in our pockets, we landed on the moon, and we are slowly seeing equality for all in this country. Our society will continue to progress for the benefit of all and not just those currently in power.

  • Cookie999 Sandy, UT
    March 19, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    I understand same-sex attraction can be a difficult set of feelings to process correctly. I understand people can have hormone imbalances. And I even know a counselor who works with people with coding that may have been faulty from the womb.
    But I still believe that the inherent order of the universe is male and female for a reason. I still believe, based on observations and prayer, that many of those who want to marry someone of the same gender have found a look-alike or simply an eternal friend, and they would be able to find the person of the opposite gender who is the most like the first person if they are open to change. In my opinion, whatever 'union' or 'marriage' people of the same gender enter into in this life will not endure past the grave. So no matter what happens in any state or country, divine law will not be changed.

  • Bendana 99352, WA
    March 19, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    From all the pearl clutching going on here from the supporters of "traditional marriage" I must wonder how fragile your own marriages must be if you honestly believe that the small minority of people who will enter into a SSM will 'destroy' marriage. And for all the "we don't hate anyone, we just want to lead you to the kingdom of heaven" crowd, take off the hair shirt, no one is buying that load of horse apples you're selling. It really doesn't matter how 'lovingly' you tell someone they're a second class citizen, hatred wrapped in religious platitudes is still hatred.

  • brotherJonathan SLC, UT
    March 19, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    Civil Union/Gay Marriage.
    Those words have the same meaning.
    Marriage definition:
    the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
    Constitutional in principle, civil unions must have the same legal rights, between them, as a marriage does. Those rights spelled out in a legal contract, as a marriage.
    This the true goal of same-sex marriage. If it is then let the laws reflect the truth:
    Marriage definition can't be same-sex, there is civil unions, which should have the same legal benefits under laws; like tax, or social security/health and retirement benefits.
    Those rights being protected just the same as a marriage partnership offers. The difference would actually have the opportunity to define this new partnership as prenuptial agreements do for marriages. Specific rights would be in writing and understood by both partners.
    This distinction protects the rights of both groups' beliefs. Constitutional laws protect the rights of personal beliefs.
    By this compromise between both parties a just solution can be achieved.
    Defend the rights of both sides of this issue with fairness. If you agree with my assessment make it known with your voices.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    March 19, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    Thanks Joemamma.

    You might think you are a lone voice in the wilderness, but you have huge numbers of kindred spirits who feel just the same.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    March 19, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    @ Tolstoy the comment was posted in response to a prior post that alluded Sheppard death was a hate crime, then equating opposition to ssm as hate and bigoted, the first line was a copy of their statement. That post has been removed probably for the same reason you requested my post to be removed. I hope your request was not just to censor the information. And since the first post has been removed I am not against my post being removed. But if it is to censor the information then that would be wrong.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    March 19, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    To: I know it, I live it:

    President Monson is hardly the first person to equate his personal views with those of God. In his 1959 ruling against the Lovings, Virginia Judge Leon Bazile, assured his place in history by saying that God placed the different races on separate continents to show that he did not intend them to mix. For hundreds of years, the Bible was used to argue that God condones slavery--as long as the slaves come from a different nations. The Church used to dismiss gays as devil possessed. Now the Church acknowledges that no one chooses their gender orientation --i.e. that Heavenly Father created them gay--and that that is OK---as long as they lead celibate lives.

    To Samhill:
    The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. States cannot democratically pass laws that violate it. Even if Alabama citizens passed a law forbidding the LDS church from operating there, it would be thrown out. Calling a judge "activist" because he upholds the Constitution is nonsense.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    March 19, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    Shakespeare wrote, A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet. In this case, he might have written, A skunk by any other name, would still have the same foul stench!

    Dare I question, why this organ, or any other, for that matter, need run such a piece? How can we have a respectful discussion on such a topic? As well we might have respectful discussions on fornication, adultery; both many can, have, and would portray as loving relationships!

    Why is this different? Don't many people have loving relationships outside of marriage? And when were they given as much ink herein? Why is it that we give so much ink to same sex marriage (as if there was/is ever such a thing - relationship, yes, but marriage? No)! Saying it's so, doesn't make it so. And even legalizing it doesn't make it so, or more importantly, make it morally right or acceptable.

