Quantcast
Opinion

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Same-sex marriage survey results raise questions

Comments

Return To Article
  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 28, 2014 6:09 p.m.

    @5th Amendment:
    "The desire to marry more than one has not been shown to be an immutable characteristic like sexual orientation..."

    The 14th Amendment says nothing about 'immutable characteristics' such as eye color and left-handedness.

    "If anti-polygamy/bigamy statues are challenged because they don't apply evenhandedly to similarly situated people (Sister Wives and those in closed faith promoting communities where harm and abuses is well documented to be under-reported...) the means selected by the legislature must bear a substantial relationship to a legitimate government interest."

    Any harm that you might find in a polygamist relationship could have its origins in religious teachings and not the simple arrangement of several people in a polygamist marriage arrangement.

    @Understands Math:
    "Surely if your argument is so watertight that it must have been used, and successfully, in one of the many cases currently or recently in the courts."

    Not necessarily so. The case now before the courts is SSM, only. Other types of marriages will have their day in court when/if SSM gets approved.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 28, 2014 5:49 p.m.

    @Schnee:
    "No it doesn't and if it did your problem wouldn't be with SSM but interracial marriage, since the court striking those bans down is the precedent."

    The court doesn't always need a precedent to make a ruling. It had none with 'Loving.' But, if the court needs a precedent for Polygamy, it can use not only the 'Loving' case but SSM as well.

    @CaliCougar:
    "A question for those posters to this article that support same-sex marriage...Do you also support legalizing other versions of marriage such as polyandry and polygyny? If 'yes,' why? If 'no', why not?"

    They won't touch any other types of marriage. They have no answer. And it would make them look foolish if they did because it would mean a precedent for all other marriage combinations and the eventual demise of marriage. And they don't want to be blamed for that.

  • OneHumanFamily Provo, UT
    Sept. 25, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    @patriot "make no mistake - the LGBT movement want no...compromise."

    You are absolutely right!

    Why did Rosa Parks want to sit at the front of the bus? Due to compromise she could ride the bus as long as she sat at the back. Why wasn't that enough for her? She probably complained about the separate drinking fountains, schools, etc. Why didn't she just accept the compromise?

    No, LGBT will not be satisfied until we have equal rights. Sorry if that is a big inconvenience for you.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    Re: "You may not be able to rid yourself of homosexual feelings but you surely can conduct your life as a heterosexual."

    What a very odd thing to ask of a person - to live a LIE, just to appease the religious 'feelings' of those who dislike God's LGBTQ children.

    As the USSC says, Animus is not a REASON to perpetuate discrimination.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:29 p.m.

    I must say I feel quite cheated ... since I never got to vote on any heterosexual's marriage.

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    @ liberty or ...?

    Except we did...

    We even appealed to the President of the United States for relief. "You're cause is just..." he was more worried about reelection than helping us.

    Also, even if it were solely a States Right's issue, Article IV demands the legal actions of one State be recognized in all. So even if Utah were to win on appeal to not perform the marriages, it would still have to recognize them; or in what other way would you reconcile this with Article IV?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 27, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    Mikhail: "A group of people decided that the definition was restrictive and prohibited the expression of their feelings. A judge agreed. The change in definition, or clarification, was brought about because of peoples perspective. The new definition requires that it be broadened to include "coupling." "

    ----
    No, they did not decided that the definition was restrictive. They thought it was unconstitutional. The judge agreed that it was unconstitutional. American citizens who have studied the amendment and the constitution are now agreeing and have moved to the side of those who are trying to be treated equally under the law.

    Society, through government, has the right to define what certain word mean IF they are not writing laws and amendments that are not in agreement with the constitution. That is what is happening here. Don't make those in Utah who voted for this amendment free of blame. When it was being discussed, it was pointed out many times that it was unconstitutional and would be taken before the judicial branch of our government to be reversed. It happened. It will go before the SCOTUS and be reversed. There is no legal reason to deny other US Citizens the privilege of marriage.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    Aug. 27, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    "Marriage" is a word that has had definition for a very long time - including in codified law. Utah, as well as a great number of states, believed that the definition needed to be clarified. It was.

    A group of people decided that the definition was restrictive and prohibited the expression of their feelings. A judge agreed. The change in definition, or clarification, was brought about because of peoples perspective. The new definition requires that it be broadened to include "coupling."

    The logic that requires the broadening of the definition also leaves room for others to redefine "coupling."

