Quantcast
Utah

Former Gov. Huntsman: Same-sex marriage is 'inevitable'

Comments

Return To Article
  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    20 straight legal wins for Right to Marry Same Sex advocates and 6 states refuse to defend their same sex marriage bans sure makes same sex marriage look inevitable. So why waste tax payers money in a losing fight?

    Outside of knee jerk fear based in bigotry and unsupported myths how does same sex marriage pose a threat to "traditional" marriage?

  • dddd Logan, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    Fighting things that are wrong is the right thing to do!!

  • funkonaut Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    Just get government out of marriage and make it a private, legal practice. Get married in your own church/religion/belief/etc. and draw up a legal agreement granting your spouse equal legal rights with regards to healthcare, finances, benefits, etc.

  • Mamamama Salt lake city, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    Dddd,
    Getting divorced is wrong too......do you believe we should fight that too? Live and let live!

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    Dddd,

    What exactly do you think you are fighting that is "wrong", and what makes it "wrong"?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    Well thanks to Louisiana today we can't do any more 20 wins in a row since Windsor type comments. Now it's something like 20-1 since Windsor. But yeah, it's inevitable one way or another (though I'd be very surprised if Kennedy didn't join the 4 liberals in siding with same-sex marriage).

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    Death is "inevitable". Shall we all rush into it?

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    "What exactly do you think you are fighting that is "wrong", and what makes it "wrong"?"

    It's wrong scientifically and it's wrong morally.

    Established science shows heterosexual reproduction is how all sexual organisms on earth have consistently propagated. Going against several billion years of mother nature and natural selection makes homosexuality wrong. Or are you anti-science?

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    Well if a billionaire says so....

    who cares what huntsman thinks. he also thought he would be the next president.

    Things are easier when you have daddy warbucks to fund your life. If only all of us were given the same advantages that he has.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    To dddd: Good for you for being brave enough to stand up for your beliefs! I'm on your side, although I do believe people have a right to their own opinion. This world is getting scarier and scarier. Wars, famine, diseases, and immorality. We are going down hill fast. Sad for our country and the world.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    @illuminated
    Banning same-sex marriage doesn't make gay people straight and marriage has no child requirement to it, likewise one can have children without marriage. Your science argument is thus non-applicable to marriage and claiming that people who support same-sex marriage are anti-science doesn't make any sense.

  • RSL* Why, AZ
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    I was not a fan of Huntsman when he was governor but I agree that gay marriage is inevitable.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    @dddd - Restricting the rights of citizens in the name of "doing what is right" is not only wrong but offensive.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    @Schnee

    "Your science argument is thus non-applicable to marriage and claiming that people who support same-sex marriage are anti-science doesn't make any sense."

    Any practice that promotes or glorifies the destruction of life on earth is wrong. I would be against anyone pushing humans to drink gasoline, or pushing humans to kill their own young. I would be against these things because they hurt human life and our future as a species. Homosexuality does the exact same thing by stopping human reproduction.

    Supporting homosexual marriage is supporting a practice which intentionally hurts human beings. Doesn't matter if it's on a small or large scale. Anyone supporting homosexuality in any institution is against the very process which brought and sustained life on our planet.

    That's what makes it wrong. It's wrong to support or promote human extinction. Why would we support something that supports that very thing in homosexuality? I don't get it. It's absolutely ludicrous for a species to desire to destroy itself. If extraterrestrials are watching us from afar, they must think we're morons.

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    illuminated,

    Just more proof that reason is completely foreign to your arguments.

  • JHP Okemos, MI
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    Nothing in politics or with the Supreme Court is inevitable . . . nothing.

  • Cleetorn Fuaamotu, Tonga
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter how big of a majority decides that wrong is actually right. And the argument can go both ways and apply in various instances. Nevertheless, as long as I have a moral breath left in my body I will fight against evil regardless of the cost, regardless of the outcome.

    I do believe that the nation will eventually recognize same-sex marriage as legal but it would be more idiotic to just throw my hands up, give up and embrace just because some others see the truth as untenable.

    While this battle may be lost in the future, the God of all will win the war much to the dismay of all nay-sayers.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    The United Church of Christ is suing the state of North Carolina, because they say that NOT being allowed to perform same sex marriages is a violation of their freedom of religion. They, and 21 other Christian denominations are fine with it.

    Murder, armed robbery, adultery, and rape are all considered sins. Yet you can get married from prison or even while sitting on death row. We even allow convicted child molesters to get married. But not gays, purely out of animus.

    As for Gov. Huntsman, please run for senate here or president. I will not only vote for you, I will knock doors, help with signs, and phone bank.

  • dirt Sandy, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    You can produce offspring and more humans without doing it, these days. That is gay couples can have children and can contribute to the sustaining of human life on our planet.

    Your argument fails miserably on those grounds, illuminated.

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    Elder Oak's talk on the tolerance trap is coming to my mind.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    "You can produce offspring and more humans without doing it, these days. That is gay couples can have children and can contribute to the sustaining of human life on our planet."

    Doesn't matter. I can also choose to adopt children of parents who died of drug overdose. That's not a recipe that helps our species survive long-term though. Just because someone else is actively creating human life doesn't mean that the person who isn't doing it is in the right.

    More people giving birth on the planet than the number of people getting beheaded in the Middle East doesn't justify the things ISIS is doing to the human race. You justify a couple going against billions of years of nature by saying that someone else will pick-up the slack. Wrong is wrong.

    In the animal kingdom, when a wolf in the pack isn't putting in his fair share of the work, he's left behind or eaten. You want to go against nature by excusing the negative impact of homosexuals to our species by telling someone else to do their job of bearing children.

    This is both anti-science and anti-human.

  • Cleetorn Fuaamotu, Tonga
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    FatherOfFour, "we allow" all sorts of things that are morally bankrupt. That doesn't make them right. It only makes them "allowed." Not anything close to the same thing.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    Standing for what is right and bigotry are two completely different things.

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    @illuminated

    Any practice that promotes or glorifies the destruction of life on earth is wrong. I would be against anyone pushing humans to drink gasoline, or pushing humans to kill their own young.

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

    So...please identify whom exactly it is that is forcing you into a same-sex marriage? Do that, and I will fight the system with you.

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    @Johnny Triumph

    Standing for what is right and bigotry are two completely different things.

    -------------------

    Problem is...who defines right and wrong? Whose God?

    Going on a limb and guessing you and I are of the same faith (LDS), we probably agree on 99/100 (if not more) times on what is right and wrong.

    But---- someone else may differ; using their religion.