    Society from a century ago, even half a century ago, would not recognize our nation, nor this publication, I am most sorry to say. Maybe by the masthead. Certainly not by the content.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    March 19, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    I married my partner 10 years ago in Massachusetts and we have lived here as partners for over 52 years. People in Massachusetts are well educated and practice democracy. State governments that do not provide equal rights for all of their citizens need to be educated about civil rights for all Americans. Then they need to educate their citizens about the difference between civil rights and religious freedoms. Same-sex marriage for the LGBT Americans is a civil right, not a religious freedom.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    @coleman51
    "I know of no case where a gay couple can multiply and replenish the earth as God originally intended. "

    Romney's family picture shows results of two examples: adoption and in-vitro fertilization. They're still his grandchildren.

    There is no mandate that married couples have children. There is no ban on infertile couples marrying. Your argument is nothing more than an excuse directed at gay people that you do not consistently apply. No wonder your side hasn't won a single gay marriage case since Windsor.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    Marriage does not require procreating. Procreating does not require marriage.

    Those are the facts, kids. Your beliefs may dictate your views on both, but making laws to conform to your beliefs that then cause harm to others is not the American way, is it? We allow all to worship how where and what they may - not forcing them to act how we believe, right?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 19, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    @Spellman789

    These are not peoples traditions, it is the natural way that has existed for milenia. It is in fact how you came into being here on this planet. Same sex marriage didn't get you here.

    =======================

    Sadly, traditional marriage didn't bring many people here either; in fact it really didn't bring anyone here. Sex did, plain and simple.

    Walk through a high school, you will see several girls pregnant and not married.

    People mistakenly try equate Sex and Marriage; it doesn't work that way. Marriage is an expression and commitment between two people (or maybe more) to love and care for each other in any circumstance that they find themselves. Sex will naturally happen within marriage, but simple biology will tell you marriage is not a prerequisite for sex. Churches, and society may teach that sex should happen within only a marriage (and I happily belong to such a church); but it is not a biological requirement.

    Did my parents marriage bring me here? No, a union of my father's sperm and my mother's egg did that.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    March 19, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    Also, all of you commenters, you don't need to "share in the joy" or support marriage equality. You can hold on to your own biases and no one can force you to do or support anything. That's your choice and you will have to live with the consequences of those choices. Gay people will have equal opportunities in this country--you can fight it, but don't be surprised at the reaction you get, and don't claim you're being victimized because of your attitudes.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    March 19, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    "Traditional marriage" isn't in danger. Allowing gay and lesbian couples equal rights doesn't mean heterosexual couples can no longer get married. Heterosexual marriages are not affected at all by gay people marrying (unless gay people marry heterosexuals).

    Your "traditional marriage" won't be affected--unless you do something to affect it.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    March 19, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    @KJB1

    Thanks - it's still early :)

    I just grow weary of reading drivel like this: "Marriage was originally created so that a man and a woman could multiply and replenish the earth. In other words, to create a family." As if the only reason to get married to pop out babies. There's not need for intimacy, love, passion, commitment - just reproduction.

    I'll tell that to my wife (who, by the way, is infertile). 28 years later, we're still married and plan to be for many more years to come.

  • Jsmith5151 Washington, DC
    March 19, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    Just FYI, we don't go to your church, we don't believe in your god, and we won't be governed by religious nonsense. We are tax-paying, voting, gay Americans who are constitutionally entitled to full equality, and we will never stop fighting for our rights until we have them. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry some of your gender. Otherwise, stop trying to impose your beliefs on others who don't share them.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 19, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    How important is this?

    Let's strengthen our country!

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    March 19, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    @Tolstoy
    These are not peoples traditions, it is the natural way that has existed for milenia. It is in fact how you came into being here on this planet. Same sex marriage didn't get you here.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    @ Joemamma
    What you want is irrelevant. Marriage equality is coming to Utah and the rest of this country. Remember liberty and justice for all? Homosexuals are part of the 'for all' piece.

    How arrogant to say "I might decide to concede civil unions and if I do be thankful"! We will continue to fight for what is right and just. Your concession is not required.

    "Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere." MLK

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    samhill: "Reading between the lines might have also raised the question in the minds of the more inquisitive as to the source of a judge's power and authority to arbitrate. If you believe it comes from some document, say, the Constitution, you must then ask from whence comes its power!?

    My final point is that **final** power **always** rests with "the people". "

    ----------------

    I can point out that, I agree with you, the final power rests with the people. But, Judge Shleby ruled as the constitution is now written. IF the people want to change it, there is a process to do so.

