Quantcast
Utah

Supporters of traditional marriage regroup after SCOTUS ruling

Comments

Return To Article
  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 12:02 a.m.

    People who claim to support "traditional marriage" should spend their time actually working to STRENGTHEN MARRIAGE.

    Stop persecuting people who WANT to get married, and start working to get MORE people interested in creating stable marriage relationships. Fight unmarried cohabitation, fight divorce, spread the word about the benefits of marriage -- don't fight people who ALREADY want to share the benefits of married life.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:59 a.m.

    We once believed that men were 100% male and women were 100% female. Of course we now know that is not true. Both physically and chemically there is male and female in all of us. It should come as no surprise that sexual orientation has some variance as in bisexuality and homosexuality. In other words heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are natural. Can we in good conscience deny the protections of marriage to the latter two. I think not.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:39 a.m.

    Push to get gov't out of marriage and have civil unions for everyone with equal rights. That's the only way to possibly avoid inevitably having same-sex marriage nationwide.

    Let's face it, people like me will be less willing to compromise later when victory is imminent.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:03 a.m.

    Those statistics "on behavior stemming from a decline in traditional homes" have to do with divorce, fighting, abuse, neglect, an absent parent, etc. within such homes. What does that have to do with two loving people who want to marry because they are committed to each other?

  • Rand Ogden, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:31 a.m.

    I don't understand these people. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing homosexual secular marriages. It did nothing to diminish traditional secular or religious marriage. This will make up, what, 2% of all marriages? Unless this group is getting hung up on the fact that homosexuals will also get to use the word "marriage", in which case they need to grow up.

    This has always been the case, traditional marriage "supporters" try feverishly to demonstrate the harm gay marriage will do to society and always come up short, but they still keep screaming about the decline of the family. Once someone tries to ban or reduce heterosexual marriage and heterosexual marriages aren't imploding at a rate of 50%, then maybe I will take you seriously.

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    June 27, 2013 6:23 a.m.

    I believe it is misleading to call such groups "supporters of traditional marriage". It's not traditional marriage that is targeted by legislation or court decisions like yesterday's. They demand that one particular type of marriage be ensconced in law in such a way that other types of marriage and family are forbidden. If "traditionalists" were out demanding that they be allowed to practice marriage the way they want in the face of legal and economic barriers, I'd be a great supporter, just as I am of proponents of the freedom for gay men and women to practice marriage the way they think best. But this group's desires include preventing millions from enjoying marriage that is conceptualised in terms that don't conform to DOMA-type ideals. I want everyone to have the freedom and rights that these groups want to limit to themselves. They are forbidders of marriages that differ from their private definitions more than they are supporters of the right for men and women to marry in the patterns of a century ago. They want continued state intervention on behalf of their personal religious beliefs. Only in Newspeak are they "supporters of traditional marriage".

  • cassadove Tampa, FL
    June 27, 2013 6:35 a.m.

    " 'America has paid a great price for weakening its marriage laws,' Barton said." - My question is, why does marriage need to be in our law to begin with? I'm fairly sure that there is no section or clause of the Constitution which says that our interpersonal relationships (sans the case of abuse, obviously) need to be watched over or levied taxes upon by the government. In order for marriage to not be defined by the ways of the world, it needs to be taken out of the world.

  • sjc layton, UT
    June 27, 2013 6:47 a.m.

    Just how do you "protect" traditional marriage by denying it to others ? Maybe take better care of your own marriage - that's the only marriage you have any business judging

  • albertinamel REDMOND, WA
    June 27, 2013 6:52 a.m.

    The headline of this article alone shows its bias. The headline really ought to read, "Opponents of gay marriage regroup after SCOTUS ruling." The current headline implies that supporters of traditional marriage are mutually exclusive from supporters of gay marriage. All the gay marriage supporters I know (which are most of the people in my circle of friends) are heterosexuals who also support traditional marriage. I am a "supporter of traditional marriage" and a supporter of gay marriage. Happy marriages where the partners support each other emotionally, physically, and financially should all be supported, irrespective of the genders of the people involved.