    Society, through government, has the right to define what certain words mean - especially in legal context. Amendment 3 defines. By definition, it excludes. Many, many things are excluded by that definition. Under the new "logic" the term will be left to new definitions, depending on how people feel about the definition at the particular point in time. As people's feelings change, it will be interesting on the new "logic" effects civilization. Unintended consequences are certain to follow.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 27, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    @wrz: "Would that be true for polygamist marriages? What about siblings or other close relatives marriages? How about children marriages?"

    No, no, and no, for marriage is the joining together of two unrelated adults.

    In the Quaker tradition, these two adults are equal in marriage. In the mid 1600's, the equality of men and women was a radical belief and Quakers were the first Christians to practice it. Wives could retain their family name, and their property in marriage.

    In our religion, we believe that the couple must have more than each other. They must each have a spiritual commitment to God as well, for it is God who joins them. And they must have the witness and care of their Meeting, for the Meeting is the community which cares for their marriage.

    Children, besides being incapable of consent, are not developed enough in their spirit, let alone body. Relatives are already joined through blood. As for polygamy, this violates our notion of equality and full partnership in the marital bond.

    You're free to have your own theology, but this is ours.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Aug. 27, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    Twin Lights
    Louisville, KY
    LDS Liberal,

    I do not believe the Amish get involved in politics so the comparison may not hold.

    5:34 p.m. Aug. 25, 2014

    ======

    They don't, and that's my point.

    If we want to keep Government out of Religion,
    We MUST keep Relgion out of Government.

    The seperation of Church and State is there to for 2 reason:

    1. Keep Government from being ruled by any one Relgion.
    2. Keep Government from ruling any one Religion.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 27, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    RedWings wrote: "I can no longer state my opinion without fear of recrimination, bullying, and potential loss of employment."

    I recall the story of a man who was fired from his job in Dallas for wearing a Green Bay Packers jersey to work around the time of a Cowboys/Packers playoff game. You are free to share your unpopular opinions, but that doesn't mean you are free from consequences for having an unpopular opinion.

    "My children go to school and are taught opinions that are not based in scientific fact"

    Outrageous! Traditionally, it's the parents' job to teach opinions that are not based in scientific fact.

    "In the near future, it is likely that two single men who hold valid temple recommends will ask to be sealed in the temple. They have met the requirement for entry under church policy. When denied a sealing, they will sue and a judge will likely side with them."

    Baloney. If this sort of thing could happen, why hasn't it happened before? Why haven't divorced Catholics successfully sued to be married in a Catholic church? First Amendment.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    @ RedWings: A couple of summers ago an interracial couple wanted to get married in the church they attended. The church had never had an interracial marriage performed in it. The church still hasn't. Nothing to do with doctrine, just history - and they were allowed to make that decision and there were no legal repurcussions because churches have the right to set those limits.

    Your slippery slope argument is invalid.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    @MoNoMo -

    It is a fact that there are more and more instances of religious discrimination over gay marriage. Many incidents occured in CA after Prop 8 was passed. If you are looking at a simple numbers game, then I would argue that government-sanctioned religious dicscimination is on the rise as LGBT cases are decreasing drastically.

    How does SSM affect me, my family, and my church?

    - I can no longer state my opinion without fear of recrimination, bullying, and potential loss of employment.

    - My children go to school and are taught opinions that are not based in scientific fact, and are taught concepts that are in direct opposition to our beliefs without permission.

    - In the near future, it is likely that two single men who hold valid temple recommends will ask to be sealed in the temple. They have met the requirement for entry under church policy. When denied a sealing, they will sue and a judge will likely side with them. That would remove the opportunity for any of my family and posterityto attend the temple and partake of our religious ordinances.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    @wrz;

    "You may not be able to rid yourself of heterosexual feelings but you surely can conduct your life as a homosexual."

    --- Lets see you try it first, shall we? When you succeed, then and only then can you ask of others what you're willing to do yourself. Otherwise, if you're not willing to do it yourself, you are a hypocrite to ask it of others.

    Jim Cobabe says:

    "I have opposed any legislation which purports to prevent "discrimination" aimed specifically at narrow interests... Existing general statutes prohibiting discrimination already cover this matter, ..."

    --- No they don't. The thing is "narrow interests", such as sexual orientation are not "narrow". Everybody has one.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    Aug. 26, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    --- from the article: "Fundamentally fair-minded and reasonable, Utahns accept domestic partnerships for same-sex couples."

