Quantcast

Comments about ‘Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Why the change of public opinion on same-sex marriage?’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 13 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Owen
Heber City, UT

For my conservative family it was a sibling coming out and finding a partner that made it abundantly clear that their bring together posed no threat whatsoever to anyone. Eight conservative adult men I associate with weekly have had the same experience and change of heart.

As for the tech CEO, and other recent examples of reverse discrimination, this seems almost laughable to me after what the LGBT community has put up with and continues to experience. It shouldn't happen, but seems a little like saying 50 years ago, "Well the civil rights bill passed, but there had better not be a single case of white oppression if theses minorities want the rest of us to accept it."

"Traditional marriage and traditional families have been society’s bedrock." As has been pointed out countless times, this a strange statement coming from someone who understands Utah's history so well.

Sal
Provo, UT

LaVarr acts as if we are embarking on a great social experiment with an undetermined outcome. The outcomes of same-sex parenting are well established:

Utah's brief focused "on the impact of family structure from dozens of studies, journal articles and books. The brief showed how “the two sexes bring different talents to the parenting enterprise,” how “the weight of scientific evidence seems clearly to support the view that fathers matter,” how the absence of a father places a daughter at special risk for early sexual activity, that children in same-sex households experience lower high school graduation rates, and that there are higher rates of depression, delinquency and substance abuse among children conceived through sperm donation."

Karen R.
Houston, TX

Why the change in public opinion? Because we are recognizing that the only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is in the way we view homosexuals' sexual orientation. When we didn't understand it, it scared us and we condemned it. Much like left-handedness. Now that science is illuminating our view with information, and gays are allowing themselves and their lives to be more visible, we see we have nothing to fear.

I don't think LGBT's have anything to prove to us heterosexuals. I think it's the other way around. I think WE need to prove that they have nothing to fear from us.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

Web writes:

"So my question to my gay friends is, can you do family? Can you do it well?"

and

"I have no doubt that many of you can, and some of you are already doing it."

and

"But it’s a grand, untested, social experiment because it really hasn’t been done broadly, and we’re messing here with the foundational unit of society. . . "

Webb seems to be implying that if the answer, to his questions above is, on balance, no -- then ALL gay couples should be denied access to civil marriage. Does he really want to use this argument?

There are, right now, distinct groups in our society for whom the answers to the above questions is, on balance, no -- and yet no one is moving to strip them of the right to marry civilly.

Why is he suggesting disqualification ONLY for gay couples?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Agreed.

Republicans are more ANTI-gay,
than they are PRO-Civil or EQUAL-rights.

Just like Healthcare --

Just NO,
Without offer any alternatives or solutions.

Lose, Lose everytime.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Karen R reveals a previous prejudice that is a great example of the evolution of social understandings: left handedness.

Most people have no idea that lefties were once viewed as being not just wrong, but actually evil. Seriously. Frantic parents would try every known idea to change the orientation of their left-handed kids, horrified at the life these children faced in a world that viewed left-handedness as being not just wrong, but fundamentally evil.

If one digs around today, they can find studies that show lefties have this problem or that tendency, compared to righties. The material is out there, for whomever wants to re-stoke this prejudice. (I didn't think there would be many takers.)

When I use the example of how left-handed people were perceived and how the issue used to be viewed, most conservatives are baffled that people could have ever thought that way.

Which is exactly the reaction young people have today when they hear anti-gay opinions from their elders.

FT
salt lake city, UT

Why did American's change their view? Simple answer, ignorance never stands the test of time. If it did, women would not have the right to vote nor would blacks be able to hold the priesthood. Truth, honesty, love and compassion are powerful forces.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Why the change?
I don't know -- progress?

Why the change that Blacks are equal?
Why the change that Women are equal?
Why the change [ala, 1776] that all men [regardless of gender, race, religion, ect.] are created equal?

Some people are stuck in 1775.

Rich ruled the poor,
Nobles over the Commoners,
and achievement was based more on what family you were born into,
more than individual capability.

rondonaghe
Mesilla/USA, NM

This article/opinion came across at first as well thought out, until the authors decided to draw the line at traditional marriage and then asked whether gays could "do family," and the answer they wanted was "no." And so that was supposed to be a reasonable reason to deny traditional marriage. The last holdout argument of those against same sex marriage has to do with procreation and raising children, and the implied argument that children are better off in a mommy/daddy household. That would be fine. But it's not the reality. Fifty percent of opposite sex marriages end in divorce and the best they can do is shuffle their children back and forth with one parent getting visitation rights and the other essentially raising them alone. No need to list all the ways that "traditional" opposite sex households have failed miserably, especially involving children. So why attack and withhold marriage from same sex couples? At least those same-sex couples who have children want them and plan for them, unlike many, many heterosexual couplings that produce children and reluctant or absent parents.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

This first half of this article touches upon some actual common sense before nosediving back down into typical DN propaganda. There is no requirement that straight people have to have children in order to be married. I'd ask why there's a double standard here, but I'm pretty sure I know the reason why: as same-sex marriage grows more and more inevitable, you guys are going to grow more and more desperate to tear it down...