    We can have freedom of religion only in a secular society. If it isn't secular, it means we have a State Religion. It is binary, no in between.

    I want to be free to practice my religion according to the dictates of my own conscience, not the conscience of someone else; therefore, I must allow others that same freedom.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Sept. 3, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    @ FatherOfFour

    Marriage is defined as a bond between a Man and a Woman not anything else.
    Yes, there are some questionable circumstances that you defined and you can make whatever assumptions up that you like for the reason why people are against it all you want.

    To me the reason why I am against Gay marriage because for thousands of years marriage has meant for most people a union between a 1 man and 1 woman.

    I don't have a problem with Same-Sex people having rights, living together, etc. just stop trying to redefine marriage.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    @Johnny Triumph, "Standing for what is right and bigotry are two completely different things."

    I heard that same argument at a Walgreen's lunch counter in Tennessee. They were wrong then too.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    Interesting that so many are commenting on what is "right." This is not an issue to determine what is "right." It is about what is "legal." They are not always the same.

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:07 p.m.

    No, I am not gay, nor do I have any gay friends. But "illuminated" has failed to show what is wrong with same sex marriage. There is NO scientific organization that says same sex marriage is scientifically "wrong". What would that even mean, anyway? That SSM violates the scientific method? That it is not empirically demonstrable? That it is not "natural"? None of these are true. Science has absolutely nothing to say about same sex marriage being right or wrong.

    Morally "wrong"? How so? Legalizing SSM does not force all marriages to be SSMs, and with less than 1% of the population entering into SSM, it cannot possibly stop or even register a blip on the fertility rates of the human race. Besides, reproduction has never been required to make "traditional marriage" legally justified, so why would it be a requirement for SSM?

    Families are comprised of a variety of configurations and relationships, and for a variety of reasons. That SS couples desire legal standing for their relationships can only benefit them and their families.

    So I ask again, what is "wrong" with SSM?

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:07 p.m.

    @greatbam22

    To me the reason why I am against Gay marriage because for thousands of years marriage has meant for most people a union between a 1 man and 1 woman

    ----------------------

    Except when we Mormons did polygamy back from 1842-1891...then it was 1 man, many wives. Several Presidents of the Church had more than one wife...at a time.

    The time of Christ, the Church probably practiced polygamy then too (Why else would Paul make a qualification of a Bishop as someone who had one wife)

    Solomon, David, Moses, Abraham, Jacob are documented to have several wives

    Rome and Greece are known to have practiced same sex marriages; so have Sodom and Gomorrah. Marriages have been used to unite countries, and to only produce offspring, while the King had his "mistresses".

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    @dirt, et.al.
    Can you please explain how homosexuals have children? Sperm donors? Surrogates mothers?Well, I guess there has to be some opposite sex interaction somewhere, doesn't there.
    Maybe we are not considering what is happening to our society with all this. While you all celebrate these non-productive alliances, certain societies who hold animus particularly toward these unions are reproducing like crazy and are overwhelming whatever country permitting their entry. Just look at France and England. Any society that discourages reproduction will eventually be crowded out by those who don't hold to that belief.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    @ Johnny Triumph

    An Apple and an Orange are both fruits but they are two completely different things.

    Red and Blue are both colors but they are two completely different things.

    Right and Left are both forms of direction but they are two completely different things.

    I wonder if you actually know what a bigot is? Is it someone that doesn't agree with your point of view on this particular subject?

    I have read that this is typically the reason people have used this word particularly these days.

    I think it is interesting label people like to throw around these days.

  • Lia Sandy, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    Huntsman gets it. I wish Gov. Herbert would quit wasting our money on a losing battle. Let him pay for that out of his own pocket.

  • RDJntx Austin, TX
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    I have said this a number of times. Get the Gov't out of the marriage business. Give ALL couples a "Certificat of Civil Union" that conveys the legal rights of what is now called "marriage". Let the various Religions practice the institution of marriage according to the dictates of their beliefs. Of course the far religious right will still cry about it but it is the only way that I can see to make most everyone equal in terms of cohabitation

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    @superova
    Your idea that we live in a secular society reveals your misunderstanding of the founding of this country; it had religious freedom as a foundation but the founders did have a belief in a Supreme Being, whose order of mankind was that of man and woman being the nucleus, upon which our laws were based.
    Underneath all this is the concern many states have over States Rights, which the Constitution says citizens of a particular state have the right to define the parameters of marriage, as in those states where 1st cousins or parent and child are allowed to marry or whether polygamy is allowed.

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:36 p.m.

    I Respect Huntsman and his views. I believe he's a realist and pragmatic politician. Left wingers dislike him for his pragmatic conservative ideas, while right wingers dislike him for his pragmatic liberal views.

    Sadly, he won't get the chance to lead. He would be good for the country because he's interested in doing what's 'best' verses what his party wants him to do.

    He would have my vote, if he's ever given the chance. AND I disagree with him on this!

  • Magistra Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:40 p.m.

    Thank you, Jon Huntsman. It absolutely is the right thing to do.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    Do I have the right to oppose gay marriage?

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    @kiddsport

    They believed in a Supreme Being? Are you sure it was the same One? Or even the same One you and I believe in?

    Should we use the United Church of Christs definition that allows Gay Marriage? Or the LDS one that disallows it? Which side wins in a religious contest? Why should it be yours? This is why our laws must be secular. How can they be anything else?

    Our Founding Fathers went as far as eliminating any kind of religious test for office, they wanted it that secular.

    Even if I concede that the State has unlimited authority to define marriage as they want...Rectify that with Article IV...even if Utah is allowed to not perform these marriages, it MUST recognize the marriages from States that perform them.

    And if the State has unlimited power to define marriage...can Missouri use that power to prevent Temple Marriages? What if they said "Marriage is a contract that ends at death, any marriage claiming power beyond that is not recognized by this State"? Every other church marries "until death do you part" what about their freedom?

    Just pray the ballot box is not used against you someday.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    @Say no to BO

    Do I have the right to oppose gay marriage?

    -------------------

    Absolutely you do. You are no more or less free than I am to support it.

    America is great!

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Sept. 3, 2014 3:02 p.m.

    Hunstman Jr. (emphasize the "junior" because his dad is a giant of a man): "Homosexual 'marriage' is inevitable".

    Once again this guy shows why he is not qualified to lead America....

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Sept. 3, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    I'm not so much opposed to legalizing gay marriage as I am about advancing gay rights. Gay marriage is simply a legal arrangement. The government shouldn't impede a legal arrangement unless it hurts a party outside that contract.

