Comments about ‘Same-sex marriage advocates to deliver petition to governor’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 8 2014 5:40 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

I see the SS crowd want the governor and AG to violate their oaths of office and ignore the law and their responsibilities. Who do they think Herbert and Reyes are? BO??

marriage equality is a false moniker. SS unions are not biologically capable of being equal with traditional marriage. Now watch the SS crowd scream about infertile traditional couples. Sorry, you cannot define the group solely by the outlying exceptions.

I urge the governor, legislature, and AG's office to expend whatever resources are necessary to defend Amendment 3.

Seattle, WA

@lost in DC
Talking about oaths of office and upholding the law, consider that 20+ federal judges have examined state laws that prohibit gay and lesbian people from marrying. They have all ruled that those laws violate the US constitution and infringe unnecessarily on individual rights.
If you think the judges are liberal activists, look at the biography of Judge Dale Kimball who made one of the decisions. The judges were nominated by both Republicans and Democrats. When they took office, they swore an oath to "administer justice without respect to persons" and "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties." Judges are appointed rather than elected to encourage them to uphold the law free from the pressure of public opinion.
US Attorney General Eric Holder has said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.
What is your basis for defending the legality of Amendment 3?

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@lostInDC: For the 11 millionth time, marriage is not equivalent to procreation. "Biological equality" is an issue for laboratory research strains of E. coli, not people.

Of all the children born in this country in recent years, some 41% were born out of wedlock. Nor do all married women bear children. Clearly, a marriage certificate does not cause childbirth, nor does a lack of one prevent it. If you believe the institution of marriage merely regulates human breeding, you should burn your certificate now, because that imaginary institution doesn't work the way you think it does.

Until you live in some totalitarian state that requires all persons applying for a marriage license to prove their fertility and intent to bear children, and revokes the licenses of any who fail to do so, just be quiet about "biological equality," please.

Salt Lake City, UT

Chris B: "The ideal situation for children is always their biological mother and father."

If this is something really "worth fighting for" here is a suggestion: Circulate your own petition urging repeal of Title 30, Chapter 3 of the Utah Code. This will ensure that children are raised by their married biological mother and father in a traditional, Biblical family. Please be sure to report back to us when you get a second signature.

BTW, is the BLT community served with mayo on sourdough?

equal protection: "Allowing more people to marry does not change the definition of marriage any more than freeing the slaves changed the definition of freedom or granting women a right to vote, changed the definition of voting."

Beautifully stated.

Ogden, UT

@lost in DC 11:47 a.m. July 9, 2014

You're saying that the only thing that defines the validity and quality of a marriage is whether or not the couple can breed. That is, without a doubt, one of the most ridiculous things I'e ever heard. In case you haven't figured it out yet, marriage is not dependent on breeding and breeding is not dependent on marriage. THAT is the biological fact.

Huntsville, UT

@lost in DC;

They've already defended the law to death. How far do they need to go before you consider their "oath of office" fulfilled? They've already lost twice. Is the 3rd time the charm?

Also, what about defending the highest law of the land, The Constitution (specifically Amendments 5 & 14)? If they desist in their obstinacy, they will have fulfilled their oath to the Constitution of the USA.

Socal Coug
San Diego, CA

Frankly I surprised so many of these comments are not being denied by the moderator. Could you bring the shouting down a notch, SSM supporters?

Salt Lake City, UT

It is a emotional issue Socal Coug. People have a right to vent frustrations over state/church sponsored discrimination. The moderators job is to make sure people don't get out of hand with insults, language, caps etc. Which they have done a great job doing. I haven't seen a single comment here that is inappropriate.

Not liking what someone else has to say is not a valid reason to censor them. One thing that I love about DN is that there are a lot of people here willing to step up and call out injustice, and bigotry when they see it. Considering that the majority of Utah is LDS that happens quite frequently. If people/the church don't want to come under public fire then they should stay out of politics.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@SocalCoug: While there are some effective rebuttals being submitted in response to the standard conservative anti-gay arguments made in both the article and comment thread, I don't notice anyone shouting. The comments seem reasonably measured. I think what you mean to say is, "I wish the moderators wouldn't allow so many people to disagree with me."

I think it's to this paper's credit that they're encouraging a dialog among their readers. By the way, if you see something in the "SSM crowd's" arguments that you find fault with, perhaps you could contribute something to the discussion yourself. Other than existing, or possibly being contrary to your theological understanding of scripture, what is it they're (we're) saying which you find erroneous or misguided? And why?

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

SSM is simply a full out assault on the Mormon faith by the liberal agenda. Exactly as the Hobby Lobby case demonstrates the importance of religious doctrine, the Supreme Court will settle this once and for all by protecting religious liberty and traditional marriage.

Seattle, WA

Marriage is a loving commitment between two people and their children, no matter how those kids come to them. If you believe that marriage is only valid as a form of regulating procreation between biological parents, please explain these three articles published by the Deseret News recently:

Today: "Stumbling Blocks to Adoption" by Erin Stewart - "There will be a mother out there that one day will be searching for me as I am searching for her. There will be a child who calls me mother even as I teach him about the mother who brought him into this world and who loved him enough to find me."

December 22, 2013, "Living Alone" - "Homo sapiens, with the longest developmental dependency period in the animal kingdom, are not designed to be alone."

