Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Two-way bigotry

Comments

Return To Article
  • Will Kane Salt Lake City USA, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 1:05 a.m.

    Be assured, it most certainly does run both ways. Some can't see this though because of their own strong bias (bigotry). Some of the most hateful comments I read in the media on this whole issue come from those promoting "gay rights", whatever those really are. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Aug. 5, 2013 2:17 a.m.

    Clearly, two-way bigotry.

    One side utilizes the machinations of government to deny people the constitutionally-protected fundamental right to marry the person they love.

    The other side "punishes this individual" by electing not to spend ten bucks on a movie.

    Yeah, these two forms of "bigotry" are 100% in the same ballpark; great comparison.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 5:33 a.m.

    Card has every right to hold and express his opinion. He does NOT have the right to escape the consequences of holding and expressing his opinion. He is reaping the consequences of his actions.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 5, 2013 6:08 a.m.

    This whole thing just makes me want to go "huh". Government did not invent, not create the institution of marriage. In fact, even in the most lawless parts of the world, marriage is still an institution that permeates diverse societies and cultures world wide. A governments "right" to determine who marries who is tenuous at best... since the act of falling in love, and living with a "partner" hardly requires permission from any government. The notion that a government has the right to determine issues of the heart are frightening at best.

    People "connecting" today, to create informal "families" unfortunately has become a norm, where living together is an accepted alternative to marriage is a much larger threat to the family. If you want to get up in arms about an issue... it is shaking up... not gays as the biggest issue.

    What gays do or don't do has far less to do with the fall of the family then what straight people do outside the bounds of marriage. Lets focus more on really reinforcing families, then chasing rainbows.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    I don't see it as two way bigotry so much as reaping what you sow. All gays don't hate Orson Scott Card. But if you politicize your views publicly then there are consequences to your "free speech," something we all know.
    All gays didn't target OSC. But the extreme element did, and those that are active in politics. They are and extreme element just as Westboro is an extreme Christian element.

    Lets classify people how they really are, and not just lay out blanket statements, Gays did this, or Mormons did that. All Mormons are not the same. All Gays are not the same. Lets stop acting like they are.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 7:03 a.m.

    Homosexual,
    Homophobe.

    Yes, I guess you could call it a sort of Two-way bigotry.

    BTW -
    I'm curious.

    Orson Scott Card is Social-Economic Liberal, and has been pasted many a time here in the Deseret News over the years for his opinions..

    How is it conservatives rally behind him on this issue,
    yet beat him to a pulp on all the others?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 5, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    "Card writing in 1990, “Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”

    "In the Mormon Times in 2009, he wrote, “Married people attempting to raise children with the hope that they, in turn, will be reproductively successful, have every reason to oppose the normalization of homosexual unions.”

    How is Card "hurt" personally and individually by same-sex marriage?

    Card has had a public platform to express his views to deny basic rights as defined in the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v.Virginia stating that to deny the "fundamental freedom" of marriage "on so unsupportable a basis" as race "is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

    Therefore, others may use a public platform in an attempt to deny Card financial benefits.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    Card does not have a right to my money. I have the right to spend that money how I see fit and using any criteria that I choose. If I choose to "punish him" economically and financially for his bigoted views, that is my right to not spend money on his product. That is the free market that you conservative folks are always blathering about.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    Card's personal views stopped being personal when he joined NOM's board of directors. His views stopped being personal when he wrote articles, spoke publicly, and contributed money to fight the legalization of gay marriage. He chose to be public about his views, and the public has a right to choose whether or not they attend a movie based on one of his novels.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Aug. 5, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    So when conservatives speak their minds and try to live their beliefs, they're brave patriots defending freedom. When liberals do the same, they're a bunch of bigots who want to squash personal expression and are anti-God to boot.

    Duly noted.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    It is kind of hard for the side that has the rights the other side wants to claim they are the victims of bigotry.

    It's like a slave owner telling his slaves they need to be respectful and tolerant of views that he should be allowed to own other human beings.

    If you want to fight against same-sex marriage, you are well within your right, but you have lost the moral high ground to play the victim card.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 5, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    The solution is simple. Boycott every business where people with whom you disagree work. Tell those business owners that you will take your business elsewhere.

    Orson Scott Card has the right to say anything that he wants to say. Those who disagree with him have every right to boycott. But, it is ludicrous to think that 3% of the population would not think of the damage to themselves and to their cause when they make threats about an individual.

    Let's do the math. If 97% of the population boycotted every business where people in that business held different viewpoints than their own, who would cry "uncle" first?