    However, the gay rights agenda is devoted to promoting the homosexual lifestyle, and that hurts impressionable children. Schools and media have picked up the gay cause, and actively promote being gay as equivalent or superior to being straight.

    Youth are at an age where they are trying to find themselves, and it is natural that they will experiment with various identities. It is now fashionable to be gay, and is an acceptable way to rebel. Humans are versatile and malleable. The biggest lie of our time is that we are "born that way."

    Gays shouldn't be discriminated against, but adults should actively promote the path of happiness for their children. Gay relationships are not the path of happiness.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Sept. 3, 2014 3:16 p.m.

    It is only inevitable if the government keeps ignoring the voice of the people. The good people of Utah and many other states voted against same sex marriage. I think The government should recognize the voice of the people in this matter.

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    Sept. 3, 2014 3:16 p.m.

    @ dirt - Sandy, UT "You can produce offspring and more humans without doing it, these days. That is gay couples can have children and can contribute to the sustaining of human life on our planet. Your argument fails miserably on those grounds, illuminated."

    dirt, what 'illuminated' is saying is that homosexuals cannot reproduce by themselves.

    Do you really want to try and argue against that?

    Really?....

    Homosexual activity in any and all forms is sinful, it is immoral, it is wrong.

    Why? Because when you add up all its consequences it causes more harm than good.

    Period.

    The fact that same sex individuals can NOT reproduce on their own is a part of that calculation. Will non-religious/non-Christians believe that? Most likely not. But that doesn't mean it is not true.

  • Mookinator74 DRAPER, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    I truly don't understand the concept of using faith-based arguments ("right" and "wrong") to rationalize your disdain for marriage equality or homosexuality in general. Your faith-based arguments exist only within your "faith". People outside that faith do not necessarily share your religious ideals. They are not universal. Thus, if a practice like gay marriage doesn't affect you, which it does not (one whit), why are you so afraid of it? Your position is completely irrational to reasonable people.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    He's right. And I'm not stopping short of criticising the state for continuing to waste money on it.

  • Mkithpen Sandy, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    And we should care what Jon Huntsman Jr has to say what, where and when? Not at all!

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    RE: Illuminated.

    Your argument is weak at best.

    Lets get the world population down to a sustainable 500,000,000 and then we will worry about the homosexuals.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    This is similar (not totally the same) as the days when people didn't accept interracial marriage. It took time for people to accept that the constitution is there for all law abiding citizens and not just those that they may accept. That's not to say that people can't have an opinion on it and that religion has to accept it, but it does mean that Democracy will prevail for two people (plural marriage is another issue because of the number of women and children involved and the inherent problems that come with it.) I say this because many people compare it to gay marriage, but it doesn't compare well.

  • hamaca Baton Rouge, LA
    Sept. 3, 2014 4:32 p.m.

    Don't care much for Huntsman, but do agree with him on this.

    Say No to BO: sure you have the right to oppose. However, be aware that you risk losing certain freedoms if you do so publicly.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    We are all just frogs in the forever warming and eventually boiling pot of water.

    Just because you have become accustomed and accepting to that which is around you doesn't change the nature of what is around you.

    In the end incorrect choices will ultimately destroy those who accept them.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 3, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    "Same-sex marriage is 'inevitable'"

    Well, John, you need to describe what criteria you use to come up with that conclusion.

    The US Constitution's 10 Amendment reserves powers to states and the people that are not specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution. And the power to define marriage is not delegated by the Constitution to the United States. Thus, it must be reserved to States only. Not to the Federal government nor to Appellate judges/courts, circuit judges/courts or to the US Supreme Court.

    Oh, wait... Perhaps your reference would be the 14 Amendment were it states that States... shall not deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Well, Utah marriage laws state that anyone can marry provided they choose someone who is not married, of legal age, not closely related, and of the opposite sex. These laws apply to everyone. If these laws discriminate against SS folks, it also discriminates against many other folks such as polygamists, those who have not yet reached legal age, close relatives, and a host of other marriage combinations.

    John, you may wanna reconsider.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    @illuminated 1:48 pm

    You believe gay couples should not be allowed to get married because they can not procreate. And "In the animal kingdom, when a wolf in the pack isn't putting in his fair share of the work, he's left behind or eaten."

    I wonder how would you treat a human being if his lost his working ability and "isn't putting in his fair share of the work"?

    And if a straight couple can not have children or do not even want to have children, would you forbid them from getting married too?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    I like Jon Huntsman and I think he was more correct when he supported "same-sex unions". I think he is plain wrong in supporting so-called same-sex marriage. I also think it is totally right to use as many millions of tax payer dollars as needed to properly defend and support traditional marriage in the courts and else where. The majority of tax paying Utahns support traditional marriage between a man and a woman and we want our elected officials to represent us in this. There is nothing more important for the stability of America that stable families where children have a mom and a dad and the balance the comes from those two complimentary influences. I cannot think of a better way to spend our tax dollars.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 5:02 p.m.

    @ greatbam22

    For thousands of years, the women in a marriage was considered property and had no rights. Just because something has been done a certain way for thousands of years doesn't make it right.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    The former U.S. ambassador to China under President Barack Obama also said another run for the White House in 2016 is a "strong no" and declined to endorse a Republican in the race.

    ======

    I'm voting for him again anyway...
    No one better in america to do the job, IMHO.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    @ The Caravan Moves On

    The fact that homosexuals can't reproduce is completely irrelevant. Infertile couples and elderly couples get married all the time, and it's not an issue. Being married isn't required to have kids either. 40% of childbirths happen outside of wedlock.

    If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, then don't partake in that lifestyle. It's that simple. Somebody else's sexual orientation has nothing to do with you and has no effect on your life.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 5:15 p.m.

    dddd
    Logan, UT
    Fighting things that are wrong is the right thing to do!!

    12:24 p.m. Sept. 3, 2014

    [Divorce is "wrong" - If you want to make the World a better place, fight that.]

    ==========

    @Say no to BO

    Do I have the right to oppose gay marriage?

    [Just like being a Gay Mormon is not a sin -- You have the right to hate anyone you want, just so long as you don't act on it.]

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 3, 2014 5:26 p.m.

    @JoCo Ute:
    "... how does same sex marriage pose a threat to 'traditional' marriage?"

    It will eventually mean the total demise of all marriages including the need to marry.

    @Schnee:
    "Banning same-sex marriage doesn't make gay people straight..."

    By the same token, banning pedophilia doesn't make pedophiles non-pedophiliacs. It's the workings of the law and personal effort.

    "...likewise one can have children without marriage."

