Quantcast
Utah

Same-sex marriage advocates making more noise than traditional marriage supporters

Comments

Return To Article
  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    April 16, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    To "RanchHand" but you are forgetting th 10th ammendment and the recent SCOTUS ruling on marriage. Both have state that marriage is a state issue, and is up to the states to decide.

    The 10th ammendment says that if not specified in the constitution. The DOMA ruling also said that the definition of marriage is a state issue.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 12, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech;

    "...you can't remove somebody's liberty or property ..." "...that they must apply their laws equally to their citizens..."

    Like our liberty to choose whom we will marry or our shared property - taxed differently than married heterosexual couples upon one spouse's death?

    Demonstrably a violation of both Amendments mentioned.

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    April 11, 2014 10:33 p.m.

    CBAX from Provo, UT stated "Carried about by every wind of doctrine."

    Or IMO you are attempting to control, Non Mormons worshiping how where or what they may! People should stop forcing their religious beliefs on others!

  • AndyTompkins Hollywood, FL
    April 11, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    MULTIPLE "RedShirt" users - You casually throw out statements to support your view, but don't tell the whole story.

    What you call a "civil union" granted in Brazil (2012), of one man and two women was actually a "stable union" which is recognized as a family entity. The legal difference from marriage is that it doesn’t change individual civil status from single to married. That stable union was overturned by Brazil's Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers. It has not set precedence and higher Brazilian courts have not permitted the practice to continue.

    Norway allows Muslim men to become residents with their multiple wives. The strain on welfare services has become evident and the Norwegian Immigration Directorate is suggesting that the government should prevent married men, who marry again without first divorcing in Norway, from bringing their new wives to Norway.

    Other countries:
    Britain - Exemption for Muslim men who enter with multiple wives, currently being phased out.
    Australia - Polygamous marriages are illegal, but the law allows it among indigenous peoples.
    New Zealand - Polygamous marriages cannot be performed in NZ, but are permissible if legally performed in a country that permits polygamy.

  • AndyTompkins Hollywood, FL
    April 11, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    @rhappahannock - you mention the importance of pheromones in attraction and building relationships. In animals, the choice of sexual partner is highly influenced by sex-specific pheromones.

    Pheromone studies in humans have shown that brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals respond differently to human pheromones involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both heterosexual women and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in men's sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men and lesbians have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine.

    "Both studies indicate that the physiological response in brain regions associated with reproduction are different in homo- and heterosexual persons," Ivanka Savic, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, said in an email.

    The research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and can also be found on the U.S. National Institutes of Health website.

  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    April 11, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    "What about first cousins? What about brother and sister? What about parent and child?..." Yes, NH Transplant, marriage is a slippery slope. First poor people, then divorced people, then non-white people, then mixed races....Horrors! When will it end?

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    April 11, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    To "AndyTompkins" but legalizing SSM has lead to polygamy in Brazil and in the Norway. There already are reports out of Brazil and Norway where polygamists have been granted "civil unions". They are following the exact same path that the gays did in those countries. First they get civil unions, then within a few years they are granted marriages.

  • arand Huntsville, u
    April 11, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    Look, can we just get this thing over with. I don't see why gay's can't get married as long as they don't force the clergy of a church that does not believe in it. A justice of the peace is a different story no matter what his belief. He has a government job and a duty to do his job. There is a difference between a civil marriage and a church marriage. If the church is OK with it than fine. Just because people don't agree please don't call them bigots. Everyone has a right to their beliefs.

    There are other more important issues we need to take care of, like the economy.

  • AndyTompkins Hollywood, FL
    April 11, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    Legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada didn't lead to the legalization of polygamy in that country - just the opposite. I use the Canadian example as it’s very similar regarding socio-economic, legal, religious and societal structures/mores.

    Lawyers for polygamists in Canada argued that since same-sex marriage was legal in Canada that legalizing polygamy was the natural extension.

    The prosecutors successfully argued that same-sex marriage did NOT change the basic, fundamental structure/definition of marriage in Canada — the union of TWO people. Polygamy WOULD change that fundamental, legal structure/definition.

    Interesting to note that The Christian Legal Fellowship, one of about a dozen interveners in the case, told the judge in its final argument that the same-sex debate settled the definition of marriage: a union of TWO people.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 11, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    To "RanchHand" actually it doesn't. The 5th ammendment has to do with the process of law. It just states that you can't remove somebody's liberty or property without following what the law states. So, Ammendment 3 does meet the 5th ammendment.

    The 14th Ammendment tells the states that they must apply their laws equally to their citizens. The Ammendment 3 does not prohibit a gay person from marrying a person of the opposite gender. The law is applied equally to all people.

    If you say that prohibition of SSM based on the 14th ammendment is wrong, then you will have to allow anything that somebody wants to call marriage.

    Using your argument, you will have to allow 1 man and 4 women to be married, or a group of 2 men and 3 women can be married, or maybe 4 men and 1 woman can now be married. Do you really want to allow marriage to be redefined to be anything that anybody wants?

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    April 11, 2014 12:47 a.m.

    Carried about by every wind of doctrine.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 10:16 p.m.

    @Dr Thom..."See what all this equality is all about"...Sir. May I say how eloquent. It's comments and beliefs such as your highly intellectual post states that will align you with the true thinkers of our time once Judge Shelby's ruling is lawfully upheld and equality for all is rightfully granted to all individuals rather then just a select and chosen few.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 10, 2014 6:22 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech;

    What part of "nor prohibited by it " didn't you understand? Amendment 3 violates the 5th & 14th Amendments to the US Consititution, therefore qualifies as "prohibited by it".

  • Aephelps14 San Luis Obispo, CA
    April 10, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    The majority of the comments (not all) that involve opposition to same-sex marriage on this thread are permeated with negativity and hate. That is the most devastating aspect of this whole debate. Demonizing a whole group of people and deriving satisfaction from their "eventual punishment" in heaven. This is an indicator that the only thing you are standing up for is anger and hate. This issue is probably more about cultivating our ability to love and understand each other and less about being right.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 10, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    I like broccoli but that is not enough. Because I also like cauliflower. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our vegetables, and that my friends, that is the defintion of liberty.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 10, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    To "Lane Myer" lets see what the 10th ammendment really states. It says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, anything that has not been delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution or prohibited by the constitution is left to the states or to the people.

    So, the State and the people living in Utah declared that they liked Ammendment 3. They followed the constitution to the letter.

    If you want to argue this point, first find in the US Constitution the location of any clause that declares what marriage is.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    Flashback

    Kearns, UT

    History Lesson. Everyone go and read the 10th Amendment.

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

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it" (the Constitution)"to the States. are reserved o the States respectively, or to the people."

    That is the 10th Amendment. It states that the States will have powers ONLY if they are constitutional. Amendment 3 is NOT constitutional. It will not be upheld.

    Read the darn thing.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 10, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    To "praxis" thanks for confirming what I said before. We are devaluing marriage, and the increse in divorce is not a good thing. Since I never said that SSM was the cause, but just a symptom of failings elsewhere, I appreciate seeing that Massachussetts is suffering just as much as the rest of the us.

    I found a NY Times article discussing "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce", and wow, it shows how society is destroying itself from within. The couples that they discuss could have been helped or could have helped themselves had they had more of a marriage based focus, but were often focused on themselves.

    Divorce rates are just a symptom of a cancer spreading through society that will not lead us to a pleasant place.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    April 10, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    @ SlopJ30
    You must have friends at the DN. I wrote a comment using real numbers of Nazi's against LGBT and was put on hold, go figure.

    @ Redshirt 1701
    you wrote: "According to sociologists, that is a bad thing because of the problems that occur when children are without parents being comitted to each other" and in your previous post you listed a number of problems because of lack of marriage.

    All the concerns you presented support the need for Same Sex Marriage.

    I'm sure you mean well and I'm sure that if you are sincere and re-examine your own and all data you will be supporting SSM.

    The well being of society rest on the shoulder os the family . Then allow it to happen.

  • praxis Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    To follow-up with the divorce rates from the CDC website. Again, no real change in percentage after SSM began in Massachusetts in 2004 - 49% in 2000 and 53% in 2011. I think anyone would be hard pressed to make the case that allowing SSM directly lead to the failure of any marriages.

    Year / Divorces & annulments / Population / Rate per 1,000 total population / Percentage
    2011 / 877,000 / 246,273,366 / 3.6 / 53%
    2010 / 872,000 / 244,122,529 / 3.6 / 53%
    2009 / 840,000 / 242,610,561 / 3.5 / 51%
    2008 / 844,000 / 240,545,163 / 3.5 / 49%
    2007 / 856,000 / 238,352,850 / 3.6 / 49%
    2006 / 872,000 / 236,094,277 / 3.7 / 49%
    2005 / 847,000 / 233,495,163 / 3.6 / 47%
    2004 / 879,000 / 236,402,656 / 3.7 / 47%
    2003 / 927,000 / 243,902,090 / 3.8 / 49%
    2002 / 955,000 / 243,108,303 / 3.9 / 49%
    2001 / 940,000 / 236,416,762 / 4.0 / 49%
    2000 / 944,000 / 233,550,143 / 4.0 / 49%

    As a child of divorce, I think it would be helpful if couples waited a few years to make sure they are truly compatible, and that the marriage will last, before bringing children into the relationship/family.

  • praxis Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 - according to the CDC website, the marriage rate was already in decline before SSM began in Massachusetts in 2004.

    Year / Marriages / Population /Rate per 1,000 total population
    2011 / 2,118,000 / 311,591,917 / 6.8
    2010 / 2,096,000 / 308,745,538 / 6.8
    2009 / 2,080,000 / 306,771,529 / 6.8
    2008 / 2,157,000 / 304,093,966 / 7.1
    2007 / 2,197,000 / 301,231,207 / 7.3
    2006 / 2,193,000 / 294,077,247 / 7.5
    2005 / 2,249,000 / 295,516,599 / 7.6
    2004 / 2,279,000 / 292,805,298 / 7.8
    2003 / 2,245,000 / 290,107,933 / 7.7
    2002 / 2,290,000 / 287,625,193 / 8.0
    2001 / 2,326,000 / 284,968,955 / 8.2
    2000 / 2,315,000 / 281,421,906 / 8.2

    Divorce will happen, whether in OSM or SSM. Most 20- and 30-somethings I talk to mention their own parent's divorce as to why they have delayed marriage or chose to just cohabitate.

    I recommend you read "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce" by Judith Wallerstein. A 25 year study of 131 children who's parents divorced in 1971 and how it affected their lives and relationships. For most, their first marriages failed.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 10, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    SlopJ30
    St Louis, MO
    LDS Liberal -

    Whoa there bubba-boy.
    I think I'm with you on this one.

    I like broccli,
    yet many people do not.

    My point was,
    My liking broccoli doesn't give those who dont like broccoli can tell me I what id can or can't like.

    My liking it,
    buying it,
    living with it,
    Doesn't effect them or their shooping or preferences at all.

    In fact,
    My wanting broccoli doesn't force or take away ANYTHING from them.

    It's just different.

    Like at a resturant.

    If you're not into that,
    Choose something else.

    But others need to stop telling people what they can or can't like.

    BTW --
    I'm not the one wanting people wearing Pink Triangles.
    I'm a Liberal -- the far-right would throw me into the gas chambers too.

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    April 10, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    @Red Shirt "According to sociologists, that is a bad thing because of the problems that occur when children are without parents being committed to each other."

    OK, lower divorce and decreasing marriage rates. So, is your argument that we should hold same-sex couples accountable for the failure of opposite sex couples to act in a manner the state or a specific religion says they should?
    Moreover is are there any differences between correlation and causation in these scenarios?