  • Brian Utley Freedom, IN
    June 27, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    There is nothing "traditional" about traditional marriage laws, as you and the folks you are describing define them. Mormons, for instance, in a limited sense know this; yet they somewhat ingenuously stand by this relatively modern definition of marriage within their own society. For thousands of years, in hundreds of different cultures, marriage has been defined in dozens of different ways that have very little relationship to these "traditional" marriages these folks insist on. Sociologists know this; historians know this; genealogists know this---so why not speak the truth on the subject in trying to persuade opinion? (Because that's all it ever has been--opinion. Beyond the many ways that children can be conceived, marriage is about relationships. People coming together in peace in as many ways possible has always been a good thing, not a bad thing.)

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    The thing that all these folks are forgetting (or are being dishonest about) is that "traditional" marriage isn't going to change just because an LGBT couple can also get married.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    If these folks were serious about genuinely supporting marriage, affirming the benefit to society from couples making mutual life commitments and wanting to build a life together, then they should have been celebrating yesterday, too.

    It's the fact that they viewed yesterday's events as a cause for a "wake" and they brought in the wildly mendacious David Barton ("I'm not really an historian but for fee I'll pretend to be one for you"), that makes me think these folks actually don't care a whit about marriage, they really just want to share their enthusiasm for authoritarian, repressive theocracy.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    If you would stop using "strengthening traditional marriage" as a euphemism for "deny gay families legal rights and protections" you would have a lot more supporters of your cause. I am all for strengthening marriage. I am all for strengthening families and reducing deadbeat dads, single mothers who bring abusive boyfriends into the home with their children, etc.

    Those are the "attacks" on marriage. Loving, committed, gay and lesbian people who want to legally protect their family are not the attack that is weakening marriage.

  • Wyomex Burlington, WY
    June 27, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    Just because five black robes don't find marriage "defensible" doesn't mean it isn't.

    Just because the word "marriage" is redefined by some in society, doesn't mean it doesn't mean what it means! This duck still walks like a duck.

    Of course, words change over time. Unfortunately, "marriage" is headed there. The pattern has been established with other words. We certainly don't think of gay, closet, rainbow or outing the same way we did in the past.

    Hang onto the rights to "sealing" and "temple marriage" with all your might because the next attack in this long-term, well thought out agenda won't have so much to do with words, but with religion.

  • Charles.Reese FULTON, MO
    June 27, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    Marriage is instituted between a man and woman for the purposes of procreation in a correct and binding marriage. Homosexual practices defeat why we have male and female couples. I had posted a comment yesterday regarding the SCOTUS decision regarding homosexuals, benefits, and Prop 8 in California. However, someone chose to take offense to what I said and it was not posted.

    Basically what I said is that no where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned or benefits for married couples. Congress made a law(s) for the benefit of heterosexual couples to ease their financial burden that they must undertake while they have children. Homosexual believe that they are entitled such benefits and it is unconstitutional.

    It is perhaps unfair, but not unconstitutional. It would be nice if people including the high court judges would read the constitution before going off and having a knee jerk reaction.

    Now, what the SCOTUS did yesterday in overruling a decision made by voters in California in regards to Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It did not go against any federal law, therefore the court was clearly out of line.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    People opposed to same-sex marriage cannot name one way in which it will affect their man-woman marriage. There is not one way that it has a negative affect.

  • GodLoveTheWord Vero Beach, FL
    June 27, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    Just to echo some sentiments, there is no sense in getting up in arms or wasting energy on this issue, in the end judgement will come from a higher power. In the meanwhile, liberals should not expect us to just "accept" without having opinions, or with heterosexuals taking umbrage with the "gay agenda". It is our freedom to disagree, just as it is your freedom to agree and foster the homosexual agenda.