    Judge Shelby could NOT rule for Amendment 3 as the US constitution now has amendment 14 begging for all citizens to be treated equally under the law and amendment 10 stating that the states have authority to pass laws that follow the constitution. How could he rule otherwise?

    Start a constitutional convention and change the constitution if you want judges to rule differently. Right now, they shouldn't!

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    March 19, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    Marriage was originally created so that a man and a woman could multiply and replenish the earth. In other words, to create a family. I know of no case where a gay couple can multiply and replenish the earth as God originally intended. They cannot through natural means create a family. This whole argument about gay marriage is not a matter of rights for some discriminated sub-group of our culture, it's a matter of biology. When will these people wake up and realize how utterly foolish they are in trying to create an "equal society" where the sub-group they are demanding rights for can't perform the basic purpose for which the right even exists? When will they stop trying to claim a marriage exists between a gay couple who cannot perform the basic purpose of a marriage in creating a family in the first place? On that argument alone rests the fallacy and folly of our age in creating a false narrative regarding the "rights" of mankind.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    March 19, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    CHS 85, 7:17 a.m.

    Um, I was being facetious...

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    March 19, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    "No government has the right to tell people in love who they can and cannot marry." (Terry Wood on "Utah Unites" website linked to in this DesNews article.)

    John is age 49; Mary is age 19. They love each other. They want to marry. The county clerk refuses to issue them a marriage license because John is Mary's uncle (Mary's natural father's full-blood brother).

    Do the people of any state have an interest in the welfare of any children that may be born to John and Mary? Do the people of any state have an interest in whether John and Mary should be able to marry?

    Don, Donna and Phyllis present themselves to the county clerk. Donna says, "Hi, this is my husband, Don, and our fiancee Phyllis. Please issue us a marriage license." The clerk refuses.

    Do the people of any state have an interest in the welfare of any children that may be born to Don and Phyllis? Do the people of any state have an interest in whether Don and Donna may marry Phyllis?

    A state's authority over marriage law is "of central importance." (U.S. Supreme Court, Windsor case (2013) 133 S.Ct. at 2692.)

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    March 19, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    People who are controlled by dogma had better start asking their church to go have another "revelation" to soothe their cognitive dissonance, because this debate is over. Marriage equality is becoming the law of the land.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    March 19, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    @Hugh1: "Both churches now concur that changing gay is impossible."

    I haven't heard such a statement from the LDS or the Catholic leaders. Saying that we don't know if it is possible to alter an established sexual orientatiion doesn't translate to "it is impossible."

    The legalization of Same Sex Marriage is inevitable, given the corrupted state of our laws. That doesn't preclude individuals from choosing for themselves whether to align their lives according to the divine plan.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    To"KBJ1", who suggests my point would be valid only if I, "Let the people of Utah vote on whether your marriage is valid and promise to accept the verdict." You mean, honor Utah voters like Judge Shelby did?

    If you carefully read my post you'll see that my point was to raise the question of whose "verdict" is most valid, that of a judge or that of the people.

    Reading between the lines might have also raised the question in the minds of the more inquisitive as to the source of a judge's power and authority to arbitrate. If you believe it comes from some document, say, the Constitution, you must then ask from whence comes its power!?

    My final point is that **final** power **always** rests with "the people". Even in societies not intelligent enough to formalize that power in law, such as done in democracies, the power still rests, ultimately, with the people. Many a tyrant had learned that lesson too late and in a hard way.

    The greatest problem is when the people forget that **truth** rules all, and start to ignore the lessons of our history. I think that's what Shelby did.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:51 a.m.

    The most advanced countries in the world have had same-sex marriage for years, some now for more than a decade. It doesn't have any effect on family and society at large, but it does bring stability, legal rights, and happiness to a tiny minority of people. To those who oppose same-sex marriage, just let it go.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    @tim_the_tool_man_taylor

    "Do they really expect to be treated as equal after having chosen to enter into an inferior relationship. (Inferior in the sense that they cannot reproduce)"

    =============

    I'll be sure to tell my sister and her husband (who cannot reproduce due to certain medical conditions) that their marriage is inferior to yours. Let's not worry about how much they love and complete each other, they cannot reproduce and are therefore inferior. Forget how they made commitments to each other in the Temple for eternity, they are inferior to your marriage, and certainly God must see it that way too.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    March 19, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    ********************

    Keep talking and telling your personal stories, your personal journeys. It is much easier to demonize those who are invisible.