    Please explain the constitutional justification in your argument as to why same-sex couples should not be able to marry. I'm missing the rational basis in your argument.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    April 10, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    One persons noise is another persons freedom, equality, justice, the America our fore fathers envisioned and many people gave their lives for. Simply put a place of peace and opportunity for all regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 10, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    To "fact based" you should also see that Massachussetts has the lowest marriage rate too. You should also know that the divorce rate is measured in divorces per 1000 people. If you divide their divorce rate by their marriage rate, you end up with roughly 50% of marriages in there ending in divorce.

    Only looking at half of the information is not helpful, especially since I said that marriage rates are decreasing. If you look at a graph of marriage rates in all of those locations that you list, you will see that there are fewer marriages now than there were 10 years ago.

    According to sociologists, that is a bad thing because of the problems that occur when children are without parents being comitted to eachother.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    April 10, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    LDS Liberal -

    Your love of broccoli shows how much you hate cauliflower. It's a slippery slope; today we tolerate broccoli, then we embrace it. Next, broccoli becomes the norm . . then cauliflower will be declared illegal, like it was in Nazi Germany! I, for one, stand unafraid in defense of traditional cauliflower!

    When righteous men and women look upon broccoli with the least degree of tolerance, woe, WOE to the wayward something something, for Satan, he that loveth iniquity and green, vitamin-rich vegetables that look like cute little trees, rejoiceth.

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    April 10, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    @ Redshirt "Where is the evidence that society has cheapened marriage and that is a bad thing, really?"

    Iowa and Mass. have the lowest divorce rates in the country and both have same-sex marriage. Stable opposite and same-sex marriages must be a good thing in those states, no?

    Certainly you're not arguing that same-sex marriage cheapens opposite sex marriages. If so, you would have provided credible evidence.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 10, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    History Lesson. Everyone go and read the 10th Amendment.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 10, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    To "No H8 - Celebrate" where is the evidence that society has cheapened marriage and that is a bad thing, really?

    You have the increased number of women in poverty.

    The increase in children born without a father.

    The number of boys being raised without fathers.

    The decreasing marriage rates across the world.

    The increased unrest in society.

    The number of people with mental illness that go untreated.

    The number of kids being raised by people that are not their parents.

    There are so many problems that have their roots in the lack of a stable foundation that you would have to be in complete denial not to see just a few of them.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    April 10, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    Hard to believe, this many months after the fact, that dogma-controlled posters still seem sooooo consumed by this issue, and seem to think bigotry will prevail.

    It baffles the mind. This vile animus will not prevail. At the end of the day, hate never wins. You have lost this battle. Today is the day the 10th Appeals hears the Utah case for continued discrimination. Best prepare yourselves for the outcome. You know what it will be, and so does everyone else.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    April 10, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    Well, I think every possible argument has been made in both directions about five times in this thread. Time to wrap it up?

    The nice thing is, everyone should be happy! My side . . the side that finds it inconceivable that people think they're own religious beliefs and sexual hang-ups should be used to make or interpret law . . is happy because we've basically won. It's all over but the two married fat ladies singing.

    The other side should be happy because they can look forward to an afterlife where they are greeted by singing angels and a very pleased God congratulating them for sticking to their guns in the face of reason.

    Win-Win!

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    April 10, 2014 7:01 a.m.

    Capitulation!

    Gene Schaerr filed Utah's supplemental letter with the 10th Circuit yesterday, which you can find on Scribd, disavowing part of the State's argument, "in response to recent press reports and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus."

    Money quote: "Thus, the Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements."

    Quite a little backtrack on the eve of today's scheduled oral arguments.

    In closing, I note this line from today's Washington Post, describing the DOMA decision: "It said the arguments were mostly window dressing for unlawful prejudice based on sexual orientation."

    The judges hearing the Amendment 3 appeal are more conservative than liberal, appointed by two Republicans and one right-centrist Democrat. If/when they deny this appeal, I'm sure conservatives, though, will be screaming, "Liberals!"

  • Reporterson Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    Read Romans 1:18-32.

  • East Coast Reader Richmond, VA
    April 10, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    Homosexuals often claim that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, A why are you trying to prevent me from getting married when you straights so such a poor job of it approach. They are apparently deriving these statistics from comparing the number of marriages in a jurisdiction in one year to the number of divorces of people in the same jurisdiction who had been married for varying numbers of years. Anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics should know that this comparison would not give you the number of marriages that end in divorce. I call that "the statistics of the unknowing provided to influence the gullible."

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 10, 2014 5:48 a.m.

    I choose Broccoli!

    There,
    Did that hurt anyone who doesn't want broccoli?
    Did that take away anyone's rights, freedoms?
    Did that hurt the store?, other customers?, the Nation?

    No difference.

  • sukiyhtaky us, CA
    April 10, 2014 1:30 a.m.

    Jim...if procreation is one of the reasons for marriage then should we be testing couples for fertility and denying licenses if one or both of the couples is infertile? Reject the dud spouse and insist they find another who can help churn out more babies? That is what it turns into...a cold, baby producing, assembly line.

    Another person mentioned Mozilla and how their CEO resigned. Sadly, he lacked the courage of his convictions and resigned with an apology for 'hurting people.' You have the right to change your mind, but don't buckle under to pressure if you really believe it. Fortunately, social media and the company website has exploded with people complaining that he felt the pressure to resign. Despite the vocal few in the company who screamed loudest and forced his hand, others have stood above the roar with their own courage, swamping the NET and saying NO enough is enough people have the right to their own opinions and beliefs without fear of retribution.
    Funny though that a DN article brings this up though in light of the censorship that DN exhibits when comments are made which bring to task the LDS church.

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    April 9, 2014 11:32 p.m.

    djk stated "did anyone out there supporting gay marriage even watch listen and learn from general conference?"

    I think we are talking about non Mormon sames sex marriage, not Mormon marriage! and even the Mormon church from what I know, believes that God allows humans free will and the ability to worship how where, or what they may, right?

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:56 p.m.

    @ John Locke "Just because it is the law, doesn't make it moral."

    Moral disapproval, vile religious animus, bigotry, hatred, ignorance are not valid constitutional reasons for discrimination.

    There has to be at least a rational basis in the law that demonstrates it will indeed actually accomplish a state interest.

    Punishing the children of same-sex couples through denial of their parents marriages, in order to supposedly make opposite sex couples value and more committed in their own marriages does not pass constitutional muster either.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    To: mrjj69

    Please, please study the rule of law in this Republic that we live in. It make me angry no matter what side of the debate to think that voters can make laws against the civil rights of any citizen. These same voted rights in early history demonized my Mormon ancestors. They were not valid then. Majority rule does not ever overrule constitutional liberties.

    Please take a Constitutional class.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 9, 2014 9:49 p.m.

    MexicanUte,

    Your history of marriage is quite erroneous. From the time of the Romans well into the Renaissance, marriage in the Christian world was accomplished by simply agreeing to live together as a married couple. There were no papers to sign or ceremonies to perform. We know this as Common Law Marriage, and it's still legal in nine states. Churches had nothing to do with it for centuries. It wasn't until 1563 that the Catholic Church required a ceremony, witnesses and a registration for a marriage to be recognized. In the Anglican realm, this didn't happen until 1753 and didn't apply to the colonies.

    The US never had an official church, so common law marriage remained the norm for many years until cities and states began requiring civil marriage licenses.

    And that remains the case. Churches may not, on their own, create legal marriages. American marriage is purely a matter of civil law, licensed and recorded by a government agency or by common law. It may be conducted in a church, but only if civil law is met.

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    April 9, 2014 9:48 p.m.

    Live and let live! It is not the right of individuals from any certain religion belief to disallow others to Same Sex Marriage! It would be like me getting mad at you for eating a donut because I am on a diet!

  • John Locke Ivins, , UT
    April 9, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    Good thing Putin isn't in charge...we should be proud as Americans that in our country we have a a constitution that protects freedom of assembly and free speech. That does not mean that it is a majority opinion in Utah, or even in California. Just because it is the law, doesn't make it moral.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 9, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    mrjj69 wrote:

    "Gays do NOT need to be married. They can get the same rights with a domestic partnership."

    Sir, would you be willing to trade your marriage license for a domestic partnership certificate? And if not, why do you think any gay couple should be content with one?

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    April 9, 2014 7:04 p.m.

    @Red Shirt " SSM is changing the definition of marriage from something between man and woman to being whatever you want. As society cheapens marriage through living together and SSM...."

    Where is your evidence to support your claim that the sky is falling because of SSM? Do you know someone that claims their marriage has been redefined or cheapened because someone else just got married? If so, there marriage is already in trouble and not because of same-sex couples and their marriages. We don't hold same-sex couples accountable for the irrational actions of others in civil or criminal law, it just is not rational to do so.

    If legal felon abuse civil marriages are not redefining the institution of marriage to something less than, I can assure you two loving same-sex couples in a stable married relationship aren't going to "redefine" the institution of marriage either. In fact, loving same-sex couples and their children on help to strengthen the existing institution of marriage. Just like it did by allowing women to participate in the traditional institution of voting, from a gendered institution to a genderless institution, making it better.

  • djk blue springs, MO
    April 9, 2014 6:54 p.m.

    did anyone out there supporting gay marriage even watch listen and learn from general conference ?

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:51 p.m.

    @ 1 Voice

    From the founding of the colonies through the early years of the republic, civil authorities regulated marriage to foster stable households, legitimate children and designate providers to care for dependents who otherwise would become wards of the state. During the twentieth century, the state and federal governments furthered these goals by granting many benefits to married couples. For instance, Social Security survivor benefits and government sponsored healthcare benefits are available to legally married couples, but not unmarried partners. Foreclosing same-sex couples from obtaining these benefits undermines the very aim of one of the central historical bases for civil marriage, namely, family stability.

    For most, sexual orientation, race and gender is not considered a choice, unlike religion and 3 some relationships. Moreover, same-sex couples are also not advocating for harmful and abuse in minor relationships.

    Relationships are more than friendships. Sexual orientation has been determined to be fundamental to a persons identity and person-hood. A requirement to change someones (heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual) sexual orientation in order to civil marry is not only unreasonable, but un-constitutional. A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is no right at all.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 9, 2014 6:34 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701: "If you take 1000 heterosexual couples and 1000 gay couples..."

    About 5% of the population is Gay or Lesbian, so your example is meaningless. However, artificial insemination would solve your "problem" and the second generation would be 90% straight. So life would go on.

    "Next, go and read the book "Men are from Mars."

    Men and women do communicate differently. However, I am mostly a guy from Venus - reading that book helped me understand that, while I do have male socialization, why I was always "one of the girls," not one of the guys. Even as a kid I was more comfortable with my Aunts and girl cousins than my Uncles and boy cousins. In my teen and young adult years I learned to negotiate social and working relationships with men. This was a problem with my marriages to women - I was always more "Venus" and it actually created communication problems.

    @mrjj69 "First gays do NOT need to be married. They can get the same rights with a domestic partnership."

    Not according to Amendment 3 in Utah and similar laws in other states.

  • praxis Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    mrjj69 - I can only guess that you have not been paying attention. It has been ruled in courts at both the state and federal level that Civil Unions do NOT grant the same rights, responsibilities and privileges of Marriage. In striking down DOMA, the SCOTUS made it clear that Civil Unions are not equal to Marriage and now that the federal government recognizes same-sex marriages, they have made it clear that only those marriages have access to federal benefits and Civil Unions do not.

    Marriage provides
    1,400+ state and federal rights
    Recognized worldwide

    Civil Union provides
    300+ state benefits and protections
    No federal protection
    No guarantee of protection outside the state that granted the union

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    April 9, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    First gays do NOT need to be married. They can get the same rights with a domestic partnership.

    Second, if the majority of voters vote against gay marriage.... why do the minority rule over everyone else??

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 4:57 p.m.

