Quantcast
Utah

Gov. Herbert: Utah faces challenges but 'the state of our state is strong'

Comments

Return To Article
  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    there is no place in our society for hatred and bigotry," Herbert said. Than why is the state spending millions of dollars to deny the rights of a large group of its citizens?

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:15 p.m.

    Herbert is becoming a RINO governor just like Huntsman. Selling out principles to appease the left who will never like him anyway. Yes we need to improve air quality, but no matter what you do short of killing jobs, shutting down industry, and taking food out of the mouths of children the militant leftists will not be satisfied. They hate for the sake of hatred.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 12:13 a.m.

    Many are beginning to see that irrational same-sex marriage bans sugar coated as "states rights" but grounded in vile animus, hate and prejudice do not pass constitutional muster. Much like the historical personal views of every caring, thoughtful person who just happened to hold deep and strong personal views on where African Americans should sit on public transportation, who they should marry, or their use of separate drinking fountains and educational institutions. The defense and support of Jim Crow laws could be similar to same-sex marriage bans today, and most likely undeserving of respect or tolerance when it comes to civil marriage and public accommodations law discrimination. The position of Virginia's AG might be a better model for Utah's Governor and AG, by showing leadership and respect for all of Utah's citizens.
    In the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu: “I am not interested in picking up (Governor Herbert's) crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.”

  • Albemar West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 1:22 a.m.

    I found the call for civility to be very dubious! Watching nearly every GOP official jumping up to applaud the call for civility was insulting. In my opinion, the ONLY reason they miraculously and suddenly are calling for civility toward Gays & Lesbians is because of the years of well documented attacks and insults they have hurled at these Utah families may vary well be used in court to prove that Utah's officials have shown "Animus" toward these citizens.

    Utah's long history of demonizing Gays & Lesbians may very well be the unraveling of their anti-gay amendment 3. Tonight's disingenuous attempt to appear civil, was only a smoke screen to cover up years of abuse.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 4:21 a.m.

    To truth in all its forms 10:22 p.m. Jan. 29, 2014

    there is no place in our society for hatred and bigotry," Herbert said. Than why is the state spending millions of dollars to deny the rights of a large group of its citizens?

    ---------------------

    That's exactly what I was going to say but you beat me to it. Good and true comment.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 4:40 a.m.

    Re: "Than [sic] why is the state spending millions of dollars to deny the rights of a large group of its citizens?"

    Short answer? It isn't.

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 30, 2014 5:39 a.m.

    @truth in all its forms: "there is no place in our society for hatred and bigotry," Herbert said. Than why is the state spending millions of dollars to deny the rights of a large group of its citizens?"

    It appears that many in UT. feel denying rights is not bigotry and hate as long as they can justify it with their religious rationalization. It matters not to these folks that there are also many that do not share their beliefs. These anti's have no respect for the Constitution of this country. They are drug store constitutionalists. They pick and choose who and what rights should be granted as long as it suits their ideology.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 30, 2014 6:00 a.m.

    But, the governor said, the state is being hindered by federal overreach.

    There is no Federal Overreach when the purpose is to have complete equality for all Americans gay and straight.

  • atrulson cohoes, NY
    Jan. 30, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    to make accusations of hatred or bigotry is to incite hatred and bigotry. Learn your opponents argument before you make accusations.

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    Jan. 30, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    "Truth in all its forms"

    Protecting traditional marriage is not a from of hatred.

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    In our efforts to define marriage, why is the State not taking a more active role in the fight against polygamy?

    Why is one fight 'good' for Utah and the other not?

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    How can one say, "If your loved one is in the hospital ill, I don't want you to be able to visit them. But I don't hate you?"
    How can one say, "I want you to have completely different tax laws, separate Medicare and Social Security standards, and 140 other laws that help me but are never allowed to benefit you in any way. But I don't hate you?"
    If I said I didn't want Mormons to be allowed to marry one another, but I have nothing against them, would that be OK? Of course not. No one looks at someone they like, love, or just tolerate, and says let me deny you basic civil rights. In the 1950's could they say that they loved the blacks, but were just "pro-white"?

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    This sounds like the Governor's response to Lockhart's speech. Well played Governor!

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 7:37 a.m.