    I'd like to see two ladies or two gents produce a child.

    @SuperNova:
    "Rome and Greece are known to have practiced same sex marriages; so have Sodom and Gomorrah."

    True, and that's likely why they declined into something like the Dark Ages.

    @kiddsport:
    "Any society that discourages reproduction will eventually be crowded out by those who don't hold to that belief."

    You got that right. Any society that lags in child production will eventually disappear. The US is almost there.

    @RDJntx:
    "Give ALL couples a "Certificat of Civil Union" that conveys the legal rights of what is now called 'marriage.'"

    And why are you limiting it to just couples? Shouldn't groups of, say, sextets have 'marriage' rights as well as couples?

  • Shank Chicago, IL
    Sept. 3, 2014 5:44 p.m.

    The Caravan Moves On wrote:

    "The fact that same sex individuals can NOT reproduce on their own is a part of that calculation."

    Question: What do famine, disease, drought, urban deprivation, pollution, and global warming all have in common? They're all causes of untold misery exacerbated by overpopulation! The fact that gay couples don't breed as efficiently as straight couples is a GOOD thing. There are too many people in the world! U.N. estimates suggest that global population will top ten billion within forty years. We don't even have enough food to feed the people we have now! We're on the verge of breeding ourselves into a global catastrophe. Don't believe me? Go to Liberia, or walk around a slum or two in Mumbai where kids as young as five root around in trash heaps searching for enough salvageable plastic to trade for a day's food. They're already there. Overpopulation is tearing these places apart, causing incalculable suffering in the process. It's not gay people doing that. It's straight people.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 5:57 p.m.

    @SuperNova:
    "Rome and Greece are known to have practiced same sex marriages; so have Sodom and Gomorrah."

    True, and that's likely why they declined into something like the Dark Ages.

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

    Actually, the dark ages started when Rome fell, and the Catholic Church came in a filled the power vaccuum. Any time there was a threat of progress, they were quick to squash it. No progress, hence the dark ages.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 6:02 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal 5:08 p.m. Sept. 3, 2014

    The former U.S. ambassador to China under President Barack Obama also said another run for the White House in 2016 is a "strong no" and declined to endorse a Republican in the race.

    ======

    I'm voting for him again anyway...
    No one better in america to do the job, IMHO.

    ---------------------------------

    You're absolutely correct. My husband and I will be writing him again too. He is head and shoulders above everyone who is being considered, suggested (or being talked about being drafted) for the office. He's really what the country needs. too bad he's to rational and truly conservative to make it through the Republican nominating process.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 6:55 p.m.

    I find the claims that there's no animus against gay people in these laws difficult to believe. Why? Well...

    @The Caravan Moves On
    "Homosexual activity in any and all forms is sinful, it is immoral, it is wrong.
    Why? Because when you add up all its consequences it causes more harm than good."

    @illuminated
    "It's wrong scientifically and it's wrong morally."
    "Any practice that promotes or glorifies the destruction of life on earth"
    "Supporting homosexual marriage is supporting a practice which intentionally hurts human beings."

    @Cleetorn
    "as long as I have a moral breath left in my body I will fight against evil"

    @gmlewis
    "Gays shouldn't be discriminated against, but adults should actively promote the path of happiness for their children" (your version of the latter includes the former)

    @Meckofahess
    "There is nothing more important for the stability of America that stable families where children have a mom and a dad"

    I'm still waiting for your rallies to ban single-parent adoption (legal in this state) the way you oppose kids adopted by gay people gaining a second parent of the same gender.

  • VA Saint Colonial Heights, VA
    Sept. 3, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    Perhaps gay marriage will be 'inevitable' as he states, however, my hope is that churches which believe in traditional marriage are not forced into performing those same sex marriages.

  • Hmmm... North Ogden, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    The farmer who plants rocks in his garden is not made equal to the farmer who sows seeds in his garden just because a few seeds do not germinate. Government (society) is interested in promoting responsible procreation and since SSM cannot procreation within its union it is not being discriminated against; whether SSM hurts other unions or not is irrelevant.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 7:38 p.m.

    Thank you, Deseret News readers, to remind me how you truly feel about me and others like me. You may smile at me and be polite to me in public, but your somewhat-anonymous words on this forum speak volumes about what you say about me in the privacy of your own homes. Do you realize that your attitudes make us feel unsafe in our neighborhoods and even more vulnerable whenever we go out in public? Sure, we have developed thick skins, but that's out of necessity for survival. Nobody should have to live this way.

    Imagine how lonely life can be for us because people who are unwilling to take a chance and truly understand us instead insist on reminding us that we are sinful and responsible for the moral decline of America. I long for the day when Utah finally bursts from the bubble and starts accepting others in spite of their differences.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 8:31 p.m.

    @ wrz

    "It will eventually mean the total demise of all marriages including the need to marry."

    There is no "need" to marry. It's a conscious choice made by two adults. Also, nobody else's marriage can effect yours. Only you can influence your own marriage.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Sept. 3, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    @Hmmm... wrote: "Government (society) is interested in promoting responsible procreation and since SSM cannot procreation within its union it is not being discriminated against; whether SSM hurts other unions or not is irrelevant."

    Nonsense.

    The state of Utah specifically allows one class of marriage (first cousin marriage) on the condition that they do *not* procreate.

    There is obviously no requirement for a married couple to procreate or be able to procreate, and it is risible that this argument keeps coming up.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    I seriously doubt that gay marriage will lead to the extinction of the species. That is really a bit of a silly argument. When the vast majority of the population are straight, there will be plenty of babies to sustain the species.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Sept. 3, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    Jon Huntsman is honest. That is why he will never be president.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 3, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    @Really???:
    "Thank you, Deseret News readers, to remind me how you truly feel about me and others like me."

    Almost all mankind has some sort of peccadillo to overcome. Same-sex attraction seems to be just one of many. This life is the place and time for correction. And it can be done, or a least put in the background of ones life... Consider a person with a penchant to steal. They have to overcome somehow. Or how about pedophilia? Same response.

    ""You may smile at me and be polite in public, but your somewhat-anonymous words on this forum speak volumes about what you say about me in the privacy of your own homes."

    You need to understand that the very act of homosexuality is repugnant to many. Of course there should be forgiveness and acceptance. But many can't do that. Perhaps it's a personal peccadillo that needs work to overcome.

    @Two For Flinching:
    "There is no 'need' to marry."

    True, for the animal kingdom. But human kids need a stable environment to grow and develop in... called family. Marriage helps hold families together. Marriage isn't needed for adult companionship.