    After 48 years, I think that I am letting go! It hurts more than anything I have ever felt, but I have to let go of a great wish! For years I have wished that I could feel like I belonged among the people I grew up with1 I would often think about how it would be if they could only believe that I deserved to be there! I can't change my sexuality and I will not live a lie! I stayed here and all of these years I have tried to live a good life!
    what do you do when the people you love don't put much value on your life?
    This isn't love! It isn't right either! We can't change the way people feel! What hurts is how easily they tell us that we are unacceptable! I have learned one good thing! I don't ever have to define anyone when it comes to God! God will decide if they wil be in His Kingdom, not I! Why do people have such a need to tear us down? We are better people than how people are treating us!

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    Homosexuality is no more a sin than is left-handedness(although this was once thought to be sinful as well). It is merely a natural human variation.

    Gays deserve the same freedom to marry that straights have. It will not affect current marriages, it will only add to the number of happy secure families.

    Ten years from now we will all look back on this and wonder what the hub bub was about.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 9, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    @stand firm -- I completely agree with you in this sense. You should absolutely stand firm and true to your beliefs and NOT enter into a gay marriage. I will support you, everyone will support you. Stand firm on that and live according to your values. But allow others to live according to their values. It doesn't hurt YOU when someone else does something you don't like. You are not burdened by hearing about or being aware of gay marriage. It doesn't affect you or your marriage or your ability to keep your covenants in any way. Please live true to your beliefs and let others live true to theirs.

  • praxis Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    To Jim and Meckofahess using Nazi Germany as a comparison to their "rights" being denied by those advocating for same-sex marriage:

    Survivors of the Holocaust have specifically stated that comparing current issues to the Holocaust and life under the Nazis is an exaggeration and they find it offensive.

    The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham H. Foxman, wrote in Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "It seems to happen with greater regularity in American political debate today than ever before: When anger reaches a fever pitch on a particular issue, out come the inevitable comparisons to the Holocaust. It has become a rule of thumb, an all-too convenient catchphrase of the times."

    "It diminishes the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Wiesenthal Center, an internationally known Holocaust studies center based in Los Angeles. "Survivors and others are very upset about this. When you exaggerate, it’s very harmful to them when they know that their mothers and fathers were taken to the gas chambers without any recourse to the law. They lost children."

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    April 9, 2014 4:16 p.m.

    @ No H8 – Celebrate
    You do seem confused. Have you read the LDS proclamation on the family?

    The episcopal position on homosexuality is admirable and correct. We should not persecute individuals for their sexual tendencies. God loves them as much as he loves everyone else.
    However, accepting that some people have same sex attraction doesn't mean we should codify SSM into law any more than we should codify marriage for minors, polygamy or bigamy as it is most likely is not in the best interests of society.

    Pedophile tendencies are real (they exist and are un-natural) but I don’t think you or I would ever suggest we codify marriage between pedophiles and consenting minors just to be fair to them, even if you believe it is their constitutional right (I know minors can't consent by law even if they think they can, its only an example). But how do you feel about three consenting adults joining in marriage? I'm sure you wouldn't deny them their rights.

  • HENELSON lindon, UT
    April 9, 2014 4:16 p.m.

    As the gay marriage decision hangs in the balance. I remind all of us that our founding fathers stood for the rights of the people WE the people of Utah, have the sovereign God Given right, we chose Amendment 3 for our safety and happiness. We have the right to make this law and the courts should uphold the law.
    “ …We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …. it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… ”

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 9, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    To "my_two_cents_worth" lets go through a little thought experiment so that you can understand my statement better.

    Lets start with the superficial. If you take 1000 heterosexual couples and 1000 gay couples and put each onto an island and wait 100 years. Assuming that they are all 100% faithful to their partners, which island will most likely still be populated? First difference.

    Next, go and read the book "Men are from Mars." There we learn about communication differences between men and women. Much of it is a hardwired trait that your typical hetersexual couple has to learn to overcome if they are to form a successful marriage.

    Another point to look is the emotional differences between men and women. Men tend to be less emotional and women more emotional. Learning to deal with and appreciate eachother is something that you only get in a heterosexual marriage. If you have 2 men or 2 women, where the the counterbalance?

    As much as you think it is equal, gay marriage is not the same as hetersexual marriage.

    To "Baccus0902" I said nothing of children or 2 people being emotionally involved. I only stated SSM is not equal to HM.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    April 9, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    @Thats what I thought:

    But there needs to be a rational basis for those legal limits. To use one of your examples, there is a rational basis for laws against marrying a minor: so adults cannot take advantage of children.

    The only basis behind banning same-sex marriage is animus against LGBT adults.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    April 9, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    @ Redshirt:
    "It doesn't matter how much you insist, a gay couple can never have what a hetersexual couple has."
    I think you are wrong, but for the sake of the conversation let's give you the benefit of the doubt. "Can never have" it seems to me that what you implied is the level and quality of feelings, children Right?

    If that is the case, then your point is irrelevant. Here we are talking about the right of two consenting adults to join their lives. That is all. They may succeed or they may fail,but they should have their chance. Children??? Many of us have children and we are not married. Can you imagine how many more children we could adopt if we are allowed to marry?

    The irony of your argument is that most of our children are adopted because of the failure of heterosexual couples.

  • standfirm Ogden, UT
    April 9, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    Right is right and wrong is wrong! Loud, shrill voices and demonstrations do not change what is morally right or wrong. In today's world, there is a perception that if one side or the other is loud enough, they "win". The only way to win is to do what is right! Whether the world sees it as a win or loss, doesn't matter. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. If you have a problem with that, you truly have a problem, and no amount of demonstrating will make it right!

  • Thats what I thought South Jordan, UT
    April 9, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    Our society makes determinations on what is based on what is best for our society. I can buy any gun I want, as long as it is within the legal limits. I can be any profession I want to be, as long as it is not prohibited by law. Similarly, anybody can marry whoever they want, as long as it is within the legal limits- not same sex, not closely related, not a minor, not a multiple spouse. Also, society limits people's rights based on decisions or how they were born. People are restricted from gun ownership based on how they were born or decisions they make. People are restricted from voting based on their decisions. If somebody is addicted to any drug, if they are born with kleptomania, or any other variety of uncontrollable impulses, we don't say they cannot help it, we just say that their acting on those impulses fully is not allowed. Just because somebody wants to do something doesn't mean they should be encouraged by society to do it.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    April 9, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    Vanceone said, "Can anyone deny that the gay activists are out to force everyone to their views?"

    Utah Constitutional Amendment 3.

    1.Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.

    2.No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

    So who, exactly, is trying to force their views on whom?

    RedShirt said, "To "CHS 85" but gay marriage will never be equal to heterosexual marriage."

    It is where I live and in 16 other states across the nation. You can keep telling yourself differently but that won't change reality.

    My opposite sex spouse and I are celebrating our 31st year of marriage today and marriage equality here in Washington has done absolutely nothing to diminish, destroy, or adversely affect or "traditional marriage; the sky has not fallen.

  • Weberboy Fruit Heights, UT
    April 9, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    I'm against this issue being decided by the courts - its a political and moral issue, more than a legal issue.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    Until YOU have had both relationships, please do not try and judge what they are like. I was actually more like my husband than I am my partner. We were best friends with many of the same likes and hobbies. I have had to work harder in the same sex relationship to understand our expectations,

    But I can assure you that the feelings and emotions are real and deep. It has the missing ingredient that my marriage did not have. I know which one I choose and why.

    You can believe what you want and look down on me and feel that your relationship is better. That is your right. I also have the right to feel differently and have a completely different perspective than you ever will have. I know what is right for me.

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    April 9, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    Elder Perry said in the last General Conference that in this complexity what we really need is more simplicity.

    Marriage was, once upon a time, a religious and/or cultural ordinance. Depending on the religion, the laws behind marriage was strictly enforced. In all cases, a man and a woman were involved, with the end game of providing a protective netting over their children.

    Government came into play saying that marriages help construct the State. Then the governments started adding benefits and different levels of taxes on marriage. Some governments said you could only marry your own race or to a specific race. Others claimed as married those who lived together for X number of years. Then no fault divorce became legal. Now with same sex marriage on the books you are going to complicate these laws even further.

    Keep it simple. Leave marriage to the cultural and religious institutions with their rules for entering marriage. Get government out of marriage. Problem solved.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    To "Lane Myer" like I said before. It doesn't matter how much you insist, a gay couple can never have what a hetersexual couple has. You said that you communicate well with your partner and some men. That is fine, but in your relationship with your partner did you have to learn a new way of communicating or was communication easy because you both spoke the same language? Are you a couple with the women that you don't understand? Since you obviously are not, how are you going to learn how to spend the rest of your life with a person that is your opposite in so many ways? Your post shows that you are taking the easy road and are with somebody similar to you. If that works for you that is fine, just don't lie to me and tell me that what you have is equal to a heterosexual marriage.

    To "Evidence Not Junk Science" you do realize that SSM is changing the definition of marriage from something between man and woman to being whatever you want. As society cheapens marriage through living together and SSM, society suffers. Society is suffering now more than ever.

  • Cleetorn Fuaamotu, Tonga
    April 9, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    The “simple” is that we should all obey God’s commandments. I realize such a statement is applicable mainly to me as many others believe differently than I do. Not everybody believes in a god nor do they visualize their “higher power” in the same manner as I do. That’s not my problem. I can’t “fix” them. I can barely fix me. I can’t be held responsible for their decisions and/or actions. I can only be the best person I can and let God sort it all out in the end. Which, of course, He will.

  • Cleetorn Fuaamotu, Tonga
    April 9, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    On one hand, this is a VERY complex issue and there are no easy answers. On another, it’s plain and simple.

    I would have to claim that I don’t understand homosexuality and SSM. That being said, I have an acute understanding that those persuasions do exist and in today’s environment, need to be acknowledged, recognized and provided some sort of accommodation. I would never dream of denying ANYONE the freedoms, rights, privileges and opportunities provided by our great Constitution. I have friends and relatives on both sides of the fence and have love and respect for them as people. They need to be treated as such. While I may not agree with all of their choices – regardless of their orientation – I can still accept them for who they are – children of God.

    I think He is the same way. While He refuses to look upon sin with the least amount of accommodation, He also refuses to look upon His creations without love and wants us ALL to return home – just as any good parent would. Nevertheless, He will hold us accountable for our decisions, right or wrong. (more . . . .)

  • Impressionist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    Utah will remain a clean state and marriage will be left up to the states, as it should be.

    That is what is right and proper.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    @ 1 Voice

    I'm confused kindly explain which view should be codified into civil law and why?

    1. "...The proclamation to the world regarding LDS beliefs."

    OR

    2. "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 2014 Message to the World.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 9, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    This article argues that the growing number of singles is one of the evidences that marriage equality is really about destroying marriage altogether.
    This begs the question, what do you want gay people to do with their lives?
    If you don't want gay people to be single and you don't want them to be married to each other, what do you want them to do? Do you want them to marry opposite sex spouses? Or would you prefer that we all just didn't exist?

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    @ Red Shirt "...How does redefining one of the foundations of society benefit gays?"

    Besides the family stability marriage and social understanding, there are about 1100 state and federal benefits that come with marriage. Spousal health insurance, pensions, social security, disability etc.

    Importantly, there is simply no such thing as redefinition. How does excluding people DEFINE marriage? Otherwise, why don't we exclude spousal, child, drug and alcohol abusers? Wouldn't marriages free of abuse be a better definition?

    Moreover, excluding people for what most consider immutable characteristics (race, gender, eye color, sexual orientation) does not define marriage either.

    Sky will fall, heterosexuals will act differently because of gays, marriage will be "REDEFINED" argumentation is honestly nonsense. Allowing people to participate or strengthen the institution of marriage is not "redefinition." Traditional voting was not "redefined" by giving women the right to vote. Voting is still voting, no?

    How many folks in any state where same-sex marriage is now legal, thinks their marriage has been refined because someone else can legally civil marry? Nada, not a one.

    Redefinition is such a silly unsupported claim to make, no? Kindly explain how excluding others defines marriage.

