Quantcast
Utah

Utah politicians strong in support of traditional marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • well informed Salt Lake, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    Thank you so much for the story Lisa. Finally, a story about the good guys.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    "Finally, a story about the good guys."

    I'm a little bit concerned about what you mean by that. Are you saying that those who are for gay marriage are "the bad guys?" I certainly hope that is not what you mean. I'm tired of hearing people demonize those who have opposing views on such touchy issues, and I hope we can all remember that this issue really comes down to people and how we treat those who are different than the rest of us.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    "a story about the good guys."

    Good guys don't violate the Constitution in order to oppress others.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:33 p.m.

    Not the bad guys, just the wrong idea guys. I'm proud of our leaders who are standing up for traditional marriage. Utah is awesome.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:36 p.m.

    I was there today but couldn't stay for the whole event unfortunately. It was great to hear the inspiring words in support of the traditional family structure, which the very survival of our civilization depends on. It was a little disappointing to see that we couldn't peacefully celebrate that together without opposing activists trying to intimidate the rest of us, but in the end it was a minor irritant that was easily ignored for the far more important messages, since the signs were full of the same tired, long-ago discounted bumper sticker wisdom that we all know too well.

    I'm sure the same gay activists will smile with equally loving acceptance when the next Gay Pride Parade is surrounded by a thousand hymn-singing Mormons holding large signs supporting traditional marriage!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 12:31 a.m.

    From our own Deseret news:

    'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

    Now for the balance:

    'Poll: Support for gay marriage up among Catholics' – By Jillian Rayfield – Salon – 03/08/13

    'A Majority of Young Republicans Support Gay Marriage' - —By Tim Murphy – Mother Jones – 03/08/2013

    'Poll: New High Of 58 Percent Support Same-Sex Marriage' – By TOM KLUDT – By Talking Points Memo – 03/18/13

    'At a time when the Supreme Court prepares to take up same-sex marriage and the Republican Party determines the best approach to the issue going forward, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday showed a new high-water mark in support for the right of gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot. 
    The poll found 58 percent of Americans now believe marriage should be legal for same-sex couples, while just 36 percent said it should be illegal.'

  • BarkforSark PROVO, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:21 a.m.

    "Good guys don't violate the Constitution in order to oppress others."

    Good guys don't oppress others by compelling them to violate their consciences.

  • Normal Guy Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:33 a.m.

    "Good guys don't violate the Constitution in order to oppress others."

    Most of us are waiting until June to see what the SCOTUS says about the constitutionality of the traditional marriage laws rather than glibly throwing out pronouncements now. Based on the discussions the Justices had yesterday it appears that these laws will be upheld. The Justices understand that a social experiment of this magnitude deserves way more time than it has currently been given and that the current laws were not made to persecute homosexuals but to promote traditional marriage.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    March 27, 2013 5:44 a.m.

    No one is asking for the use of Temples, Churches, Mosques, Synagogues or any religious building or being sanctioned by such a group. LGBT people are only being asked to be treated equally - seems strikingly familiar to what most Christian faiths teach. What I don’t understand is why religious organizations want to impose their definition of marriage on a group whose inclusion in marriage will – in no way affect any religious organization.

  • Fibonacci Centerville, UT
    March 27, 2013 6:30 a.m.

    I loved the comment by one of the rally participants: "The one thing we all have in common here is that we all had a mother and a father".

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    March 27, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    Traditional marriage began long ago with Adam and Eve. The human race began with the union of a man and a woman. This is God's law...nature's law. You don't see anything in the animal kingdom violate it except the human race. Even then, it is a small percentage.