  • PJB Newsgram Chicago, IL
    Sept. 3, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    I wouldn't be so sure it is inevitable, when all that needs to change is one man's mind - Justice Kennedy. There will be four justices that support marriage as defined as one man and one woman and four against. Even though Justice Kennedy wrote Windsor he still is a libertarian. He might hesitate to write an opinion that forces people in society through compulsion of a judicial decree to have to recognize as legitimate a relationship that is against their will and contrary to his church's teachings (Catholic). Also don't forget he sided with the conservatives in Hobby Lobby and he might listen to well thought out arguments concerning religious freedom on this issue.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    dddd: but it's not right, it's clearly wrong.
    I wish other republicans had Huntmans' foresight. Until then I'll keep voting for anyone else.

  • cedarpost Washington, Utah
    Sept. 3, 2014 10:10 p.m.

    Children need a good father and a mother. We as a nation need to do more to help this happen. Allowing same sex marriage is not a step in the right direction.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 10:26 p.m.

    “I don’t want to have to teach my kids about homosexuality or gay marriage” – Then don’t. Do you bother to teach them about drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, sexual promiscuity….? Last I checked those were all bad too but I don’t see the fervor or outrage about those issues.
    “Being gay is a choice, they can control their actions” - Just like choosing to be heterosexual and control those actions? Double standard here. Why is heterosexuality so different? (Its really not)
    “I don’t want the gays morals being forced down my throat” – So who’s morals win? If gay marriage is outlawed, people are DENIED the ability to legally marry. If gay marriage is allowed, who is DENIED the ability to_________?
    “Gays have the same rights as everyone; to marry someone of the opposite sex” – I’m fairly confident that you as someone of legal age and ability were able to marry the partner of your choice, without legal reprocussions. The same is not true of gays. Flip the scenario, would you like to marry someone of the same sex even though you have no desire to do so?

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 10:26 p.m.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Absolutely. Unequivocally. Where it gets messy is when laws are enacted that adversely affect a segment of the population, and not another. Yes this is new and we are in somewhat uncharted waters – but truly, where is the harm by allowing same sex marriage to an individual, personally? Yes, you will have to explain to your children about how you don’t believe that gay marriage is right (just like adultery, fornication, drug or alcohol abuse). Yes there will be conflict with people that don’t want to provide services to gays (just like some don’t want to cater to other races, religions, etc). Marriage is important to you, we get that. But please think and understand that maybe its important to us too. Why are you allowed to show your love, commitment and dedication and we are not? It seems a bit selfish and elitist to participate in marriage but not be willing to share that with others whom you disagree with

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 3, 2014 10:35 p.m.

    @PJB Newsgram:
    "Even though Justice Kennedy wrote Windsor he still is a libertarian."

    So, it's come to that, has it? Liberal vs conservative. I thought the US Supreme Court was to rule on constitutionality and nothing more.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 11:02 p.m.

    Really getting tired of the idea that “gay tendencies can and should be controlled.” Or “homosexuality is unnatural.” These statements are being made as though they are fact. I wished people would understand that it is an OPINION, and one they are most certainly entitled to. Clearly there is no understanding that you can make the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT for heterosexuality. Why is it that heterosexuals can have children out of wedlock, commit adultery, have copious amounts of sexual partners, but because they are heterosexual, its natural and isn’t of grave importance to be controlled? Where is the outrage that any two irresponsible humans can create a new life and abuse it, neglect and or abandon it? Where is the outrage that heterosexuals marry for TV ratings instead of love and commitment? Its sad to me that so many people say that marriage has nothing to do with love….. maybe that’s the problem with your marriage. It’s the main reason I want to be married.

  • PJB Newsgram Chicago, IL
    Sept. 4, 2014 12:52 a.m.

    @wrz

    I am just stating reality, since constitutional decisions are often based on a matter of interpretation. The constitution is rather short and somewhat vague. Have you read many constitutional decisions over the last 20 years? Liberal ideology dominated in the 60s and 70s, but things went too far for many people. Republican presidents began to appoint justices with conservative interpretations of the constitution. The influence of ideology is undeniable. Most cases are not divided on the liberal versus conservative line, but almost all hot button cases are decided on the liberal versus conservative line. Personally I would like for there to be an actual check on the supreme court by the people in addition to the indirect way of electing a president and senate (who appoint and confirm justices), since constitutional authority was originally supposed to be derived from the people.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 2:07 a.m.

    It's pretty simple. Gay activists have long made it plain that they intend to destroy the family. Once SSM is legal, then the next step is criminalizing "bigotry." and teaching homosexuality as normal, healthy, and a preferred form of human relationships. California and Massachusetts already do, and they have arrested parents who object.

    People are being fired and businesses extinguished based on whether they kowtow to gays who are looking for anyone who dares stand up for morality.

    Huntsman is right: SSM is inevitable. And so is the coming tsunami of restrictions on speech, religious conduct and belief, and whatever else the gay activists will try to ram through.

    It still is wrong, and we should still stand up to the gay activists who claim they are "First among equals" and that their rights trump everyone else's rights.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 5:12 a.m.

    @wrz 10:35 p.m. Sept. 3, 2014

    @PJB Newsgram:
    "Even though Justice Kennedy wrote Windsor he still is a libertarian."

    So, it's come to that, has it? Liberal vs conservative. I thought the US Supreme Court was to rule on constitutionality and nothing more.

    ----------------------------------

    True. And if he rules to invalidate the bans against SSM he will be ruling in favor of he Constitution (specifically the 9th and 14th Amendments).

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 6:13 a.m.

    @wrz,

    I understand that everyone has their own sins, but I want to ask you something that I want you to think about honestly. Do you read comments daily where people are condemning your sins? Are you compared to thieves and pedophiles in newspapers and radio talk shows? Are you told that if you really wanted to and prayed hard enough you could change the color of your eyes, skin color, or other inherent trait?

    You see, what you need to understand is that we, just like you, are children of God who need love and empathy. We don't need you to call us to repentance; that's not your job. If you really believe what you confess to believe, you should allow us to make our own life choices--even if you disagree with them. Isn't that God's plan?

    I believe that you think you truly love us, but how can you when you really don't understand us? Perhaps we can all pray for more empathy so that we can get along.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    Society: Gays are abomination. Gays are just as bad as pedophiles. Gays want to destroy the family, and will not stop until they do.

    Gays: Hey guys, we are people to. We love, fear, cry, laugh, smile and feel just as you do. We may be different, but we are people too.

    Society: Whoa, where is your tolerance? Why are you calling my persecution of you bigotry?