    I've also been on a journey.

    I hadn't given much thought to same-sex marriage before the Prop 8 campaign, but deep in my soul I knew the campaign was not Christ-like.. It was not loving, it was not truthful. However, i wasn't ready to vote against Prop 8. But I didn't vote for it either. Today, i would definitely vote in favor of extending marriage rights to homosexuals.

    Life here can be confusing at times but we were commanded by God to not judge and to love our neigbors as ourselves.
    And so, I leave the judging to an all-knowing God, the creator of us all, to sort it out.

    Peace and love.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    @Sawmill, Patjan, Go-Big-Blue and others who so thoughtfully addressed this important issue with sensitivity and insight. Thank you for sharing your wise and balanced points of view. We do not hate those who struggle with same-sex attraction. We try to understand the depth of their concerns. We only ask that our gay relatives and friends try to understand our point of view.

    Perhaps there is a way for society to provide some legal recognition of important rights such as hospital visitation, fair taxation and such for committed same-sex partnerships WITHOUT changing the unique definition and status of marriage between a man and a woman?
    Please be sensitive to our rights and needs to allow our children and grandchildren to be taught that marriage between a man and a woman is a special and unique relationship distinct from any other relationship - not only at home and at church but in the public square too!

    Please try to understand that it is not reasonable to try to manipulate society to believe that all things are equal when in fact they are not equal for biological, anatomical, religious and other commons sense reasons.

  • AJK Highland, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    An argument that can be reduced to "I want what's fair." Seems right to be fair, right? Wrong. My mom, often told me growing up, "Lot's of things in life are not fair." Why? Because what is fair me is not always right or fair to another, or most importantly to God. Fairness is such a crafty argument, because it seems so "fair" on its face. How do you stand against people asking for fairness? One way only, do what is right before what is fair. What is right will never change, regardless of politics or popularity. And what about the opposing argument? Well it stands firmly on the principles of truth, centuries of wisdom, coincidentally the opinion of the great majority despite what you my read or hear, and mountains and mountains of statistical evidence that a mother and a father is critical to a thriving democracy, stable economy, and prolific society. And yet many are so incredible arrogant and easily manipulated to think in the last five years, we have figured out that, by golly, we were wrong all along.

  • topofutpatriot Logan, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    One only need look to Utah's History to determine what happens to a religious people who have a different definition of "Marriage" than their fellow countryman in the United States.

    My pioneer ancestors were jailed, driven from the nation to Mexico, Canada, had to hide in Wyoming to avoid Federal Marshals and not allowed basic civil rights like voting in Idaho because they had a different definition of Marriage.

    Furthermore the LDS Church was threatened with disenfranchisement (Loss of all Property including the SL Temple) if they did not conform to "Society's" definition of Marriage.

    Why will it be any different with society's new definition of marriage this time around? Basic civil religious rights will be violated for those who's religion deems SSM as immoral. The civil "right" of the minority will trump the religious rights of the majority. Many court cases around the nation have already proved that recently.

    Therefore the only solution for our society is to get the State out of the business of defining marriage (marriage licensing). The LDS Church will be forced to stop performing marriages. They will only perform "Sealing s" in their temples.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    Schnee,

    The gravity of this issue is a serious one... few sins are more serious. However, I believe many do things they don't really understand fully. I believe forgiveness is still possible for many. That is not a message or feeling of hate. It's one of hope. I don't believe people who struggle with this are monsters, anymore than the vast majority of mankind that has dealt with some kind of struggle or addiction, sexual or otherwise.

    It's understandable that people make mistakes. Everyone does! All we care about is helping people to repent and be forgiven. That's a wonderful thing.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    @KJB1

    Why should get to vote on a person's rights? According to the Supreme Court, marriage has been affirmed as a "right" 14 times.

    What gives you the authority to take away another person's rights? Majority (mob) rule?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:13 a.m.

    If you're basing your opposition to equal rights for same-sex couples on your religion, when may we expect to see you call for state enforcement of all the other equally cruel and absurd rules set forth in your sacred scriptures? You're somehow OK with other Biblical "abominations" such as eating shrimp and women wearing trousers, so why the inconsistency here?

    If you're basing your opposition to equal rights for same-sex couples on your belief that marriage must be restricted to couples capable of procreation, then when may we expect to see you calling for laws prohibiting infertile women or impotent men from marrying? When will you announced your intention to nullify my own marriage, which has produced no children?