    Well, how gracious and magnanimous of Utahns to "accept" a little something for their neighbors who are LGBT. Sure, we'll throw them some crumb because it makes us feel better.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 26, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    @Abeille

    So, Abeille, if Domestic Partnerships are not illegal in Utah why did Salt Lake City, in 2008 and in response to Amendment 3's language, change the city's domestic partnership registry into the "mutual commitment" registry? Why did the city feel a need to play a word game if the intent of Amendment 3 was not to prohibit "Domestic Partnerships?"

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    @RedShirt
    "any time you deny service to somebody because of whatever reason you are discriminating"

    Actually, NO.A business can deny service to someone if there is a rational reason.

    For example, a business can deny service to a big tall guy, if their facility can not hold his weight or weight and make the practice unsafe.

    However, business denying services to gay people doesn't have such rationale, other than "I don't like it", that is discrimination. And the fact that gays are among protected class of people also doesn't help.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    To "USU-Logan" actually I am not distorting anything. As I stated before, any time you deny service to somebody because of whatever reason you are discriminating. If I don't like the way you smell and refuse to serve you, that is discrimination. What you are quibbling over is discrimination against protected classes of people.

    To "Frozen Fractals" since when do you have to be a protected class to be discriminated against? The dictionary defines discriminate as "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit." That means ay time you treat somebody different without any basis in merit you are discriminating. So, if you deny gun owners or blonds or left handed people service you are discriminating. Protected class only applies when you want to engage in legal action. Legally I can discriminate against left handed people, red headed people, people that smell bad, or children. It is legal, but is it right to discriminate against people without merit.

    You find it ok to discriminate against gun owners. That is fine, just don't lie to me and tell me you don't by hiding behind protected classes.

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    As the survey results reflect, those in Utah advocating such legalistic measures represent a minority interest. Other recent surveys have indicated that the number of people across the US with a personal concern in this matter are almost vanishingly small. Utah's majority citizens should be able to reasonably speak to this issue in the public square, in spite of the tremendous volume and obscuring smoke opposing activists tend to generate. It is much ado about nothing.

    I have opposed any legislation which purports to prevent "discrimination" aimed specifically at narrow interests, such as those chosing to self-identify as homosexuals. Existing general statutes prohibiting discrimination already cover this matter, and should serve all of us. Just as it is misguided to single out specific groups for discrimination, it is equally a mistaken gesture to propose to single out specific interests for narrowly focused legislative protection. Constitutional "equal protection" surely obviates the necessity for any such specific regulatory measures.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:40 p.m.

    @A Quaker:
    "The gift of spiritual union is as strong and valuable to our community in same-sex couples as it is in opposite-sex couples."

    Would that be true for polygamist marriages? What about siblings or other close relatives marriages? How about children marriages?

    @Frozen Fractals"
    "Gun carrier is not a protected class..."

    But keeping an bearing arms is a protected activity.

    @Kimber:
    "But one thing is clear: Gay marriage has been legal in a state that I love (Massachusetts) for over ten years..."

    So, apparently there's no problem with some states allowing SS marriage while others do not allow SS marriage.

    @RanchHand:
    "Amendment 3, written by an LDS group was not 'inclusive' it was EXCLUSIVE."

    Well, the amendment (and other state law) is/are both inclusive and exclusive. Inclusive in that all came marry regardless of sexual orientation. Exclusive in that it excluded polygamists, siblings and other close relatives, children and same sex attracted.

    @Frozen Fractals:
    "You can't leave being gay at home."

    You may not be able to rid yourself of homosexual feelings but you surely can conduct your life as a heterosexual.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:33 p.m.

    Utahns who oppose same sex marriage state they do so because same sex marriage is a threat to the traditional marriage. Actually they oppose same sex marriage mostly because they think it violates the principle of chastity. They won't say this so they rely on the former argument.

    Getting back to the presumed threat from SSM to the "traditional" marriage. How could this possibly be? If opponents of SSM marriage want to use this argument, they should prove it!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 25, 2014 8:19 p.m.

    @Redshirt:
    "Let's be factual. Mozilla removed the CEO over backlash from the gay community. This is becoming a common event for anyone who aupports traditional marriage. It is nothing short of bullying companies to remove people for an opinion that is unrelated to their position."

    Exactly. When gays got involved in diversity and multiculturalism at the UofU I thought, "How odd? What does this have to do with non-Western cultural paradigms?"

    What happened, is diversity and multiculturalism was co-opted. People with various agendas took it over and gave it a bad name. I think that people in Utah should be totally in support of diversity, but they are not because of the bad examples of those who have preached diversity and then done the opposite.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 25, 2014 8:09 p.m.