    Orson Scott Card will not suffer if every gay activist in America boycotts Ender's Game, but would Hollywood survive if 97% of the population boycotted every film where a gay activist or sympathiser produced, promotoed or starred in a movie?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    " upheld the right of the individual states to define marriage. The return of the Propostion 8 case to the lower court further upheld this decision. "

    Prop 8 was ruled to not have standing and so the lower FEDERAL courts' verdict is the one that goes through. That's not leaving it to the state.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    The system works, when the system is called "reciprocity". So if your good to Mamma, she'll be good to you. Intention matter.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Midvaliean: "All gays didn't target OSC. But the extreme element did, and those that are active in politics. They are and extreme element just as Westboro is an extreme Christian element."

    And I suppose that the gay community at large thinks that their opinions and tactics are as disgusting as what the Christian community thinks of the Westboro Church's actions. Right?

    I haven't heard any condemnation from the likes of atl134, truthseeker, Furry1993, KJB1, or others for these kinds of tactics, only support.

    Judging by the comments so far, I see that the "pro-gay" activists are well represented here. They flood forums like this one with their message to give the impression that their point of view is much more popular than it really is among the population at large.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    This letter deserves a better fisking than 200 words allows.

    The call to boycott Ender's Game was not over Card's views in marriage; he has a long and documented history of virulent anti-gay statements, including wanting to make it illegal to be gay, and of using his money to support campaigns against gay persons. Card wants to make it illegal to be gay and now he is whining that gay people are not going to give him their money.

    The letter misrepresents the Supreme Court decisions on both DOMA and Prop 8. Prop 8 was found unconstitutional by both lower courts that heard the case. The Court decision essentially upheld that broader ruling. On DOMA, the court struck down the federal ban on recognizing legally performed same sex marriages.

    The call for a boycott hopes to raise awareness of Card's activities and statements, to make people aware of his truly vicious opinions. If you want an idea of the consequences of the actions he has supported in the past, look at Russia today.

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    "Card does not have a right to my money."

    So does that mean that homosexual couples don't have a right to force someone to give them services? (See 13th amendment, prohibiting slavery)

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    I know for a fact that Mormons don't hate gay people. I know lots of Mormon families that have gay family members and we love them. Mormons just don't approve of redefining "Marriage" or condone some behaviors associated with same sex attraction.

    It's a basic tenant of the gospel that every human spirit is litterally related to God (regardless of beliefs, how they live, or sexual orientation). So it would make no sense to hate someone because of their sexual orientation or any trait, they are still litterally spirit children of the same father (and therefor the same family).

    But I can tell many LGBT leaders do "hate" Mormons.

    I was surfing channels one Saturday and came accross a documentary on the LDS church and decided to watch it to see what other people think of us. It was INCREDIBLY hate-filled, and quickly became evident it was produced by the LGBT community. It was so full of lies and negativity I eventually had to turn it off. I checked to see what channel it was on, and noticed that it ran like every 3 hours on that channel for days.'

    Continued...

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 5, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    People have the right to boycott OSC for his views.

    Having said that the hypocrisy of those who promote gay rights is apparent. For 20 years they've pushed the idea of tolerance for diversity and then as soon as people show up that disagree with them they try to bully them into silence.

    Same sex marriage is the new McCarthyism.

    Gays aren't being denied their rights to marry. They can marry anyone of the opposite gender just everyone else. No one would object if two bisexuals of the opposite gender decided to marry or if a gay man and a lesbian woman wanted to marry for whatever reason.

    Marriage is society's way to promote the idea that children have the right to a father and a mother and that men should be responsible for their reproductive actions. Promoting traditional marriage is a powerful tool to fight poverty which is caused by out of wedlock births. That the man and woman love each other is wonderful, but the point of marriage, at the end of the day is less about validating romantic love and more about promoting responsible procreation.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional, and the USSC declined to hear an appeal because those seeking the appeal lacked the proper legal status to do so. That's not remotely the same thing as saying that the USSC tossed the issue of same-sex marriage back to the states.

    I pay money all the time for products and services that I know are provided by employees with whom I disagree. The nature of the world is such that it's inevitable that we do business with people who's beliefs we find objectionable.

    But if the _owner_ of the brand makes it a point to work overtly to deny rights to a minority, I reserve the right to decline an invitation to help enrich that person. I'm not in any way trying to restrict Card's right to express opinions with which I disagree, but I am refusing to let him do so with my help.

    Consider: If a popular author took a leadership position in organizations that sought to discriminate against Mormons, and one of that author's books had just been made into a major Hollywood movie, what would you do?