    We attended RootsTech in SLC over the weekend. Everything in family history going back in every single family line is a father and a mother. Some lines go back to Adam, ours to the 1400's. It's always documented with a father and a mother and their children from generation to generation. A beautiful plan of God. May it be ever so with our country protected under the Constitution, also God given.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 27, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    Silly people, you forget something: WE also support 'traditional marriage'. We, however, support the marriages of ALL Americans, not just those who believe like you do. This is about equality, not about anti-marriage.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    March 27, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    The fact that this is even an issue shows just how far we can sunk as a culture. I wonder how much longer we have before we just go completely over the cliff like societies of the past--Sodom and Gomorah, for example.

  • History Freak Somewhere in Time, UT
    March 27, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    To say that no one is asking to perform these marriages in Temples and Churches is NOT TRUE and, in fact, this has already happened in some places. Churches have actually lost their tax-free status for refusing to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings and committment ceremonies. Catholic Charities has been forced to stop adoption services because they refuse to adopt out children to gay couples. Common sense is gone with the wind.

    If Prop 8 is overturned, it will mean that the people of California do not have the right to determine what is in their own constitution. A handful of judges will be able to make that determination over the heads of the people.

    When I was growing up, I used to always hear that the world would become so wicked that the faithful would be praying for the world to end and the Saviour to come again. I think we've about reached that point. I wonder how much time we have left.

  • BYUsuperfan PROVO, UT
    March 27, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    Hummm, when your paper is covering an event you might give us an accurate idea of what was going on. I was there last night and the pro gay marriage people outnumbered the traditional family supporters. Not that you say one is better then the other because of that, just report the facts. That might also say something of the grass roots support of gay marriage in Utah and Utah might not be as anti gay marriage as everyone thinks. All I ask is you give an accurate report of the event. I think a major part of the story was what a large number of gay marriage supporters there were and how peaceful and respectful both groups were. As a reporter sometimes you need to adjust your coverage as the facts and events warrant. I hope you take constructive criticism of your paper.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 27, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    @BYUAlum --

    "You don't see anything in the animal kingdom violate it except the human race. "

    Actually, homosexual behavior is well known in many non-human species. We are far from unique there.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 27, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Can believe this is even an issue. Amazing how low people would go for government benefits.

    Truth be known, 99.9% of gays weren't born that way. It's a learned addiction.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 27, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    Worf -- "Truth be known, 99.9% of gays weren't born that way. It's a learned addiction."

    Why would you think that homosexual behavior is any more "addictive" than heterosexual behavior? Do you truly believe that homosexual behavior feels a whole lot better than heterosexual behavior? Where's the appeal?

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    I actually think the well known gay, Elton John, had it right. Just give equal rights to same sex couples, benefits from government and all. But not call it "marriage". I see no problem in that. Marriage as a word should remain unique for what it has always been, opposite sex couples. This whole argument might just really be a debate about definitions.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    Just don't call it marriage?

    American history has proven that 'separate but equal' is never equal. It was called segregation.

    It failed.

    Civil unions, etc, factually do not give all the benefits of marriage. Recognition across state lines being the most evident.

    With the 'Defense of Marriage Act' or DOMA, being responsible.

    If you get married in Utah, is your marriage recognized in Texas?

    I hope so.

    Here is the example of why LGBT need legal marriage recognition in America:

    'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    '...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

    And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information...

    Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

    They were together for 18 years.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    March 27, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    The biggest fallacy being repeated on here is the constant attempt to hijack the civil rights movement in the service of gay marriage. Just because you want something really, really bad does not magically make it comparable to race. Race has nothing to do with marriage. At all. Gender has EVERYTHING to do with marriage. It's why it exists in the first place. Governmental endorsement of traditional marriage is not now, and never was, about blessing love between two adults...thank God. It has always been, and is now, about ensuring that children have a claim on support from their biological parents, and have a right to both a mother and a father, which we know empirically is the ideal - but obviously not the only - family structure.

    Saying two parents is better than a single parent is NOT hateful towards single parents, else a lot of gay activists would be "hateful". Likewise, recognizing that having a mother and a father is better than a single parent, or two of the same gender, is also NOT hateful but merely a recognition of reality. You may disagree, but that doesn't somehow make me "hateful" because you disagree.