    Governor Herbert lied when he said his budget calls for increasing teacher salary by 61 million dollars. That was an increase in the WPU of 2.5% most of which will be used to pay for the state mandated increase in district contribution to the state retirement fund. From what is left of the WPU increase the cost of increases in transportation, heating, electricity, etc etc. must come from that same WPU increase. He knows that money does not go directly to compensation but he said it did anyway. If he really wants to see teachers get a 2.5% raise he should create a line item like was done 10 years ago which mandate a specific amount of dollars be placed on the teacher salary schedule.

  • Civil Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    @ truth in all its forms

    "there is no place in our society for hatred and bigotry," Herbert said. Than why is the state spending millions of dollars to deny the rights of a large group of its citizens?"

    I think your should be talking to Mother Nature, not the government. In the history of the earth no same-sex couple has ever been able to make a child.

    The Declaration of Independence addresses "unalienable rights," or rights that are inherent to an individual or group. "Family," or the ability for a GROUP or CLASS of unions to create a child is inherent to heterosexual couples, it is inherently absent in individuals (it takes two) and absent in same-sex couples (NO two same-sex people can create a child).

    Civil Unions are the appropriate mechanism for same-sex couples. INDIVIDUALS can choose to love and spend their life with anyone they wish, but no same-sex individuals can create a child. Civil Unions address that fundamental, unalienable difference.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    All of these critics of traditional marriage are skewing the issue. Gays are not just asking to do as they please, they are asking for everyone to CALL IT what THEY want us to call it, to adopt their definition in place of the traditional definition of marriage. Even if you disregard the fact that God instituted this definition of marriage (in the name of "freedom of religion") they still have no right to force everyone to throw out our definition, which was adopted through a constitutional, democratic process, and accept theirs.

  • Soren Simonsen Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    "...Let me be clear that while I support traditional marriage and will continue to defend Amendment 3, there is no place in our society for hatred and bigotry."

    Defending Amendment 3 IS hatred and bigotry. It denies fundamental rights to individuals and families. They may different families than my LDS family, but they are still families who love, who share, and who dream.

    It's a bit naive to use a quote like that of Madison to speak of the limits of federal powers as defined by the Constitution, but each and every Amendment is part of the Constitution, and the powers and role of federal and state governments have been clarified over time. When Amendment 14 was passed it thereafter became unconstitutional for states to deprive its citizens of equal protection, which Utah's Amendment 3 does.

    I am a Mormon, and though my Mormon religion does not, many religions both recognize and perform same-sex marriages, so Amendment 3 not only deprives citizens equal protection, it also deprives religious societies their freedom of religious practice and expression guaranteed by the very first Amendment.

  • Soren Simonsen Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    I don't know why the religious freedom angle isn't being considered in the marriage equality discussion. Supporting Amendment 3 based on any religious tradition—both by those who voted for Amendment 3, and those now defending it—is establishment of religion by law. Denying religions that recognize and perform same-sex marriages their ability to marry is prohibiting their free exercise of religion. Both contradict the First Amendment.

    Governor Herbert, and every other elected official in Utah, has taken an oath to obey and defend the US Constitution. Supporting Amendment 3 is not obeying and defending the Constitution.

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    @Civil:

    So, based on that reasoning, heterosexual couples should have to provide proof of their fertility before they can be married? Otherwise, they too should receive a civil union? I wonder, does that mean that if a woman has a hysterectomy or a man has testicular cancer, their marriage should be downgraded to a civil union?

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    To say that defending Amendment 3 is bigotry and hatred is analogous to saying that denying a driver's license to the blind is hatred and bigotry. One wonders if such statements aren't rather projections than perceptions of reality.

  • HeresAThought Queen Creek, AZ
    Jan. 30, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    It's difficult to separate one's feelings from this often controversial debate topic. Matt Walsh wrote a blog on this topic which was very poignant and insightful: "Marriage was a monogamous institution between two people who, in principle, could create life; which meant that marriage functioned as the foundation for the family. The family, in turn, functioned as the foundation for human civilization."

    "[...]If gay marriage ought to be legal BECAUSE we can’t tell someone who to love, and BECAUSE it’s consensual, and BECAUSE it doesn’t affect you, then that logic can be used by any other group to legitimize and legalize their own lifestyle choices, so long as they can realistically argue that their version fits all three qualifiers. Clearly, polygamists should be next in line. Arguably, they should have been first." I honestly believe that many who fiercely argue for SSM leave out this entire portion of the argument that clearly redefines what normal is, or will be if this measure is passed. I also believe that arguing from emotions rather than facts denies the other side a fair opportunity for rebuttal, as emotions are often subjective and aren't easily quanitified.