  • LeftBehind SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    June 27, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    One does not have to be a opponent of gay marriage to be a supporter of traditional marriage. Using the term 'Supporters of traditional marriage' when you mean 'Opponent of gay marriage' is a misnomer and smacks of George Orwell's Newspeak.

    To believe that 'Supporter of Traditional Marriage' automatically means 'Opponent of Gay Marriage' is to believe that in supporting gay marriage you are against traditional marriage. This is patently false. No one is trying to take away anyone's rights to a traditional marriage. No one is saying that any church will be forced to marry gay couples, just as no one can force the Catholic Church to grant a divorce.

    Look at movements in history that have predicated their own rights (whether racial, religious, National or gender-based) on the denial of those same rights to others. Invariably these movements are assigned a page in infamy in the backwaters of history.

  • GodLoveTheWord Vero Beach, FL
    June 27, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    Liberal thought police are only happy when we agree totally with the agenda they are fostering. There are folks, like myself, who take umbrage with normalizing this preference. That is the basis of freedom and free speech my liberal friends...in a nutshell...while you do not have to agree with those of us who oppose homosexuality...remember...we ALSO do not have to agree or "accept" you're agenda either.

  • conservative and proud Orem, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    We have our agency, but not the right to choose the consequences of our choices. A lot of people are going to be very unhappy when they stand before our Savior. Laugh now, you'll cry later.

  • Albemar West Jordan, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    The 13 year old young lady missed one of the primary reasons for the ruling by Justice Kennedy, where he said DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives"

    Still waiting for one rational explanation of how someone's "Traditional Marriage" has been harmed by allowing a "Same-Sex" couple to get married. Still waiting, and waiting, and waiting...

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    My 'traditional' marriage is no less strong today than it was yesterday. It comes down to what my wife and I put into it.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    June 27, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    "We have met the enemy and it is us". Justice Kennedy broke the 4-4 tie with a state's rights decision. If he came out against gay marriage, then it would have become a federal issue. This is all about "Tower of Babel" mentality. The people have become "gods unto themselves" with no respect for authority and the acceptance of a higher authority that even is a cornerstone belief of Alcoholics Anonymous. The idea is to destroy all religions from a Marxist viewpoint and to level the playing field. John Lennon in "Imagine" took a swipe at religion as being divisive. While in Ulster for the G-8 Conference, our president basically said the same thing. The Democratic Party has become Marxist inspired while the Republican Party is mired in capitalism. My answer is the formation of a third party with labor sans the entitled and redistribution of wealth in concert with common sense capitalists. Sadly, this is all about the destruction of capitalism. The "ant" who is working to put away for the winter is being attacked from both ends of the political spectrum.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    So sad to see they have indoctrinated another generation into their lies and decite only to use her as a prop I think those are some "traditional" values we can do without pasing on.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    @atl134 You're right, get government out of the marriage business and focus on civil unions.

    Government = social unions
    Social groups = marriage

  • midvale guy MIDVALE, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Cor 4:3 "I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself" Translation-God is the only one who should judge. While I am against this ruling, feel free to exercise any behaviour you would like. God will decide on judgement day what is right and wrong based on the true law, not the law of the US. I choose to investigate and know what my interpretation of those laws are and I will continue to live accordingly with His help.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    conservative and proud: "A lot of people are going to be very unhappy when they stand before our Savior."

    Two things: First, yours is the voice of the GOP base today, and it's why the party is increasingly irrelevant and increasingly rejected by the rest of the world. It simply does not stand up to objective examination.

    Second, your statement above calls to mind the words of Marcus Aurelius.

    "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    June 27, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    Good grief! Who DOESN'T support marriage for heterosexuals?

  • kiapolo Washington, DC
    June 27, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    "GodLoveTheWord" and "conservative and proud" -- your 'arguments' sound a bit like this: "MY MAGICAL SKY WIZARD WILL PUNISH YOU FOR BEING ACCEPTING OF OTHERS!". Get the heck over yourselves, and try to spend a few minutes of your life thinking objectively about the situation. Just because you have the ability to discriminate does not make your "opinion" ok; much in the same way as having an "opinion" about oppressing any other group of humans based on skin color, religion or any other metric is not ok. Acting out that dissent has already been correctly classified in the cases of racism as being a "hate crime".

