Quantcast

Comments about ‘My view: Same-sex marriage is not inevitable, in spite of what Sen. Hatch may believe’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 12 2014 9:48 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Lightbearer
Brigham City, UT

Re: "The tactic of broadcasting statements that declare a certain outcome to be 'inevitable' is not a new one. It is a battle cry that has risen from the lips of over-grasping governments and social engineers for many a century."

It is a battle cry that has also risen from the lips of the religious:

"For just as when, in the days of primitive Christianity, an upheaval in the religion of pagan states meant corresponding revolutions in the political world, so in those remote regions where the thin edge has already entered, the inevitable triumph of Christianity will be followed by great social upheavals presaging the collapse of the old order of things" ("The Churchman," August 12, 1899, p. 184).

"They are facts which, if fairly faced, must compel assent to the reasonableness of the faith in God, in the Bible, in Christ Himself as the only Saviour of men, and in the inevitable triumph of Christianity as the universal religion" (Howard Agnew Johnston, "Scientific Faith," 1904, p. 52).

Would you characterize such statements as "Borg-like intimidation tactics," too?

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"With the passage of the means of production into common property, the individual family ceases to be the economic unit of society.”--Engels

Prior to the industrial revolution, the family was the basic economic unit of society. People lived and worked on small family farms, or family shops, or banks, or newspapers, etc. The industrial revolution moved the locus of power away from the family and into large corporations. This was the case when Engels was writing.

A great many nineteenth century conservatives were opposed to industrialization, capitalism, and free trade for the precise reason that the economic order that was emerging supplanted traditional families and communities, which they saw as being essential to the survival of traditional conservative virtues. Conservatives today seem to have forgotten their history. It was not communism or socialism that wiped out the family as the basic economic unit, it was capitalism.

slcdenizen
Murray, UT

"And marriage — including lifelong vows of sexual exclusivity — will still be the best way to maintain and foster life."

Great! Let two adults make vows of sexual exclusivity, reap the governmental benefits, and start or continue raising children. This author is well on her way to supporting marriage equality.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

"Even if it is temporarily killed, marriage will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of judicial arson that set it aflame"

Seriously, DesNews? I mean, seriously!? So, this is what the propaganda machine has come down to - baseless, useless opinion pieces that incorrectly divine that marriage equality somehow kills heterosexual marriage. I personally wonder why anti-equality advocates give SSM folks so much power over them. For me, no matter what a court says or who marries whom, I will always love my wife and no one can weaken our marriage but ourselves.

Indeed, someone ought to remind Ms. Ells that in actual "traditional marriage" she would have been considered chattel and never given the right to offer up her opinions in a public forum. It was those dang liberals who expanded women's rights to the chagrin of conservatives, it was those dang liberals who expanded marriage rights to interracial couples to the chagrin of conservatives, and it is now those dang liberals who are expanding marriage rights to any couple to the chagrin of conservatives. At some point, history must take an accounting of repeated conservative missteps on the subject matter and deem their position invalid.

Really???
Kearns, UT

I think the author is confused about who has been the aggressor and who has been oppressed. It's not the marriage equality proponents who are the Borgs; it's the majority who is telling gay and lesbian couples that they should just accept what they have voted into law who are the Borgs.

She also uses an analogy of Moses being trapped at the Red Sea as they leave the oppression and slavery at the hands of Pharaoh. You see, the Hebrews that Moses were delivering weren't allowed the freedoms that the Egyptians enjoyed. They were escaping that. So, then, who does Moses really represent in this attempted parable? I would say he could be the "activist judges" that so many have been complaining about.

It's time those who are fighting against marriage equality stop playing the victim; your freedoms are not being lost.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

A weird piece. Engels against Moses and Captain "Piccard" (sic). Judicial "arson." Only Luke Skywalker is missing from this fantasy . . .

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

Wow, this is some drivel right here. And it was never explained HOW gay marriage isn't inevitable. So lets pretend the SCOTUS says that states do have the right to define marriage as they want to. Polls pretty consistently show that young people are fine with gay marriage, even people who define themselves as conservative and who are religious. If it's not allowed through the courts, it will allowed through the ballot box. Sen Hatch is right, it's over.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

It is here, this editorial effectively advocates for a police force to carry out criminal sanctions.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

Engels? Sharks? Enemy aircraft? Seriously? This is your comparison to SSM?

