Some voice support for Peter Vidmar following resignation

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • BobDog Salt Lake City, UT
    May 24, 2011 8:31 a.m.


    I thank you for your thoughtful comments. The problem is not that Peter Vidmar is being persecuted for a belief that he holds or even expresses in religious speech from time to time. Indeed if he was forced out of his Olympic position because he was a beleiving member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, he indeed would fit within the Savior's warning.

    The problem is that Peter Vidmar and many others in California (and elsewhere) are being persecuted and harmed because of how they voted and to whom they contributed money in a State political election. These actions by the losing side in California on Proposition 8 are political terrorism, intending to scare people so they will not vote or participate in the next election on gay marriage. We see dictatorial thugs in other countries placing their armed supporters near the voting booth in order to predetermine the outcome. We wag our fingers at the Mugabes and Castros of the world, because that kind of thuggish behavior would never be allowed in the USA. But now it is happening here. I say again that this behavior is shockingly unAmerican and shameful.

  • slcskp Mukilteo, WA
    May 21, 2011 2:36 p.m.

    A lot of people secretly harbor a lot of beliefs that most of us would consider repugnant, and they are at perfect liberty to continue in those beliefs as long as they don't try to foist them on a society that finds them offensive.

    While I agree that Mr Vidmar is perfectly within his rights to believe whatever he wants, and that he is within his rights to support and actively participate in a campaign to deny equal rights to his fellow citizens, he should have realized going in that there was going to be a backlash. Jesus Himself said it best (Matthew 5:10-12).

    Either you can be righteous and persecuted, or you can be unrighteous and feel the adulation of the entire world. A recent poll showed a majority of Americans now support gay marriage, while the LDS Church continues to oppose it. Mr Vidmar cast his lot with the church, campaigned for Prop 8, and hurt a lot of people whose support he needs in the USOC. Now that he is reaping what he sowed, it would be nice if he and his fellow Saints didn't try to have it both ways.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    May 20, 2011 10:52 p.m.

    If Peter had made a statement while he was functioning in his role on the Olympic committee about being against gay marriage or that he didn't like gays on the team. Then by all rights he would need to step down. But what he does away from that and on his personal time is nobodies business. If they put the shoe on the other foot, what if they asked all athletes that were gay not to perform. Let's see, Hitler would have killed them, oh wait, in Iran they kill them. But some athletes are acting like spoiled little brats, it's all about them, wish they would get over themselves.

  • Moracle Blackshear, GA
    May 20, 2011 8:58 p.m.

    I doubt many posting here, would deny same-sex couples the right of being legally united, under the same agreements that married couples have.

    The main dispute concerns terminology used to define these two differing unions, and justifiably so. To call two lexicographically differing unions by the same name, flies in the face of sane definition, and would precipitate the need for a change of definition of other words that have been with us through history.

    For instance, matrimony is defined as an act of marriage.
    Matri - is a combining form meaning mother.
    Mony - is a suffix meaning state of being.
    So, matrimony or marriage is the state of providing motherhood, or bringing children into the world.

    There is no way same-sex unions can fall under that historical definition, without intervention of a third party.

    To avoid confusion of extant definitions, why not settle for the same rights, privileges, and obligations married couples have, with a name that defines your unique union? Most resistance comes from using "marriage" to define it. Drop that, and you'll likely get your unions much sooner!

    I'd have a fun, national contest to find a unique; unimpeachable; exclusive name! (Equivalent Concordia, maybe?)

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    May 20, 2011 6:36 p.m.

    The crux of this issue for me hinges on whether or not same sex attraction is genetic. IMO it is. But I realize this is far from a scientific certainty.

    Think about it. There is no question today that skin color is simply biological/genetic. Therefore, few would argue that discrimination based on that factor is ok. I imagine the LDS Church would not have survived if it still held to the old Priesthood policy or did not allow multi-racial couples to marry in the temple.

    If same sex attraction were scientifically shown to be genetic in the same way skin color is today, I truly think we would see policies begin to change the way they did in the 60's and 70's around race. I imagine the Church would come kicking and screaming as it did in 1978 but I do not doubt that things would eventually change.

    Until then there is a lot of room for many to claim that same sex attraction is purely a choice and therefore to argue that there is no (legal) discrimination involved.

  • SuziQ Springville, UT
    May 20, 2011 6:11 p.m.

    I wonder why tolerance is always a one way street? It seems to me that everyone ought to have a right to an opinion. Wasn't our nation set up under the policy that the common good was more important than one group having a greater right to an opinion than another? Why should one opinion about a broad yes or no issue be more important than how one person treats another? Shouldn't a person's character, experience, and way of treating others be more important than a stand on one issue? I don't blame Mr Vidmar for wanting to resign if a few athletes are more interested in one opinion of his than who he really is. It's really shallow, but America seems to be very shallow in the 21st century. Too bad we're more interested in vilifying than unifying.

  • Kimball Bakersfield, CA
    May 20, 2011 2:47 p.m.