  • Cleetorn Fuaamotu, Tonga
    April 9, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    UT Brit, it’s not so much that I have not “studied the words of the prophets” as it is that I was not in the MTC at the time you were (as was the case for most people) and was not privileged to hear Elder Oaks speak.

    While you demonstrate a fair knowledge of gospel principles, your obvious contempt of them belies your inspired understanding of them. The concepts you propound – while correct in principle – are presented so as to identify them as ridiculous. I don’t know what changed your mind from embracing the gospel to holding it in such disregard but it seems to have been quite effective.

    But that’s okay. You are allowed to think what you want. Thoughts are still not entirely regulated - yet. I realize that there is nothing I can to “prove” the folly of your contemptuous attitude and over-generalizations of “truth,” so it would be foolish to even attempt. It appears that we’ll have to leave that to He who is the author of all truth.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    @Vanceone

    Your post at 11:24 was the best and most accurate summation of what legalized gay marriage really is all about. It is not the end goal of SSM activists it is just a milestone.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    REdshirt: "Your aunt was involved in a hetersexual marriage. Within their marriage they most likely had the balance that can only occur when you have the differences between a man and a woman. For example, the way a man communicates is different than the way a woman communicates."

    ----------
    Baloney! I was married to a man for 11 years. I have lived with my partner for almost as long. Both relationships take communication, understanding, and compromise. We are all different. Just because we are women does not mean that we communicate the same way. There are many women that I just simply do not understand. There are many men that I consider very good friends that I can talk to about anything.

    I am sorry for you that you feel that all women communicate the same and lump us all into two piles, but I can assure you that men are not all the same and neither are women. That includes parenting, interests, religion, etc. Celebrate the diversity within each group. Life is not black and white, but many colors!

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    Sorry waikiki_dave if you are offended by my stating the fact that homosexuality is un-natural. As a species, sexual attraction between a man and a women is natural, and necessary, to propagate the species. Thus same sex attraction is un-natural; not only for having children but, as research has shown and God knew already, for raising children.

    Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t mean that I advocate persecuting homosexuals in any way. If someone has a disposition toward same sex attraction I understand, to them it is real and natural. I just believe that the institution of marriage is instigated by God to fulfill his purposes for having us come to earth. Without an understanding of the plan of salvation it would be hard for you to understand why I value, support, and attempt to protect traditional marriage. If you are interested please read The Family: a proclamation to the world regarding LDS beliefs.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    @babyR
    "Thank Heaven (literally) there are still enough righteous people to oppose same-sex marriages and perhaps slow down the movement if not to stop it entirely. "

    Fun fact: suggesting that people who disagree with you aren't righteous is not a very good step in trying to get them to agree with you.

    @hockeymom
    "Isn't that why States should make laws based on the majority rule of the people in each state?"

    Except when it violates the Constitution. If say the majority of Utahns voted to ban women from voting, that would be struck down as unconstitutional.

    @That's what I thought
    "those who support traditional marriage are publicly shamed by the media, labeled a homophobe, told they are haters, bigots, ignorant, etc. "

    Not exactly... those who actively seek to ban same-sex marriage are. Think of it this way, you might notice that when it comes to a ban on female clergy that there's virtually no outside pressure on churches even though there are plenty of feminists and others who believe such a policy is sexist. It's not so much having a view that attracts conflict, but trying to impose that view on others.

  • kvnsmnsn Springville, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    Alan Simpson said, "Whether you're gay or lesbian or straight, if you love someone and you want to marry them, marry them." What if the someone you love is already married? The form of morality embraced in the past by the majority of Americans says that you shouldn't marry someone who's already married to someone else, and in fact that's against the law. But that same form of morality says that you shouldn't marry someone of your own gender. If we're going to defy one taboo, why not defy the other one? I've said before that if someone were to propose a law that made it legal for two or three adults of any gender combination to get married, I would support that law. But I oppose legalizing same-sex marriage that doesn't do anything about legalizing polygamy.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you say that you are "with Jesus, Joseph Smith and the Pope on this one...

    Who am I to judge?"

    You do know that the Pope is against gay marriage? You also know that just last weekend we were told by Prophets that just because it is legal and socially acceptable does not mean it is right. If God has said that something is wrong, you are not judging if you reaffirm what has been said and say that it is wrong.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    To "Sank You, Doctor" but you can never have the same thing that your aunt. Your aunt was involved in a hetersexual marriage. Within their marriage they most likely had the balance that can only occur when you have the differences between a man and a woman. For example, the way a man communicates is different than the way a woman communicates. Great marriages are formed as they each learn to communicate in a common language. When 2 men are married together, where does that learning go? Where is the learning that is a result of uniting 2 opposites together come from? No matter how hard you try, you will never experience the same thing that your Aunt did.

    To "Evidence Not Junk Science" that is a nice rant, but you fail to address the issue. How does redefining one of the foundations of society benefit gays? So far it has caused open hostility between gays an the religious community. Marriage has been redefined. It has gone from the union of man and woman to the union of 2 people that love eachother. That is a change, like it or not.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    JSB - Well said...

    I voted against Ammednment 3. At the time I believed that there should be no difference between straight and gay marriage. However, the more I learned on this topic, I "evolved" to believe that the two are in fact very different.

    I support civil unions. Secular, legal rights should be provided equally. The problem is the attack on religion that this issue has fostered. There is really no need for it. If true "tolerance" were practiced we would never be where we are today.

    I will defend my religion, even unto death. That is what Christ requires. In the US, I would never expect that to happen. Unfortunately for my kids and grandkids, it very well may.

  • argencute san antonio, TX
    April 9, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    Oh nooo!!!! people is fighting for gay marriage!!!! horror!!!now all the republican senators (and democrats also, hehe) are going to start having affairs and destroy their families and carrers!!! even gay's affairs!!! now they are going to try to "tap"their feet in public bathrooms to pick gay partners!!! I knew that gay marriage was going to destroy straght people's marriages... (^_~)

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    @gwtchd "if you love your sister marry her. If you love your mother and she is single marry her. Or if your dad is single and you love him marry him."

    Sexual orientation has been determined to be fundamental to a persons identity and person-hood. A requirement to change someones (heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual) sexual orientation in order to civil marry is not only unreasonable, but un-constitutional. A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is no right at all.

    Current civil marriage law has a presumption of intimacy, a type of relationship that is fundamentally different than the one you have with your dad, sister or mother, where a legal family relationship already exists. Same-sex couples through civil marriage establish the same family relationship with the presumption of intimacy as opposite-sex couples.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    I'm with Jesus, Joseph Smith and the Pope on this one...

    Who am I to judge?

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    RE: Vanceone

    "Can anyone deny that the SSM proponents are out to force everyone to their views?"

    Vance, the argument you present can be used both ways and it's a week argument either way.

    Again I ask, how in any way are the Gay's forcing any one to accept their views by wanting to get legally married? You can still disagree with SSM if they are allowed to marry, you can still believe it's immoral, you can still preach against it. All they want is the same ability you do to get legally married. How dare you complain about forced views when your side has been doing it for years. The simple fact we hare having this issue is proof of that.

    Everyone has the right to believe as they wish but with that said God did not put you here to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. I think God said it best when he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.". God will be the judge not us.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    @Red Shirt " By going after the term marriage they are seeking to redefine the foudnation of society."

    How does excluding people define marriage? Otherwise, why don't we exclude spousal, child, drug and alcohol abusers? Wouldn't marriages free of abuse be a better definition?

    Moreover, excluding people for what most consider immutable characteristics (race, gender, eye color, sexual orientation) does not define marriage either.

    Sky will fall, blaming Gays for the future actions of opposite-sex couples and marriage will be redefined argumentation is honestly nonsense. Allowing people to participate or strengthen the institution of marriage is not "redefinition." Traditional voting was not "redefined" by giving women the right to vote. Voting is still voting, no?

    How many folks in any state where same-sex marriage is now legal, thinks their marriage has been refined because someone else can legally civil marry? Nada, not a one.

    Redefinition is such a silly unsupported claim to make, no?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 9, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    Conservatives love keeping people ignorant to maintain positions of power. It's probably why they oppose funding education. Utah became a state after the Civil War and twenty seven years after the 14th Amendment, which limited state's rights, was ratified. You knew the rules when you became a state. The 14th Amendment says that a state has to have good reason when denying one group of people a right which the majority enjoys. Marriage is such a right as declared multiple times by SCOTUS. In courts across America, those who would deny marriage equality have not been able to put forth one coherent argument as to why gay and lesbian citizens should not be afforded that right. Make no doubt, the 14th Amendment, puts the burden of proof on them. In fact, when burdened with the requirement of having to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in court, witnesses for the proponents of "traditional marriage" have had to admit their actions harm LGBT families and that the alleged threats to "traditional marriage" are theoretical at best.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    April 9, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    To those who claim the gay crowd is riotously infringing on your freedoms by demonstrating legally to draw attention to their viewpoint.

    Let us all remember a few things. The Supreme Court of this country has essentially ruled that money is speech. When the California citizens voted on a ballot measure to ban same sex marriage, hordes of cash (which is now considered free speech) poured into the coffers of the anti-SSM campaigns. Much of that money was from Utah at the behest of the LDS church leadership. Seems to me there was a lot of riotous shouting going on back then, and it did not even concern Utah.

    Therefore, it would appear that riotous speech is in the eye of the beholder. Stop the hypocrisy on this issue. It demeans your faith, good reason and humanity.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    April 9, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    "1 Voice" "same sex attraction is an un-natural affection".

    That is probabaly one of the most disingenious and insulting statements that I can think of that would motivate gay people and their friends to fight like 'heck' for marriage equality. To complain that gays are using 'bully' tactics to fight for their rights, and in the same breath to make a comment like that? If I said any more the DN probabaly wouldn't publish my comment.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    April 9, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    MyTwoCentsWorth, The funny thing about Christians quoting Leviticus 18:22 is how much importance they claim to put on it, while fully ignoring all other verses in the Book. Some are quite graphic and explicit and clearly intended to be followed. The passages about menstruation particularly so, 15:19-30 and 20:18. Yet, there are no Christians today who don't immediately dismiss these passages as irrelevant, simply because they find them inconvenient. We need go no further to see the true worth that conservative Christians put in the Book of Leviticus: None. Especially when it comes to their own sex lives and hygiene, their clothing, their farming practices, their diets, treatment of the dead or any of the other myriad nuts and bolts details that Leviticus prescribes.

    One of the hundred or so prescriptions and 21 warnings of "abomination" fits their purposes, so they're happy to quote that one, but to what end and with what moral authority, when they clearly ignore the rest of the Book, is beyond me.

  • UT Brit London, England
    April 9, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    Cleetorn

    Elder Oaks told us in a talk he gave while I was at the Provo MTC. His first wife died, he then married and was sealed to his second wife. 1+1=2.

    They go on in our temples, a man may be sealed to more than one woman. True there are only two in the sealing on the earth but in heaven he is being sealed to more than one woman.

    I am aghast that no one has studied the words of the prophets. The principles of godhood sound pretty core to me.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    @ Physics27 "Often If one speaks out in favor of traditional marriage one is ridiculed and told how bigoted, rude, hateful, and ignorant they are. Maybe we are not as loud anymore to try to avoid contention. I will try to speak up more with kindness."

    @ 1 Voice "...doesn't mean our values and morals should be dismissed in favor of a loud minority group who noisily pushing an unjust agenda through social terrorism."

    -----
    How can Mormons speak up for traditional values? I've been watching the free you tube movie "Prayers For Bobby" It shows how a faithful Mormon woman can speak up and support religious beliefs, exactly like the Saints were asked to do by Apostle Andersen during conference.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    A friendly FYI for the people on this forum, the laws of the land, US Constitution, are designed to distinctly protect the rights of the individuals from oppression from the Government. These same laws protect the rights of religious institutions to practice their beliefs without fear of prosecution or persecution from their Government. Consenting adults who want to enter into a marriage (a civil contract in the eyes of the Government), regardless of gender are afforded these rights under the Constitution, which will be upheld by SCOTUS within the next 18 months. There is a clearly defined separation of church and state in this country, defined by the Constitution and supplemented by the Jeffersonian papers, which is designed to protect the rights of religious organizations, their followers, and the rights of the individuals.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    April 9, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    When it comes to marriage equality, gay people have been waiting for centuries to finally shed their second class citizen status. They should be allowed to cheer, celebrate and make all of the noise they want!

