Quantcast
Opinion

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Why the change of public opinion on same-sex marriage?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Owen Heber City, UT
    April 13, 2014 1:28 a.m.

    For my conservative family it was a sibling coming out and finding a partner that made it abundantly clear that their bring together posed no threat whatsoever to anyone. Eight conservative adult men I associate with weekly have had the same experience and change of heart.

    As for the tech CEO, and other recent examples of reverse discrimination, this seems almost laughable to me after what the LGBT community has put up with and continues to experience. It shouldn't happen, but seems a little like saying 50 years ago, "Well the civil rights bill passed, but there had better not be a single case of white oppression if theses minorities want the rest of us to accept it."

    "Traditional marriage and traditional families have been society’s bedrock." As has been pointed out countless times, this a strange statement coming from someone who understands Utah's history so well.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    April 13, 2014 6:22 a.m.

    LaVarr acts as if we are embarking on a great social experiment with an undetermined outcome. The outcomes of same-sex parenting are well established:

    Utah's brief focused "on the impact of family structure from dozens of studies, journal articles and books. The brief showed how “the two sexes bring different talents to the parenting enterprise,” how “the weight of scientific evidence seems clearly to support the view that fathers matter,” how the absence of a father places a daughter at special risk for early sexual activity, that children in same-sex households experience lower high school graduation rates, and that there are higher rates of depression, delinquency and substance abuse among children conceived through sperm donation."

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 13, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    Why the change in public opinion? Because we are recognizing that the only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is in the way we view homosexuals' sexual orientation. When we didn't understand it, it scared us and we condemned it. Much like left-handedness. Now that science is illuminating our view with information, and gays are allowing themselves and their lives to be more visible, we see we have nothing to fear.

    I don't think LGBT's have anything to prove to us heterosexuals. I think it's the other way around. I think WE need to prove that they have nothing to fear from us.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    April 13, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    Web writes:

    "So my question to my gay friends is, can you do family? Can you do it well?"

    and

    "I have no doubt that many of you can, and some of you are already doing it."

    and

    "But it’s a grand, untested, social experiment because it really hasn’t been done broadly, and we’re messing here with the foundational unit of society. . . "

    Webb seems to be implying that if the answer, to his questions above is, on balance, no -- then ALL gay couples should be denied access to civil marriage. Does he really want to use this argument?

    There are, right now, distinct groups in our society for whom the answers to the above questions is, on balance, no -- and yet no one is moving to strip them of the right to marry civilly.

    Why is he suggesting disqualification ONLY for gay couples?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 13, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    Agreed.

    Republicans are more ANTI-gay,
    than they are PRO-Civil or EQUAL-rights.

    Just like Healthcare --

    Just NO,
    Without offer any alternatives or solutions.

    Lose, Lose everytime.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 13, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    Karen R reveals a previous prejudice that is a great example of the evolution of social understandings: left handedness.

    Most people have no idea that lefties were once viewed as being not just wrong, but actually evil. Seriously. Frantic parents would try every known idea to change the orientation of their left-handed kids, horrified at the life these children faced in a world that viewed left-handedness as being not just wrong, but fundamentally evil.

    If one digs around today, they can find studies that show lefties have this problem or that tendency, compared to righties. The material is out there, for whomever wants to re-stoke this prejudice. (I didn't think there would be many takers.)

    When I use the example of how left-handed people were perceived and how the issue used to be viewed, most conservatives are baffled that people could have ever thought that way.

    Which is exactly the reaction young people have today when they hear anti-gay opinions from their elders.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    April 13, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    Why did American's change their view? Simple answer, ignorance never stands the test of time. If it did, women would not have the right to vote nor would blacks be able to hold the priesthood. Truth, honesty, love and compassion are powerful forces.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 13, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    Why the change?
    I don't know -- progress?

    Why the change that Blacks are equal?
    Why the change that Women are equal?
    Why the change [ala, 1776] that all men [regardless of gender, race, religion, ect.] are created equal?

    Some people are stuck in 1775.