  • Chester Brough Providence, Utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    The right to marry anyone, your cousin, uncle, sister, multiple wives, is not a protected right within the 14th Amendment; if you check with legal scholars, they will relate to you that marriage, and formation of it, and related family law was intended to be a state issue, reserved just for them; see the 10th and 11th amendment analysis during the 1987 Constitutional Convention notes. You need to read why the State of California lost before the Supreme Court; it was not on the right to marry, it was a procedural question--who had standing, and suffered direct harm by reversal of Proposition 8. The Governor, decided in his wisdsom not to defend the decision, just because of personal views; you do not get to pick and chose which law to defend if you are the chief legal counsel for the state?

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    @Snapdragon, you're not "defending traditional marriage". Your heterosexual marriage is not in danger and is not being threatened. You're not "defending traditional marriage" you're denying citizens equal rights and protections.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    Marriage, for heterosexual couples, is a public statement of intent to form a stable relationship, so that the resulting children can have a decent environment in which to grow up (which is important to society). From what I have read, guy-guy homosexual marriage is not expected to reduce the sex-partners per year count. Does this mean we are throwing out the definition and intent of the term marriage? Is the resultant label (married) now to have no operational meaning?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    The repubs in Utah have a platform of hate and bigotry. So does the organization they take their marching orders from.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    The headline applies to that person who interrupted the prayer at the rally supporting traditional marriage. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander. Just because someone supports traditional marriage doesn't make them bigoted. Interrupting a prayer is hateful and bigoted. Yep it goes both ways. Tolerance is not acceptance.

  • Soren Simonsen Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    @Chester

    You're right that "marriage" is not a protected right per se. It's all of the other rights that are legally granted by official recognition of marriage as a state institution that are protected rights—from legal rights, to financial rights, to tax benefits, etc., and including the granting of a marriage "license" itself. Those are the rights that are protected. But there are also many, many institutions, religious or otherwise, that both recognize and perform same-sex marriages, and their protected rights are denied when a law excludes a specific class of citizens, as is the case with Amendment 3.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    @FatherOfFour

    You say "If I said I didn't want Mormons to be allowed to marry one another, but I have nothing against them, would that be OK? Of course not".

    What? How is one Mormon marrying anothr even close to being equivalent to two people of the same gender marrying each other? Two Mormons marrying each other is religious compatability. Two same-gender persons marrying each other is biological incompatability.

    I would add that standing for traditional marriage is not hateful toward anyone. If I vote for higher taxes that doesn't mean I hate people who oppose higher taxes.

    Let's work to understand the legitimate needs and concerns of each party. If gays would acknowledge that straights have needs and rights too when it comes to the definition of marriage and related laws, perhaps we could find some solutiions to each other's needs.

    But for the gays to continually ignore our concerns and only trump their own is nothing short of disengenuous.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    Oh by the way, all of you crabbing about how Amendment 3 denys "rights" ought to read the 10th Amendment. It has a nice conflict with the 14th Amendment. Kind of like some of the rules of Baseball.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    Those who claim support of Amendment 3 is hatred and bigotry do so because they don't have any good arguments other than to spew hate and try to shame and intimidate others into silence.

    Civil Unions are the route to go for those who want to enter into same-sex relationships. That will give them all the legal rights they want.

    Children have the right to have a mother and father whenever we can make it possible. Please, everyone, go to youtube and see the comments of Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez who was raised in a lesbian home. His story is profound.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    Chester Brough

    Providence, Utah

    Why did Virginia lose in Loving v. Virginia then? Why could the Supremes tell Virginia who can marry in their state?

    Did Civil rights outweigh state rights? Shouldn't it do so here, and if not, why?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    dmcvey: "you're not "defending traditional marriage. Your heterosexual marriage is not in danger and is not being threatened. You're not "defending traditional marriage" you're denying citizens equal rights and protections."

    By your definition, we have absolutely no right to try and fight counterfeiting money in this country. The $20 bill that my neighbor just printed out on his laser printer should be legal just because it didn't change the legitimate $20 bill I have in my wallet? We can't deny the counterfeiter's rights just because he chose to "earn" his $20 differently than I chose to earn mine? Really?

    Just like a flood of counterfeit money can undermine the value of a nation's currency, diluting the definition of marriage will certainly affect traditional marriages for generations to come. It is incredibly naive to think that it won't.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    @Meckofahess
    "If gays would acknowledge that straights have needs and rights too"

    This straight person doesn't have needs with regards to this issue, and half of straight people in the nation support same-sex marriage.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    For all of you who are saying that marriage is to raise children, why does Utah law allow first cousins to marry (with all the rights and privileges given)ONLY when they can prove that they will not have children? It is a legal Utah marriage, but only granted when they are infertile.