  • George New York, NY
    Aug. 5, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    @mike

    As you well know mike the majority of americians support gay rights making your math my be at best wistfull.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 5, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    @atl134,

    Prop 8 was a constitutional matter for the State of California. It was not a federal matter. No federal court had jurisdiction; but that didn't stop a federal judge from exercising unlawful "authority". Then, the Supreme Court further violated the Supreme Law of the Land by denying those in California who supported Prop 8 from testifying before the court, telling them that they had no "standing". It was a total travisty of justice by a federal judge and by the highest court in the land.

    -----

    When 3% of the people can call for a boycott because they don't like the words spoken and written by an American against their gay "rights" agenda, then 97% of the people can boycott everything associated with gay "rights" activists. Hollywood would cease to exist. The entertainment industry would cease to exist. Much of the publishing industry would cease to exist.

    Of course gay activists only think of their side of things. They don't allow anyone to dispute their propaganda.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    A few people are going to be dissuaded from seeing a movie few will see anyway. Card keeps his opinions. That's one edge of the sword. On the other side, official discrimination that's gone on for decades continues. The other edge. One seems sharper than the other. And, you know what, I think we're smart enough to figure out how gays can get married without letting people marry six wives or a major appliance.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 5, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2 --

    "I haven't heard any condemnation from the likes of .."

    And why should you?

    The National Organization of Marriage currently has **two** official boycotts running, against companies with pro-gay policies.

    Card has been a board member of NOM for several years, until just this summer.

    If Card and NOM think that boycotts are acceptable, why should you or we object to them?

    "give the impression that their point of view is much more popular than it really is among the population at large."

    Sorry, Joe, but multiple national polls show that more than 50% of the American public now supports gay marriage.

    @Tekakaromatagi

    "For 20 years they've pushed the idea of tolerance for diversity and then as soon as people show up that disagree with them they try to bully them into silence."

    Pro-gay-rights views don't kill people. Anti-gay views do. BIG difference.

    "Gays aren't being denied their rights to marry. They can marry anyone of the opposite gender"

    Yet again -- this argument didn't work with interracial marriage, and it doesn't work now.

    "Promoting traditional marriage is a powerful tool "

    Promote traditional marriage all you like. Gay marriage does NOT threaten it.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    "And, you know what, I think we're smart enough to figure out how gays can get married without letting people marry six wives or...." How so? The constitution affords them the same rights as gays and straights. The concept of limitation by one group against another, is the basis of why this argument is on going. The attempt of Prop 8 was to figure out a way to limit state recognized marriage to a man and a women. How do you propose limiting a polygamist's rights, by definition, legal code, discrimination against individuals? See how that works in America.

    Activists say they will not violate a churches religious beliefs, forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages, but, that horse has left the barn. A law suite is to be filed in England demanding the Church of England perform these marriages. Next will be the other christian faiths in the country, and the U.S. law suites will follow.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    Continued 2...

    Sorry, my description of the LGBT documentary regarding the LDS church was rejected as being to vulgar. I'll try again and leave out any real description of the content (because it was vulgar).

    They interviewed a suposed BYU student with same sex attraction that insisted he was bound and taken into the temple and showen gay pornography by his church leaders and had several vulgar experaments done on him in the temple. None of it even remotely possible (but reported as "Fact" in the documentary).

    They showed footage of the LGBT protests at the LDS temple in LA and SLC. Mentioned the vandalism of church buildings (and somehow presented it as justified because the church supported Prop-8). Vandalism and violence should NEVER be a valid response because someone supported the wrong side of a proposition, or voted the wrong way (In your opinion). We NEVER retaliate for people's votes in the United States. We are not ruled by the Taliban (who threaten to come and make you sorry if they learn you voted the wrong way or didn't support their point of view with your vote).

    It didn't stop there...

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 5, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    @Mike Richards --

    "When 3% of the people can call for a boycott because they don't like the words spoken and written by an American against their gay "rights" agenda, then 97% of the people can boycott everything associated with gay "rights" activists."

    1. According to multiple nationwide polls, more than 50% of the American public now supports gay marriage. Not 3%.

    2. Gay people make up 3-5% of the population. Mormons make up less than 2% of the US population. Do you really want to start making arguments based on group size?

    3. NOM is currently sponsoring TWO boycotts, against companies with pro-gay policies. If boycotts are acceptable to NOM, why shouldn't they be acceptable for everyone else?

    "Of course gay activists only think of their side of things. They don't allow anyone to dispute their propaganda."

