Same-sex marriage advocates to deliver petition to governor

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 29, 2014 11:55 p.m.

    @Karen R.:
    "Supported by your commenting history, I don't believe you're interested at all."

    True, I'm only phishing.

    @Laura Bilington:
    "My father, like Karen's, was forced to write with his right hand."

    So? I was forced to write and do other things with both hands due to accidents. Paid off handsomely. I can catch and throw a baseball and shoot a basketball with both hands. .

    "His penmanship was terrible."

    So is mine... and all my friends... some were left and some were right handed.

    "He did everything else with his left."

    Then the right hand must have atrophied from lack of use.

    "This is a poor compensation, not a new 'talent' learned."

    Depends entirely on how you view it.

    "This is only true if the same God who created gays..."

    God created almost all people with some personal foibles to work on and overcome.

    "If there is a God, I don't think he thinks so either."

    God created sex primarily for procreation which can't happen with two men or two women.

    "It does NOT make me abnormal."

    I think it makes you somewhat of a braggart.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 11, 2014 4:36 p.m.

    Redwings says:

    "What is at issue here is that the LGBT refuse any option other than to steal "marriage" and make it less than it was. "

    So we're "stealing" marriage and making it "less" than it was. Oops, you heterosexuals are the ones who made it "less than it was" by cheating on your spouses, divorcing willy-nilly and taking it for granted. LGBT couples marrying does nothing to "lessen" marriage; it also isn't "stolen"; you will still have it.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    @Chris B
    "Some things are always worth fighting for, including real families. "

    Yes, which is why I support marriage equality.

    By the way, it's obvious that "BLT" is your way of mocking the LGBT movement in such a way that can make it through moderation because made up slurs don't count.

    @lost in DC
    "Now watch the SS crowd scream about infertile traditional couples. Sorry, you cannot define the group solely by the outlying exceptions."

    Those 'outlying exceptions' include literally every elderly couple that marries...

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    July 10, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    If you are a proponent of civil unions, the fair and equal way of doing that would be for all people--gay or straight--to have government civil unions and completely do away with government-issued marriages. Is that what you are proposing?
    Or, do you believe that straight people should have government-issued marriage licenses while gay people should have civil unions? If so, what is the rational basis for discriminating against gay and lesbian people and affording their relationships less rights and recognition than straight relationships.
    Note: If you believe straight marriages are unique because of their possibility to procreate and tie parents to biological children, fairness and equality (which is mandatory under the law) would require that the government also only grant civil unions to those who are too old to procreate or medically unable to procreate.
    The Deseret News has published at least two stories in the last two years about people who are terminally ill getting married on their death beds. How does this fit your model? Obviously someone who is terminally ill cannot procreate and raise their biological children. Would you recommend a civil union in these cases too?

    July 10, 2014 11:31 a.m.


    Thank you for describing to a "t" what a civil union is. That is exactly what the government should be in the business of. Licensing and providing civil benefits without discrimination.

    What is at issue here is that the LGBT refuse any option other than to steal "marriage" and make it less than it was. Marriage belongs as a religious ordinance performed according to the dictates of that specific religion. If civil and religious marriages were separated, theere would be no risk of violating religious freedoms, which is what we are fearful of.

    I also fear the precedent set by protecting a behavior (homosexuality). What behavior will we set apart as protected next?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 10, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    "SS unions are not biologically capable of being equal with traditional marriage. Now watch the SS crowd scream about infertile traditional couples. Sorry, you cannot define the group solely by the outlying exceptions."

    I agree. I also note that the reason that I love my aged mother and I can't be named as a beneficiary on her SS when she dies which is a right that gay partners say they should have because they love their partner.

    I think that the reason that in the eyes of the law that I cannot receive this benefit is because I don't have sex with mother. So by that logic, what makes a marriage a marriage is that the individuals involved are having sex with one another.

    So therefore, how often do they have to have sex? Three times a week. Is the marriage annuled if one becomes impotent. Should we have the police investigate if people are having sex. Gay marriage has a lot of outlying exceptions too.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 10, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    "Marriage equality is NOT an attack on traditional marriage."

    I read today that California is removing any references to husband and wife from their laws.

    So, all marriages in California have now been downgraded to 'civil unions'. What the Gay Right has been arguing all along is a second class marriage. So I guess that you are wrong.