  • Sank You, Doctor Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    Redshirt: "To "CHS 85" but gay marriage will never be equal to heterosexual marriage. No matter how you define things or wish it to be, two gays that are married will never be equal to a hetersexual couple. If gays want the legal benefits of marriage, they should be fighting to have a separate term included in the law. By going after the term marriage they are seeking to redefine the foudnation of society."

    ----------

    As a gay person, I just want the same marriage that my aunt had at 66. She was not supposed to have any children, but to have a marriage that brought her joy and companionship. I do feel that any marriage that I may have would be equal to hers. Can you tell me how it would be different? Please just grant me the same legal rights and privileges that she received with this marriage.

    REdshirt, you can gloat and believe that you are better than my aunt and I, but as long as we are both treated equally under the law, I don't care what you believe.

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    In other news, recent research out of California has indicated that when same-sex marriage supporters and same-sex marriage opponents get together and talk to one another, views are changed - of course, those changes are support for same-sex marriage by those who previously opposed it and the changes are greater if the same-sex marriage supporter is an LGBT individual - but communication is effective for changing minds.

    Plans to encourage local opponents of same-sex marriage to carry on conversations with supporters of same-sex marriage may just backfire.

    Oh - and the reason the same-sex marriage crowd is louder is because there are more of them.

    The biggest mistake opponents made was fighting for Prop 8 - it exposed the shaky foundations of the anti-same-sex marriage propaganda machine and highlighted the humanity of same-sex couples. The up slant of the hockey stick shift in support of same-sex marriage can be tied directly to public awareness of the lack of real arguments against same-sex marriage. Even many religious people who think homosexuality is a sin believe civil marriage should be allowed for same-sex couples.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    April 9, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    I used to be more sympathetic with the plight of homosexuals. I have always had friends who were homosexual. I'm presently helping a homosexual friend find a job. But I do have reservations about the long-term negative social effects of gay marriage since I believe that biologically we are a heterosexual pair bonding species and we should stay that way. For having this concern I have been attacked as a mean spirited, homophobic bigot. If I think gay men should not go into women's restrooms, I'm a mean spirited homophobic bigot. I think it would be very unwise and place young boys at risk to have homosexual boy scout leaders. Again, the noble homosexuals brand me as a mean spirited homophobic bigot.

    I'll still try to help my homosexual friend find a job. But, that doesn't mean I appreciate being branded as a mean spirited homophobic bigot because I think that some of the things some homosexuals are trying to force into our society are unwise. The more they try to force their agenda on me, the less support I have for them.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    Being loud and proud, getting people fired who don’t share your values morals or opinions, bulling people to get your way may be great social terrorism tactics but they are not right and they won’t make you right with God. Wickedness never was happiness.

    No supporters of traditional marriage are not noisy; that doesn't mean our values and morals should be dismissed in favor of a loud minority group who noisily pushing an unjust agenda through social terrorism.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    SSM will likely become law, but not because it’s a good idea or morally right but because a minority group of very loud people are good at pushing their agenda through bully tactics and blurring the issue.

    Certainly same sex attraction happens, but it is an unnatural affection. Advocates know it is not natural but they have gained the status of protected minority because they were discriminated against; they now use that status as a weapon to discriminate, bully and harm those who disagree with their values and morals in an attempt to get their way.

    Advocates of SSM say its only fair but its not about rights or equality. Society makes laws that protect the morals and norms of society. We restrict marriage to two individuals (a man and a women, not a minor, not your sister your daughter or your mom) because it is the best way to raise children.

    No, traditional marriage isn’t always perfect and doesn’t always works out but traditional marriage is the best way; God says so, I believe him.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    Reading through the comments, it is amazing to see the "tolarant" people attacking anybody who does not believe in gay marriage. Don't you see the harm that this is causing to society by attacking people who have a different opinion?

    To "ordinaryfolks" the problem is that things have moved so far to the left that whe you refuse to eat the piece of pie, the people don't rally around Aunt Betty. Aunt Betty is now attacked and ridiculed for even bringing a pie that not everybody could eat. They shame her into never bringing a pie again.

    To "CHS 85" but gay marriage will never be equal to heterosexual marriage. No matter how you define things or wish it to be, two gays that are married will never be equal to a hetersexual couple. If gays want the legal benefits of marriage, they should be fighting to have a separate term included in the law. By going after the term marriage they are seeking to redefine the foudnation of society.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    Can anyone deny that the gay activists are out to force everyone to their views? I comment on some conservative sites, and we have various liberals telling us that it is "inevitable" that soon we will be prosecuting people for child abuse who "teach hatred" of gays. Since "hatred of gays" is currently defined as disagreeing with them, it is clear that same sex marriage is just the beginning. Already in England there are gays suing to be married in a church wedding. There are pastors being arrested for teaching from the Bible. Canada did that too.

    It's coming here. Same Sex marriage is just a step on the path to criminalizing Christianity. I stand against the gay activists now, rather than later. After all, didn't they swear that civil unions was all they wanted? That they wouldn't ever force people to do anything? Mozilla's CEO, various bakers, photographers, etc can all testify that yes, the gay activists very much intend to force their views on all of us, and they do not believe in freedom to disagree.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    Did Gayle just say they were having a work shop on how to train their supporters to deal with the media? Gayle if it walks like a Duck and squawks like a Duck it is a Duck. No amount of training or elegant words are going to change the fact you and your supporters are on the wrong side of history.

    I will tell you this. I do like your "Staying Out Of The Media" strategy. It's been nice not having to see you and I think it's the best option for your cause.

  • gwtchd Mountain Village, AK
    April 9, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    Simpson said: "if you love someone and you want to marry them, marry them," Simpson says in the 30-second spot."
    So if you are a Male and you love your brother marry him. If you love your sister marry her. If you love your mother and she is single marry her. Or if your dad is single and you love him marry him. Same goes for you if you are a girl.

    Common sense says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    April 9, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    Many of the posters here today have indicated that they are afraid to stand up for "traditional marriage" for fear of losing their jobs. I have to ask: have you been asked to not wear your wedding rings at the work place? Have you been told that your family photo has no business being in the workplace? Has your opposite sex life's partner been denied coverage under your company medical plan? Has it been suggested that you introduce your spouse as your "good friend" at company social gatherings? Do others in the work place talk about you behind your back, referring to you as "one of those types?" Do GLBT co-workers remind you routinely that you are living in sin and doomed to hell if you don't change? Are you constantly reminded that it's "Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve?" If "no" then your "persecution" is as much make-believe as the argument that SSM threatens traditional marriage.

    For the record, "defending traditional marriage" is not synonymous with beating your fellow human beings over the head with Leviticus 18:22.

  • Cleetorn Fuaamotu, Tonga
    April 9, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    UT Brit, polygamy may be an “eternal principle” but it is hardly a “core principle.” And it while it may go “on today in temples,” NONE of those temples are LDS. While “sealings go on daily” in LDS temples, they are limited to one man and one woman, not multiples thereof. Also, I would like to know where you found your reference that “Elder Oaks is sealed to two women.”

    Demiurge, you “suggest you give being gay a chance for a few weeks.” Your proposal is laughable at best. I don’t need to get hit in the head with a baseball bat or take illicit drugs to know that they’re not good for me.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    To: North of Here

    "Wait, you mean someone (Mozilla CEO) was discriminated against for supporting their beliefs? We didn't see that one coming. This will only get worse from here on out. Its tyranny under the guise of human rights?"

    Gay people have been loosing their jobs for hundreds of years for being gay. I personally think that no one should loose their job on either side. I love how you say it is "tyranny" now but when the gays were getting persecuted you didn't mind. You can't have it both ways.

  • UT Brit London, England
    April 9, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    @truthistruth

    "Currently, woman can be sealed to more than one husband"

    My blue church handbook of instructions for Bishops and Stake Presidents says otherwise. A woman can be sealed to one man, a man may be sealed to any number of women. What does your handbook say?

    "I do not believe it is an eternal principle"

    If you had said this when Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were around you would have been excommunicated.

    "Obviously the holy practice [of polygamy] will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium." - Bruce R McConkie

    Please read up on the subject, you obviously need to turn to the teachings of the prophets and the scriptures if you dont think polygamy is not an eternal principle.

  • my two cents777 ,
    April 9, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    @Vince Ballard: so well spoken. I, too, was anti-gay marriage until I had a precious cousin - who I love very much- who came "out" as gay and married the love of his life. Another gay man. My love for them is pure and unconditional. I love them and feel like they had no choice how they came to earth; they were made by the same loving Father who created us all. Who are we to judge Father and his creations? HE loves us all; even those who judge unfairly. You can BET you have gays in your own family; you just don't know it yet. Mind your own business; and clean your own house. We'll all be better off, that way. God bless us all as we travel this confusing earthly life.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    April 9, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    Those of you who follow the doctrines of the LDS church please read D&C 49:15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
    @bj-hip LDS doctrine teaches nothing about eternal families being destroyed if same-sex marriages are allowed. The LDS church recently apologized for their servants teaching incorrect concepts regarding race and the priesthood "None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."
    IMO, God wants you to think for yourself and minister to and support all families.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    Meckofahess, you use Nazi Germany to support your rights. Gay people were executed and tortured while people with your attitude that you were "right" were allowed to survive and in most cases be the kind of people that persecuted those other minority groups.

    You are not losing any freedoms nor have you been placed in concentration camps and executed for the way you were born.

  • Ray E. LITTLETON, CO
    April 9, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    The traditional marriage proponents are staying quiet because the moment they make any "noise" they are accused of bigotry by so-called progressives, some of whom have shown themselves to be intolerant of opposing viewpoints (remember the vandalism and picketing/boycotting of businesses in the aftermath of Prop 8 passage?). Also, I think many conservatives have conceded that gay marriage nation-wide is inevitable, so why fight it.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    April 9, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    Oreo
    Betty Crocker
    Levi’s
    Cheerios
    American Apparel
    Walt Disney World
    Starbucks
    Wheaties
    Tide
    Microsoft
    The Home Depot
    Pampers
    Pepsi
    Safeway
    Old Navy
    Girl Scouts
    Macy’s
    Target
    JCP
    Walgreens
    Ford
    Gap
    Crest
    Pillsbury
    General Mills
    Proctor and Gamble

    This is a list of companies and products targeted by religious and conservative groups for boycott and letter writing campaigns for their support of LGBT rights. To all here claiming the 1st amendment has been destroyed by Google’s business decision taken to prevent loss of market share and prevent damage to their corporate image I say your “indignation” is both hollow and hypocritical. As they say, “what is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    April 9, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    As a married (over 30 years!) heterosexual Christian who regularly attends worship, serves on committees and is intimately involved in the life of our denomination, would someone care to explain to me what my wife and I stand to lose if marriage equality is extended to gay and lesbian couples?

    Our denomination happens to support marriage equality, but supposing it didn't, what would happen? No government can require us to change our teachings or our opinions, nor our speech. No government can require us to perform any rites or admit any members. Just like we condemn people for greed, for pillaging the earth, for selfishness, for hubris, we could continue to condemn them for anything else that becomes perfectly legal.

    If you're a Mormon, and same-sex marriage is legalized in your state, nothing has been "forced" upon you. You're free to continue your teachings, your religious practice, your marriages, and your everyday lives just as if nothing happened. You can still criticize, condemn, or ostracize your apostate neighbors, if that's how you feel.

    So, I don't understand what's at stake for you in this "fight" you're waging.