    Pro-gay-rights views don't kill people. Anti-gay-rights views do.

    @Copy Cat --

    "So does that mean that homosexual couples don't have a right to force someone to give them services?"

    Businesses have not been legally allowed to discriminate since the days of the lunch counter sit-ins. That is nothing new.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 5, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    re:JSF
    "How do you propose limiting a polygamist's rights, by definition, legal code, discrimination against individuals?"

    Wow. Yes, think about it. Why don't polygamists use the "freedom to practice religion" argument being pursued by churches and religious groups?

    Religious groups who don't have any problems with contraceptives nonetheless signed a letter attesting religions should be able to practice their beliefs as they see fit.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2
    "I haven't heard any condemnation from the likes of atl134, truthseeker, Furry1993, KJB1, or others for these kinds of tactics, only support."

    Boycotts are a matter of free speech. I'm not a big fan of the tactic since half the time it backfires and makes things more popular (see: Golden Compass... until people found the movie to be mediocre) but if that's what they want to do... *shrugs*.

    "Judging by the comments so far, I see that the "pro-gay" activists are well represented here. They flood forums like this one with their message to give the impression that their point of view is much more popular than it really is among the population at large."

    Same-sex marriage has 50% support nationally. Supporting gay rights is a pretty popular opinion.

    @2bits
    "I know for a fact that Mormons don't hate gay people."

    Some do. When I was at Penn State one of the members of my ward protested in favor of Rene Portland (women's bball coach) kicking lesbians (or girls perceived to be lesbians) off the team because of sexuality. He even had a homophobic sign.

  • George New York, NY
    Aug. 5, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    @ mike

    So then you would be fine with 97% of us that are not LDS calling for a boycott against everything related to the 3% of you that are LDS because we disagree with our religion? Luckily mike like the support for the gay community their are many of us outside your religion that support your right to be a religion and have the protections that go along with that.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    I think a majority of the nation view Card as being in the same position as the bus company boycotted because Rosa Parks stood up against their unacceptable positions on race, back in the 60s.

    Boycotters have every right to attempt social change, it's a proud American tradition.

  • George New York, NY
    Aug. 5, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    Your not our sorry

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    Re: "So does that mean that homosexual couples don't have a right to force someone to give them services?"

    Why would anybody not want to provide homosexual couples with services?

    Because if he refuses, that will show how righteous he is? "Be careful not to display your righteousness merely to be seen by people."

    Because he doesn't like to serve sinners? "Do not judge so that you will not be judged....Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?"

    Jesus said, "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets."

    In everything.

    How do you want others to treat you when you walk into a business? Do you want them to refuse to serve you because they think you're a sinner, or because they don't like the color of your hair or the shape of your nose?

    Do people have to undergo moral judgement now every time they want to secure someone's services?

    How do you want to be treated?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    atl134
    I said they don't "Hate" the person. I didn't say they won't have their own views, or be politically active, or protest. But protesting for or against something doesn't mean you hate any individual. And having your personal views on something doesn't mean whatever they do represents the gospel or the church (or deny the fact that we should view all people as the same, and all people as our brothers and sisters).

    It's unfortunate that this ward member did something that offended you, but that doesn't mean they "Hate" you (or anybody). It just means they have political views and wanted to express, so they held up a sign to express those views (but I would not assume their personal views represent every Mormon's position).

    Bottom line... we don't hate people because of sexual orientation. But that doesn't mean we must support the GLBT agenda, or the new definition of 'marriage', or change the fundamental organization for human life (the family).

    We don't "Hate" anybody.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    JoeCapitalist, you are comparing a group of people getting together to boycott a movie with a group of people getting together to boycott a child's funeral?

    These things are equivelant in your mind?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    Contrarius, How does consensual polygamy cause harm? You must have a bias on this. I didn't include incest or pedophilia. You did, to taint the argument. At one time anti same-sex laws were deemed good and valued laws to prevent harm. But you express bigotry in your arguments. The case can be made to override existing polygamy laws the same as the successful anti gay laws have been overturned. In Russia they have anti gay laws, does that make it a valid argument for outlawing gay relationships in the US. You even mention "Lawrence vs. Texas". Because no one has yet brought a case, it can be done.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    So Tekakaromatagi, you would be okay with a gay man and a lesbian woman marrying each other and having children, so that they could have both a father and a mother? You would be in favor of these two people teaching their children that marriage is a sham.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 5, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    @Mike.... the basic tenant of the constitution is that all people are endowed with certain unalienable rights.... and that no person, state, enterprise, or any other body has the right to deny anyone of these very basic rights. It is fully the job of the Supreme Court of this country to ensure no body infringes on these rights.