    Imagine for a moment that someone told you that your religion was a sin, and that they would fight you blindly to make what you practice a crime.

  • Robert Johnson Sunland, CA
    June 27, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    The opponents of marriage equality are desperately clinging to the last vestiges of government supported discrimination, but they will ultimately fail. The DOMA decision, Kennedy in particular, clearly demonstrated that there are 5 strong votes for marriage equality on the Supreme Court. Have any doubts? Why do you think that Scalia's dissent was so vitriolic? The re-election of President Obama has virtually denied the radical right-wing any attempt (at least in this generation) to garner the votes necessary to push forward their right-wing agenda. While the opponents of marriage equality live to see another day, their attempts to prevent the inevitable will be in vain. America will soon live up to her promise of "Liberty and Justice for all".

  • my two cents777 ,
    June 27, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    I am curious about the number of divorces in this judgmental group who so fear for the family unit simply because a same sex couple can , now, be legally married. How many of you are currently divorcees or have been divorced at one time? YOU would be a bigger danger to the family unit than any same sex couple. How many of you are languishing in a bad marriage and how does the marriage of a same sex couple impact your already deteriorating family? Give us a break. I am a heterosexual woman, married for 46 years to my high school sweetheart and I absolutely detest those who JUDGE same sex couples for loving one another. Heavenly Father created us ALL- are you calling HIM out as having made a mistake? I fear for YOUR eternity- not that of homosexuals- who God also created. Shame on you. JUDGE NOT.

  • Moabmom Moab, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    The "laws" of men don't trump God's laws or change His definition of marriage and family or moral behavior. The GBLT community choose the State as their "moral authority" over God. They prefer the sanction of the State over the blessings of God. That's their choice. They have chosen the straw man of "equality" over the eternal. One of these days, maybe they will figure out that you can't legislate faith in God. Both abortion and gay "marriage" are "legal" according to man's law, but neither is moral or right in God's eyes so nothing has really changed.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    It's kind of funny (not in a comical way).

    Those who moan about Mitt's 47% are really petulant when the Government doesn't "have their back"

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Unless I I am somehow mistaken, the Supreme Court rulings are not the defeat for conservatives that they and various religions think they are. Traditional marriage will not be affected.

    If I had to guess one reason God makes different kinds of people is he wants to test us and strengthen our ability to love. if everybody was just like us it wouldn't be so much of a challenge or a growing experience.

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    to GodLoveTheWord

    It would appear you have an "acceptance" problem.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    June 27, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    I am one man who is married to one woman, my first and only wife for over 29 years. I am the very definition of "traditional marriage" and I can tell you this: Letting my LGBT fellow Americans enter into the obligations of marriage does my marriage no harm, and in fact strengthens my marriage by them demonstrating with their actions the value of committed monogamous lifelong marriage.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    @Albemar and Ernest Bass:

    The reason you are still waiting, waiting and waiting is because any explanation that doesn't agree with your premise won't be considered rational by you or others with their own preconceived notions or what is right or wrong. Close-mindedness precludes the ability to understand others who feel differently. And granted, that sometimes goes both ways.

    My two Cents777 just proved my point by saying he utterly detests those who don't agree with him. He doesn't detest their viewpoints. He said he detests them.

    You've already indicated your strong feelings and hence your unwillingness to seriously consider any opposing viewpoints. Any explanation to you, no matter how well written and thought-out would simply be a waste of time. And in your heart, you already know that.

    From my experience, most left-wing commenters are not interested in open discussion, but only in pushing their agenda on others and then arguing... and nothing more. Hence, the strong rebuttals I'll soon receive for saying even this much.

