Quantcast
Opinion

Michael and Jenet Erickson: Being for traditional marriage does not mean being against anyone

Comments

Return To Article
  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:16 a.m.

    Being for opposite-sex marriages doesn't involve being against anyone... but being against same-sex marriages does involve being against someone.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:39 a.m.

    Instead of experiencing sadness, you should be happy. A whole bunch of people made a commitment to marriage in the last week and a half. And individual rights and freedoms have been strengthened. This is a great time for Utah.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:11 a.m.

    Comments about ‘Being for traditional marriage does not mean being against anyone’

    ----

    What are people supposed to believe when the main argument against gay marriage is that allowing gay marriage would hurt traditional marriages? The two aren't correlated, and people intelligent enough to see this are consequently led to believe there is some other hidden agenda.

    Gay marriage is only for people who are wired differently. The institution of traditional marriage doesn't suit them. The reality of nature is that some people are homosexual. I wish it weren't so, but this is the reality.

    All this said, children ought to have a mother and a father. Gay marriage if it ever becomes allowed permanently ought not mean that children who otherwise could have had a mother and a father become stuck with two mothers or two fathers instead.

    Civil unions with all the rights of marriage other than the right to adopt children who otherwise would have a chance to have a mother and a father would seem to be in order.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:30 a.m.

    This reminds me of when women didn't want to be called "Miss" or some feminists didn't want to be called "Mrs" so suddenly every woman, regardless of age or marital status, was "Ms." Just because a woman is married and prefers to be called "Mrs" is no reason for those who aren't to feel uncomfortable being called "Miss." They think being called Miss will openly attract men in whom they have zero interest. News: If a man finds you attractive and he is the sort to pursue possibilities, it won't matter if either you or he are married or what you are called; he will behave that way towards you.

    For those with same-sex attraction, that want to live together in a committed relationship, go for it. I hope you are happy and feel fulfilled. You deserve every legal protection and advantage the law allows anyone else. But you are not "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" and certainly not "husband and wife." Perhaps you could use another term for sharing your life together other than "married." That is more of your hang-up than your previous legal status.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:47 a.m.

    The "Biblical tradition" of marriage includes multiple wives and concubines.

    We don't force single parents to marry, we don't prohibit parents the right to divorce, we don't set income or educational restrictions in the ability to have and raise children - nor do we have laws controlling against many of the other things we know are more riskful situations for raising children. Why worry about this one that _might_ be a problem while ignoring those we have firm evidence _are_ problems?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2014 4:11 a.m.

    How can someone who thinks marriage should not exist at all be considered an "advocate" of marriage and why only focus on homosexuals who think marriage should not exist when there are many heterosexuals who feel the same way?

    Public accommodation laws are very clear - if you serve the public, you must serve the entirety of the public. Business owners should not be allowed to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. Otherwise - as history has shown us, not as some fabricated slippery slope scar tactic - it progresses from not providing a cake to not providing food at all, from not providing a bed to not providing housing at all, from not providing elective medical care to providing no medical care. There are already those in Utah who freely admit they should not have to work with or hire gay people nor allow them to live in certain neighborhoods or apartment complexes.

    There is something special about marriage - which is why so many gay couples want it.

    And nothing in this editorial addresses why it should be denied them when it is not denied to others based on the exact same reasoning presented.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 6:29 a.m.

    When you spend $2 million dollars against it, fine.

    When the governor forces me to spend $2 million of my tax dollars against my own interests…

    yes, you are 'against me'.

    When you force me to pay higher taxes, and get less benefits, because of who I love.

    *'Gay Americans pay more taxes for fewer rights' - By Suze Orman – CNN – 02/25/13

    'We all have 83-year-old Edith Windsor to thank for in pushing the issue of same-sex marriage equality on to the national front. Edie and her partner Thea were together for 40 years. How many marriages do you know that have lasted that long? But when Thea died in 2009, Edie was hit with a $363,000 federal estate tax bill because as a same-sex couple they were not eligible for the unlimited marital deduction.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 6:32 a.m.

    This same 'ho hum I'm not TARGETING' anyone claim has been disproven over and over again…

    *'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.

    Working against marriage equality has factual victims. LGBT Americans who want nothing more than to live their lives.

    Do not fool yourself otherwise.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    "Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be."

    And yet the Deseret News prominently publishes the story of the gathering in Highland ("Former Arizona sheriff blasts ruling that allows gay marriage in Utah") that makes it clear just how angry, hated-filled and bigoted a sizable element of the anti-marriage equality movement really is.

    What is also perfectly clear is that opposition to respecting the equal rights of homosexual citizens derives exclusively from the hostility of religious fundamentalists towards homosexuals.

    We do not live in a theocracy. Our nation is a constitutionally constrained republic in which the rights of a minority are not subject to majority vote. And because of that fact, Utah's Amendment 3 has rightly been found, through extensive legal review and due process, to be invalid.

    The rights, marriages and children of heterosexual couples are not in the smallest way harmed by marriage equality, while denying same-sex couples the right to marriage does real harm. Those are the established facts.

    Your personal religious convictions do not trump the 14th Amendment, no matter how much sugar-coating you apply to your arguments.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."

    “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell~

    Let the "tolerant people" begin bashing the truth of this article (and then proceed to claim that they are victims because they are seen as being the real voices of hate)

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Jan. 5, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    Very, very well said!

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    Once again, financial issues are conveniently ignored. Of course supporters of "traditional" marriage favor paying less tax because same-sex couples must pay more -- half a million dollars more, in the Windsor case. Of course they are in favor of collecting more Social Security benefits because LGBT survivors, including children, collect nothing. Of course they favor increased veterans benefits for some, because spouses killed in action serving their country are denied anything for their life partners -- at least if they did not formalize the relationship in a state that recognizes unfairness.

    Those states, however, are where 38% of Americans reside. Same-sex marriage is not just a financial issue, but those who are unwilling to address financial inequality should no longer be permitted to ignore it. Opposition to same-sex marriage may not mean being against anyone, but it does mean taking money out of their pockets.

  • The Last Word South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    Wonderful article that's honest and represents the majority of traditional marriage supporters in this state.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    I am for traditional marriage too, but I am also for gay marriage. Why can't I have my family just as you have yours? I am not trying to stop anyone from having a traditional marriage. So why are you trying to stop me from marrying the one I love? Gay marriage doesn't subtract anything from traditional marriage, it only adds more happy stable families.

  • Robert Johnson Sunland, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    I'm sorry...but you are wrong. You can "believe what you want to believe", certainly. But you can also do so without trampling on the rights of others. Not believing in marriage equality doesn't make a person a bigot, however, actively opposing it does. Bigotry is believing that you have a right to something while denying it to others. No one is saying that you have to embrace marriage equality. You as an American have the right to personally accept it or not, but what you don't have a right to do is to deny your fellow Americans their right to marry the person that they love.

  • Physics27 Cedar City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    This pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue. Great article.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    Nice try, but bigotry is still bigotry. Put a nice face on it and you're still denying other consenting adults rights that you get to take for granted and for no substantive reason.

    "Traditional marriage" isn't a finite thing. Extending it to gay couples doesn't mean that there's less of it for you.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    Get over it. Gay marriage is happening in our country. You have lost, the other side has won. Our civilization is not going to crumble now because of this. Find a way to move past this issue and go make the world a better place.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    Absolutely NOTHING has happening to "traditional marriage" as it applies to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual). Nothing is being redefined. Straight couples will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to change when Gay couples tie the knot also.

    Did Michael and Jenet Erickson think that the marriage equality movement was some sinister plot to make homosexuality compulsory for everyone? Gosh, I hope not. It doesn't work that way. The human population has always been and always will be predominantly heterosexual. Procreation is not at risk here.

    And for Heaven's sake, who DOESN'T support "traditional marriage?" If any of my single Straight friends finds a compatible person of the opposite sex to get "traditionally married" to, NO ONE will be happier than me. The fact that I support equal treatment under the law for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples doesn't mean I'm against "traditional marriage" for Straight couples.

    When it comes to tradition and stability, isn't it better to encourage Gay couples toward monogamy and commitment?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    "...we believe what we believe. And our conviction is strong.”

    That doesn't give you the right to deny the benefits you enjoy to LGBT citizens. We are not a theocracy.

    "... the overwhelming reaction to the news about Amendment 3 was one of sadness, ..."

    Why be sad over someone else's joy? How does letting LGBT couples marry change the ties of children to their bio parents?

    "...religious believers must violate their conscience or have civil claims brought against them. "

    You should be glad about this. It means YOU can't be discriminated against too.

    We're not "changing" marriage. Marriage will continue but now more people will participate.

    This whole article makes ME sad.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    Mr and Mrs Erickson, your marriage should have been exactly the same the day after the ruling as it was the day before. There was no affect on it what's so ever.

    People who aren't a member of your religion and don't believe in your bible are not bound by it's rules. So using that as justification is pointless. We live in a secular society.

    Your statement that children are best with a mother and father is unjustified. Many children are being raised in single parent homes now. Do you think they should be taken away based on your years of research?

    So, yes, you are a bigot. Stating in soft words and 'loving' phrases doesn't change it one bit.

  • Apocalypse please Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    Of all people you would think that Utahns would know what it's like to be persecuted for having a definition of marriage different than one man and one woman ie polygamy. Instead of sadness you'd think there would be understanding.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    "We're not against you, but no offense, you can't have what we have," with quoting of scripture immediately following.

    This is such a simplistic, erroneous argument that it's almost laughable, but it does expose the issue in a new way.

    Many LDS believe that allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to gays wanting to get married in the temple. Except that nobody else is clamoring for temple marriage, no other religious people are pushing for that, the only resistance that arises are non-temple worthy family and friends who are excluded from the ceremony, which has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue.

    The threat to LDS temple marriages by gay marriage = zero.

    But re-framing the issue to "you can't have what we have" does provoke the question of whether marriage should enable privileges not available to those who are not married, such as preferential tax advantages.

    This may be the underlying end point - should government be in the marriage business at all?

    If there were no tax benefits to marriage, my hunch is people would continue to get married, for all the other meaningful reasons it brings.

  • roxy34 BOISE, ID
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    That was probably the best article on this subject I have ever read. WELL DONE. Thank you so much for explaining beautifully what a lot of folks feel.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    This article betrays the hypocrisy inherent in the arguments of those who oppose marriage equality.

    The thesis here is that believing in and supporting traditional marriage does not necessarily equate to being "against" anyone.

    But on the other hand, how is it that legalizing same sex marriage is considered to be "against" traditional marriage?

    You can't have it both ways. Either same sex marriage threatens traditional marriage - in which case supporting traditional marriage IS "against" same sex marriage; or the two marriages are independent and neither one threatens the other, in which case, those who support traditional marriage have absolutely no interest or legal standing in regards to same sex marriage!

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    Sorry, but not everyone subscribes to your self righteous rose colored world. There is nothing special about traditional marriage and nothing special about you just because you are in one. That's all there is to it. Those that you like to look down on are just as virtuous and just as good, or as bad a parent as everyone else. Get over yourselves already. You are not special. You are just another human in the world full of humans with different believes, attitudes and human relationships.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    I am one of those people you are conscious of who has felt sadness, loneliness, and fear of rejection for so many years because I'm a member of the LDS church who lives with same sex attraction and quietly remains faithful. My experience helps me understand others who feel the same attraction without the perspective of the LDS faith. I expect those people to fall in gay love and it feels to me like the most positive way for them to do that is within a monogamous, committed relationship such as "marriage" or a civil union.
    Your argument against it is that the natural family with the influence of a mother and father is the best for the children. This makes sense, and I agree, but in light of general societal and legal acceptance and support for many families outside that "best case" scenario, I am surprised by the intense emotional opposition to SSM. I don't see anything close to this same passion against divorce, single parents, step parents, adoptions, or other less than ideal situations. So, it feels like there is some much deeper motivation behind the intense opposition to SSM.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    "Amendment 3 codified that principle in Utah’s Constitution. To be for it, Utahans need not be against anyone."

    I would believe your arguments if Amendment 3 hadn't included this: "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    "Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be."

    I would believe your argument, but many of the comments on articles such as this one lead me to believe differently. I would not feel safe in a room full of some of the regular participants of the Deseret News forums.

    "The overwhelming reaction to the news about Amendment 3 was one of sadness, not anger at gays and lesbians."

    I would believe it if there weren't another news story about a gathering of over 200 people in Utah County where the main speaker condoned an uprising, and he sounded pretty angry. I would believe it if another man who is fasting for Judge Shelby's decision to overturned and claims that it's all of the gay couples getting married that are causing rage.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    What you have said in the article is true and correct. But the militant LGBT community will never accept it. Their agenda will not allow anyone that doesn't support their ends to escape their wrath. People who love God and try to live his commandments do not hate their brothers and sisters. But, the LGBT community will continue to make this claim because is has proved effective in trying to attack and shame those of faith. We must continue to fight for what's right no matter what the outcome.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    To the authors' credit, they acknowledge that gay and lesbian persons have been treated badly and acknowledge that has to change.

    The authors' claim to not be 'against anyone' would be convincing if they hadn't linked to the debunked Regnerus study, or to the ADF (which has ties to anti-gay hate groups) and Witherspoon Institute which funded Regnerus' debunked study (and has ties to anti-gay groups). Both these organizations have a history of maligning gay and lesbian persons.

    Their claim would be more convincing if they didn't ignore the vast majority of gay and lesbian persons asking for marriage in order to give credence to Masha Gessen. Gessen's view is a minority view in the gay community, she speaks for and to a small number of gay persons.

    Ultimately, however, the authors' argument fails to make a necessary connection. How exactly does denying same sex couples legal recognition and protection of marriage have any effect on the "something unique, special, and sacred about the legal union of a man and a woman"? Allowing same sex couples to marry in no way discourages or prevents straight people from marrying or from understanding it as something special.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    CONTINUED:

    I would believe your words, but if there's something I've learned is that most people veil their distaste for others with a sort of kindness. It's the "bless their hearts" way of approaching things. Here in Utah we use carefully selected words to soften the blow. Instead of taking to the streets, we write letters to the editor expressing how we take the higher road--unlike the "in-your face activist" on the opposing side. We use moral superiority as our arguments to lift ourselves above others.