    To argue this is specifically not the providence of the court to enshrine these rights, to protect these rights, shows a complete misunderstanding of the role of the supreme court. Somehow I doubt you have such gap in understanding. No state has the right to abridge anyones rights... ever.

    So your statement makes no sense....

    Agree or disagree with the gay lifestyle, the supreme court has and will likely continue to allow people to follow their own conscience - until the practice there of impacts some others rights.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 5, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    @jsf --

    "How does consensual polygamy cause harm? "

    Here's some excerpts from the court decision reaffirming Canada's polygamy ban:

    -- "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial,"

    -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

    -- "Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

    -- "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

    You said: "But you express bigotry in your arguments."

    Nope. Polygamy conveys proven, concrete harms. That's fact, not bigotry.

    You said: "A law suite is to be filed in England demanding the Church of England perform these marriages. "

    That's only because the Church of England is the *state* church.

    Now aren't you glad we have separation of church and state?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 5, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil,

    You have misrepresented the Constitution. The duties of the federal government are enumerated. That means that they are listed. Anything NOT listed is left to the States or to the People. "Gay Marriage" is not listed. It is something that the Federal Level of Government has no authority to define or to defend. It is left to the States or to the People. The State of California used it Constitutional Authority to define what "Marriage" meant within the State of California. The PEOPLE of California voted that "Marriage" was the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. A gay federal judge decided that he didn't accept the will of the people. He decided to interfer. That is a fact that anyone can check.

    You have twisted the 14th Amendment, which protected former slaves from discrimination, to include those who think that they were born into the wrong body, to demand that society should amend its rules to allow them to redefine marriage. No such right is authorized by the Constitution. You know it and everyone else knows it. Stop trying to twist the words of the Constitution to suit the "gay activist agenda".

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    "A law suite is to be filed in England demanding the Church of England perform these marriages"

    Methinks you don't understand what the Church of England actually is, and how it differs from the freedom of religion and separation of Church and State we have here...

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    By Kate Heartfield OTTAWA ;

    ...The demographic argument is a great big shiny distraction, and the judge was duly distracted. He says women in polygamous communities are at increased risk of harms including physical abuse, depression, loss of autonomy and yes, the physical risks that come with choosing to have more children.

    Aren't many women in monogamous relationships subject to those same harms? The judge dismisses that question, saying he was only asked to look at polygamy. "That harm may arise out of other human relationships, that is, monogamous ones, seems beside the point."

    The judge has allowed polyamory relationships without fear of prosecution, as long as they do not invoke ceremonies into the relationships. This would include polygamy as long as it isn't formalized. Advocates of polyamory like advocates of overturned same-sex marriage will continue to battle away at preconceived notions of bigotry. Your association of harm in all polygamist relationships is a bigoted generalization. If harm in a relationship is the standard you hold up, then all marriage should be outlawed because of the harm that could exist in any marriage including same-sex.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    Card wants to protect the fundamental right to not be forced to approve of immorality. Gay activists use mob action to hurt those who do not support their behavior.

    Freedom of speech is the right to voice an opinion without being punished. Gays have the same right. They do not however, have right to try to hurt people. Bigots always justify hurting their victim as "reaping what they sow".

    Conservatives are about preserving correct principles—not about attacking people, as Liberals do by calling marriage supporters homophobes.

    Many of you speak as if there are THOUSANDS of voices speaking out in opposition to Card’s views. Justify mob behavior all you want, it still amounts to intimidating people for voicing their views.

    Gays are not slaves and are not merely seeking rights. They want to force all Americans to support, endorse, and approve of gay behavior and forcibly adopt their view of what marriage is. There is nothing high ground about that.

    @Contrarius
    I’m sure you would like it if opposition to government endorsed gay behavior were the same as opposition against gay people. But you are only fooling 50 percent of the people.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    A minister who follows the God of the Bible believes that performing a marriage for 2 men or 2 women is a mockery of God. He wouldn't want to give that service. Same issue for any business owner, who has strong religious convictions, who is asked to give support services for the ceremony. It is not about what people think, it is about what God says is right and what is wrong.

    I don't expect the atheists and agnostics to be enlightened to this concept because they simply cannot relate to it. It would be nice if they at least tried to be a little understanding, but so far, they only mock and insult (it's called bigotry).