    Can we just give that same marriage to gays? Or the one for all older couples that have no physical means of producing a child? Or how about the one to the young couples who never want to raise children? Can we let gays have that Utah marriage?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    Cats

    Somewhere in Time, UT

    Those who claim support of Amendment 3 is hatred and bigotry do so because they don't have any good arguments other than to spew hate and try to shame and intimidate others into silence.

    Civil Unions are the route to go for those who want to enter into same-sex relationships. That will give them all the legal rights they want.
    -----------

    Cats, you know bettern than that. Amendment 3 will not let Civil Unions or anything even close to or looking like a marriage be legal in Utah. Your post in non-sensical.

  • Rational Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    @SAS

    "So, based on that reasoning, heterosexual couples should have to provide proof of their fertility before they can be married? Otherwise, they too should receive a civil union? I wonder, does that mean that if a woman has a hysterectomy or a man has testicular cancer, their marriage should be downgraded to a civil union?"

    That is the typical fallacy of division argument. The fact that SOME heterosexual couples are infertile doesn't change that fact that as a class or group heterosexuals can produce children and homosexual couples cannot.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    JoeC:
    By your definition, we have absolutely no right to try and fight counterfeiting money in this country. The $20 bill that my neighbor just printed out on his laser printer should be legal just because it didn't change the legitimate $20 bill I have in my wallet?

    -------
    Oh Joe, these marriages have legal papers, issued by the State of Utah, stating that these two people are married. Commitment ceremonies are more like the forgeries you were talking about.

    All gay couples who have been married by a state legally are really married, accepted by our US Government and able to claim "married" on their tax returns. You may not accept them and that is your right, but they are legitimate marriages.

  • Joemamma W Jordan, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    When the governor made the comment about bigotry and hatred was he refering to gay community??
    They're the ones that show the most hatred and bigotry by interrupting our protest, being disrespectful, which is the opposite of what we did when they had their protest.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    There did not seem to be much "rah rah" from the Governor last night.
    Unsaid words sound as though he is resigned to SSM becoming the law in Utah. He had a polite, short statement, not the same sounding "Yes, we can", as a few weeks ago.
    Actually, the Governor was quietly stating the obvious.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    @ Civil (& Cats):

    "Civil Unions are the appropriate mechanism for same-sex couples."

    Maybe someone will have responded by the time this comment appears, but I have to ask, what does Utah's Amendment 3 say about Civil Unions? -- It forbids them.

    Back in 2004 NO compromises were on offer. When the citizens of Utah had the chance to exclude same-sex couples from --ANY-- protections, ANY recognition under the law, they did that by a large majority. So listening to the Governor's speech, I have to say spare us all this pained, earnest hand-wringing about "civility" now.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    @Cats: By your logic, Amendment 3 is unconstitutional, since it bans civil unions.

    @Flashback: The 14th Amendment modifies and trumps the 10th. Go read the Constitution. All of it.

    @Meckofahess: Alas, your "concerns" are pretty much limited to, "How can we continue to discriminate against homosexual men and women if we're forced to legally recognize their marriages? How can we continue to tease and torment gay children and children with gay parents?" You know... you're not in 7th grade anymore. Maybe it's time to grow up.

    @HeresAThought: While it would be extremely abnormal for you or I to run off and find a gay date, that's because we're not gay. But, for a gay person who can only form romantic bonds or find their life partner in a member of their own sex, it's perfectly normal for them. I do not judge my brother or sister on the basis of my own nature. Nor is it my position to judge my brother's God-given nature, especially when he is peaceful and lives with personal integrity.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    "Those who claim support of Amendment 3 is hatred and bigotry do so because they don't have any good arguments other than to spew hate and try to shame and intimidate others into silence.

    Civil Unions are the route to go for those who want to enter into same-sex relationships. That will give them all the legal rights they want."

    Which are ALSO banned by Amendment 3...

    So you just make the point even more clearly about amendment 3 being about bigotry. You, yourself just admitted, that they should have certain rights (civil unions in this case) and yet you STILL support Amendment 3. How is that not bigotry?

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    Saying and doing are two different things.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    So what is motivating the governor's position if it isn't hatred and bigotry?