    When will you demand that marriage licenses only be granted to couples who have passed fertility tests?

    When will you demand that divorce involving couples with children be made illegal?

    When will you demand that foster children and adopted children being raised by same-sex couples be taken from their homes?

    Seriously, you folks are not making any sense.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    @tim_the_tool_man_taylor 8:33 p.m. March 18, 2014

    What I have never understood about this is the equal rights claim.

    If a man and woman enter into a marriage relationship, then they are able to reproduce.
    If two people of the same sex enter into a "marriage relationship", then they are not able to reproduce.

    How is this equal? Do they really expect to be treated as equal after having chosen to enter into an inferior relationship. (Inferior in the sense that they cannot reproduce)

    -------------------

    So you're saying that because my husband (of more than 44 years) and I are unable to reproduce, our marriage is an inferior relationship? Sorry -- you're wrong.

  • Grandma 20 Allen, TX
    March 19, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    Int'l Businessman
    SLO, CA

    If a man marries a woman who is married to another man (polyandry) then aren't the two men participating in a marriage together? Hardly seems "traditional" to me.

    It's called adulteryl

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    It's confusing to hear supporters of "traditional marriage" rail against same sex marriage. For, if marriage is a stabilizing force in our society that (in particular) benefits the children - then it's logical to support marriage in general - even if it's non-traditional. In other words, if a marriage between a man and a woman is good for society, so is marriage for same sex couples. We want children to be raised in a more stable environment, right? So, we should be rooting for these changes. It just makes sense.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    March 19, 2014 6:12 a.m.

    @ Tim in Dallas

    There is no marriage requirement to produce children. Further, gay couples can reproduce in the same way that infertile hetero couples can reproduce.

    But this isn't what makes my nephew equal to you. What makes him equal is the simple fact that he is alive. Just as women were always equal to men, and black people always equal to white people, homosexuals have always been equal to heteros. We're all made by the same process. We each have the same input into how we're made: none.

    So I'm happy to hear about this plan to further introduce gay couples to society. I think visibility has been and will continue to be the most powerful factor in changing minds. Kudos to these leaders.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    March 19, 2014 5:52 a.m.

    Any 'defense" of "traditional marriage" was surrendered long ago by those who ceased to live its "traditional principles". Hopefully those entering into same sex marriages will do a better job of honoring the "traditional principles" then those who protest against same sex marriage so vehemently.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 19, 2014 5:10 a.m.

    @Snapdragon 6:54 p.m. March 18, 2014

    Personal stories may attempt to pull at heart strings, but there is still an obligation we have to protect and defend traditional marriage.

    -----------------------

    Of course we should work to protect and defend traditional marriage. That does NOT mean we deny those "wired" for same-sex marriage the right to marry according to their sexual and affectual affinity. Traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are not mutually exclusive. Both can be, and should be, protected and defended.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    March 19, 2014 3:12 a.m.

    No one is asking to change the definition of marriage in your church.

    If you believe that yours (or any church's) definition of marriage should apply to civil laws, you are entitled to believe, but not to insist that others follow it.

    Let your Gay kids have civil marriages -- they are taxpaying citizens of the USA.

    -- BUT: We all know that the issue in Utah is the many thousands of Gay kids born into mormon families each year, and the fear that they will want what their siblings have.

    Presently, their choices are:
    A-- Go against who God made you, and lie, in order to marry in the church. Hope you are strong enough to fake desire for your unfortunate wife, who has settled for half a loaf.
    B-- Remain celibate, becoming something like a pet cat or dog in your stake, but ruffling no feathers.
    C-- Take the first bus, and lose your family, church, and community.

    In other churches, members can insist that the leaders find better solutions.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    March 19, 2014 12:36 a.m.

    @samhill
    I know such questions have usually been handled democratically, as in, by majority rule. But, lately there have been activist judges who believe they can overrule the will of the people.

    >>>>
    Our system was based on the idea of checks and balances, including the balance between the will of the majority and the tyranny of the majority. Under the rule of law the position of the biggest mob is not automatically right. One part of the job of judges is to make sure the will of the majority follows constitutional law and does not tip over into tyranny.

    At the same time, tradition does not automatically make a position right, either. If it did, slavery would still be legal, women would be denied the vote, the Irish and Italians and other ethnic groups would still be seen as second class citizens, all based on a claim of tradition.