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    I think perhaps we see a similarly cynical approach to political campaigning. Coin a catchy slogan that diverts attention from issues and ideals. Show everyone heartfelt endorsements rather than presenting objective discussion. This methodic duplicity appears to be rather effective in winning public approval and popularity. How unfortunate that such efforts so seldom seem able to stand on serious consideration of their own merits.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    @hockeymom

    "why can't society/law just pass some kind of other word for SSM i.e.: "Commitment Union" that would offer the same legal benefits for same sex partners, without trying to demand that society call what they do "marriage"?"

    So you advocate for "separate but equal?" What could possibly go wrong with that?

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    I love the idea that part of the defense of Amendment 3 is that it should be upheld because it had strong public support and overturning it would lead to civil and religious unrest - but when it is pointed out that the majority of Americans (and half of Utahns) support same-sex marriage the defenders of Amendment 3 want to argue that public opinion should not matter.

    For those of you who think civil unions should be a viable alternative: Ten years ago you voted to prohibit those also and Utah cannot have them while Amendment 3 stands. You created the all or nothing situation that you are currently dealing with and once Amendment 3 is struck down, there will be no going back and rewriting it.

    @ Lone Eagle: "Please redefine the color blue while you are at redefining marriage." Poor choice - blue is defined as visible light in the Spectral coordinates of Wavelength 450–495 nm and Frequency ~670–610 THz. Humans have identified at least 60 varying shades, tints, or hues within these coordinates - yet they are all considered "blue." There is no need to redefine blue, and there is no need to redefine marriage.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    April 9, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    Noise yes, but no truth.

  • truthistruth SPANISH FORK, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    @ UT Brit
    London, England

    This probably shouldn't have turned into a polygamy discussion, but this guys comment really rubbed me wrong. In response:
    "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife..." This is the rule, polygamy was an exception at times, and I do not believe it is an eternal principle. Currently, woman can be sealed to more than one husband, so is polyandry an eternal principle? I do not know, perhaps God has allowed that before too.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    @ Meckofahess

    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. He was allowed to share his opinion. Unfortunately his opinion was at odds with a large number of people who are very passionate for their cause, and it potentially cost his company a lot of money. Therefore he lost his job. If he came out in support of legislation that discriminated against or somehow disadvantaged Mormon's (which he has the right to do), he would face similar consequences; and rightfully so.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    @Vanceone
    Provo, UT

    Well said good citizen!. We are with you in what you said 100% - and we are MANY! Lets keep the faith and stand up for our freedoms and rights against the traditional marriage and straight haters who would take our religion, our rights and out chidren away from us!

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    @ Ranch and Noodlekaboodle:

    Glad we gaught your attention. We will not sit still while those of your ilk continue to trample on our constitutional rights and freedom of speech. Let the cultural wars begin!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 9, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    @HockeyMom: You say, "Since marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and it's primary function is intended for the bringing forth of children..."

    I've read Utah's marriage laws. Thoroughly. It doesn't say what you think it says. There's nothing in there about God or children.

    If the function of marriage is to bring forth children, then it's a complete failure. Fully 41% of children are now being born without benefit of marriage, so marriage clearly has nothing to do with sex, insemination, pregnancy or childbirth. That's the plain and simple reality of it.

    To put it another way, biology makes babies, marriages do not. States make marriages, not babies. (Nor do States require marriages to produce babies.) When you are deciding who can get married, you're not deciding who can make babies. You're also not deciding who can adopt babies. Adoption law is separate.

    The "natural children" argument is merely an ex-post-facto rationalization for your anti-gay laws. It's not mentioned in the law itself.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    @ Demiurge
    Certainly most people who engage in homosexual behavior consider those feelings to be "natural" because they feel them. For lack of a better analogy .... I sometimes have a "natural" urge to gouge out my husband's eyes.... but I don't for a variety of reasons. ;) If it became legal that all wives who "naturally" want to gouge out their husbands eyes could do so, there would be a lot of blind husbands! Accepting an activity as "natural" increases the likely hood that people will "try it" who might not otherwise have. Look at the drug and sexual revolution of the '60's - "if it feels good, do it". You can't tell me a myriad of social ills did not come out of that.

  • Random Redlands, CA
    April 9, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    Just a reaction to the headline: Possibly because those who support traditional marriage are in a no-win situation. If we support traditional marriage, it must mean we hate everything else, which is not true. If we say anything about it, we get shouted down and told we're biased and again, hate everything, which again, is not true.

  • standingoutsidethefire SPANISH FORK, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    "Live and let live"- Let the majority of America live it's traditional values of heterosexual marriage. Let those who choose homosexuality live the way they choose. That is freedom and that is fair. But don't try to force acceptance through the courts, or force a change in values by changing laws.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    April 9, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    The headline "Same-sex marriage advocates making more noise than traditional marriage supporters" seems rather slanted.

    A more neutral and accurate headline would be "Same-sex marriage advocates more visible and outspoken than advocates of banning same-sex marriage."

  • Thats what I thought South Jordan, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    And Nixon's "Silent Majority" will continue to remain silent until their silence is no longer a choice. Oh wait a second, let's ask Brenden Eich about what happens if you support traditional marriage. This article is a no-brainer: those who support traditional marriage are publicly shamed by the media, labeled a homophobe, told they are haters, bigots, ignorant, etc. and they don't show up as much as the people who are celebrated for showing up. You can have any view in this country, as long as it's the view that the vocal minority approves of. Tolerance only goes one way here.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    @Eliyahu
    Interesting point. Isn't that why States should make laws based on the majority rule of the people in each state? The problem we had recently was a judge from Colorado deciding what should happen in Utah. I would suspect those wanting Shariah Law in Utah are way in the minority. I would expect that if I travelled to another part of the globe, I'd be expected to abide by the laws of that country or state while I am there.

  • babyR Salt Lake, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    Here's some quiet "noise" on behalf of traditional marriage---it's TRADITIONAL because God so intended it to be that way. For a God-loving state, I'm ashamed to admit that we now live fully in the "world" of which we've been counseled by God's spokesmen (Prophets) not to be a part. Thank Heaven (literally) there are still enough righteous people to oppose same-sex marriages and perhaps slow down the movement if not to stop it entirely. I personally prefer to live in a world with traditional families who strive to uphold God's laws. Perhaps I'll change my mind when men and women in same-sex marriages begin to have babies and fulfill God's most compelling law--"multiply and replenish the earth."

  • Vince Ballard South Ogden, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    I think one reason people are quiet is the fair amount of ambivalence harbored by most of us who know a gay or lesbian family member. It has also become increasingly apparent that being gay is not a choice, nor the result of some sort of sin. This of course, puts the L.D.S. Church in an awkward position, considering some past mistakes and ill advised comments by church leaders in the past. This has also been unsettling to many members, thus the silence. This is probably the greatest crisis faced by the Church today, and I don't know how the current leadership can correct it.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    April 9, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    The many commenters that claim we are entering a new Nazi era (because of same sex marriage) have really got to get a grip on reality. Saying that your free speech and religious freedom is being assaulted by SSM advocates is hyperbole as best, and bullying at worst.

    My favorite analogy to this line of anti SSM thinking goes like this. At our family reunions, Aunt Betty drags out her apple pies and insists that everyone have a slice ( it was her mother's specialty). If I refuse this offer, I become persona non grata. I am made to feel like the proverbial illegitimate child at the family reunion. I become the metaphorical Nazi, even though I can not eat the pie for medical reasons. I have gone against the grain for reasons having nothing to do with this desert.

    Being a minority in any situation is uncomfortable. When you are in the majority, it is easy to bully the minority. The vast majority of people are heterosexual, and in the majority of the world still bully homosexuals. What universe do people live in that they do not understand this?

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    Since marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and it's primary function is intended for the bringing forth of children and homosexuality isn't - why can't society/law just pass some kind of other word for SSM i.e.: "Commitment Union" that would offer the same legal benefits for same sex partners, without trying to demand that society call what they do "marriage"? Same sex couples cannot bring forth children, that's a fact. A long term same sex couple should have access to rights relevant to civil issues such as taxes, beneficiaries of wills, mortgages, etc. which I think they already have. Why is this not satisfactory for the same sex advocates?

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    @JJ1094

    "Why all the fuss, should we really adopt any laws that are contrary to God's laws?"

    Which God's laws? The ones Mormons accept? The ones Baptists accept? The ones Catholics accept? The ones Jews accept? Or the ones accepted by Islam? My religion holds that God has forbidden us to eat pork or shellfish, to mix meat and dairy in the same meal, to charge interest to our fellow Jews, to light a fire on the Sabbath, and many other things which are perfectly legal under civil law. Shouldn't we have laws to prohibit people from doing any of those things? Muslims would like to see Shariah law become the law of the land -- a law which would impose incredible restrictions on non-Muslims and make Christian missionary efforts a crime. What makes the religious laws you believe in any more compelling than those of other religions?

    This is the unspoken problem when people advocate for more religion in government and schools: they assume it will be their own religion that is adopted and haven't considered the possible consequences if it's the religion of someone else instead.

  • my two cents777 ,
    April 9, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    I don't think it is anyone elses business who chooses to love whom. If YOU are guilty of judging others then you have failed miserably at following HIM- He who "judged" not. Shame on you. It isn't your place to agree or disagree one way or the other with gay or hetero marriage. It is between the couple and the Lord. Not the couple and YOU.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 9, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    @hockeymon

    Yes, the human race is in dire danger of not perpetuating. Also, if you think most people have any choice in the matter of their orientation I suggest you give being gay a chance for a few weeks. I know it was no choice in my case to be hetero - I've known I like girls since the 1st grade.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    I will admit my support of Prop. 8 was based on supporting my church leaders though I didn't understand the full context as to why.

    Seeing what has happened over the past few years to religious liberty including the lawsuits against bakers, photographers etc. it is starting to make more sense.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    @ Demiurge
    There is so much more at stake here than just government benefits. The statistics on the health of society and children in general, birth rates and perpetuating the human race are lower when "marriage between a man and a woman" is not the norm. Read "Stand for the Family" by Sharon Slater for some very frightening statistics on this! She makes the point that the "loudest" ones get heard, and right now it's the gay right's activists. Unspeakable damage is happening to society because of this "anything goes" mentality. The more "accepted" SSM becomes, the more people who might not otherwise have gone in that direction will. It is the "politically correct" thing to do to support it, and even experiment or engage in activities against our nature.

    Those who oppose SSM need to get as loud about it as those who support it!

  • tjhende2 Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    Although I don't support the things the acts of the LGBT community, I will always love them as brothers and sisters in God's eyes. Let's work to meet each other half way instead of bashing on each other because of differing opinions.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 9, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    Interesting. Advocating for fair treatment of gays and lesbians, and allowing them to marry their mutually chosen partners of the same gender, is just "noise," is it?

    Whereas advocating for continuing discrimination against their personhood and individual liberty, is what, righteous religious crusading?

    I understand a yearning for equality among all men and women.

    I don't understand an expressed desire to prevent that. Who benefits? Why do some religious communities feel that allowing equality is a personal affront to them? What do they plan to do with their own gay children? Just like secular communities, the birthrate of gay children to religious communities is about the same*.

    Jesus was for equality. Jesus was for accepting outcasts back into society. Anyone who counts themselves as a Christian should at least consider those words of Jesus.

    __________
    *(The science is still developing, but initial evidence seems to show that the rate of homosexuality may rise as the number of births to one mother rises. Speculation surrounds maternal antibodies and placental hormone levels. This may even be a natural mechanism to slow population growth in high-birthrate populations.)

  • fuziz Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    Why the loaded headline - Gay marriage "advocates" vs. traditional marriage "supporters"? "Advocates" sounds radical, disruptive. "Supporters" sounds wholesome, good. And yet we are led to believe the media has a liberal bias.

  • JJ1094 Saratoga, UT
    April 9, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    Why all the fuss, should we really adopt any laws that are contrary to God's laws? Note: all majority faiths (some even characterizing God a little differently) around the world know the difference between right and wrong when it comes to sexual relations.

