Comments about ‘Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Same-sex marriage survey results raise questions’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Aug. 25 2014 9:40 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cedar Hills, UT

make no mistake - the LGBT movement want no discourse or compromise. They only want their way forced upon the rest of society. Protest is not allowed unless it supports the LGBT movement and thinking - just ask the former CEO of Mozilla. People who want traditional Christian family values are going to have to fight for them (legally speaking) otherwise they will see their communities change in ways that are unthinkable.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

It doesn't matter if polls find that 99.999% oppose it,
if the Supreme Court rules infavor, THAT is the law - period.

BTW --
Most Missouri mobs didn't support the Mormons right either.

Does that justify them forming mobs,
harrasing and running them out,
and signing extermination orders?


What business does a BANK need to conduct a poll regarding Same Sex Marriage?

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

As the article suggests, it does seem odd that 60% of Utahns are against Gay discrimination in the workplace while seemingly being strongly in favor of it at the County Clerk's marriage desk.

I think most of this confusion comes from the wording of the question. I would suspect that a predominately Mormon electorate would answer in the negative if asked "Are you in favor of drinking alcohol?" However, you would get substantially different result if you asked them "Should drinking alcohol be illegal?"

Support for allowing same-sex marriage is growing nationally as well as in Utah. Other polls suggest Utahns are evenly divided on the question. I strongly suspect that once the fog of fear over homosexuality lifts, Utahns will respond with greater inclusiveness just as they did with the once contentious issue of civil rights for African-Americans.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Further, nearly 60 percent support anti-discrimination laws to protect people with same-sex attraction. "

To you mean perhaps gays and lesbians?

Charleston, WV

LeVarr Webb says some people "have deeply held religious views that might make them reluctant to rent a basement apartment, for example, to a same-sex couple, married or not [...] Thus, if an anti-discrimination law includes a religious freedom exemption for certain circumstances, I believe it could pass the Utah Legislature."

Out of curiosity, would that "religious freedom exemption" allow discrimination against ANYONE, not just people who are Gay? Should someone have "religious freedom" to refuse renting to an interracial couple? Should a business owner be allowed to refuse employment to Muslims or Jews because he wants to run a nice, "Christian" business? Where do you draw the line here?

If you're going to decide that "religious freedom exemptions" are going to apply to how businesses handle only sexual orientation, but not race or religion or ethnicity, I think you'll have a serious Constitutional challenge on your hands.

SEC Rules
Seminole, FL

The issue is about the definition of marriage. That name (marriage) is reserved for a union between a man and a woman. People are not opposed to a union with equal rights between a man and a man, or woman and a woman. That union just has to be called another name.

Why can't anyone understand that?


liberty or ...?
Ogden, UT

@LDS Liberal... You are correct about the Missouri statement however; the LDS members in the area had broken no laws of the state or country or used the courts to overturn the decisions of the local voters despite the fact Missouri was a slave state at the time and the LDS members’ anti-slavery. We did not ram litigation through the courts to overturn slavery in Missouri we attempted to influence the democratic process through voting the way the founders had established it, that is when pro-slave and old Missourian settlers used court manipulation to prevent further immigration by Mormons from settling other counties of Missouri. Similar law manipulation was used in the Edmund tucker acts. The LGBT community is using the same court oppression tactics. If the LGBT community believes the public is on their side then do it the way the founders intended through the voice of the people. If marriage is an inalienable right as you claim (although the founders designated this a state’s rights issue) propose a constitutional amendment. If it is a states rights issue then Utah can legally deny gay marriage just as New York’s can legalize it.

Fair Oaks, CA


You state "the LGBT movement want no discourse or compromise." Amendment 3 went beyond restricting "marriage" to gay people, it also outlawed Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership[s for gay people. Who was it that wanted no compromise?

I have to chuckle each time someone mentions the Mozilla CEO or a few cases of "religious" business owners losing discrimination cases. Let's compare that to the hundreds of thousands of gay people over the past decades who have been fired, denied housing, harassed, beaten or killed just because they are gay.

Gay people are still going to have relationships and possibly even raise children regardless of this outcome. From a societal standpoint, letting gay people "marry" will only strengthen those families.

The only reason a SSM should affect your marriage, or any straight marriage, is if one of you are gay. Allowing SSM will not "turn" more people gay.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

Is future unborn sacred to these Judges. Who cares what Gender your friends are or what church you go to. Marriage is because of the Sacredness of the unborn.

Salt Lake City, UT

I hate to say this, but human beings have a tendency to be hypocrites. They want their freedom to live their lives in a way that makes them happy and allows them to believe what they want, yet they quickly deny these same rights to others! One religion often does this to another. The picture for this article says that it isn't bigotry, but it is. We are all adults. There is nothing wrong with gay people, but those who oppose same sex marriage, in fact, are saying that there is something wrong. That is homophobia, however you look at it. They say that they don't know how this affects children. That is because they have never really wanted to know. I have been out almost thirty years. Do you want to come talk to my family. There are lots of people who have been raised among gay people and they all turned out just fine! So what are people talking about? Don't treat me like something is wrong with me and try and say that it isn't bigotry. Trying to say it nicely is like trying to hide a bad odor with air freshener.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ SEC rules and Pignalli: Amendment 3 states, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Same-sex couples in Utah cannot have civil unions, or domestic partnerships or anything else - Amendment 3 prohibits *everything*.