    Rich ruled the poor,
    Nobles over the Commoners,
    and achievement was based more on what family you were born into,
    more than individual capability.

  • rondonaghe Mesilla/USA, NM
    April 13, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    This article/opinion came across at first as well thought out, until the authors decided to draw the line at traditional marriage and then asked whether gays could "do family," and the answer they wanted was "no." And so that was supposed to be a reasonable reason to deny traditional marriage. The last holdout argument of those against same sex marriage has to do with procreation and raising children, and the implied argument that children are better off in a mommy/daddy household. That would be fine. But it's not the reality. Fifty percent of opposite sex marriages end in divorce and the best they can do is shuffle their children back and forth with one parent getting visitation rights and the other essentially raising them alone. No need to list all the ways that "traditional" opposite sex households have failed miserably, especially involving children. So why attack and withhold marriage from same sex couples? At least those same-sex couples who have children want them and plan for them, unlike many, many heterosexual couplings that produce children and reluctant or absent parents.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 13, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    This first half of this article touches upon some actual common sense before nosediving back down into typical DN propaganda. There is no requirement that straight people have to have children in order to be married. I'd ask why there's a double standard here, but I'm pretty sure I know the reason why: as same-sex marriage grows more and more inevitable, you guys are going to grow more and more desperate to tear it down...

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    April 13, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    Same-sex marriage may be new on the sociological horizon, but same-sex parenting certainly is not. It is not a "grand, untested, social experiment." Gays and lesbians have been successfully raising children for centuries, if not millenia, just like hetero couples. There is at least one credible study going back 40 years that shows no significant difference in childrearing outcomes between GL and straight parents. The State backtracked on one of their primary cited studies--the night before the 10th Circuit trial! In the Michigan marriage equality trial a month or so ago it was ripped apart and discredited soundly, and Utah wisely asked the 10th Circuit judges to pretend it wasn't included in Utah's brief.

    DN, if you're going to have a two-sided discussion piece on marriage equality, could you please, at least, find a proponent of gay marriage for our side of the argument?

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    April 13, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    I wonder if the Dnews produced similar articles in the early to mid 60s on "Why the change of public opinion on black civil rights?"

    Public opinion is hanging because ignorance is being replaced by knowledge and understanding, just like the blacks civil rights movement in the 60s and Women's Suffrage in the early 1900s.

    If the GOP hopes to stop the bleeding, they need to stop opposing civil rights. Otherwise, they will continue to see their tent become smaller and smaller.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 13, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    The Mozilla CEO case doesn't bother me one bit. He was forced out by the board of directors, not by any activists, gay or otherwise. The next CEO may think before supporting causes that may be detrimental to their careers if their careers are important to them.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    April 13, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    Sal, above, cites the state of Utah's brief without ever acknowledging the 11th hour letter from outside counsel that seems to back away from the central point of Sal's comment. Notice that two of the asserted sub-optimal outcome examples, "absence of a father" and "sperm donation", overwhelmingly involve the actions of heterosexuals. How, then, is it effective to ONLY focus on civil marriage between same-sex individuals?

    But in citing a legal brief, Sal does point to an excellent source of information if one wants to understand the underpinnings of the public opinion shift at issue. Read the briefs. I recommend it. Even if you disagree, you'll be better educated as to why the shift is happening.

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    April 13, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    It is quite simply a war on God as prophesied in the scriptures and reiterated in conference.

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    April 13, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    Man cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. It is that simple, unfortunately, we are lost on the example of Soddom and Gomorrah.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 13, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    @Owen:
    "For my conservative family it was a sibling coming out and finding a partner that made it abundantly clear that their bring together posed no threat whatsoever to anyone."

    If there is a threat, it's not to any person in particular. The threat is the institution of marriage itself.

    If SSM is legitimized so must all other forms of potential marriage combinations, including polygamy, incest, children, siblings, anyone who loves anyone else. You name it. Even group marriages such as a fraternity or neighborhood. It might even include marrying a Bush. Then there goes the institution out the window.