    If you don't like traditional marriage, then don't have one.

    I applaud Utah's governor. Those who complain about the waste of money. People in Utah have the right to have their values applied to their government through the right to vote. Various forces are trying to deny them of that right.

    "The price for liberty is eternal vigilance." (It is kind of ironic I saw that at an ACLU stand.)

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    @ Liberty For All

    Bans on SSM have been struck down in 22 straight states now, with Colorado being to most recent. Are you suggesting that it's not a fight for equality, but rather a case of liberals taking shots at the LDS Church? The persecution complex among many LDS faithful has spun out of control. I can assure you that this nationwide fight has nothing to do with attacking a religion that makes up 3% of the total population.

  • Latuva Spanish Fork , UT
    July 10, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    It seems an unfortunate element of many "gay-rights" conversations, that the underlying and publically stated assumptions are that LGBT is it is a unique population, special needs and forced social adjustments are necessary to support a choice-community. Every human being ought to be treated respectfully and, whenever possible, concerns met. Each of the billions of humanity has private concerns, some have well publicized closet issues; every individual must deal with them to the extent possible, no one is exempt. It becomes a public policy and ethical concern when private choices become a 'right'. Instead of adjusting to allow some choices by the rest, mandatory acceptance of choices is formalized and forcibly integrated for just one preference-community. As if a religious choice by a few must be the religion of all. The miracle of human life is its ability to establish law that allows minorities to exist without abuses by the majority, and prevent minorities abusing the majority. I hope we as a people and as public policy trustees don't lose that vision; we may lose the basis of ethics, and muddy what is and is not constitutional.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 10, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    I understand the deep distress that opponents, and particularly Mormon opponents, feel about same sex marriage. All I can say to that is this. I don't ask you to accept same sex marriage in your Church or in your family. I appreciate the value you place on the definition of family here and in the hereafter. I accept that you can worship and follow your individual conscience in this matter.

    However, I do ask you to accept that people of other faiths (and maybe a few of your fellow co-religionistss) do see the worth of same sex marriage. The see same sex couples as co-equal to their opposite sexed sibling partners. They wish to see same sex couples enjoying civil benefits of marriage, and wish to celebrate their relationship according to their conscience and religious beliefs.

    The disagreement comes when one set of religions claim superior authority over the other in the public sector debate. Using religion to thwart same sex marriage is wrong. It leads us to a sectarian state mentality that dominates much of the world, and ends up essentially undemocratic in the process. Do we really want that?

  • AerilusMaximus Berryville, VA
    July 9, 2014 3:32 p.m.

    How about Des news create a section specifically dealing with SSM / LGBT issues?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    I am a member of the BLT community, and I am also gay. This morning I went for a beautiful early jog. Then I went into my backyard and plucked a ripe, red tomato from my garden. I went into the kitchen, put a few strips of bacon on the stove and proceeded to make a sandwich--which included home-grown lettuce.

    The only thing that would have made this morning's experience better would be to have somebody with whom I could share these simple, pleasurable moments. Unfortunately, too many people are misinformed and think they can vote to keep me from having such a relationship.

    I am actually excited to think that such a monumental move away from bigotry will go through Utah. Unfortunately, I also fear that there will be a period of backlash that will cause harm. Imagine a day in the near future when this will no longer be an issue; what will we argue about then?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 9, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    @Liberty For All:

    The Hobby Lobby decision put the courts in charge of determining "sincere religious belief" as a litmus test to determine who has to follow a law. Within 24 hours of the decision it was expanded to cover a broader class of medications and was cited as a reason religious groups receiving federal money should be able to deny care or service to groups of citizens.

    Marriage is a legal arrangement that grants the couple some 1,200 legal benefits and protections. The paperwork comes from the state, the marriage is granted by the state, the benefits are given by and managed by the state. The minister who performs the marriage is licensed by the state and does it "under the authority granted by the state" as a formal and required part of the ceremony.

    Anyone who meets minimum criteria can officiate a legal marriage, no religious frippery needed.

    Not quite sure where the assault part comes in - other than being licensed to perform ceremonies, marriage has nothing to do with the Mormon Church. This is a civil matter.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 9, 2014 2:02 p.m.

    Just relax folks. This is going to Supreme Court next term. There's been more than enough debate. Let's just get a ruling and go from there.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 9, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    @ Jim Cobabe: You make the claim that, since SS couples are raising children who turn out good, marriage is not needed. Do you oppose marriage for all couples who are capable of raising children who turn out good, or only same-sex couples?