    I know it baffles many, that people give up some of their business and income, to do what they believe is right. If money and the praise of men are your Gods, then you would surely do whatever it takes to get money and praise, with no regard to what is right and wrong. Just don't expect the praise of those of us with religious convictions for doing that which is abominable.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    GZE: I said no such thing. Stop making things up.

    Lightbearer: So folowing your argument...if I own a soda shop and I refuse to serve you beer because I think that drinking alcohol is wrong, I am being un-Christian??? I must abandon my principles and perform a ceremony for something that goes against my core beliefs just because you think I should have to???

    That is exactly where this is all going. Once gay marriage becomes legal across this country, everyone (including Mormon temples) will be dragged into court if they refuse to marry gays or do anything associated with weddings that exclude them somehow. If anyone thinks the militant pro-gay crowd will stop at anything less, they are fooling themselves.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    In the Constitution, our government's powers are enumerated, but they cannot supercede or be contradictory to the Bill of Rights. Enumerated rights cannot deny or disparage other rights. (See the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")

    Marriage has been found, in around 20 decisions by SCOTUS, to be a fundamental right. It can't be denied to people who are "similarly situated" to people who can marry, and gays and lesbians have been found to be similarly situated, an important legal phrase. Polygamists are NOT similarly situated, and would have to argue their case before the courts independently from GLBTs.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    FYI - Orson Scott Card is a Democrat.

    Many of us know you don't have to cow tow the partyline 100% on all things, all the time.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Aug. 5, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    @Mike --

    "'Gay Marriage' is not listed. "

    The Supreme Court itself has declared that marriage is a right, in multiple court decisions.

    "From Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967): "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). "

    Oddly enough, I trust SCOTUS to know more about both the Constitution and our laws than you do.

    "A gay federal judge decided that he didn't accept the will of the people. "

    This is not actually what happened. Here's the basic facts:

    1. The Calif Supreme Court **invalidated** Prop 8 when it was called Prop 22.
    2. In 2009 it was "upheld" only in a procedural sense. It was declared an "amendment" rather than a "revision". The court COULDN'T really vote on its constitutionality, because it had **become** the constitution for that state.
    3. The district said "unconstitutional" -- 2010
    4. The circuit court said "unconstitutional, and also you have no standing." The Calif SC then insisted the defendants did have standing -- 2012
    5. The SCOTUS trial said again "you have no standing" -- 2013

  • Machado South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    Because of this bigotry, I personally refuse to support any individual or business that I know has gay leanings. It's not that I had their "gayness" but I abhor their bigotry. I wish others would join in returning fire with fire. Do not support anybody or anything gay until they are willing to rid themselves of bigotry and hatred.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Aug. 5, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    @jsf --

    "Aren't many women in monogamous relationships subject to those same harms?"

    The issue is the increased risk of harm, not the certainty of harm.

    For instance: I may drive drunk and get home safely -- but that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legalized. ALL driving presents some risks (like all marriage), but drunk driving conveys a significant INCREASE in risk (like polygamy).

    "This would include polygamy as long as it isn't formalized."

    Right.

    1. Informal polygamy is nearly impossible to prosecute anyway.
    2. Formalizing polygamy acts to trap the women and children. It's a lot harder for women to leave abusive relationships once legal and financial entanglements get formalized.

    "Your association of harm in all polygamist relationships is a bigoted generalization."

    No. I am recognizing the fact that polygamy **significantly increases risk**, not claiming that every polygamous relationship is harmful.

    @RAB --

    "Card wants to protect the fundamental right...."

    NOM is currently sponsoring two boycotts. If they can boycott, why can't anyone else?

    "Many of you speak as if there are THOUSANDS of voices speaking out in opposition to Card’s views."

    Yup. A majority of US voters now support gay marriage.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 5, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    @Contrarius:

    "Pro-gay-rights views don't kill people. Anti-gay views do. BIG difference." How do anti-gay views kill people? Lots of people are stating anti-views against something or someone, and it isn't killing anyone.

    I think that what you are saying is that if someone who was gay was murdered for being gay, e.g. Matthew Sheppard, then everyone who has some sort of a view that disagrees with your agenda, should therefore be restricted, not be tolerated, etc. (Florists, wedding photographers, diversity directors, psychologists, pastors?). That is group justice and no, I don't agree with that.

    Going a little off topic, last week I asked you to provide some examples of OSC's anti-gay rants. You did. Thank you. What you had was pretty tame. No epithets, no threats of violence, etc. (Look up Perez Hilton's rant against Miss California as a good example of a phobic anti-rant). The fact that you had to explain why OSC's comments were bad indicates that you probably felt that they were pretty tame too.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Aug. 5, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    @RAB --

    "Justify mob behavior all you want, it still amounts to intimidating people for voicing their views. "

    Pro-gay-rights views don't kill people. Anti-gay-rights views do. Big difference.