For an organization "which works to protect the family in society," they're doing anything but. Nothing they stand for will in any way strengthen anything. Robbing Peter does not pay Paul.

First, let's look at what's at stake in this marriage "argument."

1) Banning SSM doesn't create more opposite-sex families. Asserting otherwise is empirically unsupportable. Completely illogical.

2) Banning SSM doesn't end creation of same-sex families. Single or divorced lesbian women who tried being "straight" already bring their natural children to new households. Adoption agencies already place children with the best available families, some of whom are same-sex. And assisted fertility services are available to all. Already.

So, all it comes down to is simply denying civil marriage rights to a minority out of some "us v. them" pettiness, supported by a doctrinal belief specific to only some denominations.

So far, courts which have examined the arguments, the rationalizations, the excuses, the assertions, the causality, and the doctrine, have decided that banning SSM makes no legal, Constitutional sense.

Try supporting the families that already exist.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Amen to this article. True marriage is the only way for society to survive and prosper.

FT
salt lake city, UT

Inevitable? It's already happening and no matter what the legal outcome will continue to be available in the most populous states. Utah continues to hold out hope that it will remain the land of the lost.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

I know I'm a little off target here but what happened with the DN today? A letter about Benghazi stand downs, one about how the President should somehow promote thought control, and now this.

One expects a certain slant here, but the opinion page today is a leap into nuttiness.

Sorry for the interruption...carry on.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

The objections to SSM are primarily founded in religious belief. These beliefs were imposed on all citizens in numerous states about a decade ago. This violation of the First Amendment is now being corrected.

Those who cherish their right to free exercise of their beliefs should be applauding this. Yes, it means you will have to live in a society where acts you consider immoral are legally protected. But don't we all? I and many others believe that what you teach about LGBTs and how you treat them in your churches and temples is immoral. But even if SSM is declared legal, you will still get to practice these things in your churches and temples, and you will still enjoy legal protection to do so.

So what are you losing? Government sanction of your religious ideas? You were never entitled to this in the first place and seeking it actually undermines the right you seem to cherish most.

I really think you're trying to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory here, but your moral objections to SSM are preventing you from seeing this.

LeslieDF
Alameda, CA

"The tactic of broadcasting statements that declare a certain outcome to be “inevitable” is not a new one. It is a battle cry that has risen from the lips of over-grasping RELIGIONS for many a century."

No need to read further.

nonceleb
Salt Lake City, UT

Simply a case of denial. In state after state, not one judge or court has upheld their ban on SSM marriage. And to compare this struggle for equal treatment to Star Trek, George Washington, and Moses is so unrelated or convoluted, that it is simply bizarre. We are not in some metaphysical struggle of good vs. evil. Some rising Phoenix is not going to free us from the judicial system's obligation to protect the Constitutional rights of equal protection and due process for all citizens.

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

pragmatistferlife

"I know I'm a little off target here but what happened with the DN today? A letter about Benghazi stand downs, one about how the President should somehow promote thought control, and now this."

Remember who owns the DN.

Esquire
Springville, UT

The writer of this piece may feel strongly about the issue, but it is her vision that is clouded. Wishing won't make it go away. Hatch was absolutely correct. Can't we just get this over with. Allow gay marriage and then we will hear virtually nothing about it afterwards, like in many other countries.

cocosweet
Sandy, UT

Completely odd article. Anywho I've always felt sorry for those that think gay marriage will weaken straight marriages. How sad that their marriages are so weak.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

"Even if it is temporarily killed, marriage will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of judicial arson that set it aflame"

Except that straight couples can still get married, so marriage wouldn't be rising at all. All that would be "rising" is striking down same-sex couples from being able to marry and well... the younger generation is strongly against that idea.

FreedomFighter41
Provo, UT

Another flip flop from Hatch?

Wow! It's only Thursday and I've already been served plenty of pancakes!

to comment

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