    I now need to leave for work. No response to attacks will be forthcoming. I won't be back online until this evening. Sorry.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    @Moabmom --

    "The GBLT community choose the State as their "moral authority" over God."

    Many religious Christians and Jews SUPPORT gay marriage. Many Christian and Jewish denominations are ALREADY happy to perform gay wedding ceremonies.

    Their religious and moral beliefs are every bit as valid as yours.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    June 27, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    What a laugh to sit here and read comments from the flaming gay persons and their supporters, trying to justify gay marriage. I wired a light and two outlets in my home once, doesn't mean I'm an electrician, as much as I would like to be thought of as one. I've driven a big rig through a field and even down the road a few miles, doesn't mean I'm a certified, or qualified big rig operator, as much as I might want to be. I've read about and reviewed few law cases, and can even offer an opinion about them. Would love to argue them, but doesn't mean I'm a lawyer, even if I wanted to be(believe me I don't want to be that ashamed of myself). You can solicit the government to impose your version of marriage on the rest of us, but that doesn't really make it a "valid" marriage. You may think or feel that you have made yourself legitimate, but you really haven't!

  • Woody Newbury Park, CA
    June 27, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    It seems the legal team supporting Prop 8 were not the sharpest knives in the drawer. To let a proposition legally passed by a majority die on a technicality is a disgrace. The Court should have been required to decide the case on it's merits. The Court enabled a couple of elected officials to veto any proposition they don't like. The lawyers should have made the case about them. They should have asked for sanctions to compel them to do their constitutional duty. Even the day after it is the gay activists who are calling for a formal repeal of the law, since it is legally a part of the State Constitution.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    @GodLovetheWord
    "Liberal thought police are only happy when we agree totally with the agenda they are fostering. "

    As opposed to your side that was only happy when they banned gay marriage by putting it in their state constitutions too? Our side is the one that still argues that your church can do what they want to.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    Same sex "Marriage" is an issue for those of us who are opposed to it, for one very core, but seldom articulated, reason: It serves to promote a radical agenda that attempts to mainstream homosexuality and everything associated with it.

    For those of us who consider the homosexual lifestyle to be morally corrupt and indefensible, its promotion is a threat to the happiness and stability of our families. I do not dispute that homosexuality has biological underpinnings. Nor do I condone violence or overt hatred towards those who consider themselves to be homosexual. I do, however, want it to go back into the closet where it belongs. As things now stand, the radical agenda is being so aggressively promoted, that I fear that impressionable young people will be led to embrace the lifestyle, to the detriment of their ultimate happiness--when they would have otherwise chosen traditional heterosexual marriage and family.

    Practicing a homosexual lifestyle is still a choice--underlying tendencies notwithstanding. It is no different from the moral choices that heterosexuals face. They may have tendencies, for example, to want to have illicit extramarital relationships, but make a conscious choice to act otherwise.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 27, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    The refrain that Gay Marriage somehow diminishes Straight Marriage is why conservatives are losing this debate.

    Same sex marriages are legal in thirteen States, the District of Columbia, and five Indian tribes. Nobody is going to court saying it has somehow wrecked their opposite sex marriages. You can't spend the better part of the last twenty years predicting the sky is going to fall if we allow Gay Marriage and not have your argument fall flat when it doesn't happen.

    The idea that children will be harmed is a risky assertion as well. The same argument was made about interracial marriages. At the end of the day the strongest factors influencing the well-being of children is income not the gender of the parents. Do you favor a constitutional amendment saying only the wealthy may raise a family?

    The insistence of these groups in returning to these same discredited arguments only weakens their cause. The real reason is your religious belief. Everyone knows that. You might as well say so.

  • DC Alexandria, VA
    June 27, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    How about we not let gay marriage define every election for the next decade? Let's move on already.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    @AZKID
    I do not belong in the closet nor will I deny who I am because of your prejudice. I am a citizen of the United States and have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you enjoy. My marriage, now recognized by the Federal government, is no bettor or worse than yours.