    Judge Shelby ruled on the matter based on his understanding of the law. His decision does not make him an activist. In fact, based on the rulings that have followed, his ruling makes him a pioneer, a trailblazer, a lone voice crying in the wilderness that is soon followed by others...

  • Outside-View Federal Way, WA
    March 19, 2014 12:14 a.m.

    Once again the gay community begs for commassion and tolerance while at the same time they attack any person or business that doesnt agree with their position or want to "participate" in their civil ceremonys. No opposition will be tolerated.

    CA law give gays & Bi's every benefit and right of marriage except to call it marriage. i understand that is what gays want so that they can say that society accepts their lifestyle as being normal and acceptible. Gay relations are different and calling those relationships civil unions with "partners' is reasonable instead of hiding them behind the traditional terms of marriage. They also want to further reduce any differentciation by insisting on using terms of wives marrying wives and husbands having husbands.

    I expect that gay marriage will continue to be more legally acceptible. At that time I hope that gays will stop seeking out people and business that dont agree with their lifestyle to try and punish them. People should hve the right to not be forced to "partcipate" in gay marriages.

    Until then, I suggest business hire other firms to provide services that they dont want to participate in themselves. Hopefully, that would be legal

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    March 18, 2014 11:21 p.m.

    Tell you what, samhill: Let the people of Utah vote on whether your marriage is valid and promise to accept the verdict. If you're willing to do this, then maybe you'll have a valid point...

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    March 18, 2014 11:19 p.m.

    Personal story. I married my partner yesterday. 40 years ago we were young and fell in love. Some of the letters here, particularly from parents of gay children are very troubling. It's strange, civil marriage to a Mormon or Catholic has no sacramental consequence, so why deny your son the essence of life's happiness. Being gay is usually not a problem (sometimes, but not often); he cannot change and you cannot change him; you gave birth to a gay son and now offer no solution - except one that helps you but hurts him (forget 'love the sinner platitudes', I'm not interested). Both churches now concur that changing gay is impossible. Even Exodus, the premiere Ex-gay Christian organization, shuttered its doors and apologized for those it harmed. It is my responsibility (God's handiwork?) to write on behalf of those who cannot, to say that providing your child a chance to live a loving and responsible life may take additional sacrifice on your part. If you love your child more than yourself, you will do the right thing. If your pastor or bishop won't help - choose your child's happiness, love conquers all.

  • intervention slc, UT
    March 18, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    So I can't figure out the best way to break it to those that think they have had an exclusive relationship with marriage that their "traditional" relationship has been one sided. Marriage has had different definitions across time, has different definitions across cultures now and will continue to have different definitions in the future.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    So, once again, it comes down to whose "feelings" are deemed more important.

    Should I be persuaded that changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual marriage is right because there are people who sincerely and earnestly believe it is proper and correct and who feel bad because that has never been the definition before, all despite the fact that there are also people who sincerely and earnestly believe the definition should remain the same?

    Or, vice versa??

    Hmmmm. It seems there are good people with diametrically opposing points of view. How shall we resolve this?

    I know such questions have usually been handled democratically, as in, by majority rule. But, lately there have been activist judges who believe they can overrule the will of the people.

    So, if the will of the people as expressed by either of these aforementioned groups, or any other for that matter, is moot, why are we even bothering to have these kinds of statements for the press. All we need do is obey the judges. After all, they are the final arbiters, right?

    On the other hand, there are those famous words about the basis for governmental power. Something about, We, the people.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 18, 2014 9:02 p.m.

    @sg and Go Big Blue
    Both of you have children who are gay and both of you would like them to be happy. I am sure your children don't want for you to believe in SSM. I'm sure they would be happy if you tell them , that despite your difference of opinion you love them for what they are and accept them and their decision. You don't need to agree with them, you just need to accept their right to love and be grateful they have a loving spouse. Love them for what they are not for what you would like them to be.

    Patjan;
    There are no lessons that can teach you your sexual orientation. If that were the case there would be no homosexuals in the world. Just think about it.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 18, 2014 8:53 p.m.

    sorry that should be many

  • tim_the_tool_man_taylor Dallas, TX
    March 18, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    What I have never understood about this is the equal rights claim.

    If a man and woman enter into a marriage relationship, then they are able to reproduce.
    If two people of the same sex enter into a "marriage relationship", then they are not able to reproduce.