    And you do realize that marriage is not about raising children nor does it make otherwise poor parents better?

    The only thing the outcomes of children has to do with marriage is the fact that so many who oppose same-sex marriage do so on the grounds that children do better with married, biological parents. Pointing out that children raised by same-sex parents turn out good is not an argument against same-sex marriage, it is an argument in favor of same-sex marriage.

    Marriage offers many benefits to society, the married couple, and any children that couple may have. Arguing that same-sex couples don't need marriage because they are good parents without it ignores the benefits of marriage and weakens all arguments for marriage for anyone.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    July 9, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    Marriage is a loving commitment between two people and their children, no matter how those kids come to them. If you believe that marriage is only valid as a form of regulating procreation between biological parents, please explain these three articles published by the Deseret News recently:

    Today: "Stumbling Blocks to Adoption" by Erin Stewart - "There will be a mother out there that one day will be searching for me as I am searching for her. There will be a child who calls me mother even as I teach him about the mother who brought him into this world and who loved him enough to find me."

    December 22, 2013, "Living Alone" - "Homo sapiens, with the longest developmental dependency period in the animal kingdom, are not designed to be alone."

    June 27, 2014: "Man dies hours after marrying, wedding video captures 'heartbreaking fairytale'"
    "Rowden and Leizl had planned to tie the knot on July 8...But in the midst of planning their perfect day, the couple learned Rowden had stage IV liver cancer. Cramming preparations that can take months into just 12 hours, the couple held a ceremony on June 11, just 10 hours before Rowden died."

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    July 9, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    SSM is simply a full out assault on the Mormon faith by the liberal agenda. Exactly as the Hobby Lobby case demonstrates the importance of religious doctrine, the Supreme Court will settle this once and for all by protecting religious liberty and traditional marriage.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 9, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    @SocalCoug: While there are some effective rebuttals being submitted in response to the standard conservative anti-gay arguments made in both the article and comment thread, I don't notice anyone shouting. The comments seem reasonably measured. I think what you mean to say is, "I wish the moderators wouldn't allow so many people to disagree with me."

    I think it's to this paper's credit that they're encouraging a dialog among their readers. By the way, if you see something in the "SSM crowd's" arguments that you find fault with, perhaps you could contribute something to the discussion yourself. Other than existing, or possibly being contrary to your theological understanding of scripture, what is it they're (we're) saying which you find erroneous or misguided? And why?

  • Eagle78 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    It is a emotional issue Socal Coug. People have a right to vent frustrations over state/church sponsored discrimination. The moderators job is to make sure people don't get out of hand with insults, language, caps etc. Which they have done a great job doing. I haven't seen a single comment here that is inappropriate.

    Not liking what someone else has to say is not a valid reason to censor them. One thing that I love about DN is that there are a lot of people here willing to step up and call out injustice, and bigotry when they see it. Considering that the majority of Utah is LDS that happens quite frequently. If people/the church don't want to come under public fire then they should stay out of politics.

  • Socal Coug San Diego, CA
    July 9, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    Frankly I surprised so many of these comments are not being denied by the moderator. Could you bring the shouting down a notch, SSM supporters?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 9, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    @lost in DC;

    They've already defended the law to death. How far do they need to go before you consider their "oath of office" fulfilled? They've already lost twice. Is the 3rd time the charm?

    Also, what about defending the highest law of the land, The Constitution (specifically Amendments 5 & 14)? If they desist in their obstinacy, they will have fulfilled their oath to the Constitution of the USA.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 9, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    @lost in DC 11:47 a.m. July 9, 2014

    You're saying that the only thing that defines the validity and quality of a marriage is whether or not the couple can breed. That is, without a doubt, one of the most ridiculous things I'e ever heard. In case you haven't figured it out yet, marriage is not dependent on breeding and breeding is not dependent on marriage. THAT is the biological fact.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    Chris B: "The ideal situation for children is always their biological mother and father."

    If this is something really "worth fighting for" here is a suggestion: Circulate your own petition urging repeal of Title 30, Chapter 3 of the Utah Code. This will ensure that children are raised by their married biological mother and father in a traditional, Biblical family. Please be sure to report back to us when you get a second signature.