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    @Bored, when exactly did the State allow polygamous marriage? It is not hatred or bigotry for the state to defend a law that provides certain benefits to a relationship between 1 man and 1 woman. Anyone who wants to enter into that relationship gets the benefit. Those who chose another relationship - polygamy, same-sex couple, two sisters who live together, do not get that benefit. If same-sex couples want those benefits, they should be fighting for them for all alternate living arrangements. The failure to do so is due to hate and bigotry according to the same-sex lobby's rational. This is less about legal rights than the desire for acceptance. Simply put, whete A does not equal B, A+B does not equal A+A or A+B+B+B.

    If same sex couples want equal status, they should be fighting for equal status for all living arrangements and stop the hate and bigoyry against others who choose a different lifestyle.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    Joemamma---The guv was conspicuously absent at the SSM rally inside the Capitol.
    Just as he was absent when Swallow resigned.

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    Governor Herbert, like all politician, should be evaluated by what they do, not by what they say.

  • Paddycakes South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    Irrespective of political correctness, there is in fact a place in society for embracing the precepts of Christianity and rejecting 'humanism' to please the miscreants of society. It is better to please God than man. If we don't stand for something, we fall for anything, and sadly, the parts of the government want to please all men, when in fact they end up pleasing none. Sadder still, is the 'silent majority' willing to sit down and say nothing to defend the precepts of their God for the sake of peace. Peace, peace, when there is no peace. If only we loved our God as much as the pagan loves his. Our Lord never instructed us to defend and embrace evil, wickedness or debauchery in society, but clearly in His Laws, Statutes and Judgments, He clearly condemned these acts, and we should too, regardless of the consequences. It is better to suffer the contempt of pagans and humanists, and embrace the real love of God and His directives as codified in Holy Writ.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    @dalefarr

    Then there is nothing to rate him on.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    I think we all can be thankful that Mitt didn't become president and then have the gay marriage situation explode to ensnare the White House and hamper Mitt's ability to handle other national and international issues.

    Can you imagine the protests and rallies (both for and against gay marriage) that would be held in front of the White House, demanding Mitt to act on either his religious beliefs or executive duties for equal rights of all citizens? The LDS Church and Utah would have been under very harsh national/international public scrutiny, especially in light of Russia's Olympics and Putin's policies against gays. The concurrent news stories would have been a public relations nightmare for all involved.

    With the bigotry and hatred card now being played in the media, and Herbert's acknowledgement of it, this gay marriage situation would have been a much bigger disaster for a Romney Administration.

  • ValiesVoter LONG BEACH, CA
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    @ Paddy cakes

    Then I invite you to take all those points and arguments into court and see how effective they are. And once judgements are handed down, if you're LDS, try to do the work of reconciling the judicial results with your 12th Article of Faith.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    @SAS:
    "So, based on that reasoning, heterosexual couples should have to provide proof of their fertility before they can be married? Otherwise, they too should receive a civil union?"

    Assuming that we want be totally mean-spirited as a society then how would we enforce it? When an infertile couple shows up to get married, (assuming that even they know and many times they do not), how will the clerk know?

    I love my sister, how come I can't marry her? Why is it that one very small minority of non-procreational unions (same gender unions) can receive a special status as being equal to procreational unions when the vast majority of non-procreational unions cannot?

    Same gender unions are a lot closer to being like all the other non-procreational unions than the opposite gender unions that are called marriage. If we call same gender unions between homosexuals marriage, then to meet constitutional muster we have to call all non-procreational unions 'marriages' also. Then marriage means nothing because everyone has one. It has lost its importance as the means in which society promotes the raising of children by their parents as being a societal good.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    From Wikipedia. Bigotry: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

    Wanting to deny rights to a portion of a population based on their sexual orientation is bigotry. If the Governor says there is no room for bigotry, he should drop the appeals process immediately and get back to the work that needs to be done in Utah.

  • tgurd Gonzales, LA
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    1st comment I have is why is anyone that speaks against same sex marriage a hater?? I have over the years seen more laws put in action by minorities than any other time and the result has been more and more laws and big government involved in the lives of a country that has prided itself on freedom. Do you people who continue cry unfair, haters, racist, and every other remarks that cause dissensions truly look at who starts this garbage? People join in the cry and raise the fists of unfairness for the most part don't even know the actually happenings, the just join the mobs. Look at where this nation has gone thru the giving of more government to us, are we any more free? No. Are people better off? NO has the cases of those that sought redress been done even though they have been awarded their desires? NO for the most part, nothing but division and hatred do I see spread by omission or commission its still the same. Think about that.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    Man, this stuff writes itself. Does the D-News have a futuristing comment-producing robot programmed specifically for the SSM debate? It's the same tired arguments, over and over: "You hate so-and-so," "No, I don't; so-and-so hates me!" Civil unions this, purpose of marriage that, biological incompatability, Proclomation to the Family yadda yadda yadda, society spiraling into oblivion, etc. etc.