    The LGBT argument is faulty... that of denying SSM violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It doesn't. Everyone has equal rights to marry but under a certain set of requirements: one man/woman, not closely related, of a certain minimum age, mentally competent, etc. These requirements apply to all across the board. No one is excluded. Thus there is no discrimination against gay/lesbians.

  • Mark l SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 13, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    n the US, same sex marriage is being used as a club to destroy religious freedom and freedom of association and simple democracy.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 13, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Could it be that the real truth is that people have not changed their minds about same sex marriage but have realized that the issue is freedom for the individual as promised in the founding documents of this nation. And that freedom for the individual is more important than the personal habits of the individual.

    A person can be totally against the homosexual life style and at the same time willing to allow adult Americans to do as they wish according to their own religion. So long as those people don't impinge on the freedoms of others.

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    April 13, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    Societal opinions are changing. A useful analogy is the Klan or the Westboro Baptist folks. There's no law stopping the KKK from marching, or the WBC from picketing, but it's pretty clearly unacceptable behavior in the eyes of most of society.

    If the Mozilla CEO were fired from his job because of the government, that would be a civil rights issue. He was fired because a private company decided his beliefs and actions were incompatible with their corporate ideals, and with their bottom line as a business. The same as if someone showed up to a job interview in Klan hood.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    April 13, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    I think both authors are saying essentially the same thing: By demonizing the issue, Republicans managed to cause everything they were trying to avoid. Now, ten years later, when their rhetoric is replayed, it makes if awfully difficult to convince the courts the law was only about promoting optimal child rearing.

    I suspect the end-result of all this, is that LBGTs will become a "suspect class" subject to "heightened scrutiny." The Ninth Circuit Court has already used that designation in an unrelated case, and the oral arguments in Utah's case makes clear the Tenth Circuit Court is considering the same move.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 13, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    Every person, whether straight or gay, should ask those questions that LeVarr Webb posed. You see, those problems of fathers not being their to wipe noses, teach values, make sure their children do their homework, and teaching self confidence has been a absent in many traditional families for years. We all need to be reminded of the commitments of marriage and child rearing regularly. Please, let's stop blaming gay couples for problems that started long before same-sex marriage was even considered an option.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    April 13, 2014 2:38 p.m.

    If the concern really was about the well-being of children we would be focused on poverty.

    According to data from Kids Count, over 24 million U.S. children live in single-parent homes.

    More than 16 million U.S. children live in households below the poverty level, with many under the age of 5 living in extreme poverty.

    The National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University reports a family of four needs an income about twice the poverty threshold to cover basic expenses. More than 42% of American children live in families that don’t meet this mark.

    The detrimental effects of poverty on children is well-documented by numerous studies.

  • Getting Older Riverton, UT
    April 13, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    Has public opinion changed? After the Prop 8 victory in California, the gay activists quit trying to win the argument and used bullying, intimidation, hatred, and threats to win the day. If you publicly oppose gay marriage, you will be intimidated,bullied and your job threatened or lost.

    Only a vote will show if public opinion has changed. The laws that are being overturned are NOT being overturned by the people. they are being overturned by judges who may fear repercussions of going against the gay agenda.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 13, 2014 3:05 p.m.

    "Karen R reveals a previous prejudice that is a great example of the evolution of social understandings: left handedness."

    I don't know of any statement in The Proclamation that states that marriage is between a right-handed man and right-handed woman. I must have missed that part in my study of it.

    "I wonder if the Dnews produced similar articles in the early to mid 60s on "Why the change of public opinion on black civil rights?""

    Homosexuals have had the right to sit in the front of buses, use the same drinking fountains and restrooms as heterosexuals, and vote for a very long time now. The "Gay rights" movement is NOT the same as the civil rights movement of the 60's. Gays have rights (even the right to marry). The issue is that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is what they reject.

    Rondonaghe brings up a good point. The institution of marriage is under attack as the prophets have foretold. They are Satan's target. He has destroyed marriage to some extent already (hence the divorce rate) and SSM is his next weapon to destroy the institution.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    April 13, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    wrz writes:
    "If SSM is legitimized so must all other forms of potential marriage combinations, including polygamy, incest, children, siblings, anyone who loves anyone else."