  • vangroovin West Jordan, UT
    April 9, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    I support traditional marriage 100%, one man & one woman.

  • Rufio Saratoga, UT
    April 9, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    They are a "noisy" lot for sure. And, like most situations, loudness does not demonstrate either civility or correctness.

  • Lia Sandy, UT
    April 9, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    The Eagle Forum and religion should stay the heck out of law.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    April 9, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy is the "swing vote" on the U.S. Supreme Court. He has already stated that he is influenced by public opinion. It is his belief that "the people decide". That is why he is an advocate of states' rights. It is his belief that each state should be able to set their own standards. This didn't work out so well in California with Prop 8. The idea of declaring controversial ideas as civil rights issues is a very dangerous precedent. I have no problem with accepting gay marriage. However, this is basically a civil issue for the rights of federal benefits. The problem will come when liberals with these precedents in hand come to enforce their agenda on the churches. Charles Krauthammer has stated even on Fox News that the tide appears to be toward the acceptance of gay marriage. However, it is a vital opinion that the people of each state need to allow the gradual movement toward such instead of a violent forcing on the part of the legal system. Without a doubt, the teaching profession has had a lot to do with this controversy.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    April 9, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    The gay activists I know are starting to make noises about making it an act of child abuse to say or teach anything "bigoted" about homosexuality. Including, and specifically, any sort of religious teaching that homosexuality is wrong. They want to make it child abuse to read the Bible, take your kid to church, or do anything to raise your kid in a moral fashion.

    Since child abuse means you lose your kids, this is a new and troubling development. Short answer to "Why are you against same sex marriage?": Because the gay activists want to fire me, close down my business, persecute me for hate speech, desecrate my religious institutions, and take my children away. Isn't that a good enough reason?

  • James Whistler Chicago, IL
    April 9, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    What we're seeing is that denying basic rights to a certain group of people for no good reason is unpopular. Furthermore, jurist after jurist is concluding that it is unconstitutional. "Promoting traditional marriage", which sounds fine by itself, is just propaganda for forbidding gay people from getting married. If "traditional marriage" proponents are quiet, I would hope it is because they are realizing that their position is indefensible. Being gay is legal and having gay relations is legal everywhere in the country. In this position what possible defense can there be for forbidding gay people from getting married? (I hear silence, irrelevancies, and the thumping of bibles, but little else.)

  • NorthOfHere Rexburg, ID
    April 9, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    Wait, you mean someone (Mozilla CEO) was discriminated against for supporting their beliefs? We didn't see that one coming. This will only get worse from here on out. Its tyranny under the guise of human rights.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    April 9, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    @Pete1215

    "In heterosexual marriage, the couple used to make a public announcement that they were a couple, and thus no longer on the meat market. With man-man marriage, the sex-partners-per-year count is not expected to drop. So marriage is losing its original point."

    Please provide some type of scientific research (or any research) to back this claim up. I would like to read it.

  • zippa dee doo dah SANDY, UT
    April 9, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    My Webster Dictionary defines "gay" = given to social pleasures; also : licentious in addition to "cheerful and bright" and "straight" = lying along or holding to a direct or proper course or method, properly ordered or arranged. Before we change the definition of marriage, maybe we should define who we are. Who are you?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    April 9, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    @Parry's Power Guide

    "Let's put this issue to a vote. Oh wait, we already did that."

    While we're at it, let put all civil rights up for a vote. After all, mob rule is what our country is all about.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    April 9, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    bj-hp,

    I agree with what you're trying to say, but I would add a friendly correction.

    The eternal family will not be destroyed.

    /////

    The established practice and acceptance of family may be destroyed in the world. But eternal bonds will not be. What God seals cannot be broken.

    Really, in the end... any other "marriages", contracts, or bonds entered into won't last. Eternal families are the only thing that will remain. Another reason this entire issue is folly.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    April 9, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    @Jim, Meckofahess
    What did you expect? Your mad now that the shoe is on the other foot, but this has been happening to gay people decades. Who do you think gets fired more for what they believe, Christians or gay people? When you've oppressed and marginalized a group, who finally gains the power of public opinion what did you think was going to happen?

  • tgurd Gonzales, LA
    April 9, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    Once again the silent majority are quiet, maybe you don't see the really big picture of what is happening because of your silence. The majority are suffering because they do not speak up. If those that believe this wrong along with all the other wrongs being perpetrated upon this nation in the name of politically correctness let your voices be heard stop buying the products of those that advertise and cut off the money from those forces of destruction and you will see how fast they will change. The cash is what talks. No matter how right or wrong something is if your silent you are condoning the wrong. Speak up people let your voices be heard, not in violence but in standing boldly for whats right

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:46 a.m.

    @Jim & I Know It: I agree. Also, I am actually working everyday and wonder how these same-sex advocates find time to demonstrate all the time.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:43 a.m.

    @george of the jungle;

    Allowing LGBT marriages isn't going to affect the number of future tax-payers in the least. Aren't you guys the ones who continually point out that two people of the same-sex "can't produce babies"?

    @Jim & Meckofahess;

    Neither of you had a problem when the Constitutional rights of LGBT people were being trampled; you were warned that when you violate someone elses Constitutional rights, yours also went up for grabs (but your First Amendment rights to free speech are still intact, so are the potential consequence).

    @rhappahannock;

    No conflict here.

    @III;

    That "iron rod" of bigotry you're holding so tightly is all rusty and corroded.

    @Spellman789;

    Not trying to persuade you. Don't care what you believe one way or the other.

    @Stormwalker ;

    Very well said!

    @Physics27;

    It isn't speaking out "in favor of traditional marriage" that gets you called a bigot, it's the "I am against the idea that traditional and gay relationships should be treated equally by the government." that does it.

    bj-hp says: "The eternal family will be destroyed if same-sex marriage becomes law ..."

    -- Oh good grief!

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:41 a.m.

    As someone who support gay marriage, I agree that people who voice anti-gay marriage views should not feel like they may lose their job over it. I'm appalled that the Mozilla guy lost his job over this.

    Now consider those who voice opposition to the LDS Church. I have read comments from people who say they will refuse to do business with anti-Mormons. First of all, it's unfair to label someone an anti-Mormon if they oppose the religion. To the point, if someone is being civil but direct about their opposition to the LDS Church, including what they believe to be false teachings, that person should not be subject to losing their job or losing their business connections. It goes both ways. Practice the golden rule. If you don't like that others have made someone lose their job over the gay rights issue, don't do the same with respect to those who raise their voice in opposition to your religion.

  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:40 a.m.

    well you could stick your neck out in favor of traditional marriage but you might get spit on or lose your job, I kinda need my job.

    I wonder if they will call it gay divorce or traditional divorce....

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:37 a.m.

    It's not a zero-sum game where someone has to lose in order for another person to win. No one is arguing against "traditional" marriage. What people are asking for is that civil marriage include same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples, nothing more. It doesn't affect my marriage or yours. We're still just as married as we were years ago, and "traditional" marriages will continue to have the same horribly high divorce rate as always. The First Amendment will remain intact and your church won't have to perform gay marriages any more than it has to perform other marriages that are contrary to doctrine. The only difference is that gay couples and their children will have the same legal protections and obligations as the rest of us do. The sun will rise and set each day as the earth continues to spin on its axis, and life will go on.

  • Fibonacci Centerville, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:36 a.m.

    People keep saying that Gay marriage is about "love". Really? It seems to me it's about sex. Does the modern definition of love now mean that you have sex together? Can parents be considered to love their children under this new definition? Can children love their parents? Can you love your siblings or a very close friend or relative under this new definition? Can two people of the same sex be in love and not have sex? I would say that there is nothing unnatural with two people of the same sex loving each other, but engaging in a sexual relationship crosses a line that nature didn't intend.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    April 9, 2014 6:32 a.m.

    I can certainly agree that there's more -noise- involved. If you don't openly support changing marriage to focus on two adults' sexual desires rather than joining and extending families, that very noise brands you with a bunch of vulger names and threats.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:06 a.m.

    The arguments put forth by people who have some type of animus toward gay people reek of the same comments people put forth to justify discrimination against interracial marriage.

    How did that work out for proponents of discrimination toward interracial marriage?

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    April 9, 2014 6:00 a.m.

    In heterosexual marriage, the couple used to make a public announcement that they were a couple, and thus no longer on the meat market. With man-man marriage, the sex-partners-per-year count is not expected to drop. So marriage is losing its original point.

  • Brent Garner Idaho Falls, ID
    April 9, 2014 5:45 a.m.

    I am alarmed by the concept put forth by the advocates for same-sex marriage that courts have an easier time deciding things when the winds of public opinion are in their sails. That concept would mean that interpreting the law is more influenced by the whims of the public than by what the law actually says and does. A logical extension of that concept means that law really has not meaning and that courts can do what ever they please as long as "public opinion" supports it. That is not law! That is tyranny! That means that if the public believes it is appropriate to take things from one group and give them to another then the courts/legislators should do just that! Can no one see where that kind of thinking leads? It means that no one has any rights, divinely given or otherwise! It means your right to property, your freedom of religion mean nothing!

  • UT Brit London, England
    April 9, 2014 2:25 a.m.

    @A Run

    You will find that polygamy is an eternal principle and a core doctrine of the church. It still goes on today in temples. A man can be sealed to more than one woman and the sealings go on daily. Elder Dallin H Oaks is sealed to two women.

  • Parry's Power Guide Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:03 a.m.

    Let's put this issue to a vote. Oh wait, we already did that. Judge in Colorado 1, Utah voters 0. So much for having your voice heard.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:56 a.m.

    @rappahanock " don't think that any argument regarding pheromones has been made in courts of law. It is information that the gay community would like to suppress."

    Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households. Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption Institute. Representatives of the American Psychological Association unanimously voted in favor of issuing a position statement that research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:31 a.m.

    More 'noise'? I guess objectivity isn't important, eh?

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    April 9, 2014 12:05 a.m.

    This canard about Mozilla's CEO seems to be the most disingenuous discussion yet. For every anti-gay marriage advocate afraid to speak out, there are dozens of Alan Simpson-like folks who would love to say "live and let live." Yet they sit quietly through meeting after meeting while gay people they love are castigated.

    The intimidation flows both ways, and many tears are shed in private by Utah parents and grandparents intimidated into silence by their holier-than-thou neighbors.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 11:51 p.m.

    @ Meckofahess

    The Nazi's were not friendly to the gay community. That is an extremely poor comparison. Also, which freedoms are you giving up again?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 8, 2014 11:43 p.m.

    @Lone Eagle " Please redefine the color blue while you are at redefining marriage."

    How So? How does including or excluding others redefine marriage, please explain exactly.

    How does excluding people define marriage? Otherwise, why don't we exclude spousal, child, drug and alcohol abusers? Wouldn't marriages free of abuse be a better definition?

    Moreover, excluding people for what most consider immutable characteristics (race, gender, eye color, sexual orientation) does not define marriage either. Marriage has been and is still marriage in every country and state that has SSM, no?

    Sky will fall, marriage will be redefined argumentation is honestly nonsense. Allowing people to participate or strengthen the institution of marriage is not "redefinition." Traditional voting was not "redefined" by giving women the right to vote. Voting is still voting, no?

    How many folks in any state where same-sex marriage is now legal, thinks their marriage has been refined because someone else can legally civil marry? Nada, not a one.

    Redefinition is such a silly unsupported claim to make, no?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:56 p.m.

    @rhappahannock
    "I think at their core Gay people know they at conflict with themselves, and know their actions are wrong.That is why they are so antagonistic towards anyone who suggests homosexual relations are a perversion of the natural, scientific order. "

    I think the more likely reason is that people tend to be antagonistic towards people who are first antagonistic towards them. Call a gay person a pervert and they probably won't like you. Call a religious person a cult member and they probably won't like you either.