    BTW, is the BLT community served with mayo on sourdough?

    equal protection: "Allowing more people to marry does not change the definition of marriage any more than freeing the slaves changed the definition of freedom or granting women a right to vote, changed the definition of voting."

    Beautifully stated.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 9, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    @lostInDC: For the 11 millionth time, marriage is not equivalent to procreation. "Biological equality" is an issue for laboratory research strains of E. coli, not people.

    Of all the children born in this country in recent years, some 41% were born out of wedlock. Nor do all married women bear children. Clearly, a marriage certificate does not cause childbirth, nor does a lack of one prevent it. If you believe the institution of marriage merely regulates human breeding, you should burn your certificate now, because that imaginary institution doesn't work the way you think it does.

    Until you live in some totalitarian state that requires all persons applying for a marriage license to prove their fertility and intent to bear children, and revokes the licenses of any who fail to do so, just be quiet about "biological equality," please.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    July 9, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    Talking about oaths of office and upholding the law, consider that 20+ federal judges have examined state laws that prohibit gay and lesbian people from marrying. They have all ruled that those laws violate the US constitution and infringe unnecessarily on individual rights.
    If you think the judges are liberal activists, look at the biography of Judge Dale Kimball who made one of the decisions. The judges were nominated by both Republicans and Democrats. When they took office, they swore an oath to "administer justice without respect to persons" and "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties." Judges are appointed rather than elected to encourage them to uphold the law free from the pressure of public opinion.
    US Attorney General Eric Holder has said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.
    What is your basis for defending the legality of Amendment 3?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 9, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    I see the SS crowd want the governor and AG to violate their oaths of office and ignore the law and their responsibilities. Who do they think Herbert and Reyes are? BO??

    marriage equality is a false moniker. SS unions are not biologically capable of being equal with traditional marriage. Now watch the SS crowd scream about infertile traditional couples. Sorry, you cannot define the group solely by the outlying exceptions.

    I urge the governor, legislature, and AG's office to expend whatever resources are necessary to defend Amendment 3.

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    July 9, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    This issue is really very simple:

    Marriage equality is NOT an attack on traditional marriage.

    Supporting traditional marriage has nothing to do with supporting marriage equality.

    Nobody who supports marriage equality opposes traditional marriage (why would they oppose something they want to have?)

    But every person I have met who claims to be a "traditional marriage supporter" is really using that label to cover the truth: they are really attacking marriage equality!

    Can we at least be honest and truthful in how we address this issue? It is disingenuous (if not outright deceptive) to continue to call your position "support for traditional marriage" when you are AGAINST marriage equality.

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    July 9, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    One of these comments clears up a great deal of confusion.

    We can already see adults who came from "SS families" that are "perfectly well balanced wonderful people". Under that same rationale, therefore, there is no compelling reason for anyone to claim that "SS partners" need to be "married".

    Case closed.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 9, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    Meckofahess, I would gently remind you that the vote on Amendment 3 was 11 years ago. Do you honestly think that it would pass again today? If so, please ask your governor to find out. I don't think he wants a vote on it; he knows the way the wind is blowing, even in Utah.

    Chris, let me tell you about my family. My husband and I have been married 35 years and we have 14 children--Four home-made and ten adopted. Three were foreign born and abandoned at birth--one left at the hospital and two left on a city street. The others were between 3 and 12 when they arrived. We want to adopt a couple more kids in their mid-teens.

    Which ones do we have to get rid of to qualify as a "real family"?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 9, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    @Meckofahess 7:06 a.m. July 9, 2014

    My husband and I will be celebrating our 45th wedding anniversary the first week of September. As of the middle of August, 35 of those years will be under Temple seal. We strongly support "traditional" marriage (to the extent that the term designates OSM, and not the type of "traditional" marriage in place when we married in which the woman was treated as nothing more than chattel with few, if any, true rights). We also strongly support marriage equality, and find nothing in the concept that in any way challenges or threatens "traditional" marriage. "Marriage" is not re-defined or changed or weakened by allowing same-sex couples to marry.