    We claim to be the victims of religious intolerance, all the while ignoring the fact that people in this state are still pushing to keep our LGBTQ neighbors from enjoying the same protections you take for granted. If you really aren't against us, why do organization like FairToAll exist and push to continue keeping us second-class citizens?

  • History Freak Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    It's true that Utahns didn't go out and riot when the decision came down. This shows what kind of people we are.

    By contrast, when Prop 8 passed in California by a democratic vote of the people, the LGBT community marched on the Los Angeles Temple en masse and screamed hatred toward Temple Patrons who were trying to attend the Temple. Similar things happened at the Oakland Temple. Mormons in California were persecuted--some even lost their jobs for supporting Prop 8. This should give everyone a much better picture of who is spewing hate.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    To the thought in the article that we are mostly sad---at all the reasons they list--I can only say, Amen.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    I think that the Ericksons did an excellent job describing and documenting this position. They did it with a whole lot more of a caring attitude than those who would argue against them.

    @Schnee: Well, since, traditional marriage is a powerful tool to fight poverty, and because, as this article and gay rights activists point out, changing the definition of marriage will weaken it, so would you say that you are pro-poverty?

  • Danny Chipman Lehi, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    I would like to add, too, sadness for families that are depriving themselves the opportunity to be sealed as a family for not only time but all eternity. God has taught us that none of His children will be denied any blessing in heaven that was stayed on earth, but repentance and obedience to His commandments must predicate it. One day all our mortal temptations and preconceptions will be stripped away and we will see each other as we truly are--sons and daughters of God. There are going to be a lot of regrets. But that's just my religious belief, and I recognize that religious beliefs alone cannot be the basis for lawmaking in so diverse a society. I feel the sadness all the same.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    While we of course care about the best environment for children, it seems there is another, more visceral reason for opposing same sex marriage that is not included in the article. I think the idea is that legal acceptance of same sex marriage will increase the incidence of homosexual activity among "marginal" individuals who would otherwise limit themselves to heterosexual activity or celibacy if homosexual activity is not socially and legally accepted. Is that right? This assumes there is a group of people who would choose to enter homosexual relationships if they are legally sanctioned who might otherwise lead very happy heterosexual lives. It is an argument that based on my personal experience and nature of my attractions seems so illogical that I never would have thought of it. However, there could be many people who experience opposite sex attraction but also experience some degree of same sex attraction and only restrain acting on those feelings because of societal and legal pressure.That is not something people talk about much, especially in polite Mormon circles, so I honestly don’t know anyone in that situation, but I don’t know that they don’t exist.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    That is like saying being in favor of the Ayran race is not being against any other race. lol.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    2nd try:

    "...we believe what we believe. And our conviction is strong.”

    That doesn't give you the right to deny the benefits you enjoy to LGBT citizens. We are not a theocracy.

    "... the overwhelming reaction to the news about Amendment 3 was one of sadness, ..."

    Why be sad over someone else's joy? How does letting LGBT couples marry change the ties of children to their bio parents?

    "...religious believers must violate their conscience or have civil claims brought against them. "

    You should be glad about this. It means YOU can't be discriminated against too.

    We're not "changing" marriage. Marriage will continue but now more people will participate.

    This whole article makes ME sad.

  • Kapz South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    Do same sex marriage proponents support incestuous marriage or polygamy amongst consenting adults? Why or why not? I don't see the difference..

  • Lone Star Cougar Plano, TX
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    Good article. Sad to see the Gay and Lesbians act so hateful toward those that believe in traditional marriage. Suing those that don't want to participate in this for religious reasons is a hate crime and the judges that go along with it are complicit. I have seen so much meanness and hate from the gay community toward those that don't believe the same way that they are willing to forcibly take away the religious freedoms of others.

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    Well said; the LGBT community would have us all believe the fallacy that because some support traditional marriage, they are homophobes and hatemongering hypocrites.

    By that same logic, traditional marriage supporters hate anything/anyone that may not follow their model of marriage; not just men and women, but dogs, cats, squirrels, and even trees!

    ...if someone can conceive of marrying it, then by golly, we old fashioned folk must hate it!

    Are there some haters out there? Of course...but simply supporting something does not necessarily make one against every other alternative. Additionally, simply because some activist judge overrules precedent and decides that a law may be unconstitutional does NOT give that judge the authority to pass opposing/opposite legislation, thereby circumventing our democratic political process.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    Let's see. The writers say they aren't against anyone. Couldn't the same thing be said for those who favored males-only voting? They weren't against women. They merely favored a tradition. Same thing for those who favored slavery, opposed mixed-race marriages, etc.

    The sadness the writers feel contrasts sharply with the happy faces of Utah gays receiving marriage licenses. I suppose if Judge Shelby had ruled the other way, the sadness would be in the face of the gays and the Ericksons would be quite happy with that.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    DEAR TOOSMARTFORYOU:

    So let’s say the Supreme Court ruled that Straight couples could get “married,” Gay couples could get “civil unions,” but other than the different terminology, both arrangements would have exactly the same legal benefit and protections, at all levels of government, as required under the 14th Amendment. And let’s say the Court also said the “Full Faith & Credit Clause” applied to marriages and civil unions equally and were honored in all 50 states. Would you have a problem with that?

    Remember, there would not be language police roaming around telling Gay couples in civil unions that they could not refer to one another as “married.” For all intents and purposes they WOULD be married, except for a purely legal designation. So ask yourself: Is it really only the word “marriage” that matters to you most?

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    Dear Ericksons,

    I completely appreciate the thoughtful civility of your opinion piece, and your call to everyone for sensitivity and respect all around.

    The problem is that your position on this just isn't fair - plain and simple. NO ONE is against traditional marriage in the truest sense - no one is trying to restrict straight couples's rights to marriage and child-rearing. And most everyone is for the very many legal privileges and priorities that come with marriage. Denying gay couples those same advantages by marriage is unfair because giving them does NO HARM to your marriage.

    True, granting marriage rights to gay couples may feel like an affront to your religious beliefs. And if we are honest, this is really where the problem is. Gay marriage doesn't change "traditional marriage"; gay marriage upsets the religious applecart. But very many of us don't adhere to those convictions, and therefore, we have no trouble at all seeing marriage inequality for what it is: Unjust. Now the courts, too.

    I agree, angry mobs have no place here. But at the same time, no amount of polite behavior makes inequality right.

  • Daniel Leifker San Francisco, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    I do not believe that a single 65-year-old woman should be allowed to marry her 90-year-old single father. Does that make me a bigot, too, because I oppose marriage rights for certain classes of people?

    Society will work out these thorny questions around same-sex marriage rights. I just wish the debate were more orderly and civilized.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    The editorial nailed it. The people of this State know and respect the definition that God gave to "marriage". They also know and respect the reasons why God told us that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. We are disappointed that some people put themselves before God and demand that their needs are greater than the needs of children and that their desire to use their bodies as they wish is sufficient reason for them to reject the great and glorious reason that God made men men and women women.

    Hear the shrill voices that continuously demand that we accept another definition of family. Hear the shrill voices that continuously tell us to reject God's definition of family. Hear the shrill voices that tell us that they will teach children their ways and that we must accept their philosophy. Then hear the still, small voice inside you who tells you that God was not wrong and that He did not err when He defined "marriage" and "family". The scriptures plainly tell us to carefully choose who we hear and who we follow.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    We're not against you, we just don't want you to have equal rights because of our religious beliefs that you obviously don't share....

    If this were a theocracy where people have chosen to live said theocracy, I would be fine with only traditional marriage. But we don't have a theocracy, we have the constitution of the USA that says everyone should have equal rights.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    Didn't your parents teach you how to share? That's all we're asking you to do. Marriage is a wonderful thing and many heterosexual couples take it for granted. It's the people who are fighting for access who truly appreciate it. Marriage isn't being fundamentally changed as many allege, it's rights and responsibilities are just being extended to others who can benefit from it. Children are already raised in same-gender-led households. Often these children are the results of failed heterosexual couples. Marriage gives these children the same stability that children in opposite-gendered-led households enjoy. How exactly is that a bad thing? And yes, when you're denying others the same rights and responsibilities you enjoy, you are against them. Telling yourself differently is just rationalization.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    I honestly can't say that I am "happy" that the worlds view of marriage is changing. I understand, and even support the legal reasoning behind it. But, just like drinking, I don't need to pass laws prohibiting drinking to teach my children not to drink, or smoke, or lie, or to cheat on their spouses. I don't need to have the long arm of the law as a threat to have my kids, nor myself, do the right thing. I don't even need an angry God to make we want to do the right thing.

    The right thing is just that. There is a right way to raise a family. That doesn't mean just because you are in a hetrosexual relationship, that you are raising a family right. There are plenty of examples of "normal" families gone wrong. But the last thing I want is for the government to become an extension of my faith. The government has its right and proper role, enforcing religious edict is not one of them. Churches, families, friends, they are the ones to mentor and show what a proper family is…. not the government.

    Just my opinion.

  • Fyodor Mikhailovich Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    The problem here is the blanket statement that all who are against gay marriage are not bigots. I am willing to accept that some are not, that they are truly believers in the so called traditional concept of marriage and wish no harm to those same sex couples who wish to get married. But, on the other hand, there are myriads of people who are bigots, who do wish harm to those same sex couples, and use the belief system to condemn them. So while perhaps not all those who are against such marriages are not bigots many are.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    At first the gay and lesbian world said they deserved the pursuit of happiness. I agree but don't change a the meaning of a word come up with your own. How about "Pairage" a pair of people in love being joined together. Problem solved everyone has their rights everyone can be happy if they chose to be. My real question is if this is over the pursuit of happiness then what about the druggie that wants to be happy in life high. What about the sexual pervert who wants to be happy abusing young people. Can someone tell me where the pursuit of happiness draws the line? Happy "Pairage" to all those who don't fit the definition of marriage but still want to have the right to be happy.

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    I am a gay man, religiously (Reform Judaism) and civilly married. I write this respectfully.

    Please separate the arguments for and against marriage for same-sex couples from claims of bigotry or hate on either side. Both sides are often guilty of using such claims as a substitute for sound arguments. As a gay person, I've been called many awful things by people who have never even met me. I didn't like it, and I do my best never to do it to others.

    Many opposed to my right to marry see this as an attack on their beliefs. I'd ask them to understand that is not what motivated me to marry. Indeed, I am a person of faith, and I married religiously to express my love and commitment, to share that commitment with my community and to receive the blessing of God. I married civilly for the set of protections that marriage uniquely provides.

    I grew up fully expecting to marry a woman. Reality changed all that for me. Eventually, after much thought and prayer, I "evolved." I understand that not everyone else has or will. I will treat them with respect while making my case.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    So it would seem that what the authors are saying is, we don't hate you, we just think you are harmful to children and society and less deserving of the rights and privileges that heterosexual people take for granted. further to back up our claims of harm we will acknowledge the mountain of research and the fact that all the leading professional organizations that study human development and behavior agree there is no harm and counter it with a link to a study the author of which openly admits in the link has so many holes in it you could drive a fleet of Mac tricks through it.

  • Joe Carlin OAKLAND, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    "Perhaps you could use another term for sharing your life together other than 'married.'"

    Because there is no other term that means "married". It is exactly the same thing, even if you don't agree to it. Gay people want the exact same life that other Americans do. They want to go to school, get a good job, fall in love, and YES, get married. They are more alike than you than different. Now, I know you might have a problem with people using their freedom of speech to call it "married", but you are not the word police. You can't tell people what words they can and cannot use. Otherwise, how are you any better than A&E and GLAAD telling Phil Robertson what words he can and cannot use?

    The fact that you feel they must be segregated into some other status is exactly at the crux of the issue. They are the same, whether you like it or not. You don't have to like it. You can call it whatever you want. We, on the other hand, are calling it "married."

  • SamSmith Bronx, NY
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    "That is more of your hang-up."

    Right back at ya toosmart.

  • Joe Carlin OAKLAND, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    "Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be."

    Please explain how "supporters of traditional marriage" are on hunger strikes over gay marriage and planning a violent uprising of the state are not "angry, hate-filled bigots"? These are not "stereotypes". These are real words examples going on in Utah right now.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    The will of the people was subverted by a federal judge and a tyrannical minority, plain and simple. The Constitution was thrown overboard by emotions and tyranny.

  • Fred T PHOENIX, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    Some national media are concluding that Utahns are not “too upset about it”

    This is understanable.
    Liberal run on emotions and protest when the wind changes.
    Conservatives run on facts and logic. They don't protest and whine in the streets.
    The MSM think everyone should be like them and be emotional to verify they are for or against something.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    Mr. & Mrs. Erickson,

    While I was reading your article, I couldn't avoid hearing the words attributed to Marie Antoinette, when she heard that the people had not bread to eat: "Let them eat cake".

    It seems that you just don't understand and "sadly" don't want to understand.

    Mr. & Mrs. Erickson, just the fact that the both of you can share a name is a privilege that many of us are deprived to have.

    You are sad....! You sound like the rich kid who wanted a Maserati but his mean father bought him a Porsche instead.

    I do apologize if I sound insensitive to your sadness. But, you live in a bubble and that is your privilege and limitation. What really saddens me is too see educated people that are not able to use "cultural relativism" and put themselves on the other people's position.

    Mr. and Mrs. Erickson, you are guilty of letting yourself to be blinded by the comfort that your heterosexual marriage and social privileges have given you.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    Nicely written article, but fundamentally irrelevant to the facts on the ground. Gay marriage is here. So now what do we do? I'm going to celebrate with my gay brothers and sisters.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    I am a woman in her 60s. I have been a partner in an opposite-sex marriage for over 44 years. I don't know how "traditional" it is because I have always been an equal partner in the marriage, and not the subordinate wife that society and the law demanded in traditional marriages when we married.