    As for mob behavior -- just look at what's happening in Russia right now.

    @Rikitikitavi --

    "Gays are incredibly promiscuous."

    If you're worried about promiscuity, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages **stable, committed** relationships.

    I am always amazed by the people who decry the supposed promiscuity of homosexuals -- and then turn around and try to deny those same homosexuals the tools they need to encourage commitment and monogamy. Can you see the obvious Catch-22 there?

    @Christian --

    "A minister who follows the God of the Bible..."

    Ministers have religious protection. Private business owners do not.

    This has been the law since the days of the lunch counter sit-ins. It is not anything new.

    "Same issue for any business owner, who has strong religious convictions, who is asked to give support services for the ceremony."

    Nope.

    How would you feel if any business owner had a strong religious conviction against serving Mormons?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 5, 2013 7:26 p.m.

    Marriage between a man ad a woman is legal in all 50 States. "Marriage" between a man and a woman who was given the body of a man by our Creator is not considered to be "marriage except is a very few States. There is no Constitutional right to marry; therefore, marriage is left to the States. A marriage license is issued by the State, not by the federal government. If there is that Constitutional right, cite the article and the section.

    According to the California Constitution, the voters in California can modify the State Constitution at he ballot box. The Federal Government cannot modify the Constitution of the State of California. The voters in California voted to change their Constitution. A federal judge mettled and decreed that he had the right to overturn the will of the people.

    Yes, I've repeated myself. There are too many people who think that a federal judge can do whatever he wants. Not in this Country - even if he's a gay activist.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 7:32 p.m.

    Re: "So folowing your argument...if I own a soda shop and I refuse to serve you beer because I think that drinking alcohol is wrong, I am being un-Christian???"

    No, but if you own a soda shop and sell soda to everybody else who comes in, is it Christian of you to refuse to sell soda to those whose morals or hair cut or nose you don't happen to approve of?

    Re: "I must abandon my principles and perform a ceremony for something that goes against my core beliefs just because you think I should have to???"

    Selling soda or cake or flowers is a ceremony?

    If your core beliefs are Christian, should you follow the teachings of Christ?

    "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets."

    In everything.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 8:53 p.m.

    "There is no fundamental right that prevents same-sex marriage from being legislated against. "

    ---

    The Constitution says that we gay couples have the right to expect to be treated equally by our government as they treat straight couples; so there is a "fundamental right" preventing same-sex marriage being legislated against.

    @2-bits;

    You're welcome to not support our "agenda'. Equal treatment by our government is such an abhorrent agenda anyway, right?

    @Machado;

    If you "abhor" our bigotry, do you also "abhor" the bigotry on your side? No? That is what we call "hypocritical" and you should go check out the words of Jesus about hypocrites. The bible contains many references against hypocrisy and only a very few against homosexuality. I expect you'll avoid any business that has a bigot in it.

    Card reaps what he sows. He has the right to not "approve of immorality"; he does NOT have the right to prevent people from being "immoral" (that's Satan's plan, right).

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 8:55 p.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2

    Its there, there are those moderate people who don't approve of extreme tactics. You just don't see it because the news won't report it.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    We don't "Hate" anybody.
    12:37 p.m. Aug. 5, 2013

    ===========

    Really?

    How about Pres. Obama?

    Plenty of hate radio parroted here.

    Democrats?
    Yes, them too.

    Hispanics?
    Yes, even those who here legally get cased.

    Shall I continue?...

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 10:19 p.m.

    "No shirt, no shoes, no service"

    Legal enough, right?

    If a patron announces that they steal stuff, does the proprietor have to let them stay in the store until they actually steal something?

    If a patron starts speaking graphically of sexual exploits, does the store or restaurant owner have to let them stay and continue to serve them? Or if they insult the store or it's owner, or workers, does the owner have the right to ask them to leave and refuse to serve them, or do they have to serve in silence.

    If not being dressed is grounds for denying service, so is sexual behavior and talk. If patrons don't want to be turned away, leave sexuality out of the conversation, and don't insult the store owner for his/her beliefs.

    In reality, most the cases that have gone to court, the businesses were "sexuality baited" to further the homosexual agenda. There are plenty of choices of stores, facilities, etc. for those of all beliefs and persuasions.

    But what the activists want is control over others. They seek to control their speech, their property, and even their thoughts.