    We urge the Governor to stop wasting the State's money on the battle to disparage the civil rights of some of Utah's citizens. If he wants to contine the SSM battle, then do so using funding from the people who want to deny civil rights to a portion of the State's citizens -- have them contribute to a fund to pay attorney fees but don't impose the bill for this unconscionable action on all of Utah's citizens.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 9, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    @ Meck: You keep making the same statement about recognizing same-sex relationships without changing the definition of marriage and every time you make that statement it is pointed out to you that Amendment 3 prohibits any recognition of same-sex relationships no matter what they are called. At this point, one can only assume that you are willfully ignoring the facts and have no actual desire to for a change to the current status quo. This would be why advocates of same-sex marriage refuse to settle for the faux offering of "something else".

    As has also been pointed out to you, no one who supports same-sex marriage opposes traditional marriage.

    I suggest you look up the acronym "PRATT".

    @ ChrisB: You may not like all families, but that doesn't make them any less real than any other family.

    Recent research shows that, according to all measures, children raised by 2 same-sex parents are healthier and happier than children raised by 2 heterosexual parents.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 9, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    @Chris B;

    "Real families", you know, families made up of real PEOPLE. Our families are just as "real" as yours is. Please stop the bigotry; it isn't very Christian. Additionally, a study just released in Australia shows that children in same-sex headed FAMILES do BETTER than their peers in heterosexual headed families, imagine that!


    Selfishness? You mean like the selfishness of denying marriage equality to families that don't fit the "traditional" mold?


    If you want the gov to "spend whatever funds are necessary"; please provide him those funds; he's using OUR money too and using it to deny us equal treatement by OUR government.

    As for "Let's find a way to recognize some type of legalized same-sex partnership for our gay neighbors ...", that ship has sailed. You REFUSED to compromise on Amendment 3 when you passed it, forbidding any form of legal recognition. Now you will just have to share the word and the legal recognition of marriages for LGBT couples.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    July 9, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    The more opponents of SSM try to defend their stance the worse they sound. Bigotry and discrimination don't attract much support. I celebrated my 25th anniversary yesterday and my marriage is not threatned in the least by SSM. A greater danager is letting a majority destroy our constitution and the very fabric of what America stands for.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    July 9, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    @Meckofahess, “Preserving the 'traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples” - Lawrence, 539 U.S. AT 601 Justice Scalia

    Allowing more people to marry does not change the definition of marriage any more than freeing the slaves changed the definition of freedom or granting women a right to vote, changed the definition of voting. If excluding people really defines marriage, why do we allow convicted spousal and child abusers or drug and alcohol abusers to civil marry?

    History demonstrates that Inclusion doesn't diminish but only strengthens our cherished institutions and makes our country better for it.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    July 9, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    @Chris. taking your 'optimal parenting rationale' to a logical conclusion, empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians can marry while excluding all other heterosexual couples. The absurdity of such a requirement is self-evident.

    Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households. It’s not the gender of the parent that’s the key. It’s the quality of parenting that’s being offered by whoever is there, husband or wife, two women, two men, a single parent, as long as these factors are present: good mental health, good parent-child relationships, what we call an authoritative parenting style, which is warmth, stimulation, structure, and the availability of resources. Then we’re going to have a children who are likely healthy.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 9, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    @Meckofahess: I wish you would say what you mean, instead of using focus-group PR tested phraseology like, "supporters of traditional marriage." What you really mean is "virulent opponents of equal rights for LGBT citizens." Get it right.

    I'm "traditionally-married" in your words, for over 30 years. No one is opposing my marriage, my parents' marriage nor any of my straight relatives', friends', or neighbors' marriages. NO ONE (perhaps except those who have failed several times) opposes marriage for those straight couples who want it.

    No, you don't "support" traditional marriage, because no one opposes it. The only thing you "support" is discrimination.

    Well, I don't support discrimination. My wife doesn't. My Quaker Meeting doesn't. The 21 faith-based groups who marched in our city's Pride parade clearly don't. My state doesn't, and yours shouldn't, either.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    July 9, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    @Chris B
    Re: "Some things are always worth fighting for, including real families."
    I am curious how you rationalize the above statement with the reality of what the state of Utah is doing, which you support.
    There are thousands of families in Utah headed by gay and lesbian parents raising children. More will move in from other states in coming years.
    The state is waging a legal battle to stigmatize, destabilize, and take away legal rights and obligations from real Utah families--real couples and real children. Making their marriage illegal will not create an alternate reality where everyone is straight and kids are only in families that fit your definition. It will only hurt those that don't fit your definition.
    The states own attorney, Gened Schaerr, testified that children of gay couples who marry legally and then move to Utah "would likely be better off" if their parents were allowed to be legally married in Utah.
    Courts have found no evidence of any harm to straight couples or children when gay people are allowed to legally married.
    Utah Unites for Marriage is fighting for real families. The state of Utah is fighting against marriage and family.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    July 9, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    Likewise, As one of the hundreds of thousands of married couples in Utah who supports traditional marriage between a man and a woman, a growing number of us urge our good Governor to continue to support marriage between a man and a woman - but that has absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality!