    Thing is, it's not really much of a debate anymore. One side has lost; it just doesn't know it yet. In 20 years we will all be going about our lives, SSM marriage will be legal across the US, and no-one will give it a thought. The entire population will not turn gay, the picture-postcard, angel-blessed "traditional" marriages will still be chugging along (along with traditional abuse, traditional infidelity, and traditional divorce), and my grandkids will wonder what they hey all the fuss was about.

    We'll have some new Issue Du Jour to bicker about, and the alarmist protectors of "traditional" whatever will still fight the inevitable. Good times.

  • Randyman5775 Kaysville / Davis, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    Hmmm ... Hate and bigotry cut both ways folks. Just because conservatives aren't for gay marriage, or clamoring to vote for SB100, doesn't mean we don't care about your so called "large group of citizens". If you take the time to READ THE BILL, you'll find it has more loopholes than a pair of lace undies. It's poorly drafted and needs work. I understand completely your desire for change, but insulting conservatives isn't going to get it done any faster than conservatives insulting you. An old saying applies here -- "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." You won't change minds by ranting and making uninformed claims.

  • jjtotten Washington, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    There is a great lie being used in society today as somewhere along the way people are no longer entitled to hold dissenting views. If a person has a view different than someone else it is interpreted as “well you hate me.” It is certainly possible to hold a divergent view and still affirm and accept the other person. Disagreement and respect are not mutually exclusive.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 30, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    @ Randyman:

    You wrote: " You won't change minds by ranting and making uninformed claims."

    I don't think you understand. The LGBT community is not concerned with changing people's minds.

    We just want to have the same rights as heterosexuals do, marry the person we love.

    I will defend the right of people to dislike SSM. But I will fight people who deny me privileges given and financed by society, which by the way means my taxes.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 30, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    dmcvey said "...Your heterosexual marriage is not in danger and is not being threatened."

    For you and all others who are apparently still confused.....

    The term "defending traditional marriage" is CODE for:
    'We KNOW that hetero marriage is not going to be threatened by SSM. But we also know that by allowing SSM that same-sex sex will come to be perpetuated and foisted onto children and teens and society at large as something which is acceptable, moral and normal'.

    You must recognize that there is a whole segment of the population that are all for treating Gays and Lesbians kindly & allowing any tax rights, monetary rights, end of life decisions etc kinds of things to same sex couples.

    But it also time to recognize that same segment of the population will NEVER agree that same-sex sex is acceptable or normal or moral. Their efforts to stop SSM or oppose it at every turn is solely to keep that societal shift from happening.

    So maybe we can just get past the argument that heteros somehow think SSM would effect them, or their marriage, or traditional marriage.

    Hope that clears that up.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 30, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    @Meckofahess

    " If gays would acknowledge that straights have needs and rights too when it comes to the definition of marriage..."

    What I'm hearing is that SSM opponents have the need and right to believe their hetero marriages are special and sacred. What has never been satisfactorily explained is how this belief gets affected at all by granting SSM rights. It's your belief. It's up to you to hold it sacrosanct. I and many others have never believed what you do and this won't change even if your side of the issue wins. So how does this impact your belief? You get to believe whatever you want. Instead, your protest suggests that the strength of your belief is dependent on societal approval or sanction, which makes me question the degree of confidence you have in your belief.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    @ Meckofahess "same-gender persons marrying each other is biological incompatability."

    Does civil marriage law excludes opposite sex couples who may be "biologically incompatible?" Assisted reproduction is a legal option. Could your discrimination be better expressed through reproductive law? Same-sex couples actually have children. Marriage is NOT defined by those who are excluded from the institution. Otherwise, why do we allow felon adult child molesters and spousal abusers to marry?

    @Cats "Children have the right to have a mother and father whenever we can make it possible." Then your issue is with changing reproductive law and NOT civil marriage law. Please think about it.