    Earlier I recommended reading some of the legal briefs relating to marriage equality. A really high-quality example would be the Bostic v. Schaefer brief out of Virginia, just filed on Friday.

    _________

    "IV. The slippery-slope arguments lack merit.

    The Clerks and many of their amici resort to slippery-slope arguments, warning that, if States cannot ban same-sex marriage, they will have to allow plural marriage, marriage between siblings, and marriage to young children. Virginia’s counsel raised the same specter in Loving, arguing that Virginia’s “prohibition of interracial marriage” stood “on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

    These tactics are no more persuasive in 2014 than they were in 1967.”

    _______

    wrz, why are your slippery-slope assertions correct now, when history has not born out your predecessors' predictions?

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    April 13, 2014 3:16 p.m.

    "But it’s a grand, untested, social experiment because it really hasn’t been done broadly, and we’re messing here with the foundational unit of society. . . "

    So up until now gays have not had families or children? Well we know the answer to that. Gays have had kids all along, and families.

    It's been said already, ignorance doesn't stand the test the time. We see the same march of progress with legalized marijuana. One group spouts ignorance and we everyone catches on its over.

  • NewAgeMormon Draper, UT
    April 13, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    Opinions are shifting because open minds are receiving further light and knowledge on this issue and the truth is becoming clear.

    Those who call this a "war on God" are misguided and naive. The "war" is being waged by those who fail to understand the principle of continuing revelation as outlined in the 9th Article of Faith. We went through a similar "war" with civil rights 35
    ago and fortunately the truth prevailed.

    It won't be long now on this issue.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 13, 2014 4:35 p.m.

    The last straw of those against same-sex marriage seems to be "OK for civil unions, but not same-sex marriages".

    That's semantics which can't work in nearly all other countries around the world, where marriage is by law and by definition a civil marriage. It always has to precede the optional religious ceremony, which is sometimes called a "church marriage", but has no legal value. That also solves the issue of religious freedom, which is never under threat.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    @wrz
    "If SSM is legitimized so must all other forms of potential marriage combinations, including polygamy, incest, children, siblings, anyone who loves anyone else. You name it. Even group marriages such as a fraternity or neighborhood. It might even include marrying a Bush. "

    Yeah, two Bush presidents is enough...

    Anywho, since interracial marriage bans being struck down is the precedent for the same-sex marriage cases, do you think striking down those interracial marriage bans was a bad idea or would lead to this slippery slope? Or do you only use this argument for same-sex marriage? I suspect the latter.

    "Everyone has equal rights to marry but under a certain set of requirements: one man/woman, not closely related, of a certain minimum age, mentally competent, etc."

    Of the same race was considered an equal requirement too...

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    April 13, 2014 5:42 p.m.

    The gospel is pro-faith and positive hope. A fool worships the almighty law suit and negativity; the wise are positive. Christians will always win by reading the scriptures and staying close together as a community. The gospel is for faith and change of heart and for progress and forgiving one's enemy. Darkness is forcing others to accept your opinion. All people can choose.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    April 13, 2014 7:30 p.m.

    One big factor is that so many people don't look into things enough to understand that we are being lied to about homosexuality (Yes, gays should be loved and protected. NO, they are not necessarily born that way, many do change, and promoting homosexuality through marriage is NOT good for America, humanity, or for gays), and those who tell truths about it are often attacked or threatened in one way or another (including the former APA President who is gay, our Nations President (mainly with withdrawal of money and support, etc etc) and the History of the movement is censored out, and so many people now believe the propaganda and support something that they really don't understand.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 13, 2014 8:39 p.m.

    "Homosexuals have had the right to sit in the front of buses, use the same drinking fountains and restrooms as heterosexuals, and vote for a very long time now."

    I would believe that, if I hadn't actually been kicked off of a bus for being gay. I would believe it, if I hadn't witnessed hundreds of friends getting kicked out of their churches and homes for who they are. I would believe it if states weren't rushing to pass laws to allow people to not do business with gays out of "religious conscious." I agree that this is not the same as the civil rights' battles of the 60's, but does it make this any less important? People are still being ridiculed and excluded because of who we love. It's time for that to change.