    I strongly support opposite-sex marriages or people who are "wired" to be heterosexual. I also strongly support legal same-sex marriage for those whose "wiring" does not accommodate the affectional and sexual affinity needed for compatibility in opposite-sex marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage does not in any way change or threaten opposite-sex ("traditional") marriage.

    Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution. It should not be limited based on the way a person's sexuality is "wired." People who are heterosexual will find sexual and affectional comfort, compatibility and affinity in opposite-sex marriages. People who are homosexual will find sexual and affectional comfort, compatibility and affinity in same-sex marriages. The elements of marriage will be the same for both.

    Joining couples in legal marriage will stabilize society, and we will all therefore benefit.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    Yes it does.
    Cannot make a separate legal class. If marriage is fine for one group, it has to be fine for everyone. It's really not hard to see that.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    @ cjb: "All this said, children ought to have a mother and a father. Gay marriage if it ever becomes allowed permanently ought not mean that children who otherwise could have had a mother and a father become stuck with two mothers or two fathers instead.

    "Civil unions with all the rights of marriage other than the right to adopt children who otherwise would have a chance to have a mother and a father would seem to be in order."

    When every child in the world who needs a home has a home, then we can start worrying about placing those types of restrictions. Right now, no LGBT individual or couple is adopting or fostering children who would otherwise be in homes headed by heterosexual couples.

  • skeetaro Boise, ID
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    Trying to justify and convince yourself that you "don't hate anyone" by writing this pitiful, disgusting 'essay' is both sad and hilarious. Saying that you are such a wonderful and caring person while simultaneously telling an entire group of human beings that they are not equal to you does not make it so and is the absolute pinnacle of hypocrisy.

    Your rant continues by stating that only people in "traditional" families were able to gather together, "feeling sadness" that the State of Utah was being forced to treat everyone equally, while completely ignoring the fact that many families of all types gathered together in joy and happiness that the State of Utah was being forced to treat everyone equally.

    For shame.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    "Well, since, traditional marriage is a powerful tool to fight poverty, and because, as this article and gay rights activists point out, changing the definition of marriage will weaken it, so would you say that you are pro-poverty?"

    A few things...
    I. Marriage is a tool to fight poverty because either
    1. Both work and whichever is making less is boosted by the other.
    2. One works and makes enough to support the other.

    Without marriage #2 means homelessness and #1 might mean a struggle for the one making less. It being a "traditional" marriage has nothing to do with this, any marriage has this benefit.

    II. Gay marriage advocates do not believe same-sex marriage weakens marriage.

    III. You're the one trying to stop some couples from marrying, if anyone is "pro-poverty" based on this logic, it's your side.

  • smart_aleck Vancouver, WA
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    The opinion is very well stated and needs to be repeated in other forums. I would add to it that the emphasis on traditional marriage benefits ALL of society. For example, being obedient to God's commandments regarding marriage brings the blessing of strong families. And strong families are the building blocks of strong communities. And we all enjoy the benefits of strong communities.

    Disobedience to the commandments brings heartache and sorrow. No one wants to see our LGBT friends suffer ill-treatment or forfeit the tremendous blessings that come from obedience. I am a strong supporter of gay rights, rights that are best preserved in the codification of marriage as between a man and a woman.

    In short, gay marriage takes away opportunities for the LGBT community to enjoy blessings they are otherwise entitled to. We should support gay rights by preserving traditional, historical marriage.

  • Markie23 Springville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    I respectfully disagree with the conclusion to this article; that "changing marriage is not the way [to end prejudice and mean-spirited attitudes]". It is absolutely the very best way that we can show the LGBT community that we love them, care about them, respect them, and see them as equals. Otherwise it's just lip service.

    I also submit that if you feel your union is somehow special, unique, and sacred that that is an internal feeling, and it shouldn't be diminished because you don't like how someone else feels about it. A gay couple may feel the very same way about their union. Are you going to tell them their feelings are wrong or invalid?

    This article may show some sympathy but it lacks deeply in empathy. Put yourself in their shoes and see how the shoe fits.

  • Brother Joseph Draper, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    Despite protestations to the contrary, if you are for "traditional marriage" you actually are against someone. You are seeking to deny to gay couples who love each other the ritual confirming a commitment to each other, the legal and social acceptance and recognition, and the economic benefits of the commitment.

    In addition, there are three thousand children in Utah presently adopted by gay couples. What about them? By being in favor of traditional marriage, you are depriving these children of being able to call one of their parents a parent. You are depriving one of the parents the legal rights to their children. What if the adoptive parent passes away? The children become orphans and their other non-legal "parent" must jump through the legal hoops to adopt them.

    The writers of the editorial are simply in denial of the fact that they are abusing an entire class of society and are simply attempting to rationalize their way out of it by saying they are *for* something else that has always been and is not even relevant to those who are being abused.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    @A Quaker
    It's not fear mongering. It's about trying to reserve the institution of marriage... that being man/woman. There are myriads of other marriage possibilities and if accepted, marriage becomes a ting of the past. It's noble goal. If someone wants to enter into marriage, let the do so as man/woman. This option is available to all people regardless of race, creed, or national origin, or sexual orientation.

    "There is no evidence that 'they' could or would take over your churches/temples..."

    It's not a matter of taking over churches/temples. It's a matter of losing tax exempt status accorded religions for those who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages.

    @spring street:
    "...forced shock therapy, forced lobotomies, forced castration, incarceration, forced hospitalization..."

    The problem isn't that tough to overcome. Most all humans have some eccentricities/oddities or penchants/drives that need to be controlled/overcome. Homosexuality is just one of dozens.

  • Simple Truths Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    I support traditional marriage. I think it's such a great institution that I hope as many people as possible can find love and make their personal commitment binding in the eyes of the law. I don't really see what business it is of mine if they're gay or straight Mormon or Catholic. Congratulations to anyone who finds love in this world.

    When it comes to bigoty, I prefer my bigots honest. It's easy to know what the KKK thinks. You don't have to sit down and hold their hands because they feel, like, super sad about black people and how whenever black parents have kids, those kids are going to have it rough.

    This new passive-aggressive bigotry is too whiny for my tastes. If you want to keep another group of people in a second-class social strata because you think they're icky, at least have the stomach to say why you're doing it. We get it, you feel sad for people aren't just like you. Can someone tell me again why Utah leads the nation in anti-depressant consumption?

  • Nanook of the North Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    SOME are responding with sadness. SOME are "for traditional marriage" without being "against" anyone.

    But MANY OTHERS have responded, and are responding, with hate, anger, disgust, intolerance, and threats of "an uprising" (presumably meaning "armed rebellion").

    Brother and Sister Erickson, you're in the former group? Great! But we saw it in the Prop 8 campaign, and we're seeing it now from people like former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack; there are a LOT of people in the latter group. And frankly, they disgust me, and I am embarrassed to be in the same church as they are. Mack ranted about "taking back freedom", but obviously, like so many other soi-disant "defenders of the Constitution", what he REALLY means is "taking freedom AWAY" from anyone who is different.

    Why are these people so angry about homosexuality? Why aren't they as angry about, say, hungry children, or inadequate schools, or homeless veterans, or how government has become "of the dollar, by the dollar, and for the dollar", or about how our tax dollars are being handed over to corporations that already make enough profit, thank you? Priorities, people, priorities!!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    I remember an group of people who practiced unorthodox marriages that "traditional" marriage people didn't like.

    We had a governor issue and extermination order against them,
    Our Prophet and Patriarch were murdered,
    and this group was forced to leave the United States by gunpoint from angry mobs.

    My, how things have reversed their original course...

  • bleeding purple Santa Ana, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    I believe in living my faith so I am for traditional marriage ... you believe differently and are for "marriage equality." Judges are ruling in favor of marriage for all. The reason this is sad for religious people is because we feel we are standing up for the Lord, not hating you. That being said, it is now possible for same sex marriage, so we go on. It doesn't mean I have to renounce my faith or change my position, it just means I have to accept it and go on. I still feel the same about all of my "brothers and sisters" ... I try to love everyone because we are all children of God trying to make our way in this world. Screaming and yelling does not get your point across any better.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    @cjb:
    "What are people supposed to believe when the main argument against gay marriage is that allowing gay marriage would hurt traditional marriages?"

    That's not the main argument. It's that all other combinations of 'marriage' such as polygamy, incest, sibs, children, etc., would also have to be allowed. Homosexuals can't have exclusive right to the only non-traditional marriage.

    "Gay marriage is only for people who are wired differently."

    Alotta people are wired differently. You can't deny them their rights.

    @Kalindra:
    "We don't... don't set income or educational restrictions in the ability to have and raise children..."

    But there are restrictions for marriage such as... age, competency, ability to contract, two persons, etc...

    @Pagan:
    "Edie was hit with a $363,000 federal estate tax bill because as a same-sex couple they were not eligible for the unlimited marital deduction."

    She apparently was unfamiliar with trusts. Can't blame that on laws re marriage.

    @Apocalypse please:
    "Of all people you would think that Utahns would know what it's like to be persecuted for having ... polygamy."

    That shouldn't last too long when polygamy is reinstated along with allowing homosexuals to marriage.

  • cachedout Centerville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    Oh, I see. Suddenly, it's supporters of traditional marriage who are being oppressed.

    Now, where did I put the world's tiniest violin?

  • mamaC Sandy, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    I agree wholeheartedly with this article. I don't mean to offend or hurt those that disagree, I stand for traditional marriage and also stand for kindness to those that don't believe the way that I do. Mothers are important, Fathers are important, together, married, they compliment and strengthen each other....that is what I believe.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    "Sadness that we who are concerned about redefining marriage are publicly branded as bigots whose sole motivations are animus and malice against gays and lesbians."
    Ok lets hear the truth! Sadness should be directed to gay and lesbian Americans who dont have all the tax breaks and equal rights that you enjoy in our great country.Who are you to tell us how to live our lives when the divorce rate in Utah is over 50!%.
    This inequality is gone on long enough and with gods help it will stop now and the Supremes will liberate us all, ga and straigth, no more homophobia pleeze!

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    @10CC:
    "Many LDS believe that allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to gays wanting to get married in the temple."

    That's not the issue. The issue is tax exempt state for religions. Disobey the (homosexual marriage) laws and you lose it.

    "But re-framing the issue to "you can't have what we have" does provoke the question of whether marriage should enable privileges not available to those who are not married, such as preferential tax advantages."

    Good point... the IRS will eventually fix by eliminating filing joint returns.

    "This may be the underlying end point - should government be in the marriage business at all?"

    They should be, or some would be able to marry and file a joint return with ten wives or their... horse.

    @History Freak:
    "By contrast, when Prop 8 passed in California by a democratic vote of the people, the LGBT community marched on the Los Angeles Temple en masse and screamed hatred toward Temple Patrons..."

    I think you've inadvertently put your finger on the difference between liberal and conservative.

  • Trouble Vancouver, WA
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:00 p.m.

    I'm glad to read the Erickson's commentary which artfully clarifies that opposition to same sex marriage is not based on hatred or disparagement. So much of the support of same sex marriage is based on the perception that a segment of the population is hateful or angry towards LGBT. Unfortunately there are those who feel that way.

    By excising the "hatred" element from the debate on same sex marriage, as the Erickson's commentary does, many supporters of SSM are angry that the basis for their own strong opinions has been taken away. Some of the comments posted above are clear evidence of it.

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    Jesus Christ is coming back and sooner than many commenting here will want Him to come. When he does, he will have the FINAL say regarding this issue. He will not take polls. He will not ask for our opinion. He will not be swayed by our sincerity regarding what is sin. Politicians and radical revolutionaries, just like the rest of us, will have no say at that time. No one will call him a hate-filled bigot or say that he does not love or understand them. In fact, every knee WILL BOW and every tongue WILL CONFESS that HE is right. He will be the final judge and he will reward us according to our faithfulness in keeping HIS commandments.

    Living a righteous life is not easy. But I will gladly sacrifice my will for the very short duration of this life so that I can enjoy the eternities in the presence of my heavenly family. There is no other way to achieve eternal happiness.

  • Al Vernal, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    I have friends and relatives who are gay and if you talk to any of them they will tell you that I have nothing against them. They are my friends and family and I love them and treat them as I do all other friends and family.

    That being said, I find it interesting the difference between the reactions of the two 'communities' when the verdict was not in their favor. The gay community in California chose to behave in a mob like way as they defaced and degraded people and property of those who disagreed with them. The Utah community did none of that. Utahns showed that they can still love those with whom you disagree, the gay community in California showed that they believe that those who don't agree with them should be punished. While examining the difference in the reactions to political or judicial defeat among the gays in California and the Utahns, all I can say is 'by their fruits ye shall know them'.

    One other thing, those of you who have bought into gay marriage being about love, the push for gay marriage is not about love, it is about power.

  • Adalaide OREM, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    As a straight married woman who is unable to have children, I find it personally demeaning to have people use the "it's for the children" argument. To say that marriage is an institution meant to bring children into the world to be raised by their biological parents is not only demeaning to me, but to every person like me who is unable to conceive as well as to families who adopt.

    Marriage is a beautiful expression of love and intimacy between two people. What it is traditionally has been redefined so many times that it would make the heads of Biblical people spin to see what it is today. Our world changes, and we change with it. What is it to me if gay people marry? It has no impact on my marriage. If two same gender people want to share a life of love and companionship in the same way everyone else does, so what? There was a time when marriage was nothing more than a business transaction, we should be thankful today that tradition has evolved and expand our hearts and thinking to let everyone enjoy the blessings it can bring.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    @ Pagan: No Pagan, we are not against you, we are for our rights. You do not want us to have the right to not have our children indoctrinated against behavior we abhor and demand that public schools teach that to our children. You do not want us to keep public restrooms restricted to the biological identity, you want us to accept gender identity so that anyone can enter any public restroom. You don't want us to have a voice that differs with you. If we voice our basic inalienable rights you call us bigots and homophobes. Yes Pagan, we do have rights too. I have voiced my opinion many times in defense of gays to be treated with respect and dignity. I will stand up against anyone that abuses my gay friends. But I want you to recognize my basic rights too.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    Why can't you believe in "traditional marriage" and "non-traditional marriage" at the same time? I'm a married heterosexual - have been for 28 years. I couldn't care less if a homosexual couple wants to be married. It has NO impact on me and my marriage. I'm not gay, so I don't plan to have a gay marriage. I just don't see the problem. Yes, I'm LDS, and yes, I am married in the temple. My gay co-worker and his husband have not impacted that at all.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    Utahns. Is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minorty?

    Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing. But homosexual marriage would change this. Since marriage is also a moral issue, redefining marriage is redefining morals. Furthermore, marriage is an extremely wide-spread practice within any society and has many legal and moral issues attached to it. So, when marriage is redefined, the society is dramatically affected. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land. The ramifications are vast and we are seeing the effects of homosexual legal "rights" affecting housing, education, the work place, medicine, the armed forces, adoption, religion, etc. Are all the changes good? That is hotly debated. But we have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    @banderson

    "The will of the people was subverted by a federal judge and a tyrannical minority, plain and simple. The Constitution was thrown overboard by emotions and tyranny."

    And your constitutional scholarly studies eminated from where? Where exactly did you learn that mob rule is what the United States was founded on? That school should be shut down. If you don't understand the difference between mob rule and constitutional law, then you need to do a little more studying.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    @Cats;

    "...militant..." LGBT citizens aren't voting on your rights, are they? Jesus said that you should treat others the way you want to be treated by others. YOU are NOT following Jesus on these comment threads.

    @History Freak;

    I'm sure you would have just said, "well okay" if the LDS church had just been instrumental in violating your own civil rights. Not. That was anger, not hate.

    @Tekakaromatagi;

    Does it really matter how much niceness you cloak your bigotry in? It's still bigotry.

    @Danny Chipman;

    I may end up with a lot of regrets, but one of them will not be leaving the LDS church. That was the best thing I've ever done in my life.

    @Lone Star Cougar;

    You want to see "meanness and hate"? Try standing in our shoes.

    @Mike Richards;

    Once again, "god's" definition is irrelevant in our civil laws.

  • Cougsndawgs91 West Point, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    I think there needs to be an important distinction made between gays who are "lying about traditional marriage not changing" & "marriage shouldn't exist at all", and the vast majority of gays and lesbians that just want equal protection under the law. Every civil rights evolution is going to have the militants and deviants. Remember the black panthers in the 60s? Did they have the same goals and tactics as MLK or the mainstream black community? Not at all...they were on the same side of the fight, but more aggressive and violent in their tactics. This fight for equality for gays and lesbians will also involve those who are deceptive and more aggressive in their fight than the mainstream LGBT community. Lets not believe that the gay community is somehow wanting to destroy marriage and religion with their fight for equality. Sure there are SOME that may desire that, but the majority of them including ALL the ones I know do not have that in their agenda.

    Yes, standing for traditional marriage does not make you against anyone, but painting all gays with the same brush having the same agenda doesn't make you appear tolerant or loving either.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    Mr. and Mrs. Erickson,

    Just wait until one of your children or grandchildren turns out to be gay or lesbian and goes through all the pain and horror that your views and reactions will cause. Do we want more suicides? But, like so many other heterosexual couples who truly love their offspring, when that child or grandchild will find the ideal partner and deeply desires marriage, you will change sides. And you will discover it enriches your own life.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    Utahns, think the gay community will respect your rights?
    In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
    Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
    Concerned about your rights - write your legislative representatives!

  • archemeedees Tooele, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    I have never seen a crowd so full of hate as those who oppose traditional marriage.

  • nottoolate Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    Seriously, we should be impressed and relieved that "Utah voters have not taken to the streets in angry protest" about the change in marriage laws?? Wow, what self-restraint. And following that statement, this article goes on to give us a moral lecture about all the reasons that "Utah voters" are just "sad." I could go on about how condescending all this is, but I'll just finish by saying that my wife and I have been married for 41 years, we have a beautiful daughter together, and neither my marriage nor my family are threatened in any way by having LBGT married couples in our backward little state.

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    @Bebyebe:
    "Your statement that children are best with a mother and father is unjustified. Many children are being raised in single parent homes now."

    Study after study shows children of single parents are more apt to join gangs, get in trouble, etc. True fact.

    @Tiago:
    "I think the idea is that legal acceptance of same sex marriage will increase the incidence of homosexual activity among 'marginal' individuals..."

    Seems right. Many same-sex attracted folks are on the border... can go either way. Once same-sex is thought of as 'normal' the tendency to go that direction will naturally increase.

    Here's the reality. Homosexual activities, including marriage, is repugnant to the vast majority.. Sorry to say and my apologies if it offends. If/when people find that you're married as a homosexual they will shun. Not saying this is right, just saying what is.

    @Kapz:
    "Do same sex marriage proponents support incestuous marriage or polygamy amongst consenting adults? Why or why not? I don't see the difference.."

    Thy don't. It's more of a selfish issue... 'I want what I want and I don't care about the consequences.' Kinda like liberal think.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    @Wilf 55

    Dear Sir/madamme: I have stated much of what you say to some of my family and friends who sometimes have been "a little homophobic". We do not want more suicides!. What we need to do is accept those who are different from ourselves - and love them despite those differences!. However, as we love and accept them, we do not have to accept behavior if it is contrary to our moral and intellectual foundations. Should they not also respect our point of view? We should stand for fair legal rights for ALL PEOPLE, not just those who want to be treated as a special class. Respect runs both ways.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    'Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be.' - Article

    *'Gays GREATEST THREAT TO AMERICA, Buttars says' - By Aaron Falk – Deseret news - 02/19/09

    'Sen. Chris Buttars believes gays and lesbians are "the greatest threat to America going down," comparing members of the LGBT community to radical Muslims.' - Article

    Buttars was elected in Utah, on a Republican ticket, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.

    Or let's talk about the Sherif who's comments were posted by the Deseret news. The constant OP's. Threats to overthrow the government, etc?

    I know!

    Let's talk more about how people who don't believe as I do will burn for eternity in a lake of fire.

    That will show how much I am 'not against' others. (Sarcasm)

  • whycantifindascreenname Layton, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    I love that I was married to my husband and have many wedding photos in our home and wear my ring with pride. I cherish my marriage and would love everyone else to be able to feel the same and be able to get married. So I don't understand how so many others don't want to share this thing that they seem to care about so much. Why wouldn't you want other people to be able to share in the joy that you have in being married? If you value marriage so much to try to keep certain people out of "the club", isn't it a little hypocritical to do so? I understand wanting to protect what you think it should be ("traditional"), but why? Churches should be able to decided who they perform marriages for (the LDS church already does; you must be worthy to marry in the temple), so how will two other people getting married really affect you and your marriage? Your principles shouldn't affect how other people get to live their lives.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    It is not really telling that those who really hadn't lost anything with the recent court ruling didn't take to the streets. All it shows is even they know they have haven't lost anything but the ability to have a marriage and deny it to others. The march in California was completely justified, when the LDS made themselves the focal point of the pro-Prop 8 campaign to deny this simple contract to others, those others react angrily.

    This editorial is just another attempt to push a bigoted perspective in nice soft sounding words. All the nonsense about children, or sex, or traditional marriage, or what have you is irrelevant. All of these are occurring with or without SSM. This is about a state issued marriage contract, a piece of paper, creating a condition of rights and responsibilities between two people. The state has no business or justification in telling two legal adults they can't agree to that and sign the contract. None at all.

    Churches are protected against unwanted SSM in the US, else I'd have the right to get married in an LDS temple as an atheist. I don't.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:22 p.m.

    I've never believed for a moment that my Latter-day Saint friends were motivated by hatred in their opposition to Gay Marriage.

    Every generation is handed a set of social beliefs from the previous generation, and sometimes they are handed the previous generation's fears as well. I grew up hearing that there would be disastrous consequences for society from miscegenation - the mixing of races. That fear infected people everywhere, including Utah. But Utah changed. The Mormons changed. The recent essay on blacks and the priesthood on the LDS Church's official site shows just how dramatic that change has been.

    I think the notoriously kind an generous people of Utah will discover that Gays do not pose a threat to them or their beliefs and they will respond with a friendly and welcoming heart. This is how the Mormons have always responded when touched, as surely they will be, by the Better Angels of Their Nature.

  • Wingnut1 USA, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    Thank you so much for writing this article. I loved the points that you made. Even though I don't support gay marriage, it doesn't mean I hate all gays. I am glad that you had the courage to say these things, great job!!

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    Mr. Bean. You commented: "Many same-sex attracted folks are on the border... can go either way. Once same-sex is thought of as 'normal' the tendency to go that direction will naturally increase."
    I am honestly very curious about this and it's not something I can really talk about with my LDS friends to gauge if it is true or not. Maybe here in relative anonymity people will be more open. Of those here who are in heterosexual marriages, how many of you would have considered or explored same sex relationships if there weren't barriers of societal/legal disapproval?
    I think this is the crux of the argument against same sex marriage. People who oppose are afraid, wrongly or rightly, that supporting same sex relationships will make more people experiment and choose homosexuality, so they feel like they need to strongly voice their disapproval to maintain the social pressure that keeps people from experimenting. Is that right?

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    Wouldn't it be interesting, if to have one's comment approval on this forum, one's age would be required.
    Statistics would show the world the numbers, determining the opinions and the outcome of this issue.
    We would see, just as we have throughout history, just what will take place in our modern society.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    @Fred T
    "They don't protest and whine in the streets."

    I could've sworn there were dozens of tea party protests...

    @smart_aleck
    "I am a strong supporter of gay rights, rights that are best preserved in the codification of marriage as between a man and a woman. "

    That's like arguing that segregation was good for black people.

    @wrz
    "Most all humans have some eccentricities/oddities or penchants/drives that need to be controlled/overcome."

    I'm visualizing a random person yelling at a kid for writing with their left hand...

    "It's that all other combinations of 'marriage' such as polygamy, incest, sibs, children, etc., would also have to be allowed. "

    You sound like someone who opposed interracial marriage.

    @Alfred
    "Disobey the (homosexual marriage) laws and you lose it."

    Why? We have anti-discrimination laws based on religion and yet churches are free to not marry whoever they don't want to in their churches and temples (like say a mixed-faith couple can't marry in an LDS temple). Gay couples aren't magically different.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    in the past 100 years the LGBT community has been subjected to forced shock therapy, forced lobotomies, forced castration, incarceration and forced hospitalization among the nicer and at the time legal things in the United States in addition we are still subject to incarceration and even execution in some parts of the world. We were rounded up by the thousands and killed by the Germans, a piece of history lost in the classroom and memories of those that speak such harsh words, so please do accept my deepest apologies if we do occasionally offend in response to characterizations that diminish our basic humanity. After all we shadows do not mean to offend.

  • Joe Carlin OAKLAND, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    To all who say gay people deserve all the same rights as straight people, but not the name "marriage", why on earth would you vote for Amendment 3? It clearly states:

    "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    You voted to ban giving anyone else but one man and one woman the "same or substantially equivalent legal effect." Now, this has been the absolute hardest part of the amendment to defend. That is why DOMA (which also denied gay people all the rights of marriage) was found unconstitutional and it is why Amendment 3 also was found unconstitutional for the exact same reasons.

    It is a poisoned pill which in absence of any government rational basis can only show animus. I'm glad the courts saw right through that and it deserved to take the whole amendment down.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    People may not be rioting in opposition to this ruling, but not a day goes by that there is not an article or letter in this paper bemoaning the situation and "activist judges" and calling for the state to do whatever is necessary to get the ruling overturned.

    And the only reason anyone can give is tradition - and the only way to make that claim with a straight face is to ignore the real history of marriage and the world.

    If you cannot make your point using real life and real facts, perhaps there is a flaw in the point you are trying to make.

  • Aja Clfd, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:05 p.m.

    It's always the same - respect me and my views, but how dare you have your own. You can say whatever you want but if someone speaks out differently, with their opinions then you blast back with unfair, bigots, demeaning, ignorant, etc. We all have views and what I think is just as important as what you think. I do NOT have to believe or act the same as you do, nor do I have to change or except something that I do not agree with nor see the logic in. It's sad to see the minority push themselves on and govern the majority.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    Can I make a suggestion to my LDS brothers and sisters who hold the position that gay marriage is an affront to the "sanctity of traditional marriage". - Let temple marriage be the sacred distinction you desire to have because it is, after all, for time and all eternity. And let civil marriage be available to all committed couples " 'till death do they part".

  • dandawg Orem, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    I second the frustration of most everyone else. The title of this article didn't really match the arguments. And the arguments that were made were just bad logically. Personally I think the reason Utahns aren't fussing over the decision is that more of us are becoming open and less homophobic. Why does the editor let such low quality writing through ...

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:23 p.m.

    "supporters of traditional marriage are not the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be"

    Actually, many of them are. A well-attended meeting was held in Highland, Utah yesterday calling for outrage and uprising among those opposed to homosexual marriage in Utah.

    Further, just because you are not angry or hate-filled does not mean that you are not prejudiced.

  • The Judge Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    Funny how LGBT radicals trumpet the rule of law when they agree with it and trash it when it goes against them.

  • jjarseneau Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    ".we believe what we believe. And our conviction is strong"

    How does your conviction of excluding a certain class of people benefit society? Can you show any evidence? It has been established that blacks can marry whites, the mentally handicapped can marry, prisoners on death row have the right to marry. None of these allowances denigrates the institution because inalienable human rights to pursue happiness on an equal footing with others trumps your idea of what a perfect society should look like.

    One in 4500 babies is born without clearly defined sexual characteristics. The variations are many, 47XXY chromosomes, Klinefelter's Syndrome, congenital adrenal hypoplasia, gonadal dysgenesis, androgen insensitivity syndrome. Would you prefer to put all these people into boxes so you can force all intimate human relationships (or dignified companionship) into a predefined concept that not even the Bible or modern day revelation can clearly detail?

    Live and let others live as well.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    @The Judge

    "Funny how LGBT radicals trumpet the rule of law when they agree with it and trash it when it goes against them."