    @RBB "polygamy, two sisters who live together, do not get that benefit."
    The legal rationale for same-sex couples and their children, is that restricting marriage to the opposite sex or the same race based on immutable characteristics (race, sex and sexual orientation) is not either fair or rational. Therefore, the law does not require governmental recognition of friendships or other relationships (cohabitation) a person may want to enter that may or may not involve intimacy. Understand better? Also, your slippery slope arguments are not valid argumentation in law, they are classified as logical fallacies.

  • Paddycakes South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    ValiesVoter

    You comments are loaded with presuppositions: I am NOT LDS, nor have I ever. I embrace one of the historic Christian churches, so your comments about LDS documents/doctrine, I have no knowledge. BTW, you have never seen an LDS write as I. I don't take my arguments before the courts where the Constitution and righteousness little exist, and the Bible says we (Christians) shall be hauled before the courts for speaking righteousness, and, as many have, be imprisoned or worse. I speak truth, you speak lies. Your words shall, one day, be witness against you. Additionally, I have only support for LDS, albeit, they seem to becoming ensconced with false sense of 'love', preferring the doctrine of pleasing men, than pleasing God. They, nevertheless, are some of the finest people I have met.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 30, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    "While I support traditional marriage and will continue to defend Amendment 3, there is no place in our society for hatred and bigotry."

    This stunning statement represents the absolute height of political hypocrisy.

    Since Dec 21st of last year, I have read a lot of disingenuous statements by those who would deny equal rights for their fellow citizens - but none come close to this statement.

    I will stop short of saying that Amendment 3 is hate-filled - having animus against a group doesn't actually require hate, it only requires indoctrination.

    There is no question, however, that Amendment 3 promotes bigotry. It creates an environment that allows legal discrimination against a minority segment of lawful, tax-paying Utah citizens.

    Honestly... the state knows it is going to lose this appeal. The entire SSM issue was, for all practical purposes, decided upon last year when SCOTUS ruled on the Windsor case. As we have seen in many, many states since then, the courts are no longer willing to accept dogma-driven arguments that have their basis in animus. If the ultra-conservative state of Virginia can see this, Utah should be able to, as well.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 30, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    Bigotry is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself".

    It seems to me that the gay agenda is completely intolerant of any opinion about marriage except the one they want. While the pro-marriage agenda has given the gay agenda both time and deference.

    Imagine if a pro-marriage rally was held in San Francisco?

  • JMHO Southern, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    I don't think the gay/lesbian movement is analogous to the civil rights movement. However, those for the gay/lesbian movement have tried to make it common place to assume it is the same. My reasoning is simple. If you sit at my diner and order dinner, I have no way of knowing you are gay, unless you make a big deal of it. During the civil rights movement, it was pretty easy to tell someone was black, even if they never told you. For this reason I don't believe gay/lesbian should be considered a protected class. However, they are winning the argument by getting people to believe their original (but flawed) assumption that being gay/lesbian is the same as being a woman or a person of clear ethnicity. I personally don't agree with the assumption. That does not make me a hater. It makes me a logical thinker.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    @JMHO Gay rights are civil rights.

    Naaa.. who would ever say that?

    "29 states had laws that allowed gays to be detained by the police simply on the suspicion they were gay. In California and Pennsylvania they could be confined to mental institutes, and in seven states they could be castrated. Electroshock therapy and lobotomies were sometimes used to “cure” homosexuals. Professional licenses could be revoked or denied on the basis of homosexuality, so that professionals could lose their livelihoods, and they could not work for the federal government.

    Most states prohibit marriage equality but any legal recognition, and adoption in some states. The legacy of virulent homophobia and legal inequality still looms large in many parts of this country, and will for many years to come.

    Critics of gay marriage would be wise to learn the history of institutional homophobia in America and how it helps drive today’s gay rights movement, just as institutional racism inspired and drove the civil rights movement. Utah will come to understand the fundamental injustice of subjecting gay and lesbian Americans to their own form of Jim Crow rather than sharing in equal rights for all." - D Lampo

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    Jan. 30, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    If you find yourself not able to visit your partner in a hospital, this is not a result of hatred. This is a separate issue. Don't let the issues get confused with emotions.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    Jan. 30, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    @ Paddycakes:

    Notice the word "if" in my comment:

    ". . . if you're LDS, try to do the work of reconciling . . . "

    I used it because this site has a large LDS readership, fully understanding not all here are Mormon. For you I would say, try to better live by your Golden Rule. Also, issuing threats of religious judgement are not effective for those who don't subscribe to a religious world view, whether it be Christian, (or more nearly Christian, if I'm understanding you correctly). LDS, or anything else.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Jan. 30, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    Herbert is becoming a reasonable governor just like Huntsman. Selling out principles to appease the right who will never like him anyway. Yes we need to improve the air quality, but no matter what you do short of killing jobs, shutting down industry, and taking food out of the mouths of children the militant republicans will not be satisfied. They hate for the sake of hatred.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    Dude!!