    How is this equal? Do they really expect to be treated as equal after having chosen to enter into an inferior relationship. (Inferior in the sense that they cannot reproduce)

  • Int'l Businessman SLO, CA
    March 18, 2014 8:01 p.m.

    If a man marries a woman who is married to another man (polyandry) then aren't the two men participating in a marriage together? Hardly seems "traditional" to me.

  • patjan Flower Mound, TX
    March 18, 2014 7:46 p.m.

    How could we share your joy or be united as you hope we would about same-sex marriage? You are forcing something on our society that changes our children's and grand-children's worlds in such a way that will confuse them about their sexual identity. We don't fear you, we fear your way of life being forced upon them through blurring all the identities of who men and women are. Sure, we can teach our own children through our own examples and through our own beliefs. But we also know that some of them will fall victim to your manipulations. When they are going through identity crisis' - as almost all young people do, you will be there to tell them they are feeling confused because of mistaken sexuality. You will make sure that gay relations are blaring in their faces. Even though we are taught to be kind and respectful towards you, we know that you will not respect our right to raise our children as we see fit. With God as our guide, we will do all we can to teach our children who they really are - sons and daughters of God.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    March 18, 2014 7:41 p.m.

    I don't really care how society sees gay marriage. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. The most recent declaration from the Lord concerning marriage is that it is between a man and a woman, so that is my stance.

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    March 18, 2014 7:32 p.m.

    I have a gay son that I love dearly. I want him to be happy and to be joyful in life. I will support him in all that he does. That said, I still can't support ssm. Marriage is a relationship between and man and a women. A relationship between two adults of the same sex is something else.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    March 18, 2014 7:31 p.m.

    I said it before and I will say it again; marriage equality will be a foregone conclusion in the very near future. What gay people and their friends should turn their attention to is the legislative backlash that will most certainly gain momentum once gay people are allowed to marry. I am talking about non-sense laws proposed by homophobic legislators who claim citizens religious rights need to be defended by allowing them to deny public services to gay people. The battle for basic human rights in the state of Utah is not over by any stretch of the imagination.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    March 18, 2014 7:29 p.m.

    I respectfully remind people not to be fooled by this.

    Films and Cable shows paint pictures of villains that we can sympathize with. If you can make an audience sympathize with a serial killer, you certainly have a talent for persuasion. But the truth hasn't changed. Satan can attract us to anything. That is the nature of the fall. We're here to learn how to rise again. The only way is with help and we're here to help.

    You want life to improve? Recognition of your problems will only make it harder on yourself later. Instead, there are other groups to join. Come to church.

    The LDS Church created a site with personal stories too... stories of healing, respect, and love. Messages of hope, for something brighter, something joyous! The movement of hate is spreading and it's not coming from the Savior, but the adversary. It's not a matter of "joining a group". That doesn't validate you. What matters is joining the right one.

    "In the world today we face difficulties and challenges, some of which can seem truly daunting. However, with God on our side we cannot fail." -Thomas S. Monson

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 18, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    @sg and Snapdragon

    Why should your "traditions" stand? There have been nanny changes to the tradition of marriage over time, why should your current version stand when there is no creditable scientific evidence that changing it in the way being proposed will cause harms?

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    March 18, 2014 7:19 p.m.

    I was thinking maybe we might get through the day without a same sex story, nope, not to be.

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    March 18, 2014 6:54 p.m.

    Personal stories may attempt to pull at heart strings, but there is still an obligation we have to protect and defend traditional marriage.

  • sg newhall, CA
    March 18, 2014 6:13 p.m.

    I can understand how gays feel about wanting to have the same rights to marry as it has been for centuries between a man and a woman. I have a gay son who has expressed his wish to one day marry. Would I support it? Yes; however, unless I completely refute the Judeo/Christian teachings that marriage is only between a man and a woman (how else can procreation exist without a man and woman)? I believe that even when the courts decree that same sex marriage is good, such decision is contrary to God's plan and commandment. As a believer in the Bible and it's teachings, even the story of Adam and Eve, I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, any other is contrary to God's commandment.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 18, 2014 5:53 p.m.

    I'm very glad to see this story.

    Coincidentally, I was just reviewing some old computer messages from 1999 and 2000 having to do with California's Prop 22. -- Boy, have we come a long way!

    Though forces at that time prevailed, attitudes in California (and the country at large) have shifted dramatically and I was able to marry my partner in a --CIVIL-- ceremony earlier this year. It'll be fine Utah, you'll see.