    Funny how conservatives trumpet the rule of law when they agree with it and trash it when it goes against them.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:53 p.m.

    This "editorial", along with other reactions to the Judge's perfectly obvious verdict, makes me see that I missed a great opportunity:
    ....I should have moved to Utah, and become a rich optometrist, due to the prevalence of myopia!

    "we have a message to the gay and lesbian people who live among us - we don't hate you, it's nothing like that. But we believe what we believe. And our conviction is strong."

    May I suggest a parody or two of the Ericksons' pleadings and that statement:

    "Dear Black People -- we love you but ask you to not give us so much upset by wanting to attend our schools and eat at our lunch counter"

    "Dear Jewish People -- we know you feel as German as we do, but we resent you owning so many businesses and trying to control the culture, so we might have to take action"

    You do not want people who are different, or believe differently, to make you adjust your thinking, in order to recognize they are equal Americans.

    Blocking people's rights to be equal qualifies you for those ugly labels, even if you have convinced yourself that you are not being hateful.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    To all the defenders of "traditional" marriage, a couple of questions. Has the energy, enthusiasm, emotion, and money you have committed to this cause contributed to contentment and peace of mind? Or, perhaps, has it done the opposite? Has your attachment to ensuring society define marriage as you think it should be defined promoted well-being and love? Or, has it merely promoted your own sadness or anger? Isn't it time for you to take responsibility for your own suffering? Won't you be in a much better position to help reduce the suffering of others if you do?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 3:57 p.m.

    @Aja;

    I couldn't care less if you never accept the equality of LGBT citizens in your life. The government on the other hand is supposed to protect ALL of us, not just you heterosexuals. Once you get that, we'll be fine. Believe whatever you want, just don't push your beliefs onto those who don't believe. And don't say that we're forcing our beliefs on you; you haven't been forced to marry someone of the same sex.

  • Igualmente Mesa, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    Same-sex spouses generally must file using a married filing separately or jointly filing, for tax year 2013, and going forward. For tax years 2012 and earlier, same-sex spouses who filed their tax returns as single, may choose (but are not required) to amend their federal tax returns to file using married filing separately or jointly filing status provided the period of limitations for amending the return has not expired. A taxpayer generally may file a claim for refund for three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 5, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    Is or is not "preserving traditional marriage" simply religious activist language for "not allowing gays or lesbians to marry each other"? For condemning homosexuals to always be legal strangers to their loved ones? To never allow them to be spouses or have the legal protections that spouses have in their marriages?

    It's hard to see how that isn't "being against anyone," isn't it?

    Outside of a religious context, a context that my particular religion doesn't necessarily share, there is no societal justification for denying an adult, consenting, unrelated, otherwise-unattached couple the status of a civil marriage. They're already allowed to cohabit, to have sexual relations, to have children, and to live in houses next door to you. Without marriage. Denying them marriage doesn't change that in any way. All it does is demonstrate that you wish to discriminate against them.

    Don't deny that. Own it proudly. Own your prejudices. And learn to accept that people will criticize you for them. You fully earned it.

  • Bendana 99352, WA
    Jan. 5, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    I find it interesting that the authors of this op-ed continue to use the "we don't hate anyone, please just think of the children" refrain, and yet gays and single people are allowed and do adopt children in Utah. If your main argument is 'the best interests of the children" where is the 'sadness' that gays are already providing homes for these children? Why are the fanatics not fasting and holding town halls when this happens? Cause, you know, 'the children', the whole basis of your argument. You're only 'sad' when the parents of these adopted children are given the legitimacy of marriage, which only strengthens their family bonds? This is what makes you sad? Well I think that attitude is 'sad'.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 5, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    Tiago
    There are many studies on your question.

    I just would like to point out to you, that many same sex couples are raising children of their own previous "traditional marriage". Many LGBT feel forced to marry in order to fulfill their role in society and church.

    Many LGBT/LDS marry only to end living double lives.

    As a partial answer to your question, you may see an increase in homosexuality once the stigma is erased. You will also see a decrease in teenagers' suicide. You may also see a decrease in divorce, since many LGBT will not be forced to enter into a heterosexual relationship that is unnatural to them.

    Letting consenting adults enter into a marriage for love may not a bad idea after all.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    Aja, has someone tried to force you into an SSM? Made you attend an SSM?

    Then how on earth can you claim someone is trying to govern you on this? The reality is that you are trying to govern others for no good reason.

  • Just one more opinion Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 4:53 p.m.

    The responses I've read regarding this article have re-affirmed my opinion that you can't have a conversation with a person who won't listen to you; an argument yes, but not a conversation.

    I suspect this article was written with the intention of it being an 'olive branch' but any discussion of this topic is only going to result in fueling the fire. Perhaps for the time being it would be best for Des News to simply discontinue the subject, it's only "keeping the wound open" as it were.

    Just saying.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    Steve C. Warren
    The writers say they aren't against anyone. Couldn't the same thing be said for those who favored males-only voting? They weren't against women. They merely favored a tradition. Same thing for those who favored slavery, opposed mixed-race marriages, etc.
    KJK
    You beat me to it. Bravo! The writers may not have ill will to people, but being indifferent to the harm and suffering gays endure due to the lack of marriage rights does indeed evince animus.

    PolishBear
    Gay couples could get civil unions …[which] would have exactly the same legal benefit and protections, at all levels of government, as required under the 14th Amendment.
    KJK
    Civil unions are like the Blacks Only and Whites Only drinking fountains found in the South 60 years ago. Both provide(d) the exact same government sponsored benefits and both treated both groups of people identically. Why were the Blacks so insulted by this? "Separate but equal" is never equal and America isn't about 2nd class citizenship.

  • TLFinSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 5:05 p.m.

    I agree with this article 100%. I have nothing against other people having legal civil unions, but the term "marriage" should remain as it has been defined since the union of men and women began. Just as there are different terms that state the nature of a person's sexual orientation, there should be terms that state the nature of their union, and marriage has already been identified as the union between a man and a woman, so pick some other words to define other unions.

  • stewmic1 Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 5, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    My sister lives in Salt Lake. She and her husband are friends with a lesbian couple. A "good" Mormon lady refused to give their daughter piano lessons because she doesn't agree with their "lifestyle." What kind of Christian refuses a little girl piano lessons?

  • Jahn SLC, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 5:22 p.m.

    I appreciate that the authors acknowledged the hurt, loneliness, insensitivity and fears that those of us in the LGBT community have faced; and I appreciate that they advocated for a change, that we are owed dignity and respect.

    However, there were a number of inaccurate assumptions and assertions in this article, which I must refute because I do think it’s important to have a genuine, civil discussion, and point out the four most damaging errors in this opinion piece.
    First, even though some "supporters of traditional marriage are not the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be", those people still exist, and the list of evidence of hatred, violence and assault on gay people is long. Please check the Wikipedia article on violence toward LGBT people.

    And they're also here in Utah, as the meeting in Highland, Utah this past weekend shows.

    These people are calling for "an uprising". An uprising because a Federal Judge upheld the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which grants equal protection to ALL U.S. citizens? Make no mistake, there still are angry, hate-filled bigots even in this state.

  • Jahn SLC, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    Second, The Ericksons who wrote this opinion/editorial, and anyone who agrees with them, don't seem to understand that in this country, the majority are not allowed to vote away rights of minorities. It really doesn’t matter what your intent or beliefs are—there really are no brownie points awarded to the good citizens of Utah who stayed home and didn’t demonstrate outside the court-house against Judge Shelby’s ruling. It doesn’t matter that conservative people say, “we believe what we believe. And our conviction is strong.” The US is not a pure democracy. It is by the design of our wise founding fathers a Constitutional Republic. This means that there are inalienable rights that the majority cannot simply vote away. If 51% of the people in the US voted to do away with the Mormon Church, they couldn't do it.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 5, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    Just one more opinion
    Pleasant Grove, UT
    "I suspect this article was written with the intention of it being an 'olive branch' but any discussion of this topic is only going to result in fueling the fire"

    SORRY, you do not get it.

    "An olive branch" means you are trying to reach out to the other side, NOT that you are trying to get the other side to understand that you have your reasons to stick to your position and feel hurt that they want change.

    The gist of the article:

    "Oh, goodness me, we are such good people, and you are so hurtful by trying to tell us that as Americans, we have to allow your rights, even if we do not like them, boo-hoo, boo-hoo, why can't you just shut up and leave us alone or do it our way?"

    America is about rights for everyone!

    Mormons have many thousands of Gay kids each year -- To lie about their identity as "an attraction to be overcome" is cruel, unrealistic, and against children.

    .

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 5, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    Baccus0902 - Sexual fluidity is a new concept for me. Most people I know exhibit binary sexuality, and that's how I personally experience it. I've only ever felt romantic feelings for the same sex, even being part of the LDS culture that strongly pushes heterosexuality. The fact that I came out purely same sex attracted makes me assume that other people would have the same sexual rigidity--whether they are SSA or OSA. If that is the case, I see no downside to full societal acceptance of same sex relationships.
    If sexuality for a lot of people is fluid and they could have satisfying romances with either their same or opposite sex, then I can see how religious folks who value one form of sexuality as inherently better than another would passionately work to make sure society pushes people to choose their "preferred" outcome. I think this is what they are trying to do by opposing SSM.
    I would prefer a world where sexually fluid or marginal individuals are free to imagine all possibilities and choose the most satisfying life for themselves over one where people feel trapped and pushed to certain actions.

  • Jahn SLC, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 5:31 p.m.

    Third, the claim that Utah citizens are only protecting traditional marriage and are sad that it is being "redefined." Do you not see the irony in that? Mormons telling others to follow "traditional marriage", when they practiced polygamy for 40 years, were chased out of the boundaries of the US in order to continue practicing polygamy here, and were forced with jail and fines, and the very dismantling of the Church, before renouncing it?

    Whatever does traditional marriage might mean at which time? Which tradition? The one where it was arranged by the parents in order to bind families as allies? The kind where the woman was property and literally traded for livestock and other possessions? (please see "coverture") The tradition that girls were wed at 13 and boys at 15? (please see "child marriage") Or the tradition that a woman had NO property rights, and a man was justified in the eyes of the law in beating his wife for disobeying him? Or the tradition where men took their first wife's maid as a 2nd or third wife?

    Marriage has already been redefined many times in western society. "Traditional marriage" is just a phrase to invoke emotion and allow discrimination.

  • Jahn SLC, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 5:38 p.m.

    Marriage has already been redefined many times in western society. There truly is no traditional marriage, it's just a catchy buzzword used to invoke emotion and allow discrimination.

    And Finally Fourth, the idea that you can be against marriage equality, “but not against anyone” is preposterous. It is as false as saying I love the black people, but they must not eat at the same table, and must sit at the back of the bus. That “separate but equal” philosophy has not only proved to be wrong, but it continues to kick me and others like me in the teeth.

    So, in summation, may I just share what I’ve heard, “Claiming that someone else’s marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you’re on a diet.”

  • Svoboda_Religii West valley City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 5:45 p.m.

    We can now count the number of licenses issued and multiple times two,. Does this represent the number of gay and lesbians in Utah? Approximately?

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 6:11 p.m.

    Being polite towards someone because he or she is gay does not in and of itself make one not prejudiced. The picture is much broader.

    The tone of the editorial comes from a hetero-privileged center. How can someone understand unless they have lived or are empathetic towards those of a sexual orientation other than their own?

    Inasmuch as this letter addresses marriage it misses the bigger picture. There are many other issues in which the LGBT is marginalized --- not having a cookie-cutter doctrine ideology in Church, bullying, being kicked out of the home for being gay, harassment at work and in school, gay parenting, gay adoptions, the list goes on and on.

    How can one compare this long list of a lifetime of struggles to a single issue in which they are at odds? The one example they cite about being sued for "religious reasons" is not technically true. People are not sued for their religious convictions. They are sued for holding a place of business which is supposed to serve all people who are legally entitled to the services they provide and denying those services to the LGBT community, exclusively.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 6:32 p.m.

    "We can now count the number of licenses issued and multiple times two,. Does this represent the number of gay and lesbians in Utah? Approximately?"

    It doesn't even come close. On the low end I would estimate that there are 58,000 gay and lesbian people living in Utah. Funny thing is, so many of us go through our daily routines without flaunting our orientation and go unnoticed.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 6:37 p.m.

    Conservatives make up words and phrases all the time. An example is attempting to rename the "estate tax" to "death tax". Even the term "traditional marriage" is a term made-up by conservatives to influence opinion. So I don't see why the definition of marriage is such a big deal at all. In fact, your "sadness for what it means to redefine — to change — the meaning of marriage" sounds a disingenuous since you have already redefined the term marriage by creating the subcategories of "traditional" and "same-sex". Problem solved! The meanings of the two subcategories are very clear so you don't need to be sad.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 7:11 p.m.

    The author's opinion is bigoted. I've been happily married for 25 years and I'm glad that LGBT people now get to share the same joys, challenges, and benefits as my wife and I. We've used the recent events to teach our children how people's prejudices and bigotry hurt and discriminate those who have diffrent life styles as ours. Our children, like most other young alduts, realize how oppresive and cruel opponents of LGBT marriage are and how shallow their arguments tend to be. The author's letter is a great example of this and I encourage all parents to share it with their children and discuss it openly.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 7:26 p.m.

    For a proffesional couple they must lead a sheltered selfish life.Its all about us and our straigth loving family.
    They want all the goodies like marriage and 1000s of tax breaks for themselves but not for us gays and lesbians which they seem to admire so much.First of all they should be aware that many of us dont believe in their god or church so they should put that aside.
    Next their phony sadness is misdirected didnt they see 1000 happy gay couples pics in the papers and on television?
    Get over it your cause is lost and over do domething good for our country instead of denigrating us ,i like to suggest you sponsor a homeless (straight) veteran.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 7:42 p.m.

    @Svoboda_Religii

    I hardly think so but for the sake of argument lets say it does, what would that prove? rights are not given out passed on the size of a particular segment of society. It could be two people and they would still have the same rights as if they were 99% of the population.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    Jan. 5, 2014 7:48 p.m.