  • QuercusQate Wallsburg, UT
    March 27, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    @HistoryFreak, the few legal cases you cite are examples of religions operating public businesses (which don't have a religious justification for discriminatory practices). Catholic Charities accepts federal funding, and they chose to shut down rather than to continue to discriminate AND lose federal funding.

    These instances have NOTHING to do with religions losing their constitutional right to discriminate against blacks, women, gays, non-members, etc. That right is firmly established in law, and it is why I and others haven't sued the LDS Church for the right to marry in their temples or to hold their male priesthood.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 27, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    The gays here are omitting the simple fact that once gay marriage is ok in a state that just begins their militant march to force others to embrace and endorse their beliefs.

    Just look around for instances where gays have sued Fertility Doctors, Cake Decorators, Photographers, event planners, and reception halls to force those people to accomodate their gay beliefs.

  • QuercusQate Wallsburg, UT
    March 27, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    Redshirt, in some states (not Utah, btw) gays have the right to sue certain businesses for discriminatory practices, just like you could sue them for refusing to serve you [a man/Mormon/white/straight].

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 27, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    To "QuercusQate" so what is your point? Businesses should have the ability to determine who they will do business with. If they want to discriminate, then they have the right to do so.

    Think of the businesses that are closed on Sunday for religious reasons. Should I be able to sue them because they refuse to be open on Sunday?

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    March 27, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    Re: Pagan

    It would be fine with me if civil unions were recognized by all states. And don't worry, it is clear that the way the trend is going, all of you activists are going to get everything you want in the coming years. If not from legislatures, then from the courts. Just remember though, you reap what you sow.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 27, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    @Redshirt --

    "Businesses should have the ability to determine who they will do business with. If they want to discriminate, then they have the right to do so."

    No, they don't. Businesses haven't had the legal right to discriminate since the days of the lunch counter sit-ins, more than 50 years ago.

    @Voice of Reason --

    "It has always been, and is now, about ensuring that children have a claim on support from their biological parents, and have a right to both a mother and a father"

    No, it hasn't. If children had a "right" to both a mother and a father, then it would be illegal to have a child out of wedlock and divorce would be banned.

    Also, many unwed mothers are able to obtain court-ordered child support, even when they are not married to the biological fathers.

    Marriage is actually about creating social stability. And stability benefits society in many ways, both familial and financial. Anybody who truly cares about children should encourage that stability by SUPPORTING gay marriages.

  • bob j Maryborough, 00
    March 27, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    The LDS Church view point is the same as that in the Holy Bible and that of the Holy Bible is that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    As we read the scriptures it becomes evident regarding what befalls those who fail to obey Heavenly laws.
    America is a favoured country - at present - BUT - ????

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    March 27, 2013 4:45 p.m.

    "American history has proven that 'separate but equal' is never equal. It was called segregation."

    That is where you are dead wrong, at least partly. Yes, 'separate but equal' when it comes to race is wrong. But we have 'separate but equal' laws that recognize separate, but legally equal, treatment of inherently different people all...the...time.

    Gender - I can't go in a woman's restroom. Separate. But equal.

    A woman can't go into a men's locker room. Separate. But equal.

    Blind people cannot drive, but can be driven. Separate. But equal.

    Men & Women have different physical standards for military service. Separate. But equal.

    Non-Mormons can't go into a temple, but can go into their own. Separated. But still equal.

    A Chinese national can't enter our country without a visa. Separated, but still equal.

    Shall I go on? A marriage certificate is a government protection for the biological reality of heterosexual reproduction, which in case you missed HS Sex Ed can only happen between a man and a woman. Athiests can recognize that. Gays can recognize that. It does not automatically imply an insult against gays - it simply recognizes and protects biological reality.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 27, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    @Voice of Reason --

    "But we have 'separate but equal' laws that recognize separate, but legally equal, treatment of inherently different people "

    **In cases where the differences are relevant**, sure.

    HOWEVER -- the institution of marriage is actually about creating stability, not just about reproduction. Infertile people are allowed to marry all the time -- even when it is quite obvious that the people will never be able to produce children, as with the aged. And in terms of creating stability, there is no relevant difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Homosexuals are just as able to form committed relationships as heterosexuals are.