    @RFLQAHS:

    "That is homophobia, however you look at it."

    No it isn't. Lots of cultures have prohibitions against behaviors. It isn't because of a phobia.

    You have a disagreement with people who believe differently than you. You think that it is wrong to promote marriage as being only between a man and a woman. So, how long have you had this phobia? What is wrong with you?

    Anyhow, I think supporting traditional marriage is a liberal issue. Children are born with a father and a mother. They have a right to that.

    Using the term 'homophobia' presupposes that people who support traditional marriage (for whatever reason) have something wrong with them. That is the ultimate in cultural chauvinism and does not belong in an open, progressive society.

    My disagreement with the right on gay marriage is that they say that it has been the foundation of civilization for 5000 years. It goes back way before then. If the next generation wants to go back to the early stone-age that is their choice. Remember however, that the path of history bends towards justice.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 25, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    @ Abeille: The law states, "(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    Now, you are half right - no other union can be called a marriage. However, you seem to be misunderstanding the rest of that clause, "or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    No other union, no matter what it is called, can be given the same or substantially similar legal effect as a marriage. Yes, I suppose that technically you could have a civil union or a domestic partnership, but according to the law this relationship would not be recognized by the legal system - which is what is happening now. "Mary" and "Jane" are a same-sex couple. Mary had a child through reproductive assistance technology. If Jane were "John," he would automatically be recognized as the father of Mary's child. But Jane does not have that legal right. Jane also does not have the legal right in Utah to adopt Mary's child as a step-parent.

    Mary and Jane, no matter what they call their relationship, are prohibited ANY legal effects similar to the legal effects of marriage.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 6:44 p.m.

    @Loconic;

    You don't "support traditional marriage", you oppose marriage equality. Nothing about preventing LGBT couples from marrying "supports traditional marriage".

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 6:37 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    You can leave a gun at home. You can leave a cat at home. You can't leave being gay at home. You can't leave being white at home. You can't leave being a woman at home. You can't leave being 64 years old at home. You can't leave being Catholic at home. Some of those are just more outwardly noticeable than others.

    If you want gun carrying to be a protected class you go right on ahead and lobby for it, but right now it's not one, so that means there's a right to discriminate in that regard. Doesn't mean everyone should necessarily pick every other little thing like that to restrict in that regard in their stores, of course, just that they can. It's not a "things I like" thing, which only comes into play when I'm picking stores to shop at.

    And don't say discriminating against gay marriage is different than discriminating against gay people. Unless you want to argue that being against interracial marriage isn't racist (because that'd be my counterargument).

  • intervention slc, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 6:29 p.m.

    @Loconic
    So when in our history have we worried about seeming judgmental towards those that actively work to continue to deny others their rights and basic human dignity? No matter how those that appose equal rights try to spin It they are the aggressors not the victims and if that means I am judgemental so be it.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 6:03 p.m.

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

    "Nor does it mean domestic unions can't have legal rights given them in the State of Utah. "

    I am sorry by there is just no way to reconcile these two sentences.

  • Loconic Alpine, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 6:03 p.m.

    How quickly any discussion about SSM brings out the ultra-liberals who have all the answers and no allowance for anyone or anything that doesn't agree with their point of view. Amazing how this subject causes such angst in those people.

    Why is it that anyone who has a viewpoint not in alignment with yours is automatically either a racist or is discriminating? You make no allowance for any other viewpoint. That seems to be quite judgmental in its own right if thought about.
    Wait. I forgot your rules. It's only those who don't agree with you who are judgmental. Sorry.

    Heaven forbid if anyone has the gall to support something so outdated as traditional marriage.
    How dare they bring up the sanctity of traditional families and what they've contributed to civilization and society. That doesn't support the current politically correct viewpoint. Therefore, it has to be irrelevant. Just ask the Amish.

    The new and updated moral police have spoken. Anything now goes... morally or whatever. Otherwise, you are discriminating, politically incorrect and need to learn your place in the new social order. If any religion dares to disagree, it's outdated too.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 25, 2014 5:34 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    I do not believe the Amish get involved in politics so the comparison may not hold.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 5:09 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    You are distorting Frozen Fractals' post.

    It only said "Gun carrier is not a protected class, same as if someone wanted to bring a cat with them." S/he did not say discrimination is OK, if the people mentioned above feel being discriminated, they can file lawsuit too. Frozen Fractals just pointed out they can not claim as a protected class as black, or woman or gay do.