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 6:04 p.m.

    @Ksampow "...they are asking for everyone to CALL IT what THEY want us to call it, to adopt their definition in place of the traditional definition of marriage."

    Marriage is simply not defined by those who are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon child molesters and spousal abusers to civil marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in the institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry. There are no Interracial marriage licenses. There are no Felon Marriage licenses. There are no infertile marriage licenses. By being allowed to participate and/or strengthen the existing institution, there is only ONE marriage license for all. Nothing has been re-defined.

    Even "traditional voting" was NOT re-defined by allowing women the right to vote. Understand better?

    The "redefinition argument" is complete nonsense.

    @ Snapdragon "visit your partner in a hospital, this is not a result of hatred. This is a separate issue."
    Try accessing the 1100 state and federal benefits, spousal heath care, hospital visitation, end of life decision making, pensions, social security etc. with your partner and without a marriage license, then you may understand why a civil union is not enough let alone desirable. Marriage is universally recognized.

  • flo-jay Boston, MA
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:06 p.m.

    Let the state vote Let The People Speak! remember We The People!

  • Mont Pugmire Fairview, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 4:20 a.m.

    I hope the legislature ( election year beside the point ) has the courage to NOT impose more taxes on the people ...gas tax, income tax or any other tax. Keeping taxes at levels that attract businesses WITH JOBS for Utah's people will do far more to raise revenue than any tax increase would provide. What we need the most (fat chance with the present national administration) is permits and ability to wisely develop the world's largest deposits of oil right here in our own state. In addition, I hope the State will stick to the will of the people and vigorously present the majority's desire for traditional marriage and family in the courts.

  • Shark51 Wellsville, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    Seriously Gov Herbert? I didn't know you were on that side of the isle. In a time when the economy is hurting, you want to give in to the save the planet myth? Utah has been like this forever and we choose to try to clean the air now? My salary and benefits keep taking hits and now you want to raise the costs on bringing my car up to code, raising the price of gas, and basically raise taxes. Raising requirements on businesses will raise the price of goods. Energy is going up because we can't use coal any more. Free mass transit? Guess where we get the funds for that. Looks like we'll be looking for a replacement in the Governor seat.

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    As other comments have mentioned, this article is ironic considering their desperate emergency attempt to stay SSM. I just attended an Eggs n Breakfast with legislatures this morning who say they are looking to California, flushing out issues that are unconstitutional instead of spending money and time to make them constitutional, and trying to get the real issues into the mix - possible issues such as UVU 40 million necessary monies, gender bathrooms in the public school system, transportation gas hike, more science/math/physic competition into the public school system, and air quality. Somehow the 5,000 homeless youth were forgotten in their important issues.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 1, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    Civil, I don't think that anyone is questioning the fact that same sex couples cannot have biological children without assistance. But as Ruth Ginsberg so succinctly pointed out, "If the man and the woman are both over 55, I assure you that there will be very few children coming from that marriage". Are you in favor of limiting marriage to couples of a fertile age? You haven't said that, but I don't know what else to make of your argument.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 1, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    JoeCapitalist, same sex marriage has been the law for 10 years in Massachusetts. If the state really had gone south in a handbasket, the anti's would be gleefully quoting the dire statistics--but they don't. Is this because it's the law, and people today can't understand why the Utahns are making such a fuss about it?

    It has been repeated that the 2004 law was approved by 2/3 of the voters of Utah. That was ten years ago. There's no chance that it would get that margin today, if it even passed 50%.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 1, 2014 4:30 p.m.

    To all the folk who trumpet the complementary nature of male and female body parts--let's suppose same sex marriage were the law in Utah. Do you seriously think that, say, straight men will start marrying other men, now that it's legal? And that fewer babies will be born because of this?

    I'll tell you one thing that will change. The suicide rate of young gay men will go down.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 1, 2014 4:43 p.m.

    Flo-Jay, if the good citizens of the state of Oklahoma voted to collect property taxes from all Mormon churches in the state--while the (dominant) Baptist churches got off scot free, you wouldn't have a problem with it? Because the people voted for it?