Ten years ago, the LGBTQ community and their supporters asked for compromise and requested that part 2 of Amendment 3 be left out - they were told no. Now there is no choice but to strike down Amendment 3 in its entirety and once that happens, there is no going back.

@ Webb: "... people have deeply held religious views that might make them reluctant to rent a basement apartment, for example, to a same-sex couple,...." This is a very disingenuous statement. *Every* non-discrimination bill proposed in Utah has had exceptions for small businesses and small rental businesses. And you should know this. To pretend this exception does not exist or to willfully ignore it does a great disservice to your readers and ultimately reflects very poorly on you.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

The Amish in Pennsylvania aren't trying to dictate and force leglislation like Amendment 3 on their State or the Nation.

I admire them for that.

They have it right, we [being Utah Mormons] have it all completely wrong.

Follow the Amish, they are being better "Christians"...

Salt Lake City, UT

"the LGBT movement want no discourse or compromise. "

They do. Just you don't like their compromise (churches can do what they want, same-sex marriage allowed in civil marriage and in the churches that want to do it), and you expect them to be okay with discourse that calls them immoral?

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

@SEC Rules

People do understand very well that many people feel the word marriage should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman. However there are also a great many, including myself, who don't feel that way at all. Which is why we support same sex marriage.

@liberty or ...?

Letting each state define marriage will be very problematic. What happens to the marriage rights of a same sex couple that has been legally married in Oregon if they move to Utah? Are they automatically divorced? Is there marriage simply not recognized? How would that work if children are involved. By moving to Utah is one of the partners stripped of all their parental and legal rights over their children? What about other benefits? Do they no longer have the right to make important legal decisions with their partner? What happens to any property they may jointly own? Does one of them just lose the right to all that property? Simply put, with the way our society is structured today it is impossible have each state decide this issue on it's own.

Murray, UT

@patriot Once the "Christian Family Values" policies intertwined into tax law, ie. preferential taxation treatment and special property ownership rights for married couples, it became a legal issue.

Charleston, WV

SEC Rules writes, "People are not opposed to a union with equal rights between a man and a man, or woman and a woman. That union just has to be called another name."

So let’s say the Supreme Court ruled that Straight couples could get “married,” Gay couples could get “civil unions,” but other than the different terminology, both arrangements would have exactly the same legal benefit and protections, at all levels of government, as required under the 14th Amendment. And let’s say the Court also said the “Full Faith & Credit Clause” applied to marriages and civil unions equally and were honored in all 50 states. Would you have a problem with that?

Remember, there would not be language police roaming around telling Gay couples in civil unions that they could not refer to one another as “married.” For all intents and purposes they WOULD be married, except for a purely legal designation. So is it really only the word “marriage” that matters to people? And if so, why is it that "civil unions" are fought as viciously against by organizations like the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage?

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

"Remember that young liberals often grow up to be old conservatives."

I can't remember who said it, but there's a quotation out there that a conservative is a person who will defend to the death the old-time-tradition that liberals fought to create two generations ago. A young liberal who does not fundamentally change his views can become a conservative through sheer inertia, as the rest of the world changes.

@SEC Rules wrote: "The issue is about the definition of marriage. That name (marriage) is reserved for a union between a man and a woman."

In the words of the philosopher Lebowski, "That's just, like, your opinion, man."


@ MoNoMo:

So you can "chuckle" at religious discrimination complaints while pointing out past discimination complaints by the LGBT?

Doesn't the left teach us that all discrimination is bad? Or is it only the discrimination the left does not participate in?

Sneaky Jimmy
Bay Area, CA

@SEC Rules In Florida there were once drinking fountains reserved for "colored" people. Those fountains offered the same water as the one for "white" people. Why weren't "those people" happy with their own drinking fountains? They had to have something that was reserved for "white people" only. Why couldn't they understand that it was the same water? It was frustrating.

South Jordan, UT

"However, other people have deeply held religious views that might make them reluctant to rent a basement apartment, for example, to a same-sex couple, married or not."

More disingenuous deflection from Lavar. Every single year the bill has been introduced at the legislature, and every single version of the ordinances passed by the municipalities throughout the state, have included exemptions for basement apartments--typically requiring a minimum of 4 Units to fall under the ordinance/legislation thus protecting small, private landlords.

Nobody will argue that somebody should be required to rent their basement to ANYONE they don't want to, for whatever reason, but large, corporate, for profit entities that operate large scale housing developments should be required to follow all non-discrimination and equal opportunity practices.

to comment

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