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 4, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    2 generations from now all these arguments will be as old hat as past arguments that women must dress modestly and stay home and raise families. The world changes, but unfortunately some people just can not grow with the change.

  • plyxply SLC, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    If something is wrong it is wrong regardless of whether it's inevitable or not. Of course politicians don't ever care if something is wrong, only how it will make them look in the polls.

  • Mookinator74 DRAPER, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    @Really??? Bravo for adding a voice to the people who are the subject of this conversation. Your comments are more powerful than any of those trying to make irrational, fear-based arguments. I wish your posts would have an effect on those who believe your sexuality "choice" is "wrong" but it's highly unlikely considering the belief system that informs those opinions. Such opinions of what's right and what's wrong in the world are not considered opinions by them. They are thought of as factual. It's so unfortunate that there is such a massive disconnect between reality and theology sometimes. It's like debating with a stick. Frustrating! Ironic that most of the opponents to marriage equality and homosexuality in general are exhibiting behavior contrary to teachings at the crux of their belief system.

  • Lyn52 Saint George, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    Marriage is a civil right.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 4, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    Wow, that was full of the same arguments once again.

    Let me add my usual questions here to get some of you thinking. (The ultra liberals can just chill and ignore what I write because you won't think about it anyway.)

    Why do we have to give equality to something that isn't equal? Two people of the same gender that want to be united cannot ever be the same as two people of opposite genders. This is more than just biological, but the psychology of men is different from women. That is just how things are, and because of those differences a heterosexual couple is distinct and different from a same sex couple.

    The same sex couples should look for an alternate term if they want their unions to be accepted by society.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 1:03 p.m.

    @ Redshirt1701

    So you're saying things should be separate but equal? Great idea, I'm not anyone has ever tried that before. Also, Amendment 3 banned civil unions, along with marriage. The pro-SSM crowd tried to compromise, but it fell of def ears. Now it's all or nothing, and the Utah voters only have themselves to blame.

    What makes you say same-sex relationships aren't equal to heterosexual relationships? Gender isn't what determines a solid relationship. Love and commitment determine that, and people in same-sex relationships have the same capacity to love as anyone in a heterosexual relationship. You're whole point is extremely vague and too general to be taken seriously. Everybody has different "psychology". Trying to say "all men and like 'this' and all women are like 'this'" is inherently false because we're all very different. Which is why we have the free agency to chose who we associate with and who we get married to. We should ALL get that choice.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    Redshirt: "Why do we have to give equality to something that isn't equal? Two people of the same gender that want to be united cannot ever be the same as two people of opposite genders. This is more than just biological, but the psychology of men is different from women. "

    -----------

    I'll answer you with another question and use your own phrases: Why do we have to give wuqlaity to something that isn't equal? A man and a woman cannot ever be the same! This is more than biological, but the psychology of a man is different from a woman. Why do we need to treat them equally? Why do we allow women to vote? Why do we allow men to choose to stay home and take care of their children?

    Understand?

    Equal under the law is not the same as totally equal in abilities, wealth or situations. Equal under the law is the basis of our democracy. You get rid of that, you have undermined the constitution.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 4, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    To "Two For Flinching" I am not saying separate but equal. I am saying you don't treat things that are not equal as equal. Just because you call a Potato an Orange does not make it equal or the same as an orange.

    Plus, I never said that marriage is about love. Before the SSM movement, marriage licenses were granted based on easily measurable criteria. They made sure you were not already married. They made sure there was 1 man and 1 woman. They made sure that you were not brother and sister or cousins (unless you were beyond reproductive age). All things were measurable.

    Now, SSM comes in and says that marriage is based on love. How do you measure love or commitment?

    as for psychology, I am talking about the typical male and typical female, I never said that it applied to all men or all women. The fact is that men and women (in general) are different psychologically, in addition to biologically. The compromises that have to be made to make a successful marriage are different for a heterosexual couple than they would be for 2 men or 2 women.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Sept. 4, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    @Redshirt wrote: "Why do we have to give equality to something that isn't equal? Two people of the same gender that want to be united cannot ever be the same as two people of opposite genders. This is more than just biological, but the psychology of men is different from women. That is just how things are, and because of those differences a heterosexual couple is distinct and different from a same sex couple."

    Your argument would only work if all men matched a single male archetype, and all women a female one.

    But even if your argument weren't a specious one, my answer would be: so what? Can you name a single reason to ban same-sex marriage that is not based on Religion, on "That's just how things have always been", or on the Regnerus study?

    "The same sex couples should look for an alternate term if they want their unions to be accepted by society."

    If you've looked at the poll numbers, you'd see that same-sex couples are already accepted by the majority of society.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 4, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    To "Lane Myer" but we don't treat men and women as equals. Women are a protected class, men are not. Women are granted many legal rights that men do not get. There are laws specific to violence against women and not men. Many laws regarding rape treat men and women differently.

    Plus, in society, women are treated differently than men. For example, if a women runs around town bare chested, they get arrested for indecent exposure, men are given a pass. In polite society it is wrong to hit a woman, but acceptable to hit a man. Men are expected to open doors and pay for dates, women are not expected to do the same for men. If a woman stays home to raise her kids, nothing is said about her decision, but if a man does the same his manhood is questioned. Belching and farting among men is considered humor, but is disgusting if done around women.

    You see, not only does society treat men and women differently, but so does the law. Your argument has no merit. Try again.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "Why do we have to give equality to something that isn't equal?"

    Same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage may not be equal to your eyes, but they are equal in the eyes of law in 19 states, and that number is increasing each year.

    Majority American people and 70-80% of young people also have no problem to give same sex couples equal right as their heterosexual counterparts. and those numbers are also increasing over time. Your opinion is in minority now, and can only get worse as time goes by.

    Even if SCOTUS refuse to rule in SSM's favor next year, (which I think it unlikely), people can still repeal such ban by popular votes, by state legislature, or by state court. and when majority states have marriage equality, like the situation by the time of Loving v Virgina, the SCOTUS will have no problem to rule against the last stronghold states.

    That is why Gov. Huntsman is right, SSM is inevitable, maybe not next year, but definitely inevitable in the future.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Sept. 4, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    @Furry1993-

    Wrong. This guy is not "head and shoulders" above anyone else being considered. Unless, of course, Dr. Ben Carson is not being "considered". But, on the other hand, Dr. Carson has way too much COMMON SENSE (or uncommon sense) for most people.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 4, 2014 4:39 p.m.

    To "USU-Logan" so what you are saying is that if 70-80% of Americans wanted to call Potatoes, Oranges, you would be cool with that.