  • Abeille West Point, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    MoNoMo:

    Please read them again. Number 1 relates to Number 2:

    (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.

    Since #1 above defines the legal term 'Marriage' as 'the legal union between a man and a woman', no other union can be recognized as a 'Marriage' (Legal term) if it between any persons other than a man and a woman. That's what #2 above clarifies. There may be other unions (same-sex unions, polygamous unions, etc), but those cannot be termed 'Marriage' for 'legal effect' in the State of Utah. That doesn't 'outlaw' domestic unions or any other union. Nor does it mean domestic unions can't have legal rights given them in the State of Utah. It simply clarifies the meaning of the term 'Marriage' codified in the state constitution.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    Aug. 25, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    RedWings,

    One single case compared to hundreds of thousands - WAS my point.

    That is a fact!

    No discrimination is acceptable in my opinion. Including voting on others' marriages.

    Please tell me how SSM marriage would actually effect you, your family, or your religion.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 25, 2014 4:41 p.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" so lets be clear, you are for discrimination as long as you discriminate against people/things you don't like. In this case you don't like guns, so you want to discriminate against anybody legally carrying a gun.

    If you can pick and choose what you discriminate against, why can't people who oppose SSM discriminate against that? If it is ok for you to discriminate, why can't others?

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    @Salemite

    Actually the word marriage itself comes to us from Old French and does not enter into the English language until the 14th century. However, I understand that you are talking about the idea of two people joining together as opposed to the word itself. Since you brought up the Bible then why don't we use that definition of marriage? Marriage should be between one man and several women. Many of gods most holy men (his prophets) had this type of marriage. Members of the LDS religion believe that god himself has this type of marriage. It's incredibly hypocritical for people to claim they only want marriage to be between one man and one woman and then revere prophets and a holy book that does not use this definition; or even worship a deity who himself does not follow this definition.

    Also one more point, if your holy book condones genocide and slavery no matter the circumstances it loses all credibility on morality.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    @SEC Rules;

    " 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."

    -- Is that why Amendment 3 prevents ANY form of recognition of our unions? BTW, you don't have a patent or copyright on the word marriage. You don't get to decide to whom the word applies.

    @liberty or ...?;

    You (the majority) didn't have the right to vote on our rights in the first place; we're using the courts to recitify that bigotry. BTW; the courts ARE the "proper channels".

    @george of the jungle;

    Sorry, your 10:39 comment was just nonsensical.

    @Abeille;

    If the fact that "marriage" presupposes children, let me set your mind at rest. LGBT people CAN, and DO frequenstly have children. Of course, you posted Amendment 3 and then clearly didn't understand what you posted. Amendment 3 absolutely does prevent Civil Unions.

    @Salemite;

    Again, you've no patent or copyright.

    @2 bits;

    No matter how much you say you're inclusive, every LGBT person sitting in your wards knows they're not really welcome.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    @Abeille 1:28 PM
    "Whether you agree with it or not, the term 'Marriage' in Utah State law presupposes creation of children."

    Do you know that in Utah, two cousins are allowed to get married ONLY when they are older enough NOT to have children?
    Procreation is not a requirement for marriage license.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    @ MoNoMo:

    Let's be factual. Mozilla removed the CEO over backlash from the gay community. This is becoming a common event for anyone who aupports traditional marriage. It is nothing short of bullying companies to remove people for an opinion that is unrelated to their position.

    I am just not understanding how discrimination only matters if it is done against a certain group. I have and would never support employment or housing discrimination in any form, including against LGBT.

    Discrimination is just unacceptable regardless of who the target is. That is something the left has forgotten, and religios bigotry and discrimination are completely acceptable to liberals....

  • Abeille West Point, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    Sorry - that last post was for Kalindra, not Kimber.

    Kimber - I agree with you!

  • Abeille West Point, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    Kimber:

    You are drawing conclusions for me that I did not intend. All I did was point out the law, verbatim, and counter the point of another poster who said that Amendment 3 made 'domestic unions' illegal. Look again at the law. It most certainly does NOT make Domestic Unions illegal! However, it does state that a domestic union (without regard to where it was performed) is not equivalent with the term 'Marriage' in the State of Utah. That, in the State of Utah, is current law.

    If you want to know my personal opinion (which I didn't think anyone really cared about), here it is: Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision, I hope that the State of Utah will review their laws and make sure that the rights of ALL people are upheld evenly.

  • Daniel L. Murray, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 3:18 p.m.

    This article and comments have left me with more questions than answers, such as.

    How do you strengthen what you do not define?