    On a side note--please forgive my their/there error in a previous post. I should do a better job of proof reading before I post.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    The attitude shift came when the conservatives in the early Bush era started backing affirmative laws like DOMA and the unfortunate California law prohibiting it. Freedom is freedom, ask the tea party.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 14, 2014 12:08 a.m.

    I guess that all you libs who like to tout the 14th amendment (directed at the slaves by the way) have never bothered to read the 10th. Read it sometime. It was on of the original 10 amendments.

    Webb was right. We will not see the effect of homosexual marriage on society yet, and it will be years before we do. What will the children either adopted or brought forth by artificial means turn out like?

    BTW Mozilla's CEO did get forced out for giving money to Prop 8. And now we have the dude from Chick-fil-a backing off in the name of the almighty dollar so he can expand his business in the North East. Yes indeed, the demonization of everyone that disagrees with the homosexual agenda is gaining momentum. And it will be a sad day when people can't speak with either their pocket book or mouth against homosexual marriage without being branded as bigots, homophobes, etc. There will be no tolerance from the left for anyone or anything that disagrees with them.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 14, 2014 12:10 a.m.

    New Age Mormon, go back and read Romans chapter 1.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 14, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    I have never heard of one incident where someone was ejected from a bus without good reason. I've seen a lot of strange looking and acting people on UTA over the years, and unless they are causing some type of problem or annoying other passengers with some type of off the wall behavior, I've never seen anyone kicked off. So, let's just say I'm skeptical of Really???'s comment.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 14, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    Flashback
    Kearns, UT
    New Age Mormon, go back and read Romans chapter 1.

    12:10 a.m. April 14, 2014

    ========

    Flashback,

    For the last 12 years we have been fighting a war against Governments using scriptures for laws.

    If that's what you want --
    go back and read Koran Surat An-Nisa 4:24

    It says basically the same thing...

    And what makes you different than them?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 14, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    @Flashback
    The 14th Amendment was passed specifically to reign in the states and their civil rights violations. It basically extended the 5th amendment which speaks to the limits of Federal law to the States. While states do have rights, they don't have the right to limit the rights of a minority without solid evidence as to why the limitations are necessary. So far, the states have not been successful in defending their laws.
    To your point of children raised by same-gendered partners, that has already been happening for a very long time. Banning marriage equality does not change that in any way. However, allowing these couples to get married will bring the stability to their families that heterosexual-led families enjoy.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    April 14, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    Frank, if you think marriage equality is wrong then, by all means, don't marry someone of the same sex. But why should your beliefs take precedence over the rights of these gay and lesbian people? Why should you be able to deny them the same benefits and comforts that your family receives simply because, unlike you, they are not heterosexual? Your claims that you love or care about these people ring hollow when you deny them equal rights.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 14, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    airnaut 11:38 a.m. (AKA Open Minded Mormon, AKA, LDS Liberal, and many others)
    Getting on people for bringing their religious beliefs into the debate... now THAT's hypocritical...

    I agree it has no place here... but for him of all people to be the one to call them it... incredible...

    ===

    This is not a religious debate. If it were... we all know there would be no resolving it (or there would be only one religion in the world today).

    We don't want the government making one's religion or morality into law. So why is the left constantly calling everything they do "their moral duty"?

    What makes THEIR morality any better than anybody else's morality?

    We should just leave morality out of it (unless we can all agree on what is moral and what isn't).

    Personally... I like to get my morality from my faith and my understanding of the gospel. But I don't expect the government to adopt my sense of morality or to legislate that everybody adopt my sense of morality.

    Why can't the left do that when they claim to be driven by a higher sense of morality??

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 14, 2014 2:32 p.m.

    ‘Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Why the change of public opinion on same-sex marriage?’

    =======

    I suppose for the very same reason the next generation doesn't understand older people's racial or gender bigotries.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    2nd try.