    What shows the dislike of gays is that Amendment 3 not only made same sex marriage illegal but any same sex union. Doesn't matter to me how many times you say Utah tolerates gays (forget love) or how loudly, The fact that 66% didn't want gays to eat any meal at the same table. When I hear the individuals talk about the fear they grew up with that anyone would find out they were gay, I lay that at the doorsteps of the religious. I shed no tears for the "sadness" of the anti-same sex marriage crowd.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:00 p.m.

    @ Tiago
    May God Bless you in your search of who you are. Regardless what you find you still will be a child of God and He will love you the same, may be even a little bit more.

    To All:
    In my last post on this editorial, I would like to say Thank You from the bottom of my heart to all those faithful members of the LDS Church and other straight citizens, who having nothing to gain have expressed their "genuine" support to the LGBT community through their comments on this medium.

    As many of you have broken the chains of irrational fear, I hope many more evolve and reach your level of maturity, understanding and love. Without the help of heterosexuals like you and Judge Robert Shelby we wouldn't be able to eradicate the shadows of ignorance, fear and bigotry.

    Hopefully soon we will be able to rejoice together in a new stage toward freedom and equality in the United States and the world.

    May God bless all of you. Again Thank You!!!!

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:18 p.m.

    Furry1993: according to your reasoning, based on a 26 year faulty reasoning of the Constitution, anybody who is "wired"differently not only has a right to be protected under the law from any behavior, be it gay marriage, polygamy, or cousin, but can also subvert the will of the people in doing so under the pretense that every behavior is protected and that the will of the people as defined by the 9th and10th amendment is moot! Wow, how far we have come-not!!

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 8:48 p.m.

    Despite the misunderstanding of scripture that it entails, I am confident many religious people oppose same sex marriage because they fear God's wrath for a nation that embraces such "wickedness".

    But rest assured in your wresting of scripture, that God dais he would not destroy Sodom and Gomorah if there could be found even ten righteous people in the cities.

    Since the nation and the state of Utah have so many millions of righteous people (ask them, they will tell you), there is no threat that God would do any harm to the United States or to Utah!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:02 p.m.

    A commenter above asks, "Utahns. Is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority?"

    Is that what you think is happening here? That you are being asked to change YOUR morals? How does that work? Are you suddenly going to abandon your sexual faithfulness to your spouse or your temperance and avoidance of caffeine and alcohol? Because some people you disapprove of get some right in civil law that you have? I don't think so. That's not you.

    Your morals are yours and no one is taking them away from you.

    As someone once said, "One man's rights ends at the tip of the next man's nose." You may express yourself as you will, but not violate someone else's rights with a punch in the nose.

    So, mind your own morals and let others mind theirs.

    Being a Quaker, I will hold you in the Light that you may find Peace, Equality, Community, Simplicity and Integrity to be the true blessings of Christ that you desire.

  • Blue Collar Huntington, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:45 p.m.

    can someone please just explain to me how anyone can think that two men in a relationship or two women in a relationship will ever be the same as a Mom and a Dad? It wont ever be the same, because it isn't. Marriage is a relationship of a man and a women, there is no question here. This is how it has been for millenniums. If you want a civil union fine but to call it marriage is an assault to what marriage has stood for, because you are trying to change what it is and what it has been.
    I am sorry if that offends but I can see no way how anyone can think that marriage is anything different then a man and a women in a committed relationship for life. two plus two will always be four not five or three know matter how close three or five is.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 9:46 p.m.

    @banderson

    As has been pointed out to you numerous times the only restrictions on rights protected by the constitution is if those seeking to restrict those rights can prove their is a harm to society. If you would like to fight for the right to a polygamist marriage or to mary your cousin (both of which have interesting historical roots) then please by all means petition the courts to demand those rights and those that may oppose it will have to prove there is a harm to society if it is allowed that is how our rights are preserved or denied not by popular vote.

  • nottoolate Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:15 p.m.

    The headline for this article reads: "Being for traditional marriage does not mean being against anyone." And I know that we can all agree that-- being excluded, left out, ignored, uninvited, looked over, left behind, unworthy, unfit, disenfranchised, can't be a member of the tribe, didn't make the cut, will never be picked to be on the team-- doesn't mean "they" are against us, they just wish "we" didn't exist.

  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:28 p.m.

    Liberal democrats once shouted,"You can't legislate morality!" Now, that it involves their perspective of what constitutes morality, they have conveniently changed their position.

  • monkeyseemonkeydo Provo, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:29 p.m.

    For the sake of full disclosure, am a white, married, active LDS male with a homosexual brother-in-law whom I and my wife, do love and respect.
    On this topic, I am just like a 7-year old kid....riddled with questions of Why?....
    Certainly do understand and support a gay individual not wanting to be ridiculed or harmed....no question.
    Can understand a gay couple wanting to structure their finances and rights as a married couple does, which I believe is accomplished by a civil union.
    I don't comprehend the coordinated promotion of gay individuals toward being allowed to marry and the requirement placed on society to use marriage to accomplish some end....I guess I don't understand what the gay person is trying to accomplish "globally" with this force. It is peculiar to me.
    In the words of John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John, "Tell me more, tell me more..."

  • HelioTeller Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:51 p.m.

    For the vast majority of human history any girl who had undergone puberty was considered eligible for marriage, with or without their consent. This is a traditional marriage. Nobody here is truly for traditional marriage.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:53 p.m.

    @monkeyseemonkeydo "Can understand a gay couple wanting to structure their finances and rights as a married couple does, which I believe is accomplished by a civil union."

    Whatever made you believe that? You are totally misinformed if that is the basis of your opposition.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 5, 2014 10:55 p.m.

    Blue Collar: You have part of the answer right there, in your comment. A committed relationship for life. That's what a marriage should be.

    The institution of marriage doesn't make that relationship. Only the couple can do that. Some modern couples do a "test drive" before buying the car, so to speak. Others, hewing to religious tradition, practice chastity before marriage, and hope for the best. Unfortunately, about 50% of all marriages don't work out. The younger that people marry, the higher the failure rate.

    Same-sex couples who have been in very long-term relationships have all the characteristics of successful, traditional married couples. All they lack is the legal certification of their already-existing relationships. These are the people who have rushed to take advantage of this judge's ruling, knowing that while it may get overruled, they'll still be married and will have the right to legally look after each other in old age, to manage their joint estates, and parental rights of children they've raised together.

    They deserve the civil right to marry at town hall.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:10 p.m.

    Being in favor of heterosexual marriage doesn't make you against anyone. Trying to outlaw same-sex marriages, however, does.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:18 p.m.

    Re: "As has been pointed out to you numerous times the only restrictions on rights protected by the constitution is if those seeking to restrict those rights can prove their is a harm to society."

    Bogus liberal argument that even they don't believe. If they did, they'd never object to my exercise of Second Amendment rights, since they'll never prove my exercise of those rights result in harm to society.

  • SamSmith Bronx, NY
    Jan. 5, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    Traditional marriage folks aren't haters.

    "former Arizona sheriff . . . Richard Mack" speaking in UT said: "take back America county by county, state by state."

    Cherilyn "Eagar said the governor and state lawmakers have the power to tell the federal government that Utah will not enforce Shelby's ruling."

    "Joe Wolverton, who described himself as a "constitutional" attorney, threw out words like secession and treason while talking about states' rights and federalism in his remarks to the crowd."

    "We are absolutely within our right to secede from a political union that no longer answers to the demands of liberty and justice," he said.

    I'm feeling the love.

  • Fabian American Fork, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:43 a.m.

    So why can't a man and a boy marry? Why can't three men marry? The LGBT advocates need to state why these people can't get married, and when they do - maybe only then will they start to see why the definition of marriage should not be changed.

    Can't gay people find the accommodations and all the rights they seek with civil unions?

  • Joe Carlin OAKLAND, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:48 a.m.

    "Can someone please just explain to me how anyone can think that two men in a relationship or two women in a relationship will ever be the same as a Mom and a Dad?"

    Two men who are friends of mine who adopted a little girl who had been abandoned by a mom and a dad, had been bounced around from a foster home of a mom and a dad to another foster home of a mom and a dad. "A mom and a dad" were never willing to adopt this little girl, and yet two men were willing to. And so, in this little girl's case, the two men were never the same as a mom and a dad, because unlike any mom and a dad, they were willing to adopt the little girl. In actuality, they were better, and that little girl is doing awesome today, happier than she's ever been.

    In fact, she'd probably still be waiting for "a mom and a dad" to adopt her, just as the hundreds of thousands of kids in foster kids are all waiting to, all of them placed there by "a mom and a dad".

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 4:04 a.m.

    If you're a married man who supports "traditional marriage," here are three things you can do right now to show your support.

    1. Don't cheat on your wife
    2. Don't spend hours, or even minutes, looking at porn
    3. Go on dates with your wife. Treat her as though you were both 16 again.

    If you're a married woman who supports "traditional marriage" here are three things you can do right now to show your support.

    1. Don't cheat on your husband
    2. Spend less time complaining to your girlfriends about all of your husbands imperfections and spend more time telling your husband how much you appreciate him
    3. Spend more time laughing together

    If we value the institution of marriage, we need to walk the walk before we talk the talk

    As for those who claim their religious beliefs were violated because a gay or lesbian was able to patron their business, I still don't get the reasoning of that argument.

    My wife and I are active LDS and my wife used to house clean for a lesbian couple (she only quit there because of a scheduling conflict) but we never felt she was compromising here religious beliefs.

    Should we?

  • Normal Guy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 5:13 a.m.

    This article is very well written. It explains the position of two non-hateful people I'm acquainted with very well (me and my wife).

    Unfortunately, the gay community has discovered, accurately, that the most effective way to change their opponents views is not by argument, but rather by using terms like 'bigot', 'disingenuous', 'fear-mongers'. For many people the threat of being considered mean, regardless how frivolous the claim, overrides their judgement. The arguments for gay marriage convinced very few, but these other tactics have been much more effective.

    You need only ask a child if two moms or two dads is the same thing as a mom and a dad. It isn't, and treating them different is not bigotry and deserves no negative label.

  • Blue Collar Huntington, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    Quaker,
    I get that two people want to be want to be in a committed relationship, however you completely dodged my question. Two men or two women are not the same as a man and a woman. We are made different take a look in the mirror there are some big biological differences. What a man and a woman in a committed relationship bring to the table is completely different then what two men or two women bring. I say have your civil unions, have your tax break, have every right but to call it the same as a what a man and a woman have is not correct, it's not the same. it never will be because we are different. Therefore trying to change the definition of what marriage is, is actually an assault on marriage. There is no such thing as traditional marriage there is just marriage.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    @banderson 8:18 p.m. Jan. 5, 2014

    Okay, I'll play your game. I've been a lawyer for 26 years, studying the Constitution both in my undergraduate Political Science degree and my law degree. My ConLaw class in law school ran an hour a day, five days a week, for nine months and I spent double that time doing homework and participating in study groups. I studied the Constitution intensively and have kept up-to-date on it since then. My understanding of it is complete and correct.

    How long ago did you get a law degree? If you don't have a JD, then when and for how long did you study the Constitution with a competent teacher? Please provide your credentials.

    As to your assertion -- Article IV (second clause) states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; . . ., shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Nullification theory has been denied by the Supreme Court. Please provide your authority that the will of the people trumps the Constitution.

  • Born that Way Layton, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    The legal system is in a shambles currently because the gay marriage legalization effort has been so haphazard as to require the redefinition of marriage to hinge solely upon "Consenting Adults". This legal ambiguity has opened a floodgate of other behaviors completely beyond the intentions of its founders and is still creating chaos, as was made clear by the court's decision to strike down otherwise consensus-based civil law.

    Ironically there was a time when advocates for gay marriage claimed their quest for legalization would have no consequences on other social behaviors like incest or polygamy, yet now we're actually seeing that being proven patently false in the courts now, because of the confusion created by "Consenting Adults".

    It doesn't affect you, except that it does, and the truth is they always wanted it to affect you. Being gay in politics has never been about quietly allowing a victimized group live in peace, but instead about changing your mind regardless of whether it benefits society.

  • B Man Orem, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    Very well written. Thank you for your courageous honesty.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    After reading so many comments to this story, the author's claims ring even more true than the first time I read it.

    So many commenters just prove their points for them..

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    SSM opponents have co-opted the word "marriage" in the same way that political extremists have co-opted words like "patriot" and "liberty." The implication is that they alone know the "true" definitions of these words. Which is another way of saying, "My beliefs are the only legitimate ones." This is the definition of intolerance.

    A fear repeatedly expressed in this debate is that allowing SSM will invite further challenges to religious beliefs. I really hope so. I would feel a lot easier if all religious beliefs had to meet the same standards of justness and equality that we demand of our secular laws. I would like to watch children being led into a church and NOT worry that they're being taught that exclusion and discrimination are good, even sacred things, and that such actions are examples of love and respect.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    The surest sign of a weak argument is the use of half-truths and misdirection. However, if the audience doesn't make the effort to verify the claims, their true nature will go undiscovered. This is what the arguer hopes for - sometimes out of conscious intent; sometimes because they aren't ready to confront the truth either. Do your homework, audience.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    Even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which so many brand with hatred and bigotry because of their stance for marriage, has fought for the rights and equal treatment of people who identify as "homosexual" in regards to housing and employment.

    When the Boy Scouts of America began admitting "openly gay" boys into the program, they commended them.

    It's insanity to suppose that, after all this, it is somehow hatred or "inequality" that drives its push to protect marriage, or that the half of this country who also supports that motion are driven by anything but concern and time-tested wisdom regarding the family unit.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    Nice logic:

    "Being for singing does not mean being against anyone. As long as "singing" only means opposite-sex breathing.
    Same-sex singing isn't really singing because it's not our tune. We just don't think same-sex people should redefine singing for the rest of us. But we're not against anyone. See?

    Oh, and just treat them nice because it's so sad that they can't get enough air."

  • lilpinkzombiemama Roy, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:54 a.m.