  • Lightening Lad Austin , TX
    June 27, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how same sex marriage harms opposite sex marriage. It's not that I'm a supporter of gay marriage but I just wonder why all the bunkering as if all that's good is now ruined? I don't believe a gay person has any choice in their being gay, nor do I believe government has any business in supporting the discrimination of any group, based on the Christian definition of what is sinful behavior.

  • Lovedums Franklin, IN
    June 27, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    There seems to be so many comments on here bashing these people for wanting to keep marriage between a man and a woman. To all of you I say RESPECT their viewpoint and try to understand where they are coming from. All of you marriage proponents are just as bad as many who oppose gay marriage because you are irrationally and sanctimoneously declaring that the opinion of gay marriage opponents is invalid, ignorant, and does not matter--all while declaring the proponents of gay marriage have an "enlightened" and more valid opinion. Who are any of you to declare that your OPINION about gay marriage is somehow superior to our opinion about gay marriage? They are both opinions. Proponents are arguing their opinions and taking action, why can't opponents do the same? Proponents have their reasons why they support "marriage equality" and opponents have their reasons whey they support traditional marriage. Why are our opinions less valid than yours? I guarantee that if gay marriage were the norm for thousands of years and then heterosexuals all of the sudden wanted to get married, the gay community would have a similar reaction. Your opinions are no better than ours.

  • IdahoMother Grace, ID
    June 27, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    I appreciate the complexities that accompany these issues. Arguments can get heated and words misconstrued especially written. While I don't pretend to understand the legalese with navigating the US constitution, I do believe that a group of citizens (LGBT) have been discriminated against according to the Fifth amendment. As far as the institution of marriage, I support fully in marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. No I am not a "same sex" hater. In fact I believe that we are all children of God and should be treated as such. I do see that it is my right and obligation as a mother to teach my children right from wrong and believe deeply that homosexual relationships are against the word of God. I will continue to teach my children this truth while at the same time emphasizing to them that we are all brother and sisters and to treat others respectfully and with civil behavior. But at the same time I expect the same from the LGBT community. You can't force your beliefs onto me just the same as I won't force my beliefs on to you.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    June 27, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    Interesting, POTUS is currently in Senegal. The breaking news is B.O. is getting a very public pushback from the President of Senegal and its people. Ironically, Senegal, a nominally Muslim country, has no problem with Polygamy as many village leaders have multiple wives. Prehaps those Americans who are aghast at the concept of legalized same sex marriage decamp to Senegal where Homosexual conduct is illegal and Traditional Marriage including Polygamy is part of the social landscape.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    Supporters of traditional Southern rights also went on the offense after the Civil War we ended up with Jim Crow laws and lynchings. Going on the offense to deny something to someone never leads to anywhere good.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    @Candide
    I do not wish to deny you of any rights that are historically included in the phrase you are quoting above. I just do not believe that the phrase is as all-encompassing as your agenda would like us to believe. You are engaged in a very perilous social experiment whose consequences are not yet known. I genuinely fear for the stability of my family and society at large if your agenda prevails. Call it prejudice if you will. I just call it good sense.

    Nevertheless, I will gladly let you stay out of the closet if you can keep your sexual preference out of the national media and out of the minds of my children. Do we have a deal?

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    @Conservative and proud:

    I am happy you said what you said in your post and I agree, there are going to be some very unhappy people when they stand before the Lord. Shocked and unhappy. Be careful of what path your pride leads you down. You may just end up being one of them.

    Doesn't our Lord say pride is what will be the un-doing of man? "Judge Ye Not Lest Ye Be Judged Sayith The Lord".

    This is not the return of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is just another small victory in the battle with the Adversary. Today, we are one step closer to all of God's children being treated with respect, love, understanding and all the secular blessings we receive when two people give their hearts and lives to one another in the bond of Marriage. I'll fight the Adversary on the side that fights for protection for all of God's children. Will you?

    I think the Lord said "Love My Children As You Would Love Me.".

    God Bless us all!