    "But it’s a grand, untested, social experiment because it really hasn’t been done broadly..."

    --- That isn't reason enough to approve discriminatory behavior.

    @play by the rules;

    Prove your god even exists before declaring his demands. Secondly, S&G were destroyed for inhospitality and greed (a lot like today).

    @wrz;

    You have yet to show how LGBT couples getting married is a "threat to traditional marriage". The one won't affect the other. Problems with "traditional marriage" are the fault of heterosexuals, not LGBT.

    @Getting Older;

    You never had the right to vote on the rights of others in the first place.

    @firstamendment;

    More lies.

    @Flashback;

    The 10th Amendment PROHIBITS states from Violating the rest of the Consitution. You should read it yourself. (P.S. The Bible is irrelevant to our laws).

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 14, 2014 7:46 p.m.

    Why have we changed? Simple. We have changed from a God worshiping country to a self indulgence worshiping country.

    Marriage is a religious rite, not a right. I can't imagine why unbelievers would seek it, nor can I see why our government recognizes and regulates it.

    Gay should be able to marry any man who consents, within the laws of her church, without her name being used as a sexual reference.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 14, 2014 8:54 p.m.

    "Unless they are causing some type of problem or annoying other passengers with some type of off the wall behavior, I've never seen anyone kicked off. So, let's just say I'm skeptical of Really???'s comment."

    You are right, to some extent, Flashback. I actually got on the bus at the same time as some unruly passengers. I did not know the other passengers, and sat in a different area than they did. I was happy when the bus driver pulled over to demanded they get off the bus. Unfortunately he looked back at my friend and I and told us we had to get off of the bus as well.

    He didn't care that we weren't with the unruly passengers. He didn't care that we were quiet and keeping to ourselves. He wouldn't move until we got off the bus. I heard him call us an unpleasant slur as we got off of the bus. It was humiliating, and I was disappointed that nobody else on the bus stood up for us.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    April 14, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    2 bits. of course this is a religious debate. The only arguments against equal marriage are religious. They're certainly not scientific.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 14, 2014 11:41 p.m.

    @Really,

    That bus driver was wrong. I stand by my statement: gays have the right to sit on the bus. Being gay does not make somebody evil. You have just as much of a right as anybody to use public transportation, as long as you are not being unruly in any way.

    Likewise, homosexuals should be allowed the same services at businesses as anyone else. If someone is denied service simply because of their orientation then that is discrimination (unless there are serious concerns about sexual matters, such as with scout leaders on scout camps; they don't let female scout leaders sleep along with boy scouts either).

    However, people misunderstand the situation. The photographer did not refuse to take photographs of gays, she was refusing to photograph a gay marriage ceremony. It was the event she opposed, not the people. Likewise a filmmaker might not have any objection to interviewing known gamblers, but might refuse to make a documentary that promotes gambling.

  • alleYcat BATAVIA, IL
    April 15, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    I fail to see how redefining a religious sacrament is somebody's 'civil right'. "Marriage" was a Biblical term and a ritual of the church long before America ever existed, much less issued licenses and created a tax status associated with it. It seems the LGBT movement has completely abandoned the 'civil union' designation. why? For me, this isn't an issue about the right to love whom you choose, or who raises better kids. This is about the 'state' (and even 'the people') over stepping its bounds into the realm of the 'church'. Why are LGBT so passionate that the rest of us refer to their relationship as a 'marriage'? Does it make their relationship something less if it is called a 'civil union' that gets the same tax and legal treatment as a traditional marriage? I don't get it. The title 'marriage' matters to me because of its religious/scriptural nature. Why does it matter so much to you?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 15, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger: Marriage is a religious rite, not a right. I can't imagine why unbelievers would seek it...

    I dare say it is a "right" because of the many hundreds of identified legal protections and benefits it gives to married couples.

    Gay and Lesbian couples want those legal protections for the same reason as hetero couples. And, as much as you might claim it is all about the religious imperative I don't see straight couples offering to give all those legal protections a pass.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 15, 2014 8:02 p.m.