    Please stop wasting funds "to defend the vote of over 60% of tax paying Utahns" who, under the false flag of "supporting traditional marriage", naively voted to discriminate against their fellow Americans and fellow Utahns.

    As our Governor and many public officials runs for office, a younger generation of voters is watching closely how they support marriage equality.

    Marriage equality is not an attack on traditional marriage. Legalizing same sex marriage will only benefit those families and couples, and society at large, and has absolutely no negative effect on traditional marriages or society!

    Enough divisive wasted money and effort, Governor!

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 9, 2014 7:54 a.m.

    @Meckofahess: "As our Governor runs for re-election we will be watching closely how he supports traditional marriage."

    And this is what it is all about. Not extending legal protection to thousands of gay couples and their families. Nope, it is political theater, a grandstanding charade to buy votes in the next election.

    He isn't protecting straight marriage. That will continue to stagger along regardless. All he is doing is harming a minority group of citizens for political gain - no different than George Wallace running on a segregation today, tomorrow, and forever platform in 1963.

    And, if you voted for Amendment 3 with the "No other domestic union, however denominated" clause, then wanting "separate but equal" ten years later is disingenuous at best.

  • ExTBird Springville, US-UT
    July 9, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    @Chris B

    People who mold their lives around a work of fiction should not be telling the rest of us what is "real" and what isn't. There is no proof that supports children are worse off with a same-sex family than a "real family". I have known adults who came from SS families and they are perfectly well balanced, wonderful people. I have also known adults who grew up active LDS who are walking disasters.

    How you are raised is what matters. Not who raised you. I notice you said biological mom/dad. Completely ignoring the millions of children who don't have either and are adopted. Are those not "real families" as well? You'll have to let us know because apparently the church gets to decide this and not the families themselves. Lots of kids who need to go back to the adoption agency it seems since their family isn't real.

    Keep wasting those millions Utah. It just makes it all the sweeter when you inevitably lose. You don't get to discriminate against an entire group of people just because the leaders of the LDS church tell you it's okay.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    As one of the hundreds of thousands of married couples in Utah who supports traditional marriage between a man and a woman, we urge our good Governor to continue to support marriage between a man and a woman. Please spend whatever funds are necessary to defend the vote of over 60% of tax paying Utahns who support traditional marriage. Let's find a way to recognize some type of legalized same-sex partnership for our gay neighbors that recognizes their legal rights but doesn't change the definition of what marriage is. As our Governor runs for re-election we will be watching closely how he supports traditional marriage.

  • Brightenpath Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2014 2:02 a.m.

    "One is not a class because one has committed a fault. Selfishness is not one of the divisions of the social order." Les Misérables, Volume IV, Chapter II

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 8, 2014 11:59 p.m.

    @Chris B:

    What, exactly, is a "BLT group" and how might it harm children?

    If you mean Gay or Lesbian parents, please explain how it is better for the children if the couple that is raising them is not married. Because those kids are already being raised in a family headed by a same-sex couple. You are just saying that family should not have the protections given to other families - in essence, you are punishing the children because you don't approve of the relationship of the parents.

    The state is wasting money trying to officially discriminate against some couples and some families.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 8, 2014 11:51 p.m.

    Oh, yeah, as if the puppet of you-know-who Utah officials are going to do anything that the church is against!

    Even showing them up for their refusal to represent all Utahs will get the pro-equality people nowhere. Politicians tend to follow the wishes of those who keep them in office and finance their campaigns,

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2014 7:23 p.m.

    Some things are always worth fighting for, including real families. The BLT communities doesn't like to hear the truth but I'm glad there are many willing to say it still. The ideal situation for children is always their biological mother and father. Kids going to a BLT group is never the ideal situation.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 8, 2014 6:22 p.m.

    Nice try, but the state is going to have to lose this on their own. It's the only way they'll learn.