    How do you make law without discriminating against behavior?

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    Aug. 25, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    Abeille,

    See Section 2 of your reference. "(2) No other domestic union, however de
    nominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    No other domestic union? RE - NO other similar relationship may be recognized!

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "you don't have to be a protected class to be discriminated against. Discrimination is not a matter of having your protections violated."

    I meant in terms of the law they aren't a protected class. I support businesses discriminating against carrying guns into the store (not to be confused with refusing to serve people who own guns, just aren't carrying them with them into the business, I wouldn't support that). Is that the statement you wanted me to admit? Because I'm alright with saying/typing that.

    "Study shows white American people believe they are more discriminated against"

    People can believe whatever they want, it doesn't make it true. I know I sure am not going to be the one stopped and frisked in a major city or asked to show proof of citizenship in Arizona.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 3:02 p.m.

    IMO the LDS Church's stand is Inclusive, while not accepting something that's clearly "Sin" in their doctrine they have had since the beginning.

    They have never said to push gay people away. They have always said to include them and love them.

    Google "lds church policy on gay marriage".

    They don't deny that same sex attraction is real. They just believe (from what's taught in the Bible) that it's sin to act on that attraction.

    But just having the attraction is not a sin. It's a fact of life for some people. Just as other attractions are a part of life for other people. Some attractions are appropriate... some are not. We need to control ourselves (instead of being controled by our what attracts us) and only act on the ones that are acceptable to the Lord (not the Government).

    I've never looked down on anybody with Same Sex attraction. They have their struggles and I have mine (none any worse than the other). But I haven't embraced the unnatural attraction and told God that HE must accept it.... that's where it becomes "sin". But you are still acceptable.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 25, 2014 2:58 p.m.

    “Taking shots at Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter is a moral imperative for me.”

    Good for you Pignanelli. They supply the ammo, so why not?

    Personally, I don’t see a huge need to promote same-sex marriage, but I don’t see any point in opposing it either. As Webb points out, “ . . . we’ve reached a tipping point and the same-sex marriage tide is not likely to be turned back.” . . . So we might as well go with the flow, let it happen, and focus on REAL ISSUES instead.

    There are plenty of real issues that need attention, and other people’s sex lives are really none of our business.

    “Millennials do not care about 5,000 years of human traditions.” Sure they do Pignanelli. But let’s be honest. Judeo-Christian tradition is NOT the be all and end all.

    Western tradition dates back to the Romans and the Greeks, and you know how they were. Then there was a certain young Macedonian switch hitter who conquered most of the known world by the time he was 30. So your implied 5,000 years of exclusively heterosexual tradition is somewhat disingenuous, don’t you think?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    "If religious leaders (including the LDS Church) — using their compassionate and inclusive themes —"

    Discrimination is not "compassionate" nor "inclusive". Amendment 3, written by an LDS group was not "inclusive" it was EXCLUSIVE.

  • SP Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    I for one would be happy if the Supreme Court took the step to create a national law on marriage that created an opportunity for all people to marry. This would spare Utah from the awkward position of being one of the last states in the nation to allow gay marriage. And spare us all a drawn out culture war.

    The majority of Utahns may not be ready to vote "Yes" that they would like to roll out gay marriage in Utah, but I think they also recognize that the final outcome of this issue is beginning to seem inevitable and don't want to be seen as a pariah.

    Let's focus our efforts on strengthening marriage and move past defining marriage.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 25, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    @ Abeille: You quote the law and then claim that it does not say what it says. Amendment 3 clearly prohibits civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever else you want to call them. "No other domestic union (domestic union = family relationship), however denominated (denominated = no matter what you call it), may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect (same or substantially equivalent legal effect = recognition by government agency and protection of the laws).

    Same-sex couples cannot have a legally recognized relationship in the State of Utah. The law is very clear on that point.

    When Salt Lake City and other municipalities wanted to offer insurance to the same-sex partners of their LGBT employees, it was made very clear to them that to do so would be a direct violation of the law. The only way they were allowed to do it was to open the insurance to an "adult designee" which is basically any financially dependent adult in the home, including an aging parent or an adult child - no recognition of a same-sex relationship is allowed.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    Everybody is going to have an opinion on this and no opinion is totally right or wrong. But one thing is clear: Gay marriage has been legal in a state that I love (Massachusetts) for over ten years and although I'm sure there are different opinions there too, it has been working similar to heterosexual relationships. Some couples have children they have adopted and these children seem as well adjusted as any other children in a test group. So, here's the thing: There are gay marriages (or relationships in states where it is not legal) and further, it is unconstitutional to show bigotry towards these people. So, no matter what the polls show, our country will give these people their rights and eventually, it will be legal everywhere. Religion doesn't have to agree and it is separate from a person's legal rights. Good article Frank and LaVar....Thanks!