    Now, that is certainly NOT to say that children are irrelevant to marriages. Stable relationships, as encouraged by marriages, are very beneficial to children. And, of course, gay people are just as able to raise adopted children as straight people are. In which case, benefits of the stable relationships encouraged by marriage will benefit the children as well.

    "A marriage certificate is a government protection for the biological reality of heterosexual reproduction"

    No. A marriage certificate is a governmental acknowledgment and encouragement of a stable, committed relationship. And committed relationships are blind to sexual orientation.

  • QuercusQate Wallsburg, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    Voice, because of our religious norms and expectations, Utah has thousands of gays who have married a heterosexual partner and reproduced. (For several generations, including mine, hetero marriage was actually the recommendation of bishops to people who were "struggling" with their attractions.) Sooner or later these people realized they shouldn't be denying their true identities, or they acknowledged how unfair the situation was for their hetero partner, and they divorced. Some of them retained custody of the children.

    Gay parents of "natural" children are quite common (not that "natural" children are better than those who are adopted, but to address your point). All children of gays are prohibited by Utah law to be united to married parents, depriving the children of the financial benefits, security, and support systems that all other children have. Even if you hate the idea of gay marriage, you should at least consider the plight of their children.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 27, 2013 10:10 p.m.

    Blacks were mistreated. Indians were mistreated. Heterosexuals have been mistreated. Gays?

    Are there any group of people who haven't been mistreated?

    How's the feds going to benefit all these mistreated people?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 27, 2013 10:39 p.m.

    amazondoc- your statement is not true. Animals are attracted to a scent, and don't know the difference between male, and female.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 28, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    @worf --

    "amazondoc- your statement is not true. Animals are attracted to a scent, and don't know the difference between male, and female."

    Of course they do.

    First off, the very fact that animals DON'T generally mate everything in sight proves that they DO know the difference between male and female -- by whatever means they do it.

    As for smell supposedly being the determining factor...where to begin...

    Let's try this -- most bird species have very little sense of smell. So how do you expect them to know who to mate with?

    Aso -- toothed whales supposedly don't have any sense of smell at all. How to they pick out a future mate?

    And btw -- WHAT statement of mine was untrue? And what has any of this got to do with gay marriage?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 28, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" actually the institution of marriage is not about stability. It is a religious right that means different things to different religons.

    A loving gay couple cannot raise children equal to a loving hetrosexual couple. For example, can 2 gay men relate 100% to an adolecent girl coping with changes to her body during puberty? Can 2 lesbians be a full time example of what it means to be a man?

    They can immitate it, but will never be the same as a hetersexual couple.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 28, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "It is a religious right that means different things to different religons."

    Actually, in this context it's a civil contract. The Supreme Court is not hearing cases about religious rites, I assure you. And no religious marriage will ever be recognized by the federal or state governments unless you also have that civil marriage license.

    "A loving gay couple cannot raise children equal to a loving hetrosexual couple."

    This isn't a contest, and it isn't an either/or question. The children being raised by gay couples are either adopted from broken or abusive homes, or are given up by unwed mothers, or are produced by insemination or surrogacy, or are children from a previous divorce. Those children don't have a "happy heterosexual home" to go to in ANY of those cases. Nobody is stealing kids from stable heterosexual homes. In fact, thousands of kids grow up in foster homes and orphanages RIGHT NOW because there simply aren't enough loving homes to go around.

    Allowing gay marriage **increases** the number of stable, loving homes available for kids in need. That is GOOD for kids. NOBODY is taking children away from happy, loving parents.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 28, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" the problem is that by legalizing gay marriage it results in a devaluation of marriage for that society. Legalizing gay marriage results in few marriages being performed overall, and that will only damage society as a whole.