June 27, 2014: "Man dies hours after marrying, wedding video captures 'heartbreaking fairytale'"
"Rowden and Leizl had planned to tie the knot on July 8...But in the midst of planning their perfect day, the couple learned Rowden had stage IV liver cancer. Cramming preparations that can take months into just 12 hours, the couple held a ceremony on June 11, just 10 hours before Rowden died."

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Jim Cobabe: You make the claim that, since SS couples are raising children who turn out good, marriage is not needed. Do you oppose marriage for all couples who are capable of raising children who turn out good, or only same-sex couples?

And you do realize that marriage is not about raising children nor does it make otherwise poor parents better?

The only thing the outcomes of children has to do with marriage is the fact that so many who oppose same-sex marriage do so on the grounds that children do better with married, biological parents. Pointing out that children raised by same-sex parents turn out good is not an argument against same-sex marriage, it is an argument in favor of same-sex marriage.

Marriage offers many benefits to society, the married couple, and any children that couple may have. Arguing that same-sex couples don't need marriage because they are good parents without it ignores the benefits of marriage and weakens all arguments for marriage for anyone.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Just relax folks. This is going to Supreme Court next term. There's been more than enough debate. Let's just get a ruling and go from there.

Cleveland , OH

@Liberty For All:

The Hobby Lobby decision put the courts in charge of determining "sincere religious belief" as a litmus test to determine who has to follow a law. Within 24 hours of the decision it was expanded to cover a broader class of medications and was cited as a reason religious groups receiving federal money should be able to deny care or service to groups of citizens.

Marriage is a legal arrangement that grants the couple some 1,200 legal benefits and protections. The paperwork comes from the state, the marriage is granted by the state, the benefits are given by and managed by the state. The minister who performs the marriage is licensed by the state and does it "under the authority granted by the state" as a formal and required part of the ceremony.

Anyone who meets minimum criteria can officiate a legal marriage, no religious frippery needed.

Not quite sure where the assault part comes in - other than being licensed to perform ceremonies, marriage has nothing to do with the Mormon Church. This is a civil matter.

Kearns, UT

I am a member of the BLT community, and I am also gay. This morning I went for a beautiful early jog. Then I went into my backyard and plucked a ripe, red tomato from my garden. I went into the kitchen, put a few strips of bacon on the stove and proceeded to make a sandwich--which included home-grown lettuce.

The only thing that would have made this morning's experience better would be to have somebody with whom I could share these simple, pleasurable moments. Unfortunately, too many people are misinformed and think they can vote to keep me from having such a relationship.

I am actually excited to think that such a monumental move away from bigotry will go through Utah. Unfortunately, I also fear that there will be a period of backlash that will cause harm. Imagine a day in the near future when this will no longer be an issue; what will we argue about then?

Berryville, VA

How about Des news create a section specifically dealing with SSM / LGBT issues?

seattle, WA

I understand the deep distress that opponents, and particularly Mormon opponents, feel about same sex marriage. All I can say to that is this. I don't ask you to accept same sex marriage in your Church or in your family. I appreciate the value you place on the definition of family here and in the hereafter. I accept that you can worship and follow your individual conscience in this matter.

However, I do ask you to accept that people of other faiths (and maybe a few of your fellow co-religionistss) do see the worth of same sex marriage. The see same sex couples as co-equal to their opposite sexed sibling partners. They wish to see same sex couples enjoying civil benefits of marriage, and wish to celebrate their relationship according to their conscience and religious beliefs.

The disagreement comes when one set of religions claim superior authority over the other in the public sector debate. Using religion to thwart same sex marriage is wrong. It leads us to a sectarian state mentality that dominates much of the world, and ends up essentially undemocratic in the process. Do we really want that?

Spanish Fork , UT

It seems an unfortunate element of many "gay-rights" conversations, that the underlying and publically stated assumptions are that LGBT is it is a unique population, special needs and forced social adjustments are necessary to support a choice-community. Every human being ought to be treated respectfully and, whenever possible, concerns met. Each of the billions of humanity has private concerns, some have well publicized closet issues; every individual must deal with them to the extent possible, no one is exempt. It becomes a public policy and ethical concern when private choices become a 'right'. Instead of adjusting to allow some choices by the rest, mandatory acceptance of choices is formalized and forcibly integrated for just one preference-community. As if a religious choice by a few must be the religion of all. The miracle of human life is its ability to establish law that allows minorities to exist without abuses by the majority, and prevent minorities abusing the majority. I hope we as a people and as public policy trustees don't lose that vision; we may lose the basis of ethics, and muddy what is and is not constitutional.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Liberty For All

Bans on SSM have been struck down in 22 straight states now, with Colorado being to most recent. Are you suggesting that it's not a fight for equality, but rather a case of liberals taking shots at the LDS Church? The persecution complex among many LDS faithful has spun out of control. I can assure you that this nationwide fight has nothing to do with attacking a religion that makes up 3% of the total population.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

"Marriage equality is NOT an attack on traditional marriage."

I read today that California is removing any references to husband and wife from their laws.

So, all marriages in California have now been downgraded to 'civil unions'. What the Gay Right has been arguing all along is a second class marriage. So I guess that you are wrong.

If you don't like traditional marriage, then don't have one.

I applaud Utah's governor. Those who complain about the waste of money. People in Utah have the right to have their values applied to their government through the right to vote. Various forces are trying to deny them of that right.

"The price for liberty is eternal vigilance." (It is kind of ironic I saw that at an ACLU stand.)

to comment

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