In Windsor, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the “equal
dignity” of the “intimate relationship between TWO people, a
relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community. . .
.” The government does not have a right: - to interfering with
their rights to file taxes jointly,- to receive benefits under the state
public pension system,- to adopt or serve as legal guardian of a
partner’s child,- to receive inheritance protections, and to make
medical decisions for a partner. In light of Windsor, such restrictions and
disabilities imposed on gay and lesbian couples cannot stand
FlashbackKearns, UT"Yea, sure, let's excuse boorish
behavior because the homosexuals are tired of being "pushed around". I
guess some people have forgotten their manners, if they were ever taught any in
the first place."--- A List of Boorish Behavior(according to
me):1-- Mormons from Utah inundating California with lying, dirty,
manipulative TV ads, clearly purposed to make parents afraid the Gays would take
over their kids.2-- The teasing, bullying, ostracism from the community
and family given many mormon Gay kids, resulting in a huge homeless Gay youth
population in Salt Lake City.3-- Telling people they should happily accept
a status that feels 2nd Class because the majority does not want to accomodate
them.This list is endless.Did mormons make noise when
Utah was force to outlaw polygamy? Just wondering.
Because we all know there are NO extreme uncivil people on the far right either.
This kind of editorial does not add to the discourse in a positive way. I wish
the DMN would do their job and stop printing polarizing comments or stories from
either side. It has to start somewhere and sometime. Here and NOW!
Frank, have you ever experienced the horrible discrimination that the LBGT
community has? I doubt it. You are able to continue to post letters in the
Deseret News as if you are one of their columnists. This is irritating as you
do not represent the whole of society. The Deseret News needs to be ashamed
that Frank Overfelt is published almost weekly and other people with opposing
views are disregarded. Even my Strong LDS family has started taking the Tribune
to get a better perspective on issues. I still am a full subscriber to the
Deseret News because I hope they will start to become more open to discussion.
2 bits;"I thought the issue was... do the people have the right
to amend their own Constitution, or don't they."Not if it
involves removing rights of other citizens."No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""The Governor
has not choice (in my mind) but to defend the Constitution (he took an Oath).
"This is THE Constitution he swore to uphold:"No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
happy2bhere,I see now way it can NOT be a blanket ruling. It would make
no sense for them to say you can't amend your constitution to preclude gay
marriage in Utah... but you can in California, Alabama, etc, the rest of the 33
States that have this in their Constitutions.Until then, the
protests and yelling at the Utah Governor will not change anything.The Governor has not choice (in my mind) but to defend the Constitution (he
took an Oath). So until the decisions is final and it's removed from the
Constitution and done with the appeals process... he kinda has to support the
Constitution.Whether he likes it or not. Whether he agrees with it
or not. He has taken an oath and it's his duty to defend our Constitution
even if he doesn't like it. Until the appeal is adjudicated it's
still part of our Constitution.I would hope Governor Herbert is not
like President Obama and Eric Holder... who only defend the parts of the
Constitution they LIKE. And to heck with the rest. That's not living up
to your Oath if you ask me.
2 bitsI agree with you. For the sake and good of the country, the
Supreme Court needs to make a ruling. If it is a blanket ruling, like Roe/Wade,
then all states will have to recognize marriage in the same way. If however
they rule that marriage remains a state issue, then we will be arguing this
issue of same sex marriage, or plural marriage, ect. state by state for years to
come. And either way, I see a more and more divided nation on this and many
Utes Fan,I thought the issue was... do the people have the right to amend
their own Constitution, or don't they.Fact is... there are LOTS
of issues here (not just one).The Supreme Court needs to decide the
issue. Once they do... there will be no issue. Until they do... all the
bickering in the world won't change anything.
Once again, everybody is missing the issue. The issue isn't the
right for gay people to get married. The issue is what does the government
recognize as marriage.
@SpydermanOne thing that I didn't hear from any of the supposed
benefits were valid reasons why gay people shouldn't be married. Sure a
gay man feels he is better off with his wife. Anyone ask him the reasons?
Maybe it is so he can be good with his Church. Or maybe he was threatened by
his wife or the state that he wouldn't be able to see his children.
Whatever the reason he is with his wife instead of a husband is his. No reason
to deny marriage to gay couples. One man who wishes he had a
relationship with his dad. Great, does that mean his lesbian parents were not
good parents? Would he have had a relationship with his dad if he wasn't
raised by lesbians? Or would he have been worse off because he would have been
raised by a single mother? Grass is always greener on the other side until that
is where you are living. None of what this rally proves why Gays
should be banned from marriage.
You still have not demonstrated how you or your marriage is harmed by your gay
neighbors. It's going to happen, your marriage will be fine and you
won't notice a thing. No one will force you to enter a same sex marriage
and the sun will come up tomorrow. Continue to live your lives as best you can,
helping others when you can, and then you can say, "I put away selfish
things and I truly am free and I can concentrate on things I know will truly
bring me happiness."