    Your comment is a distraction from the issue I am raising, which is simple. Why call same sex unions marriage when they are not equal to heterosexual marriages? Just because most people want it does not make it right. Most people want to be rich, but does that mean if we redefine rich as anybody making more than $20,000/yr that everybody will now be rich?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Sept. 4, 2014 4:40 p.m.

    @Redshirt: "The compromises that have to be made to make a successful marriage are different for a heterosexual couple than they would be for 2 men or 2 women."

    So what? The compromises in any couple's relationship do not matter. Has not one thing to do with the legal question. The compromises I made with my (ex)wife were wholly different than the compromises I make with my husband. The former relationship did not work, this one is. So what?

    Further, SSM arguments are not based on "love," they are based on exactly the same arguments for OSM couples - the state has an interest in promoting stable couples, and those stable couples should have the various legal benefits of marriage.

    Your seeming view - that marriage is about procreation - does not hold water in modern society for any couple. I see very few people getting married for the sole purpose of procreation or to train themselves to get along with those of the opposite gender or any other specious argument presented here.

    People marry for love, the state supports the long-term stability of their relationship.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    illuminated says:

    "Established science shows heterosexual reproduction is how all sexual organisms on earth have consistently propagated. "

    --- You would fail a science class with that comment. You forget that there are many sexual organisms that propogate without "heterosexual sex". Slugs and snails are one example. Many fish and amphibians can change their gender too.

    @Clarissa;

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling... (we also allow bigotry which is immoral imo).

    @Cleetorn;

    God will blah blah blah. Prove it!

    @trekker;

    Elder oaks is as irrelevant as your god in our civil society.

    @greatbam22;

    You need another history lesson on marriage? You keep making false statements about its history. (ps. a bigot is someone who enjoys something and does everything they can to prevent another from enjoying that same thing).

    @kiddsport;

    Kindly explain how SSM discourages reproduction. I'm dying to know. States don't have the right to violate the rights of citizens; they must act within the parameters of the US Constitution.

    @wrz;

    Please re-read the 10th. Again, states must operate WITHIN the Constitution. BTW, I find religion to be repugnant; can I therefore prevent the religious from marrying?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "70-80% of Americans wanted to call Potatoes, Oranges" is your imagination.
    70-80% of young people support SSM is a fact verified by various media outlets.

    "Just because most people want it does not make it right."
    Just because you believe SSM and heterosexual marriage are not equal does not make it right.

    "if we redefine rich as anybody making more than $20,000/yr that everybody will now be rich?"
    If most people agree with your imagination, I have no problem whatsoever. but will they? I don't think so.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Sept. 4, 2014 7:27 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701: "Why call same sex unions marriage when they are not equal to heterosexual marriages?"

    Equal. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Your assertion is not a fact. In personality and structure OS marriages have many differences, as do SS marriages. The gender of the partners is but one variable, and it is arguable that it is not even the most important variable.

    The real difference is how the partners of any marriage partner with each other - do they successfully navigate their differences and build a strong relationship? Does their partnership fall apart? Or do they muddle through, not miserable enough to separate, not ever really happy?

    Equal treatment under the law is a totally different thing. Nothing you have said shows why a same-sex couple should not be treated equal to an opposite-sex couple, under the law.

    And remember, not one state in the country connects child-bearing to the legality of a marriage. Not one state ties "the compromises" that will be made to a marriage license.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    To "Stormwalker" you are wrong. You obviously only listen to the propaganda that the MSM puts out. If you actually read what most people say about SSM, they are saying that gays should be allowed to marry the person that they love. They throw in stable families as a secondary issue. The fact is that gays don't form families, since less than 25% of gays raise children, in comparison to 75% or more of heterosexual couples. So the "family" argument doesn't really work either.

    You have yet to actually prove that a SS couple is the same as a heterosexual couple.

    I didn't say they shouldn't be treated well, I said that what they have is not the same as marriage. If they want to form a union similar to marriage, call it something else, just don't call it marriage because it isn't the same as marriage.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    @RedShirt;

    Were you and your spouse a family the day you were married or did you have to wait until kids came along?

    We want the same legal benefits as a couple you have. You anti-LGBT people keep telling us we have to marry someone of the opposite gender; yet you were able to marry the person you loved; all we're saying is we should be able to do the same.

    The proof that we're the same is clear. Come by and we'll show you.

    Since the bible tells a man to cleave to a woman, perhaps we should call heterosexual marriage "Cleavage" instead? You take the new word.

  • pastordave SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    When will people learn that organized religion is believing in everything your read in the Bible and other holy Books and mostly not the truth about Gods Laws or will.
    The bible has been revised, with thousands of pages removed, and then new ones added with superstitious nonsense reinterpreted by Mortal Men and some books and religions are just pure fiction...
    God does not hate and is not vengeful... The only thing that God punishes mankind for is Murder and being Evil. Witchcraft, Devil worshipping and so on...
    Also you can not just pick and choose one of Gods laws and use it to discriminate and cause hate while you Ignore the other 199 of Gods Laws that everyone does...

  • Jimmyisliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    @wrz...You may want to attend Law School prior to any more nonsensical partisan posts regarding laws and how they should be properly applied. Continue applying religious scripture and texts in ANY legal argument. Especially regarding SSM. In closing. When all else fails and reality begins to sets in you can always fall back on the "activist judges" line.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    @Red Shirt...Your continued nonsensical comments and posts bring laughter and comedic relief daily to those of us that posses Law Degrees. Please continue using religious references regarding ANY judicial issues at hand. Especially SSM. The majority of us that support civil rights for all rather a select chosen few once again thank you for your complete misunderstanding of this crucial fact.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    " The fact is that gays don't form families, since less than 25% of gays raise children, in comparison to 75% or more of heterosexual couples."

    Well if you have a state where gay marriage is banned and a state where single-parent adoption is banned, then it's literally impossible to have a gay couple raising children as a state-recognized couple...

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Sept. 6, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    @ Red Shirt, would you be willing to extend this fundamental right to same gender couples? If not, why?

    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965) The United States Supreme Court, established the fundamental right of married persons NOT to procreate.
    “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    Sept. 6, 2014 4:57 p.m.

    All the comments seem to be about trashing Gay people, mainly using an lds-based definition of marriage, and ignoring civil law and civil rights.
    --- respectfully, any national poll asking "Which do you trust least, Utahns or Gays?" would result in about 2/3 picking the Gays, and 100%, if you leave out those over 65 and the evangelicals.