    All I can think is "Separation of CHURCH and STATE". If you don't understand the concept, please read, review and see that the religious opinion of this state has no bearing on what the government should do. Just because you don't understand, believe or feel that it is right, it is not hurting you, your family or damaging your livelihood. Regardless of the ridiculous propaganda that the state has been spreading about same sex marriage somehow "damaging" other's rights, it's important that we all know the facts and realize that it's none of our business if a woman loves a woman or a man loves a man... or a woman loves two men, or a man loves two women. It doesn't matter, it's non of our business.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    @Atl:

    "A few things...
    I. Marriage is a tool to fight poverty because either
    1. Both work and whichever is making less is boosted by the other.
    2. One works and makes enough to support the other."

    That may be a reason why marriage fights poverty, but that is not the reason I am thinking. The reason is: the father marries the mother before he sleeps with her. So when she gets pregnant the father is around, as opposed to him not being around and there is only one parent and the children aren't being properly raised and taught by two parents. The son grows up without a father figure, he joins a gang, sleeps around, fathers out-of-wedlock children, and the cycle continues.

    Giving traditional marriage a specical status, creates respectability that this is the way things should be. It is society's way of sending a message.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    Blue Collar, dear friend, I fear it is you who is dodging the question.

    Your reasoning, if I may call it that, is tautological. You argue that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to pledge to each other in marriage because they're homosexuals. Yes, a man and a man marrying would be a homosexual marriage. Yes, a woman and a woman marrying would be a homosexual marriage. If they were a man and a woman, instead, like the other 95% of us, they would be a heterosexual marriage. Yes, that's all given. That's the discussion we're having.

    You favor preventing them from being allowed to be legally married. In accordance with the Quaker testimony of Equality, I favor treating all loving couples (unrelated, adult, consenting, human, free-to-marry) who wish to pledge themselves to each other, with or without God, the same. Their bonds, their love, are smiled upon by God as much as ours. And our society should treat them legally equally.

    Explain again why we shouldn't?

    The question you're dodging is WHY? What is so different about homosexuals getting legal recognition for a lifetime bond than the rest of us?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    @Quaker:
    Rocky O'Donovan?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi says:

    "Giving traditional marriage a specical status, creates respectability that this is the way things should be."

    --- "Respectability": The goal of EVERY marriage.

    "It is society's way of sending a message."

    --- Wouldn't a telegraph be easier?

  • Blue Collar Huntington, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    Quaker, your question is What is so different about homosexuals getting legal recognition? My question then, is what is a civil union? Why is a civil union not good enough? We are arguing over one word, that word is marriage. Why should we not call a homosexual relationship marriage, for the same reasons I have already listed. Two guys or two women can not create their own flesh and bone (children) and they can not create that bond that only comes from creating with God your very own offspring. When two men or two women can create their own children then I will recognize homosexual marriage. But that is impossible, because the creator did not make it possible. Also a mother and a father bring two different approaches to rearing a child, and you want me to believe that two men or two women bring the same approach. That is absurd, it is obvious that it is not the same.
    Marriage is not just two committed people, it is a man and a woman committed to each other with the opportunity to create with God their very own offspring or Children.
    Any thing else is a civil union.

  • Kentucky Mom Lexington, KY
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    The best study I've ever seen on the effects of same-sex marriage on raising children--with the largest sample size and the best longitudinal data--is entitled, "High School Graduation Rates among Children of Same-Sex Households." Among other things, this longitudinal Canadian census research study found that the little girls adopted by male same-sex-married couples were only 15% as likely to eventually graduate from high school as their peers from opposite-sex married homes. That's compelling evidence to support what this Deseret News article is trying to say!

    Thank you, Ericksons, for the thoughtful, sound reasoning you put forth here.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    @Karen R.
    Houston, TX
    SSM opponents have co-opted the word "marriage" in the same way that political extremists have co-opted words like "patriot" and "liberty." The implication is that they alone know the "true" definitions of these words. Which is another way of saying, "My beliefs are the only legitimate ones." This is the definition of intolerance.

    ========

    Agreed!
    just like they did when they added, "real Germans", "true Germans", "defenders of the Fatherland", and "purest" of Aryans.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    I believe this is my 4th and final post.

    After allowing it's content before, why is the Deseret news denying it now?

    'Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be.' - Article

    *'Gays GREATEST THREAT TO AMERICA, Buttars says' - By Aaron Falk – Deseret news - 02/19/09

    'Sen. Chris Buttars believes gays and lesbians are "the greatest threat to America going down," comparing members of the LGBT community to radical Muslims.' - Article

    Buttars was elected in Utah, on a Republican ticket, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.

    Or let's talk about the Sherif who's comments were posted by the Deseret news. The constant OP's. Threats to overthrow the government, etc?

    I know!

    Let's talk more about how people who don't believe as I do will burn for eternity in a lake of fire.

    That will show how much I am 'not against' others. (Sarcasm)

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    When I say to you that black people are not allowed to eat ice cream because black people come from an area where ice cream is not traditionally eaten, and the Bible says only white people can eat ice cream anyway, what do you call that? Does the eating of ice cream by black people in some way decrease the enjoyment of white people eating ice cream?

  • Fancy Pants Sandy, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    Empathize with both sides. Gays and lesbians, I understand wholeheartedly your desire and would fight for the same were I in your position, but stop pulling the "bigot" "homophobe" card every time someone disagrees with you! It weakens your position and makes you look ignorant and void of valid argument. People can disagree and fight for their beliefs, after all, that is what you're doing. It does NOT mean anyone "hates" you! You sound like whining fools when you say that. It's as stereotypical a statement as the one's you're claiming to be victims of, so knock it off and show some grit and intelligence. Asking religious people to withdraw from a fight for something that is inherently religious is absurd! They are invested in traditional family just as you are invested in what you seek. You cannot only value opinions so long as they are yours and scream "hater" if they are not. Don't label while whining about being labeled. It's hypocrisy. I can support traditional marriage and support your right to try to change it. Please support my right to try to stop you, unless of course you hate me.

  • Dave Frei Snady, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    Fantastic article. Couldn't agree more.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    This is a wonderful article, Ericksons. I doubt that many in the gay community are going to accept it, but it speaks the truth of the matter.

  • standingforgood Pueblo, CO
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    Wow, reading through the comments is eye opening. So many false claims, especially those redefining bigotry or minimizing the rights of children to their parents. "All that matters is love", blah blah blah. If only life could be that irrational and continue on in peace. This issue isn't ultimately about marriage, it's ultimately about religious rights. Government needs to get out of marriage entirely before people end up being jailed and fined for putting homosexual and sin in the same sentence. It'll be labeled hate speech, and any act of not wanting to participate in homosexual marriage will also be considered discriminatory. Therefore leading to more fines, and possible jail time, for services those people could easily find elsewhere. Why does homosexual marriage affect me? Because it's just a small step toward very large implications as a person who would sooner be jailed and fined for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, then compromise on my religious morals. The government needs to get out.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    There is a lot of hate, but you're correct, it isn't coming from the traditional family types. It's from the other side. And it's that hatred that changed my view from being open to gay marriage.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    MapleDan,

    What a hateful thing to write.

  • Llew40 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:51 a.m.

    Where's the article on LDS singles wards, where more than half are made up of single, never married women, celebrating the idea that gay marriage in no way affects them, the dating pool, or the kind of family they hope one day to create?

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:51 a.m.

    @lilpinkzombiemama

    "it's important that we all know the facts and realize that it's none of our business if a woman loves a woman or a man loves a man... or a woman loves two men, or a man loves two women. It doesn't matter, it's non of our business."

    ------
    You are correct. It is none of our business who loves whom. But when it becomes mandated by law, giving the same treatment as race, then it becomes OUR business.

    Keep the government out of marriage, and you have a point. But when the government recognizes and forces the Redefinition of Marriage, then it suddenly becomes EVERYBODY'S business. Why? Because then the rule of law forces EVERYBODY to accept it.

    The Left doesn't understand that government is force. But FORCE it is. And now I am forced to make it my business.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    I agree, supporting traditional marriage is unselfish action that benefits everyone. Stable traditional marriages are crucial for everyone, and crucial for the survival of high civilization.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    "the pillars of marital prevalence, permanence and monogamy, each vital to creating a bond strong enough that a child's heart can rely upon it." Except when marriage is defined by the LDS church to include polygamy. How many of Joseph's or Brigham's kids created a bond strong enough that a child's heart can rely upon it? Why can't the children of gay and lesbian couples form bonds that strong? Your attempt top minimize the bonds and relationships they form are ridiculous.

    "You or your loved ones deserve better. All are owed dignity and respect." Except when gay couples want to be treated the same as heterosexual couples. Gay couples deserve better, but not equal to hetero couples. Gay marriages deserve neither dignity nor respect (the dignity and respect you DEMAND for your marriage) in your eyes. Gays and lesbians are immoral and wrong to demand the same respect and dignity? How dare they?

    "There is something unique, special, and sacred about the legal union of a man and a woman." There is also something unique, special, and sacred about the legal union of gay and lesbian couples.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    @Fancy Pants

    A belief in and of itself is not harmful. The actions taken or not taken in service of the belief are where any harm arises. So, yes, one's intentions can be absent of animus even as one's actions cause great harm. And when you or someone you care about are being done great harm and the reasons don't seem very legit, doesn't it feel kind of hostile to you?

  • Drew1house PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    The Church has more in common with advocates of gay marriage than any other group. They have been mistreated by the federal and state governments and were advocates for the 14th amendment when it was passed because it would prevent a state... Like Missouri from being able to pass an extermination order like they did against Mormons. Doctrine and Covenants 134:9 specifically states that we will NOT mingle religious influence with Civil Government. We should follow it. Does this mean Mormons must accept that gay acts are moral? Of course not! However we have felt the brunt of marital discrimination in this country... Yes,as much or more than Gays. In the 1860's through 1890's the Church was persecuted for their belief in non-traditional marriage. They were stripped of property, driven underground, jailed and persecuted because one group chose to foist their version of morality on another group. This is wrong. The constitution should have protected this for us then certainly should protect the rights of gays now!

  • JN Chubbuck, ID
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    What a wonderful article! This echos my feelings and thoughts exactly. I would only add that is saddens me when one activist judge can over turn the will of the people.

  • mightyhunterhaha Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    Marriage is not a right. LGTB get off your high horse. As it is not a right the voice of the people define what marrage is and is not. Show me in the Contitution of the United States where it says you have the right to marry. It does not. You can run around and twist words and meanings all you want. The Constitution does not support you. One day the people may support you and laws may change. Just as we don't have to give driver's licenses to 13 yrs olds, not every one can have a liquor license etc. laws and the people can dictate definitions.

  • Chauncy Brinton Staunton, VA
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    Thank you Michael and Jenet. As a supporter of traditional marriage, this is exactly how I feel.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:07 p.m.

    I think I get what they're getting at. I'm for the traditional definition of "Marriage". But I don't feel like I have any negative feelings towards any gay person.

    Why do so many have frame it in the, "You're either for us or you're against us", way of seeing things?

    You can be for traditional marriage and not hate gay people. I think that's all they're saying.

    If you pretend you have to hate gay people if you don't accept same-sex marriage as traditional... then you are seeing things in the wrong frame of reference.

    I HOPE I can keep my religious beliefs, and not have some outsider insist they know I hate someone because of them. I don't. But I know I don't speak for everybody. Just myself.

  • dtlenox Olympia, WA
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:22 p.m.

    Let's be honest here, this whole gay marriage thing is all about redefining traditional marriage, it not about telling someone "who they can love". You can love anyone you want. Unfortunately in our imperfect language the word love is often used in a context where lust would be a more appropriate term. People can love other people of any gender in the true selfless sense of the word (Greek "agape" vs. "eros"). This is all about the LGBT activists wanting to have their same sex unions defined as marriage. They can still have what they want with civil unions. Trying to redefine marriage for everyone is all about forcing their views/ideas on others, by demonizing them rather than using rational argument. The demonizing is the part that bothers folks the most.

  • One Dumb Genius Sandy, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    Remind me, can I marry my sister? Mother? Father? Child? If not, we need to work on that law. I know the vast majority of people will be against me, but who are they to say who I can love and not love, who I can marry or not marry? It's my "right"! Who cares about religion, morality, ethics, values, the children we may or may not have, it's all about love.

    We have to draw the line somewhere as to what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral. Right? Don't we? At some point peoples feelings are going to be hurt and not everyone can be accommodated. Who draws that line??? Oh, that's right, the voice of the people decide. Nature also has a small say.

    What's next folks? Does everyone get to trample on morality for the sake of "feelings" or "equality"? I submit to you that they do not! Sorry everyone, people are allowed to disagree with your lifestyle and fight to protect their own. The more we seek to spare everyones fragile "feelings" the more we turn into a valueless and immoral people.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    RE: A Quaker, WHY? What is so different about homosexuals getting legal recognition for a lifetime bond than the rest of us?

    So what is your Religious context? Many Quakers today draw spiritual nourishment from their Christian roots and strive to follow the example of *Jesus. While other Quakers draw spiritual sustenance from various religious traditions, such as Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and the nature religions.

    *(Jesus), “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female(Adam and Eve), and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Mt 19 4:-6)

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:18 p.m.

    Drew1house:

    Being an LDS yourself (from what I gather in the quote) I strongly urge you to read what President Gordon B. Hinckley had to say on the matter in October 1999 General Conference, during the priesthood session.

    Rest of the people:

    Same sex marriage is not about civil rights, though the judges and many in the country are willing to make it civil rights.

    I consider a right something that is yours from the time you are born to the time you die, while a privilege is earned, and bad behavior can have it taken away. I also consider that government CANNOT give or take away rights because rights do NOT come from government but from God. Government can only safeguard rights.

    Marriage therefore for me is not a right, though there will be many trying to refute me with SCOTUS cases. It is a privilege. One cannot enter into a marriage unless both sides consent to the terms of marriage. If one side violates the terms of the marriage, then a divorce can happen.

    If marriage is a right, why is there divorce?