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    Aug. 5, 2013 11:32 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil:
    "Government did not invent, not create the institution of marriage."

    Our state governments did. And there is a function and purpose for it. The government has an interest in the well-being of its citizens. That includes making sure, as near as possible, that children are reared and nurtured through their formative years and into adulthood to assure they will be good citizens. The family unit with a mom and a dad is the best method to accomplish this aim.

    "People 'connecting' today, to create informal 'families' unfortunately has become a norm, where living together is an accepted alternative to marriage..."

    Living together without marriage can certainly meet the objectives of a government provided children that are brought into the relationship are properly cared for. Marriage has an added incentive to keep the family together when defugalties arise.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 6, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2

    Your fears that the US government will force churches to marry same-sex couples are unfounded. Let go of them.

    The US government cannot force a church to marry two members of different faiths, if the church disapproves. The US government cannot force the Catholic Church to marry a person who has previously been divorced. The US government cannot force the LDS Church to provide a temple sealing to two members if the church deems them unworthy. The US government cannot force a church to marry two members of different races if the church disapproves. This has been settled law for a very long time.

    I hope you're less fearful of these things now.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 6, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    I really don't understand those of you who think that allowing all Americans to have legally-sanctioned marriages is going to result in the nullification of the 1st Amendment (forcing churches to perform ceremonies they don't wish to).

    Do you really think that those who believe in full citizenship for all would be willing to sacrifice our most fundamental freedoms? You believe it would be possible to elect enough members of Congress to get such a proposal on a nationwide ballot? You believe that a majority of people in a sufficient number of states would actually vote to overturn the 1st Amendment? And then you believe it would be possible to elect a President who would enforce it? You believe the American people would stand for that?

    There are so many checks and balances between legalizing marriage for all and forcing churches to do anything that your fears are ablsolutely ludicrous.

  • USMCer POST FALLS, ID
    Aug. 6, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    I can't express how much I disagree with those posters who actually think anyone who posts a responsible opinion are entitled to being publicly harassed and castigated for their opinion. This is NOT what this country stands for. Some here seem to think because Mr. Card is opposed to same sex marriage that he must therefore be someone's project. Let's put the shoe on the other foot and let the howling begin. Cries of homophobia and hate mongering would resonate all the way from city hall down to the 7-11 parking lot. We'd never hear the end of it. So why are we going after Mr. Card because he happens to have an opposing opinion?

    This isn't right and we are supposed to be better than this.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Aug. 7, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    To clarify things from a legal perspective: The Supreme Court decision declining to overturn the U.S. District Court's ruling in Hollingsworth on standing grounds does not establish a Constitutional right to "marry the person of your choice." The ruling, technically speaking, only applies to the district in which it was decided. Other federal appellate circuit courts are not bound by the decision. The underlying question will still have to be litigated.

    For myself, I would prefer that we reason together, and set our best arguments against each other in deliberative debate, than that we try to further our politics by attacking other people's livelihoods. Boycotts may be legal, but boycotting someone because you don't like his opinion isn't exactly "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It violates the spirit, if not the letter, of free speech and democratic discourse.

    Otherwise, we may well wind up dividing ourselves into tribes, all of us dealing only with people who think exactly like we do. Maybe it's time for that. I hope not.

  • Dr. Snow Tempe, AZ
    Aug. 7, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    It is not a two-way street. To object to Card's homophobia is not bigotry. I do not hate Card (or Mormonism or anything Mormons believe) because he is what he is. I do not _like_ his anti-gay rhetoric and I disagree with him vigorously that America should be overthrown if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry. I am not a bigot because I disagree with someone or some thing. I don't like Marxism. That doesn't make me a bigot. I also don't like beets and Sean Hannity. Card may be a Mormon in good standing, but that's no reason to side with him for his extremely virulent hatred and profound lack of compassion for how 9% of our population lives their lives. The fact is, Card was and still is rabidly anti-gay (and vocally so). For myself, Card will never receive a dime from me for anything. I'm tired of his bullying (and I went to college with him--he was the same then as now: a bully).

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    re Mike R on 8/5

    "The solution is simple. Boycott every business where people with whom you disagree work. Tell those business owners that you will take your business elsewhere."

    Not quite. A list was recently published in the DN listing companies with religious roots. Carls Jr as well In & out were on the list.

    I'm sorry but I'm not going to give up a good Cheeseburger over anothers belief in the supernatural.... That would be petty. I do avoid BK & McD as the last 2 times I've eaten @ each I've gotten real sick.