    The real topic of discussion here ought to be "Why did we judge and dismiss Huntsman, who might have beaten Obama, in favor of Romney, who lost by a very embarrassing margin of electoral votes?"

    In 2014, how very odd and old fashioned and prejudiced to knock Gays for not reproducing. All the effort and money spent to keep a few Gay folks from marrying might have fed children, or educated straight people on how to pick partners that they can stay married to.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 8, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    To "Schnee" the surveys do not look for state recognized couples, but is a survey of gays to find out how many are raising children. Plus, there is nothing stopping gays from having children of their own. A lesbian can still get pregnant and have a child, and a gay man can father a child through a surrogate and have full legal custody of that child.

    To "Evidence Not Junk Science" you should read the ruling on the latest DOMA case. The SCOTUS stated that the right to define marriage is up to the states. If states have the right to define what marriage is, then the states that have defined it as between a man and a woman are not infringing on any rights because they have defined marriage, and gays are the ones trying to infringe on the state's rights to define marriage.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 8, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    Redshirt: "To "Evidence Not Junk Science" you should read the ruling on the latest DOMA case. The SCOTUS stated that the right to define marriage is up to the states."

    ------

    Why do you leave out the most important part of that ruling - that the states can define marriage but must still follow the constitution.

    THAT is what the fight is all about.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 8, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    To "RedShirt" but they are following the constitution. The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means the States have the power to define any right that is not specifically written in the Constitution. Technically they were following the Constitution when they defined marriage since marriage is not in the Constitution.

    The fight is about redefining marriage and forcing that definition on the US.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Sept. 8, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    @RedShirt says: "The fight is about redefining marriage and forcing that definition on the US."

    Actually the fight is about whether a state can restrict marriage based on the sexual orientation or relative gender of the spouses. A similar issue was raised 50 years ago in regards to the relative race of spouses, a restriction which the LDS church also supported.

    So far no rational reason has been found for such restrictions. And don't worry...in 9 months marriage equality will be a fact in all 50 states but you still won't be forced to marry someone of the same gender as yourself. The only difference will be that gay couples will now have the same civil rights you've always enjoyed.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 9, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    To "skrekk" again, you are wrong. The issue is about the state's ability to define marriage according to the 10th amendment. Marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is a legal issue that, according to the SCOTUS is a state's right. If it was a civil right, then why are the gays not pushing for an amendment to the Constitution?

    If gay marriage is forced on the US, it will not mean that marriage equality has been achieved. Polygamists will still be outcast and cannot enjoy the same rights as gays. That will open up the definition of marriage to be anything you want it to be. Do you really think it is a good thing to have an anything goes mentality with marriage?

  • Jimmyisliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    @Red Shirt...Continue using God and or religious ideology regarding SSM. Those of us that posses Law Degrees and believe in equality for all rather a select chosen few thank you!

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Sept. 9, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    To "Jimmyisliberal" but I have not used God or religion. I have only used logic, biology, and psychology.

    Since you have obviously run out of arguments to support yourself, and have resorted to personal attacks, that means that I have made points that even a lawyer can't disprove. Your law degree can't explain how a typical homosexual couple is 100% equal to a heterosexual couple. I guess law schools aren't as good as they used to be.

    Please go and learn something about biology and psychology, then we can have a discussion.

    If you are after equality for all, are you going to also fight for polygamy in any and all forms?

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Sept. 9, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    @Redshirt says:
    >>>"Marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is a legal issue that, according to the SCOTUS is a state's right."

    As the supreme court noted in Windsor, any state regulation of marriage is subject to certain constitutional guarantees.

    >>>"If it was a civil right, then why are the gays not pushing for an amendment to the Constitution?"

    Did mixed-race couples need to do that, or did the court ruling in 1967 do it?

    >>>"Polygamists will still be outcast and cannot enjoy the same rights as gays. That will open up the definition of marriage to be anything you want it to be."

    Interesting that the racists in the confederate states made the exact same erroneous argument against mixed-race marriage. The court didn't buy it then either.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2014 4:46 p.m.

    @Red Shirt...My dear confused friend. Personally I have come across several of your Bible thumping comments regarding SSM. If you desire to now use logic please at least make sure it is intellectual. The biology angle you are now using is utterly comedic. Care to site examples along with sources? (You have an m.o. of cherry picking specific sources so please include the entire source). In regards to personal attacks all one must do is read the numerous comments yourself and many others continue posting regarding this matter. As far as "proving that a homosexual couple are 100% equal to a heterosexual couple" this is what we call moot in the legal profession. However, please feel free using these continued nonsensical angles. In closing. If in fact you did know anything regarding the law and the constitution you would in fact realize that psychology, biology and polygamy are completely irrelevant. In conclusion, my dear confused friend this is what I learned at the Yale School of Law. How about yourself? Have yourself a wonderful day researching.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Sept. 10, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    To "skrekk" there are quite a few articles out on the internet that can explain to you and your ilk the differences between interracial marriage and gay marriage. The main argument is the fact that interracial marriage was an equality issue and gay marriage seeks to create something new.

    To "Jimmytheliberal" I think you are confused. There are many sources that back up what I have said. For biology, go to WebMD and read about all of the biological health issues that are different between men and women. You can also go to any high school and read their Health books to learn more of the differences. As for psychological differences, one good source is the book "Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus". That book describes the psychological differences between men and women.

    So, biologically and psychologically men are different from women, and when a heterosexual couple marries they have to learn to deal with those differences. Now, if you 2 people of the same gender, you no longer have to deal with those differences.

    Nice try, but you still have yet to prove that a gay couple is the same as a heterosexual couple. Try again?

  • slcjimmy SLC, UT
    Sept. 16, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    @Red Shirt...Apparently I am no longer allowed to retort. After 7 attempts and 4 screen names it has become futile. Isn't it interesting how many are allowed a different set of standards. Even name calling. Oh to be a neo-con in Utah. Life is so blissful under the bubble....Jimmytheliberal.

  • jimmyliberal SLC, UT
    Sept. 25, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    @Vanceone...Continued "facts" from Faux Entertainment News and a.m. talk radio I see..."It's pretty simple. Gay activists have long made it plain that they intend to destroy the family. Once SSM is legal, then the next step is criminalizing "bigotry." and teaching homosexuality as normal, healthy, and a preferred form of human relationships. California and Massachusetts already do, and they have arrested parents who object.;People are being fired and businesses extinguished based on whether they kowtow to gays who are looking for anyone who dares stand up for morality".

    Personally, I am from California and have a sister living in Massachusetts. There are absolutely no such laws in place! Care to site sources or would you prefer to continue on with another non factual anti equality rant?