    Peter never said he is against gay athletes. He simple said he believes that marriage should be between and man and a woman. What does that have to do with competing in the olympics? Who is more rigid here?

  • gigsy49 Conroe, TX
    May 20, 2011 2:28 p.m.

    I agree with Moracle, TDuval, Oklahoma Cougar, Sandee Spencer, and Bob Dog.
    Why does it seem that LDS individuals are always held to a different standard than those who are not LDS, especially the many minority groups in the world?
    Yes, we live on a higher lever of morality than most, but if others complain about our morals and want them squelched, where is the "freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, etc." that we are guaranteed by our Constitution?
    The Olympic Committee was a little like an ostrich, hiding their heads in the sand, while all the pressure was being put on Peter Vidmar. Were they "hoping" that Peter would resign? Looks like they were.

  • Lord Buckley Polkton, nc
    May 20, 2011 1:17 p.m.

    What a quandry for the poor Baptists, having to decide who they hate more: Gays or Mormons.

  • JRJ Pocatello, ID
    May 20, 2011 11:22 a.m.

    I agree with Mr. Nadar and you, TDuval.

  • BobDog Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2011 11:10 a.m.


    The "equal right" to have state recognition of a marriage between two people of the same gender does not legally or culturally exist in this country or in most other countries, and has not existed for many hundreds of years. This may change in the future, but as of now there is no "right" that is being infringed.

    Second, no individual like Peter Vidmar, can "deprive" someone of a legal right to marry. Not only because of my first point, but because no one person can do that. He is not a government official. At most he holds an opinion or belief. Our Country was built on the free ability of a person to hold such opinions and beliefs.

    Third, our Country was built on a social compact that an issue of public importance can be openly debated, with partisans of opposing positions doing their best to advance their chosen view or cause. But when the decision is made, the parties accept the decision, or at least decide to try and do better next time. The spectacle of political terrorism in California by the losing side, which is continuing with Peter Vidmar, is shockingly unAmerican and shameful.

  • twelvestringsam Orem, UT
    May 20, 2011 10:52 a.m.

    I applaud Peter for his decision, even though I know it isnt the outcome you desired.

    It is unfortunate that you have been discriminated against because of your beliefs.

  • TDuval Elk Grove, CA
    May 20, 2011 10:08 a.m.

    Peter Vidmar should be commended for taking a stand despite the very vocal minority's disapproval. If the silent majority were so brave, then the voice of reason could prevail and individuals wouldn't be shunned based on the single issue of whether they believe gay marriage is appropriate or not. We may be strong as a nation, but it amazes me that we've allowed the bullying tactics of one group to make us fear the right to our own opinion and keep us from contributing to causes we believe in for fear that we may fall under attack. What happened to Mr. Vidmar's right to his opinion?

  • jans Pickerington, OH
    May 20, 2011 8:52 a.m.

    People should be free to engage in public civic activity according to their conscience and to donate to whatever cause they feel is just. If we are going to be a tolerant and diverse society, this must be upheld. Vidmar has apparently held this religious belief for a very long time and it has yet to have caused an issue in his service to the Olympic sports. Why this is an issue now is baffling to me.

  • CVgal Smithfield, UT
    May 20, 2011 8:44 a.m.

    I agree with Moracle.

  • Oklahoma Cougar Mustang, OK
    May 20, 2011 8:41 a.m.

    Unfortunately the loud and vocal minority "squeaky wheel gets the grease." It is a shame that a great and honorable Olympic athlete could be undermined by a very small handful of LBGT activists-who represent perhaps 2%-5% max of all Olympians. It is really too bad that we have become so politically correct that a man can not even foster or support something he believes in.

    My hope as well is that the USOC will invite Peter back as a member of the 2012 team.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 20, 2011 8:30 a.m.

    "...explaining that his opposition to same-sex marriage comes from his religious views."


    That's fine, Peter. Please explain to me, exactly how your religious views give you the right to deny equality to law-abiding, tax-paying, GLBT Americans?

    I'm fine if you don't approve. That's your business. However, you have no right to deny equality to anyone based on your "religious views". Live your religion. If you don't believe that same sex marriage is valid, don't get one. But for you to participate in discrimination is wrong. Morally and ethically.

  • Sandee Spencer Longwood, FL
    May 20, 2011 8:27 a.m.

    Seems that the world in general screams for tolerance but honestly only demands it go in one direction. Sad to see the Olympic organization fall into that same category. We demand tolerance for our point of view and our political beliefs but we don't extend that to anyone that believes differently than we do. Pretty cheap and narrow minded.

  • Moracle Blackshear, GA
    May 20, 2011 7:47 a.m.

    The Olympics Committee would serve itself and the Olympics well, to insist that Peter return to his position. If the positions were reversed and it was Peter complaining about Weir's stance in favor of Gay marriage, saying the same things Weir is saying, does anyone think Weir would step down voluntarily?



    The Olympics organization should not lower itself to being led and directed by anyone who thinks a person should not hold position because they disagree with their belief or politics. Seems pretty shallow, somehow, and lowers my admiration for the Olympics for not standing up for a stand-up guy.