QuercusQate
Wasatch Co., UT

Same-sex marriage may be new on the sociological horizon, but same-sex parenting certainly is not. It is not a "grand, untested, social experiment." Gays and lesbians have been successfully raising children for centuries, if not millenia, just like hetero couples. There is at least one credible study going back 40 years that shows no significant difference in childrearing outcomes between GL and straight parents. The State backtracked on one of their primary cited studies--the night before the 10th Circuit trial! In the Michigan marriage equality trial a month or so ago it was ripped apart and discredited soundly, and Utah wisely asked the 10th Circuit judges to pretend it wasn't included in Utah's brief.

DN, if you're going to have a two-sided discussion piece on marriage equality, could you please, at least, find a proponent of gay marriage for our side of the argument?

FreedomFighter41
Provo, UT

I wonder if the Dnews produced similar articles in the early to mid 60s on "Why the change of public opinion on black civil rights?"

Public opinion is hanging because ignorance is being replaced by knowledge and understanding, just like the blacks civil rights movement in the 60s and Women's Suffrage in the early 1900s.

If the GOP hopes to stop the bleeding, they need to stop opposing civil rights. Otherwise, they will continue to see their tent become smaller and smaller.

Demiurge
San Diego, CA

The Mozilla CEO case doesn't bother me one bit. He was forced out by the board of directors, not by any activists, gay or otherwise. The next CEO may think before supporting causes that may be detrimental to their careers if their careers are important to them.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

Sal, above, cites the state of Utah's brief without ever acknowledging the 11th hour letter from outside counsel that seems to back away from the central point of Sal's comment. Notice that two of the asserted sub-optimal outcome examples, "absence of a father" and "sperm donation", overwhelmingly involve the actions of heterosexuals. How, then, is it effective to ONLY focus on civil marriage between same-sex individuals?

But in citing a legal brief, Sal does point to an excellent source of information if one wants to understand the underpinnings of the public opinion shift at issue. Read the briefs. I recommend it. Even if you disagree, you'll be better educated as to why the shift is happening.

play by the rules
SOUTH JORDAN, UT

It is quite simply a war on God as prophesied in the scriptures and reiterated in conference.

play by the rules
SOUTH JORDAN, UT

Man cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. It is that simple, unfortunately, we are lost on the example of Soddom and Gomorrah.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Owen:
"For my conservative family it was a sibling coming out and finding a partner that made it abundantly clear that their bring together posed no threat whatsoever to anyone."

If there is a threat, it's not to any person in particular. The threat is the institution of marriage itself.

If SSM is legitimized so must all other forms of potential marriage combinations, including polygamy, incest, children, siblings, anyone who loves anyone else. You name it. Even group marriages such as a fraternity or neighborhood. It might even include marrying a Bush. Then there goes the institution out the window.

The LGBT argument is faulty... that of denying SSM violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It doesn't. Everyone has equal rights to marry but under a certain set of requirements: one man/woman, not closely related, of a certain minimum age, mentally competent, etc. These requirements apply to all across the board. No one is excluded. Thus there is no discrimination against gay/lesbians.

Mark l
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

n the US, same sex marriage is being used as a club to destroy religious freedom and freedom of association and simple democracy.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Could it be that the real truth is that people have not changed their minds about same sex marriage but have realized that the issue is freedom for the individual as promised in the founding documents of this nation. And that freedom for the individual is more important than the personal habits of the individual.

A person can be totally against the homosexual life style and at the same time willing to allow adult Americans to do as they wish according to their own religion. So long as those people don't impinge on the freedoms of others.

SAS
Sandy, UT

Societal opinions are changing. A useful analogy is the Klan or the Westboro Baptist folks. There's no law stopping the KKK from marching, or the WBC from picketing, but it's pretty clearly unacceptable behavior in the eyes of most of society.

If the Mozilla CEO were fired from his job because of the government, that would be a civil rights issue. He was fired because a private company decided his beliefs and actions were incompatible with their corporate ideals, and with their bottom line as a business. The same as if someone showed up to a job interview in Klan hood.

to comment

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