Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah group launches campaign to promote same-sex marriage with personal stories’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 18 2014 5:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
KJB1
Eugene, OR

CHS 85, 7:17 a.m.

Um, I was being facetious...

coleman51
Orem, UT

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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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!

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

@ 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

Spellman789
Syracuse, UT

@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.

worf
Mcallen, TX

How important is this?

Let's strengthen our country!

Jsmith5151
Washington, DC

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.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@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.

dmcvey
Los Angeles, CA

"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.

dmcvey
Los Angeles, CA

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.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

EstoPerpetua
Holden, MA

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.

Diligent Dave
Logan, UT

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.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

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.

jsf
Centerville, UT

@ 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.

Yorkshire
City, Ut

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.

brotherJonathan
SLC, UT

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.

Bendana
99352, WA

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.

to comment

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