  • phillyfanatic LONG BEACH, CA
    June 27, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    The decision by SCOTUS did some things but it did not not not tell the 38 states with traditional marriage laws , to change those laws. It applied to SOCAL. It applied not not to the 9th Circuit court. So....for those who want Biblical marriage, the war is on. And if any any Christian voter of the varied denominations vote Dem, they can expect even more attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th amendments. Why people who want our traditional American values, heritage, history and culture plus economic growth would ever vote liberal socialist progressive Dem is beyond me.

  • goodnight-goodluck S.L.C., UT
    June 27, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    our hearts are filled with sorrow that our fellow citizens will now enjoy the same equal protection under the law as we do. why does that make you sad??

  • GodLoveTheWord Vero Beach, FL
    June 27, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    @Pendergast

    Not at all my friend, just tired of one sided abuse in the form of "bigotry" and "intolerance". I just wish both sides could give each other the freedom to disagree without bringing a call to arms. A gentle reminder: people like myself who believe in J.C. are without a doubt, attacked more on these comment boards than any other group. I "accept" Jesus Christ...therefore there is no acceptance issue on my part.

    Regards

  • kiapolo Washington, DC
    June 27, 2013 5:47 p.m.

    @ GodLoveTheWord - I do not care who you believe in, nor would I ever vote to pass a law taking away your right to believe in whomever you'd like. That said, for things to be fair, you can't realistically argue that a law should be passed telling others what to believe regarding sexual orientation or what is "right" for the definition of marriage... The ruling that was passed does not dictate against your views of what constitutes a marriage, and has ZERO impact on your ability to continue in your beliefs. If the opposite ruling were to have been made, then those individuals who have different beliefs from yours would have not been legally able to practice what they believe to be "right", and would therefore be discriminated against. Does this help you comprehend the message any better?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 9:31 p.m.

    Douglas Laycock, a leading supporter of religious freedom who also supports same-sex marriage, acknowledges that the way the current laws on same-sex marriage have been written is deeply troubling for religious freedom. The failure of the laws to proactively recognize the conscience rights of individuals to not participate in ceremonies they morally object to is disturbing.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 9:34 p.m.

    Marriage must be in the form of a man/woman institution, a form that produces children, to have its traditional effects. If you change its legal form you change its basic meaning. Those who act like its legal definitions can be changed without changing its meaning do not understand how the power of the legal form of marriage works.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 9:45 p.m.

    The legally team supporting Prop 8 did not let it die on a technicality. They were ruled to not be representatives of California with standing to challenge the suit. The only way they could have changed that outcome was one of them getting elected as Attorney General.

    Marriage needs to be in the form of man/woman so it has the form of child rearing. The point of marriage is to make as much production of children as possible within a stable relationship. Since homosexual relationships do not produce children the state has no interest in regulating them.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    June 28, 2013 12:40 a.m.

    "Traditional Marriage" is a term coined to make same sex marriage sound bad.
    If you look at the States where same sex marriage is allowed, NOTHING BAD HAS HAPPENED.

    The REAL REASON FOR THE OPPOSITION: some churches are afraid that their OWN kids will grow up Gay and want to marry. If the church is based on marriage and procreation, like the lds or catholics, they have no way to fit this in.

    I believe it is a sin against God to go tell other people, especially in another State, how they should live, and to try to push them to follow your views.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    One thing I've never understood is why Utahns, who are generally conservative and want to reduce government regulation, are so strongly for government regulation of marriage. I hope for the day when government will get out of the marriage business and focus on civil rights through social unions. Let marriage be regulated by each social group for its members and not by government.

    Government = social unions
    Social groups = marriage

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    @Scoundrel

    "Practicing a Mormon lifestyle is... a choice... It is no different from the moral choices that others face."