  • Salemite Seminole, FL
    Aug. 25, 2014 1:39 p.m.

    @ The Wraith

    Sorry. The word marriage is as old as the Bible itself, and it refers to a union between a man and a woman. You need to come up with your own word to define a union otherwise.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    Snapdragon said: If someone does not agree with you then they must be homophobic. There is a world outside your front door. There are different views that are not based on hate.

    Besides "My God said so" What is your reason to deny others the freedom you enjoy based on? Love? Sure.

  • Abeille West Point, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 1:28 p.m.

    MoNoMo:

    For your benefit, I have included Article I, Section 29 of Utah Code below (This was Amendment 3, before it was codified):

    Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
    (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.

    Note that this is a definition of a legal term, 'Marriage'. At the time of Amendment 3's passing, Utahns were quite concerned about the effect of other state's legislation, some of which gave SSM unions the exact same rights as Hetrosexual marriages, being imposed on the State of Utah by a Federal court. Whether you agree with it or not, the term 'Marriage' in Utah State law presupposes creation of children. Therefore, many laws in Utah Code are written with that in mind - a 'Male and Female' couple that are 'Married, with children.'

    Note that this code does NOT prevent domestic unions, as you portrayed in your post. Nor is it intended to restrict the rights of those unions. It only states the obvious - there IS a difference.

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    Aug. 25, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    RFLASH, you are coming from a point of view that your opinion is the only valid opinion. If someone does not agree with you then they must be homophobic. There is a world outside your front door. There are different views that are not based on hate.

    Education expels hatred.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    "Study shows white American people believe they are more discriminated against" in the UK daily mail."

    The word "Believe" in ther, makes that study a bit objective doesn't it, I mean I see folks on here daily who also believe that white males are a picked on group. if you ask "THEM" anyways.

    Kind a like how religions have suddenly become victims, when they can't control legislation as much as they used to.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    Re: "Pignanelli: Every hour, scores of older opponents to same-sex marriage pass to the after life and are replaced with babies who will grow into supporters"...

    Pignanelli,
    You make invalid assumptions if you assume that every child born will grow into a same-sex supporter.

    Fact is... every hour people die (some of them supporters, some of them not). And babies are born (some of them will grow into supporters.. some of them will not).

    ==============

    The polls are headed your way. But it's not just due to supporters dying. Or new babies grow up to be supporters. People are changing their mind on opposing it. THAT is where we should focus our hope... NOT on killing off the people who don't support it.

    The good news is... We don't have to hope and wait for 61% of the population to die (that's a good thing IMO)

    The education campaign is working. Militant protests would have the opposite affect (result in more people opposing it.... not winning new supporters).

    So I praise the GLBT community for their peaceful campaign (and ditching the militant protests or hoping for people to die).

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Aug. 25, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    Hold on a second; right-wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh haven't bigotly attacked people on the basis of sexual orientation, they've called out bigotted hypocrisy. Are liberal commentators unable to say anything without attacking people (especially radio commentators) who disagree with them?

    Secondly, I point to the following:
    "Fundamentally fair-minded and reasonable, Utahns accept domestic partnerships for same-sex couples."

    That's not at all what the poll results said.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 25, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" so you are discriminating, and I thought that liberals accepted all people. I guess liberals are hypocrites at that issue too.

    What is the difference between calling the police because a person legally brought a gun into your business and calling the police because a black person came into your business? Either way you are discriminating against law abiding people.

    Now what are you going to do when the police end up harassing you because you are wasting their time by calling them and complaining about people carrying guns legally?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 25, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" you don't have to be a protected class to be discriminated against. Discrimination is not a matter of having your protections violated.

    There are studies out there that show that the most discriminated group is single white males. See "'Whites suffer more racism than blacks': Study shows white American people believe they are more discriminated against" in the UK daily mail.

    You can discriminate against people based on hair color, clothing, appearance, profession, and so forth.

    You can also go for discrimination against pet owners. If I refuse to allow people to bring their dogs into my business, I am discriminating against dog owners. Dog owners are not protected, but I am still discriminating.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut

    Also look at the number of businesses that refuse to serve people that have a gun. Look at the liberal states that have pushed conservative business owners out just because those conservative businesses produce guns.