    Do you believe that it is good to damage society as a whole in favor of the 1% of the US that is gay?

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 28, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    @Redshirt --

    "the problem is that by legalizing gay marriage it results in a devaluation of marriage for that society. Legalizing gay marriage results in few marriages being performed overall, and that will only damage society as a whole."

    Who says?? Where's your evidence??

    Let's take a look at the facts:

    In Canada and the other G8 countries, marriage rates per 1000 citizens have been declining since the 1970s. The graph I've seen makes it look as though the Canadian decline actually got **slower** after 2004, but I haven't seen an analysis of the specific numbers. The rate of change certainly didn't get larger.

    The US has also had a large drop in the marriage rate since the 70s. However, in Massachusetts, since gay marriages have become legal, that drop has only been HALF of the average rate seen in the rest of the country. Marriage rates in MA are still slightly **higher** than they were just before gay marriages were legalized.

    In 2011, 4 out of the 10 states with the **lowest** divorce rates allow gay marriage. NY, CT, IA, VT, NH, and MA all have **lower** divorce rates after legalizing gay marriage than just before.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 28, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" go and read "Gay Marriage has sent the Netherlands the way of Scandinavia" in the National Review. They point out that once gay marriage took hold that the decrease in actual marriages became more pronounced. They point out that " the upswing in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate coincides with the enactment of registered partnerships and gay marriage. "

    The states that are experiencing the drop in divore rates have not had the experiment with Gay marriage mature. Once the initial bump wears off, you will see their divorce rate drop again back to the smae level as others.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 28, 2013 7:45 p.m.

    @Redshirt --

    Try again. That article you cited is **nine years old**.

    In 2011, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy -- an **anti-gay marriage** think tank -- published numbers showing that the marriage rate in the Netherlands has been declining **steadily** since 1999. That was two years BEFORE gay marriage became legalized there. In other words, the legalization of gay marriage there had **no** effect on the decline.

    And yes, in part domestic partnerships are now taking the place of some of those marriages -- for both homosexual **and** heterosexual couples in that country. And again, that process started **before** gay marriages became legal there.

    Also, interestingly, divorce rates for homosexual marriages in that country have been the same as for heterosexuals since legalization.

    Here's some additional interesting numbers for you, originally published in the Wall Street Journal:

    Denmark -- gay registered partnerships in 1989 -- by 1999, the marriage rate had **increased** by 10.7% -- divorce dropped by 13.9%
    Norway -- ditto in 1993 -- by 2003, the marriage rate had **increased** by 12.7% -- divorce dropped by 6%
    Sweden -- ditto in 1995 -- by 2005, the marriage rate had **increased** by 28.7 % -- divorce dropped by 13.7%

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 29, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    @zoar63 --

    "Another argument that was used before homosexuality was decriminalized."

    Some court cases succeed, others don't. No surprise there.

    "I am afraid that once the definition changes there will be no excuse tp prevent polyggamists from legally getting married"

    You have the right to be afraid of whatever you like. That doesn't mean that your fears are rational or reasonable.

    Incidentally -- several Scandinavian countries have had gay "registered partnerships" (more like marriages than our "civil unions") for 20 years and more. And none of them have had crowds of polygamists, pedophiles, or would-be incest-perpetrators mobbing their courthouses. This is the *reality* of what happens in countries that legally recognize gay partnerships -- specifically, not much!

    @RedShirt

    ""sister wives" is a reality show."

    And of course "reality shows" are well known for their reliable reflections of actual reality. Like that bastion of educational TV, "The Bachelor". And "Housewives of Beverly Hills". And whatever that Kardashian show is called. Got it.

    "I have known some polygamists that are in the Salt Lake area"

    I never said that polygamists are evil. I only said that there are significant, known, concrete risks associated with the practice.