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    I whole heartedly agree with the author of this article. I do not hate gays.. I have many who are personal friends. But I do support traditional marriage as a union of male and female. Same sex unions are NOT marriage.

  • WhyAmIhere? Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    The solution to this would have been for gays and lesbians to push for same sex "Unions" or "Partnerships" to be recognized by the government with the same rights and privileges as marriages.

    No one would have fought that. I want my gay friends to have those same benefits.. but don't change the definition of marriage.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    Blue Collar
    Huntington, UT
    "I am sorry if that offends but I can see no way how anyone can think that marriage is anything different then a man and a women in a committed relationship for life. two plus two will always be four not five or three know matter how close three or five is."

    .... Funny, I cannot see how anyone halfway rational would actually believe the story of how the lds church came about, but it is a FREE COUNTRY.

    monkeyseemonkeydo
    Provo, UT
    "On this topic, I am just like a 7-year old kid....riddled with questions of Why?....
    Certainly do understand and support a gay individual not wanting to be ridiculed or harmed....no question.
    In the words of John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John, 'Tell me more, tell me more..'"

    ... You DO understand that John and Olivia did not write those lyrics, but that both are considered Gay, no?

    But the answer is simple: Gay people are different from straight people only in:
    1-- Who they love
    2-- Whatever effects being an "outsider", "not OK", told they are no good or a sinner, fired from a job, refused respect, etc may have had on each of them

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    Some of the viewpoints here are quite unusual, to me:

    Llew40
    Sandy, UT
    "Where's the article on LDS singles wards, where more than half are made up of single, never married women, celebrating the idea that gay marriage in no way affects them, the dating pool, or the kind of family they hope one day to create?"

    ...Are you saying that the evil, rebellious Gay men are being poor mormons by not marrying those women and popping out little mormons, who will be raised in a home full of lies and unhappiness?

    ...To most of us out in the rest of the world, anything that forces one to live a lie is against Jesus and against God.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 5:57 p.m.

    I'm 100% for traditional marriage. I'm NOT for government butting it's nose into the private business of individuals. Get government out of marriage. Create civil unions to provide a framework for dealing with inheritances and other legal issues. Marriage should be a private contract between consenting adults and their respective families. Government has no right to define marriage, nor does it have the right to regulate who is able to be married, or to grant preferential treatment to any individuals who choose to and are able to enter into such a contract at the expense of those who do not or are not. I'm continually amazed that in a supposedly "conservative" state, almost nobody has a problem with using the coercive and destructive power of government to act outside of its rightful responsibilities to control such a sacred and private affair. Getting the government out of marriage will do nothing to reduce the sanctity and value of marriage to those who truly understand it.

  • abenq slc, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:24 p.m.

    not that many years ago traditional marriage in utah included polygamy...
    let the gays marry and be happy..what does it hurt...
    utah has the 4th highest divorce rate in the nation in 'traditional marriage' it doesnt appear utah is doing that well in the staying married dept.

  • Brent78 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:12 a.m.

    Where is the marriage equality for people who don't conform to the strict 2-person hetero- or homo-sexual standard? And where is the marriage equality for good-hearted people that lack the social graces to have any success in the dating world?

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 3:58 a.m.

    Someone wrote recently in the Deseret News about marriage

    The purpose of marriage isn't to unite children with the man and woman who made them for several reasons. First, marriage should and most frequently does occur before children become involved, if at all. Second, the purpose of marriage isn't procreation nor is the sexual act debased to the bearing of children. It serves a much higher and noble purpose. One doesn't sit at home singly thinking "I want children to spend my life with" instead they long for that someone to spend life with. Third, legal marriage recognizes the legal commitment of two people by a contract. Children/dogs/houses are a result of that intimate relationship and not party to it.

    I reject that view.

    Marriage as a covenant between four entities:

    1 a man

    2 a woman

    3a God

    3b the society in which they live

    4 and children, who have a right to parents of both gender in a legal protective framework.

    This is what marriage should be. However, modern marriage is yet another example of something we practice that does not deliver the promise.

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 3:59 a.m.

    Regarding same-gender marriage from the stance of Tolerating the sinner and loathing the sin is hardly friendly.

  • choosehappiness Concord, NH
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    Thank you for this thoughtful article. You expressed my own sentiments very well.

  • Nor cal Steve Fairfield, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    Everybody, every organization, every institution has lines that are deeply imbedded and should not be crossed. And so it is with marriage. The gay marriage proponents also have lines that they would be upset with if crossed; they just haven't thought enough about or discussed their thoughts on their "arbitrary" lines. I do not accept the argument that "if its all about love and fully expressing that love" or , typically what I hear in San Francisco is "I am made this way and I have to express it to be complete or whole.." then gay marriage is necessary and all ok. Where then is the line? I assume the "line" for gay marriage proponents currently is 18 year old man - 18 year old man. But what if I am a 35 year old man and the way I need to express my love (or to use the other various rationals) is to marry a consenting adolescent boy or girl? Is that ok or is there a line that has been crossed? According to Dwayne any marriage between any age or gender would be ok because its "the expression of love and an intimate bond between two people who have joined together."

  • AJK Highland, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    I don’t hate gay people, but I hate the worn-out and manipulated claim of bigotry and hate. What a childish, immature, victim mentality. What I do hate is how peacemaking most conservatives are, however. My hat's off to these two authors, but the article falls short in that it expects some inherent level of understanding and reason from that of a gay rights advocate. That’s just not going to happen. Read the comments for an example. You see, it’s really not about love, finances, and all the other ridiculous claims made that sound good and fair (because they do)—it is about destroying what I and most consider sacred. It’s about destroying millenniums of faith and tradition in sweeping, unilateral, not-of-the-people decisions. If not so, another name for it would be just fine. No, they want to be “married” because they want what they want, regardless the consequences, and in the most offensive way to accomplish it. Let's be honest. It's not about love, equality, and taxes...you just want to be called “married.” What a joke. And that is sad!

  • Liddle Bruda Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:03 p.m.

    @mightyhunterhaha

    Do your homework. The Supreme Court did in fact declare marriage a right that shall not be infringed. Just as they found the ban of mixed race marriages unconstitutional, they shall find the ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional.

  • lixircat Indianapolis, IN
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    A few thoughts...
    If this has so much to do with legal rights, then why not make it easier for all couples to gain access to those rights. Why should you have to be married to have deathbed access or estate tax freedom. It should be a simple contract that I can enter into with my wife, my girlfriend, or my buddy down the street, who ever I choose. Remove "rights" from marriage.
    The biggest reason I'm against this is what they are teaching in schools in states where gay marriage is legal. The school systems are required to present gay couples on equal footing with traditionally married couples in family units in elementary schools, even though there are far fewer gay couples. And in some cases it is presented as a "choice" (yes the word choice is used) for children to make when they are older. Children are taught that they should not expect to enter into traditional marriages, but they can "choose" another "option" if they wish. It's as if activists are pleading children to be gay.
    Lastly, if you think churches are safe from being forced to perform gay marriages, you are fooling yourself.

  • Denita WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    "the purpose of marriage — to unite children with the man and woman who made them"

    I guess I missed the fact that when gay marriage is legal, children will be taken from their parents. And, if that is the purpose of marriage, I guess my father-in-law had no business remarrying after his wife passed away. I mean, he already had children with his first wife and he and his new wife are past child rearing age so I guess his second marriage is a complete abomination to traditional families everywhere.

    I understand gay marriage can be contrary to your belief system and I believe you can have those feelings and not hate. However, when you make it a priority to force your belief system onto somebody else when their actions do not affect you, it is very difficult to argue you are not "against" gays.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    Wrz
    It's not a matter of taking over churches/temples. It's a matter of losing tax exempt status accorded religions for those who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages.
    KJK
    Senator Lee’s bill addresses this and a constitutional amendment would fly through the approval process should a serious threat appear.

    Meckofahess
    [W]e do not have to accept behavior if it is contrary to our moral and intellectual foundations. Should they not also respect our point of view? We should stand for fair legal rights for ALL PEOPLE, not just those who want to be treated as a special class. Respect runs both ways.
    KJK
    Agreed, therefore let’s grant gays the right to marry while we LDS retain the right to refuse to perform such marriage and the right to preach our beliefs regarding homosexuality. Gay friendly churches retain the right to preach what they feel as well.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    History Freak
    Marriage is not a right and is not regulated by the federal government. If it was a right, you wouldn't have to get a license. No one has to get a license to exercise their freedom of speech. That is because it is a constitutional right.
    KJK
    Many places require gun owners to get a license to buy guns. You have to register to vote. The Supreme Court has stated that marriage IS a right. If marriage isn't regulated by the feds, then why were the state bans on mixed-race marriage overturned?

    Lovedums
    The Equal Protection Clause was …never intended to deal with a person's sexual preference.
    KJK
    Limiting the 14th Amendment to only racial protections is like saying that girls can wear a string monokini because the letter of the law says that one-piece swimsuits are fine. We should look to the spirit of the law which means that all should be treated equally. We should liken the 14th to all people - gays, women, etc...

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    Mick
    Most couples don't know they are sterile until after they have been married for a few years.
    KJK
    We could issue marriage licenses that expire after 5 years if the couple doesn't produce children.

    airnaut
    This is where inter-State recognition of State laws at the Federal level [Constitution] comes into play.
    KJK
    The US Constitution’s Full Faith & Credit clause requires all states to recognize eachother's acts (marriages, arrest warrants, judgments, child custody, birth certificates, car titles, etc…) The issue of it requiring recognition of SSM is unresolved, but since Utah recognizes other marriages that can’t legally be performed in Utah (first cousins), Utah would have a hard time justifying not accepting SSM from other states.

    Redshirt1701
    Even if the courts say that gay marriage is legal, the state can always copy Colorado and ignore federal law.
    KJK
    It’s one thing for a state to give people rights that the feds don’t recognize (and the feds still may come in and arrest people), but it’s a whole other thing for the state to ignore federally protected rights. The feds would quickly put a stop to that.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    I would love to sit down with these people and we could truly get down to the truth! I have some very good questions that I would like to ask and before it is over, we would see that their thoughts are not as sweet as they want to portray! There is nothing good about what people do to us! It is all degrading and it so insulting to pretend that it comes from God! For these people to dismiss my 15 year relationship with my partner as if it were nothing is truly an insult! He is as important to me as any heterosexual's spouse! Do we get to insult your sacred marriages? Maybe our beliefs include taking away your right to marry! You get to live your beliefs but we don't? God created gay people. If you are not intelligent enough to realize that then maybe you should start thinking! He gave us minds and hearts and gave us the same right to make our lives the best we can and who are any of you to tell us we have to live some life that is anything less than yours? Don't tell me you care!

  • secular_humaist salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    I assume that there is a high density of Mormons discussing this issue, so I'd like to inform you that your own scriptures forbid you from sticking your belief system into civil matters. Don't believe me? Read D&C 134 verses 1-9. I'll be nice and include verse 9 myself:

    "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

    That's right. Don't impose your religious beliefs on those who do not share the same beliefs.

  • Hospitality SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    Before there was a Supreme Court, before there was a Constitution, before there was a Revolution, before we had a country, before any of us were born, since the dawn of time, there has been marriage. It has always meant the union of a man and a woman. Call any other union whatever you will, but do not call it "marriage". Throughout the ages, sexual license has not required that the definition of marriage be changed. You can do whatever you want; no one is stopping you; you have that right. But do not destroy marriage by calling something "marriage" that is not marriage. Marriage will never go away, just as God and Religion will never go away. Civilizations come may and go. Governments may come and go. But no legislature will ever succeed in getting rid of God and Religion, from which came true marriage. That's why we as a people, and as individuals, are still here to discuss this. Everyone one of us was born of a woman united with a man.

  • Hospitality SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 11:58 p.m.

    Who on planet earth is so presumptuous as to believe that they have the authority to put asunder what God has joined together, namely, a man and a woman in marriage? No lawmaker, nor king, president, ruler, nor magistrate has authority to change the definition of marriage. God alone has that power.

  • Hospitality SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    The state's attempt to re-define marriage is a breach of the understood "wall" separating church and state in America. Marriage is a religious institution that has pre-dated and out-lasted all states, even those states which protected religion. The state lacks the power and authority to re-define marriage, which it did not create. Churches do not have to recognize any civil union as marriage, though many have chosen to recognize the civil union of a man and a woman as marriage, and the state has called it by that name because of tradition. Anyone is free to invent their own religion, but they cannot force others to accept it. The state needs to keep to it's own side of the wall, and remember it's place. All the rest is just quibbling and useless debate. Leave marriage alone, and call sexual license what it is.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    Actually, being against marriage equality does mean you are against someone. You are actively working to deny people equal rights and protections under the law. It doesn't matter if you're being mean about it--you are working to keep a group of Americans second class citizens. The attitude you think you do it with doesn't matter. What you are doing is cruel.

  • C Reese Nebeker Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:09 p.m.

    Support Traditional Marriage in Utah

    The 5 tribes that have always lived in the Great Basin/Rocky Mountain area practiced Marriage Equality. They had words for "Two Spirit" people, treated them with respect & sometimes special privilege because they were often the medicine people. Traditionally, there was no discrimination, they married in the same ceremonies as the rest of their tribe. They were family.

    The following are some of their names.
    Navajo Male-/female-/intersexed-bodied: Nadleeh or nadle (gender class/category)(“one in a constant state of change,” “being transformed”)
    Paiute Northern Male-bodied:Tudayapi (“dress like other sex”) Southern Male-bodied: Tuwasawuts
    Gosiute Male-bodied:Tuvasa
    Shoshone Bannock Male-bodied: Tuva’sa (“sterile”)
    Southern Ute Male-bodied: Tuwasawits

    Mormon settlers came here in search of freedom to marry as their conscience dictated. Establishing a New & Everlasting Covenant, they practiced traditional marriage spoken of in scripture. Their descendants can honor their historic sacrifice now. Pave the way for a return to traditional marriage values.

    In Utah many of us grew up with an important phrase constantly in our hearts. "Families Are Forever."
    If you believe this, please, support your brothers and sisters equal right to marriage & family. Support Traditional Marriage.