    There are many examples of how liberals discriminate against conservatives.

    12:27 p.m. Aug. 25, 2014

    ========

    If I owned a business,
    I would not refuse to serve people that walked into my place with a gun.

    I would simply call the Police, and tell them that a man with a gun just walked into my store, and let them do it for me!

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "Also look at the number of businesses that refuse to serve people that have a gun."

    Gun carrier is not a protected class, same as if someone wanted to bring a cat with them.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 25, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    To "Utefan60" really? You really should get out more.

    Read "Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement" in the Washington Times.

    Also see "Hollywood Finally Admits It Discriminates Against Conservatives -- Could This Be the Start of Something Big?" at Fox News.

    Also look at the number of businesses that refuse to serve people that have a gun. Look at the liberal states that have pushed conservative business owners out just because those conservative businesses produce guns.

    There are many examples of how liberals discriminate against conservatives.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    I'm curious too...why did a bank put this poll in the field?

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    @liberty or ...?

    Was a Constitutional amendment needed in order to strike down segregation laws in the 1950's? In that case states in the South were willing to kill in order to maintain what they thought was their state rights. These are states who felt they had a right to discriminate and that it was an imperative part of their tradition to a much greater extent than any opponent of same sex marriage. They too were angry that liberal states were forcing their values on them. Yet an amendment wasn't needed. Nor is it needed in this case. The courts and judges are not being activist, instead they are doing their job exactly as they are supposed to by declaring these laws unconstitutional. There is no need for an amendment in this case just as there was no need of one during desegregation.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    Not once have I seen the left (liberal) people discriminate against the right. The right has the whole package of discrimination on themselves. They are the ones that deny civil rights to other legal taxpaying citizens. As for religious discrimination, that doesn't exist. Just because your religion says the earth is flat it doesn't represent discrimination against religion to show that isn't true. You do have the freedom to believe that.
    The right has been so totally engrossed in vilification that they have turned into the very type of people that they complain about. They have become intolerant, bigoted and closed minded.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    If you'd like another (possibly more sacred) view on the sacredness of marriage, take a look at "Collected Marriage Minutes" (google it), a compilation of Quaker "Minutes" (proclamations of Discernments).

    You'll find this central Quaker belief quoted or paraphrased in a number of them:

    "For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests' or magistrates'; for it is God's ordinance and not man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together; for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses." George Fox, 1669

    The first function of a Quaker Meeting in any marriage is a Clearness Committee to determine the couple has spiritually united. We then call an Appointed Meeting to witness and celebrate their marriage. Beacon Hill, Massachusetts explains it most simply, "The gift of spiritual union is as strong and valuable to our community in same-sex couples as it is in opposite-sex couples."

    NB: For "traditionalists" who deny sharing the word "marriage," in 1998 Barton-Glover Meeting (Vermont) settled on "wedding" for SSM.

  • liberty or ...? Ogden, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    @ Wraith then propose an amendment to the constitution!!. The founders established a way for the constitution to be altered. Your argument about parental rights, benefits, etc is irrelevant because the institution was set up so that the people of Utah could not force their will on people from Maryland and new york just as they could not force their will on Utah, California, Idaho,Virginia, etc. It was established as a check on the Federal government and people from other states including tyranny of the minority and majority that they could not force people to abandon their beliefs if they accepted different religious standards, social structures,institutions of legislative practices etc. If we truly understood the declaration of independance and the constitution we would realize that just as Gays want equality they do not have the right to deprive the rights and force their standards on their neighbors to do it. Whether you view it as discrimination or difference of opinion the minute your force your beliefs on some one else without going through the proper channels (not court manipulation) established you become the opressor you accuse others of being.You do not have the right to not be offended.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    @RedWings,

    I chuckle because opponent frequently bring out Mozilla as it happens every day while ignoring the history of discrimination against gay people that actually does happen every day.

    The Mozilla CEO was forced out by his Board of Directors because the possible impact to the company and it's employees, not by the Gay community. That rich guy is going to be just fine.

    In 29 states gay people have ZERO protections from discrimination.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    "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.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    @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.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    @ 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?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    "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."

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Aug. 25, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    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?

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    @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.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    @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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    @patriot
    "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?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    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"...

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    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.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    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.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    @patriot,

    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.

  • liberty or ...? Ogden, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    @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.

  • SEC Rules Seminole, FL
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    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?

    Frustrating.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:17 a.m.

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

    To you mean perhaps gays and lesbians?

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    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?

    And

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

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    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.