The problem with incivility is that "some" begets more. This
conversation is going down the road traveled by every sibling group in
history..."who started it" is the name of the game. Why can't we
all be good parents here and just admit that we don't care who started it,
we just need to stop it.PS. Anyone attesting that groups on the
right have not shown boorish and childish behavior, please cast the first
Opponents of marriage equality are fooling themselves, the basis of their
reasons for denying others the right to marriage is bigotry at its core. No
amount of "friendly" letters published in the DesNews can erase that.
In fact, years from now, the DesNews archives will no doubt be viewed as a
treasure trove of articles justifying discrimination. Indeed, propaganda may
have the desired affect on some individuals at the time but it only serves to
provide disdain as time moves forward. Chalk this up as another
mistake made by my fellow Church members for which it'll take years and
years to recover from the damage.
Re: "Maybe they were just tired of being pushed around."And
they show it by pushing people around that only treated them with respect and
dignity.Yeah, that about sums up the LGBT activist agenda.
@RanchI was at the traditional marriage rally. I never heard anyone
say LGBT was evil.What I did hear, was defense for an existing
lawa man who had same sex attraction say he is better off being back with
his wife and children than in a homosexual relationship.a man raised by a
lesbian couple talk about wishing he had a relationship with a father.All I heard was positive talk about the benefits of a family consisting of a
father (male) and mother (female) as parents to children.
Remember how outraged the media and Democrats got when some Congressman shouted
to Obama "you lie" at the state of the union speech? And that was
before the big lie of Obamacare came to light. Sometimes the truth is not
politically correct. Especially when said by a Republican or conservative.
Jesus said, ......the truth shall make you free.Democrats say the truth
shall set the IRS on you.
Rule of thumb: whoever in a political argument feels like they're being
ignored or having their freedoms trampled on, are going to be the more annoyed
side and prone to yelling. Remember when Tea Partiers were shouting down
Congressmen and Senators at town halls that one summer when it came to
healthcare reform because they think (correctly or not) that their rights would
be violated by the bill? It's kinda like that.
Yea, sure, let's excuse boorish behavior because the homosexuals are tired
of being "pushed around". I guess some people have forgotten their
manners, if they were ever taught any in the first place.
First of all, EVERYONE (Gay and Straight) supports "traditional
marriage." If anyone of my single Straight friends finds a compatible person
of the opposite sex to get "traditionally married" to and settle down
with, NO ONE will me happier than I. The fact that I support marriage equality
for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples doesn't mean I'm somehow
against "traditional marriage" for Straight couples. As for
the people who oppose allowing Gay couples to marry, perhaps you should just TRY
putting yourself in their shoes. Suppose you, as a taxpayer, were forced to help
subsidize all the legal benefits and protections of marriage, while at the same
time being denied the right to participate in that same institution. Would you
find it just a BIT irritating? Remember: It's not Gay people telling
Straight people that they should be allowed to marry the person they love.
Frankly there is simply NO constitutional justification for this double
Maybe it's because one side uses "logic", and the other uses
"emotion". The emotional side will eventually lash out, it's
human nature. That's what strong emotion does to us. Logic doesn't
lead you to lash out, it leads you to discuss it on a civil and hopefully
constructive level with anybody who will listen (but you don't feel that
same emotional response and the need to prevail at all costs).It's the underdog syndrome. When it feels like the majority's
against you... you can get frustrated and upset... you feel like you must do
something more, and take it up a notch or two, it's easy to lose control
and lose patience and lash out.But that's rarely productive.
Be patient and keep getting the message out there, without violence, threats,
rude outbursts, demands you know can't be met, and a militant approach...
and you will get more and more people on your side and win in the end. But
being offensive, abrasive and demanding, doesn't help.Use
honey, not vinegar.
I guess decades of oppression, ridicule and abuse has left some people grumpy.
Two thoughts , first by your own acknowledgement the majority of the lgbt
supporters in atttendance were civil and this was the act of two people not an
entire community. Second calling others evil, claiming they are a threat to
children and society and pushing for laws that treat them as less then fully
human is not civil.
The entire premise of your argument is that gay people and their desire to love,
commit to, and marry another person is a THREAT to children and families. You
call them a THREAT to sweet innocent children like murderers, pedophiles,
kidnappers, child pornographers, and drug dealers. That is the most insulting,
uncivil thing I can think of. I am a good, moral, upstanding citizen of this
state. I am not a threat to children. When the entire premise of
your argument is based on insult and incivility, you don't get to pretend
you hold the moral high ground when it comes to being "civil".
The left demands civility but gives little or none.
Darkness cannot tolerate light which exposes the sin. It has to shout it down.
The diversity people (the Left) cannot tolerate a diversity of opinions.
May be there wasn't any ushers to maintain order.
@Frank Overfelt;"...when the call goes out to be civil,
apparently it only applies to those who support marriage between a man and a
woman."Guess what Frank. Rallying to deny marriage to couples
you disapprove of is not "civil" in the first place. During the rally,
LGBT were called evil among other things. That is not "civil".
Maybe they were just tired of being pushed around.