    @A Run
    "Polygamy is a practice long since stopped in our religion."

    Civilly, yes. Spiritually, a widowed man can still be sealed to another wife in the temple, while a woman could not do the equivalent without getting rid of her first marriage.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:56 p.m.

    Don't you wonder why the attorney's for Mr. Reynolds of Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878), didn't assert the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:51 p.m.

    What about those of us who support traditional marriage but see nothing wrong with homosexual marriage? The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. I've been "traditionally married" to my lovely wife for 28 years. We have adopted a beautiful daughter, but we also support our gay and lesbian neighbors to have the same wedded bliss and wedded not-so-bliss that we have experienced.

    I still don't understand the vitriol

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:50 p.m.

    Have you ever noticed that when someone knows they are on the wrong side of the argument the volume is increased and the tone gets more shrill?

  • Braxton ogden, ut
    April 8, 2014 10:33 p.m.

    I would love to speak out and lend my support for traditional marriage. I have never ridiculed anyone nor have I shunned any of my gay friends or nephew. It's true, the so called tolerant "live and let live (aka non tolerant g-string, immoral, pride parade, in your face SSM advocates) demonstrated and have put fear into me that I will lose my job if I do speak out.

  • rhappahannock Washington, DC
    April 8, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    One scientific aspect of marriage that the gays like to ignore is "pheromone therapy." The different genders (defined by XX and XY, not by "feelings" or hysteria) produce different pheromones that are received by the natural mate (the opposite chomosonal content). These work together to reinforce hormones that bond mates together, resulting in more stable families and societies.

    When people of the same chromosomal content try to form families, the same pheromones are simply not there. There is no real way to chemically convey the same connection in a gay relationship. This is borne out in the much higher rates of gays having multiple partners, and huge numbers of partners (1000+).

    I don't think that any argument regarding pheromones has been made in courts of law. It is information that the gay community would like to suppress. There is a real, scientific reason why gays living together will not have the same stability as heterosexual marriages. Thus, there is certainly a reason to subsidize heterosexual marriages and not subsidize gay marriage.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:05 p.m.

    I'm not sure I could make it through the day anymore without a same sex story. Keepers creepers........enough already.

  • Lone Eagle Aurora, CO
    April 8, 2014 10:03 p.m.

    RE the headline:

    Is this really surprising? If anyone in support of traditional marriage makes a peep, the SS marriage proponents scream "intolerance, hate" and other nonsense (look at what happened to Mozilla founder), thus demonstrating their intolerance and hatred for those who disagree (regardless of First Amendment protections). This whole situation is descending into anarchy. Perhaps on purpose?

    So, let me join the fray with this question: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Oh, and a note to the SS marriage crowd: Please redefine the color blue while you are at redefining marriage.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 8, 2014 9:50 p.m.

    One side wants to shut down debate and punish anyone who speaks out against them and the other side is like in the days of Shadrach, Meshach and Abendego where we don't want to get thrown to the fire if we express our religious beliefs in public.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:40 p.m.

    @Bj-hp

    Aren't you stepping on the religious liberty of other faiths that believe differently? Why do you feel it is your right to impose your religious views in civil law over another faith? What about their freedom of religion?

    "Young 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 message from the National Cathedral

  • trueblue87 Provo, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:40 p.m.

    A child throwing a tantrum is louder than the parent a majority of the time.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    RE: Mechofahess "I still believe there will be a huge back lash toward the gay community when Americans start realizing that we are giving up our freedoms over this issue."

    Let's go back to a slightly earlier time. The civil rights movement, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 eventually led to the legalization of multi-racial marriage, and the dropping of much LDS race theory, at least so it would appear. At the very least the Civil Rights movement changed the attitudes of LDS towards blacks. Were the rights of LDS taken away in this process? Yes, in a way, but such was in response to necessary change.

    We now have admitted for the most part that same sex attraction is not based on a calculated decision. It is probably inborn. So are the losses of rights to the orthodox religionists in the case of SSM pretty much the same as they were with the legalization of inter-racial marriage?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:35 p.m.

    The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice. Since 1888, the Supreme Court has consistently held that marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right of every citizen. The last case being two women (Windsor).

    Because marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, marriage discrimination by race or sexual orientation is a prohibited action for Congress, state legislatures, and public referendums.

    While there are those who have opinions that oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, those opinions have NO rational or scientific or legal basis. While the expression of those opinions is protected by the 1st Amendment, such opinions have no validity and no weight and deserve no consideration.

    Specifically, the Supreme Court has never excluded same-sex marriage. Instead, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the universal nature of this fundamental right. There is no constitutional, no rational, no objective basis for any person, because of their sexual orientation, to be rejected, excluded, stigmatized, discriminated against, or in any way have their constitutional rights denied or restricted.

  • A Run South Jordan, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:30 p.m.

    @Red Corvette
    Sacramento California

    Do you realize that those were different times, and under different circumstances. Polygamy is a practice long since stopped in our religion. Are you judging us for our ancestors? I am pretty sure I could find things that your ancestors did that would be viewed as negative in today's society.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    April 8, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    Regardless where you stand on this. The eternal family will be destroyed if same-sex marriage becomes law around the world. Same-sex marriage will not go beyond the veil. Whether you believe or not, on your death bed you will see the light and then it is too late.

    The Lord, Jesus Christ, has already spoken on this. "Whether by my own mouth or by my servants it is the same". This past weekend we heard from the Lord's anointed and were taught that no amount of law can change the eternal laws. Go ahead enjoy your so called happiness now but in the end, wickedness never was happiness.

  • Physics27 Cedar City, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:09 p.m.

    Often If one speaks out in favor of traditional marriage one is ridiculed and told how bigoted, rude, hateful, and ignorant they are. Maybe we are not as loud anymore to try to avoid contention. I will try to speak up more with kindness. I am not against anyone. I am against the idea that traditional and gay relationships should be treated equally by the government. I have nothing against the people, just some of their actions. There are great people on both sides of the debate.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:09 p.m.

    @Jim
    Mesa, Az

    Jim, well said. You are right about how sad this mess is evolving into. I really think the gays don't care if we lose our first amendment rights as long as they get to shove their agenda down our throats even if it does evolve into something like Nazi Germany. That said, we must have courage to stand up for what is right even if there are risks. I still believe there will be a huge back lash toward the gay community when Americans start realizing that we are giving up our freedoms over this issue. In some instances we might just need to quietly oppose this agenda. The sad thing is that when the back lash occurs, it will cause a lot of problems for our gay friends.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 8, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    @rhappahannock: "nature abundantly shows that homosexual relations are an aberration."

    Actually, there is quite a bit of research documenting homosexual behavior - including courtship rituals and pair-bonding, not just sex, in about 1500 species ranging from primates to gut worms. This research is well documented for 500 of them.

    "I think at their core Gay people know they at conflict with themselves, and know their actions are wrong. That is why they are so antagonistic towards anyone who suggests homosexual relations are a perversion of the natural, scientific order."

    No. I was at conflict when I was trying to have romantic relationships with women. Now I am much more peaceful, happy, and joyful.

    I do get a bit upset when somebody who does not know me, my history, my thoughts, my relationship, or my activities tries to tell me that I am an abomination or a bad person or perverted. It often causes me to do twisted and mean things, like talk a lot about my life and relationship when I am around them - in many cases, as they get to know Gay people their attitudes changes.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 8, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    The new CEO of a company is found to have supported a cause that the company is officially opposed to. Employees and customers complain and demand he be removed. And now, according to the leader of a "traditional marriage" group, people in Utah are fearful they will be treated the same way.

    Perhaps somebody who is the head of a multinational company with very liberal policies would have a concern. But the average citizen? Really?

    This sounds like a cover for low turn-out and low support. I picture Mary Summerhays and a handful of supporters alone in a big rented hall, wondering where the crowds have gone and spinning wild conspiracy theories.

    @NH Transplant:

    A parent and child already have a legal relationship with many protections and limits. A Gay or Lesbian couple, like a Straight couple, are "legal strangers" until they are married, at which point they gain about 1,400 legal benefits and protections.

    ON the other hand, under Utah law, a 16 year old and a 57 year old can marry, can consummate the relationship, and can have children. The law allows that.

  • jrp7sen Logan, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:36 p.m.

    Awesome. Side note: those who support gay marriage are not out trying to rid the world of "traditional" marriage. We support both marriages. We support love. Marriage in general, is good and pure. Gay or straight.

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:32 p.m.

    Intimidation and bullying...that's persuasive.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:22 p.m.

    People can make as much noise as they want. I'd rather be holding the iron rod than shouting with the loudest bark. Shouting mostly distracts people and leads people away in fear or doubt. What we need right now is not more noise, but more peaceful and respectful reminders and defenses to seek the Savior's help that all human beings need, to submit to humility and to help others.

    People shouting may lead others away from the rod. Those people may feel proud and enjoy that they've "convinced others to leave or change". But when face to face with our Heavenly Father & the Savior... joy is not what will be felt.

    If the choice is between having the loudest bark and having the 'most right' bark, I'd rather be right with God. Anything else is pretty foolish.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    April 8, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    It is a sad state of affairs when people are too scared to say anything in fear of retribution from a minority group. Fear of losing their jobs, or popularity or whatever. When this type of fear exists first amendment rights go out the window. This smacks of nazi germany pre ww2, I.e 1930's. People argue that the majority want same sex marriage. We'll show me the figures, show me the sample population, and show me how the questions we're put . One of the purposes of marriage is procreation. Same sex. Marriage can never be equal as it takes two members of the opposite sex to produce children.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    If I was a law maker Knowing I get my money from tax payers I would think about the future tax payers and the tax payers after them. I would want a large population. it's about the money.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 8, 2014 7:39 p.m.

    I don't know if people have noticed, but marriage itself has been dying in the western world. If you truly support marriage, you might want to consider supporting it for everyone gay or not as long as they are two consenting adults. Otherwise support for it will continue to decline, and eventually the benefits at adhere to it will be stripped.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:33 p.m.

    ""Does it? I think it does. Should it? No, it shouldn't. But I believe that it does,..."

    How much do you want to bet Gayle would sing a different tune if the winds were blowing in her direction?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 8, 2014 7:27 p.m.

    "What about a 16 year old, with parents consent, marrying a 57 year old?"

    That's probably already legal in Utah since a 16 year old can marry with a parent's consent. It doesn't say that there is a maximum age that the other partner has to be. However, they probably can't legally consummate the marriage.

  • NH Transplant HEBER CITY, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:23 p.m.

    "Whether you’re gay or lesbian or straight, if you love someone and you want to marry them, marry them,"

    If you love someone then marry them. An argument many are making along with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Government cannot take away a person's life, liberty, or property without due process is another piece of the argument.

    What happens when a third party wants to join the marriage, gay, lesbian, or straight? What about their equal protection? What about first cousins? What about brother and sister? What about parent and child? I think a child may want to marry the remaining parent so that their siblings cannot get the inheritance. What about a 16 year old, with parents consent, marrying a 57 year old?

    Where will this equal protection end and what arguments will there be for stopping interesting relationships from getting married?

    Any other concerns out there about consenting people that love each other? What will be the definition of marriage be in the next several generations?

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    April 8, 2014 7:22 p.m.

    "Live and Let Live"

    How sound is this logic?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 8, 2014 7:22 p.m.

    Dr Thom, why are you waiting? It's already happened. Probably many time. You think there hasn't been any divorces in the 10 years marriage equality has been the law in Massachusetts?It's really no different than when heterosexual couples divorce, as it should be.

  • Cedarcreek320 Star Valley Ranch, WY
    April 8, 2014 7:07 p.m.

    RE: Dr. Thom
    What would make that any different than the 50% of "traditional" marriages that end in divorce?

  • Dr. Thom Long Beach, CA
    April 8, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    I'm waiting for the first same-sex divorce to happen, then see what happens to all this diversity and equality especially when one person in the relatiohsips wants alimoney from the other.