    You could also substitute the above sentence with any other groups; Jews Muslims Atheists, Conservatives. Liberals, add-infinitum

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    June 30, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    Besides blindsiding the democratic process and the unconstitutional silencing of the voice of the majority, the court (sorry I can't capitalize it right now) has set in motion the persecution and prosecution of those upholding marriage; defined as a heterosexual union sanctified by partnership with God. A homosexual relationship can never achieve that end. An Australian attorney, not LDS, spoke about this political trainwreck as an attempt to halt temple work. The Church will never condone homosexual unions because God never has and this is His work. The hateful, demonic voices calling for legalization of practices that human history has proven to be destructive to all socieites condoning them, will go after the church in the courts to try to halt the legitimate work of creating eternal families. It is a temporary but painful state we are in.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    June 30, 2013 5:32 p.m.

    Two men or two women is really not a marriage in way. Only time will tell the full extent of havoc to be wreaked upon this once-great Christian nation with this giant (mis-step) giving yet more legitimacy to the sin of sodomy.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    June 30, 2013 6:32 p.m.

    @Rikitikitavi --

    "giving yet more legitimacy to the sin of sodomy."

    The term "sodomy" actually refers to acts which are just as easily enjoyed by straight couples as by gay couples.

    Are you going to start invalidating the marriages of straight people who enjoy these acts?

    @PLM --

    "the court...has set in motion the persecution and prosecution of those upholding marriage; defined as a heterosexual union sanctified by partnership with God."

    Oh, wait a minute -- now you're going so far as to say that civil marriages aren't legitimate either??

    Wow, the MILLIONS of people who have been married in civil ceremonies won't be too happy to hear that.

    As for "persecuting and prosecuting" those in heterosexual marriages -- don't be ridiculous. The vast majority of marriages are, and will remain, heterosexual. Heterosexual marriage is a fine institution, and NOTHING about gay marriages actually threatens ANYONE'S straight marriage.

    So have your marriage. Enjoy it. And let other people live their OWN lives as they see fit.

    "The Church will never condone homosexual unions"

    Actually, many churches already DO support gay marriage.

    YOUR church is not the only one out there, you know.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    June 30, 2013 10:09 p.m.

    To: Contrarius

    You have unfortunately made the error of quoting another's words out of context. I will not dishonor you by doing the same; in reference to your statement, "Oh, wait a minute -- now you're going so far as to say that civil marriages aren't legitimate either??" I said nothing of legitimacy, and according to the scriptures, God ordained the constitutional law of our land. So I assume, not speaking for Him, that He recognizes civil unions that are not in direct conflict with His commandments.

    You stated, "As for "persecuting and prosecuting" those in heterosexual marriages -- don't be ridiculous.... and NOTHING about gay marriages actually threatens ANYONE'S straight marriage." The attorney I referenced was speaking about LDS marriages in the temple. Gays will eventually go after the LDS church for denying them access to sacred rites, as they attacked the Boy Scouts for denying them access to children.

    "The Church will never condone homosexual unions," of course the church referred to in my previous sentence was the LDS Church.

    You might find it helpful to take a class in rhetoric.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 1, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    @PLM --

    "You have unfortunately made the error of quoting another's words out of context."

    I'm sorry that you think so.

    "I said nothing of legitimacy"

    You said -- and I quote -- that marriage is "defined as a heterosexual union sanctified by partnership with God".

    This appears to mean that if a marriage has not been "sanctified by partnership with God", then it is not a legitimate marriage in your eyes.

    Do you have a different interpretation for your statement?

    "He recognizes civil unions that are not in direct conflict with His commandments. "

    Good. Then he should have no trouble with civil gay marriages, either, since there is no commandment that reads "thou shalt not be homosexual".

    "The attorney I referenced was speaking about LDS marriages in the temple."

    Gays will "go after" LDS temple marriages at about the same time that Jews do.

    "they attacked the Boy Scouts for denying them access to children. "

    Careful, your animus is showing.

    Since you mentioned scouting -- statistics from the Child Advocacy Center show that "only about 4 percent of same-sex abuse involves homosexual perpetrators". 



    And btw, lesbian women have led girl scout troops for years with no problems.