    @alleYcat: "I fail to see how redefining a religious sacrament is somebody's 'civil right'."

    The fact that you want to identify our relationships - which are just as sacred and intimate as yours - by another term is the reason that we are demanding it be recognized as marriage. Over half-a-century ago the Supreme Court established as a matter of law that "Separate" is NOT "Equal."

    Your insisting that your relationship has meaning above and beyond the meaning of my relationship means that you want to be able to legally mistreat me and my husband and all Gay and Lesbian couples. It means you want a legal backing to discriminate.

    Your religion can hold marriage as a "sacred sacrament" but that has no effect on US law, nor should it. We are a constitutional republic ruled by law, not a theocracy where religion and government are mixed.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    Mr. Webb asks, "So my question to my gay friends is, can you do family? Can you do it well?"

    If that is the standard for determining whether a couple should be legally allowed to marry, then straight couples should be denied marriage licenses, because half of them do not seem to be able to "do family" at all, let alone do it well. Webb acknowledges that some gay couples may be able to "do family" well, but discounts their experience as irrelevant, while ignoring the vast numbers of straight families that fail. Perhaps he should read the Eyres's column today to see how those straights who can legally marry are faring at the job. It's not that great. His precautionary standard should apply equally to straights.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 16, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    Us. Me and my wife. Our family. Two moms and two kids. We refuse to be wall-flowers. Our kids call us "Mommy" and "MomCat" (my wife is Cathy, she also gets "Mama" at times.)

    We go place and do things as a family. I am the room mom for my daughter's class and am involved in other things at her school. Our neighbors know us as a family, see us with our kids.

    Part of our social group is some Gay and Lesbian families who are also active and visible.

    Yes, we have gotten bigots (no other word for it) who call us names or make rude comments, and one lady who screamed at us in a store that we were going to burn for eternity. But we have a lot of people who see us and smile or give compliments and a few who have said seeing and knowing other families like ours changed their mind on the whole acceptance and marriage issue.

    Visibility. We came out of the closet and refused to be quiet or shamed or mistreated. It makes a difference.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    April 16, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    I find it interesting and frustrating how pro SSM people want to label all those who oppose them as bigots. At the same time justifying their own prejudice and bigotry based on the fact that gays have been treated unfairly by some people (making the leap in logic that you can’t hold a different opinion without being a bigot). The hatred does not come from those who oppose SSM (we are not anti-gay for being pro traditional family) rather the hatred clear comes from those who hate anyone who disagrees with SSM.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    April 16, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    The change in public opinion comes from a well-orchestrated group of people who want to impose their will about SSM on society. They don’t seem to understand that those who support traditional marriage are not anti-gay bigots. We have laws about marriage to protect the best interests of society. The recent court decision denying polygamous marriages was based on the fact that it was not in the best interests of society. SSM advocates want this to be about rights which it is not. If it were then polygamous, bigamous, and polyamorous marriages (as well as any marriage arrangement between consenting adults including siblings and parent child relations) should be considered legal marriages. We restrict marriage, defining it as between a man and a women, because traditional marriage promotes the best interests of society. All the legal and social ramification for same sex and other common law relationships can be managed through other legal means. Unfortunately, GLBT want more than that, they want people to condone the behavior when all they will get is a tolerant society that acknowledges them as worthwhile individuals who should not be persecuted in social, work and housing situations.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 16, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    1 Voice
    orem, UT

    ==========

    If you are not allowing people like
    Candied Ginger
    Brooklyn, OH
    the same oppotunities --
    [financial, legal, otherwise]

    as you do others -- the YES, that would qualify as a "bigot".

    try looking up the term, in a dictionary.

    Someone who exhibits a intolerance toward a "group" of people, as opposed to an individual.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 16, 2014 5:13 p.m.

    @1 Voice: "The change in public opinion comes from a well-orchestrated group of people who want to impose their will about SSM on society. They don’t seem to understand that those who support traditional marriage are not anti-gay bigots."

    Actually, it comes because we got tired of being pushed into the closet, of being shamed and mistreated, of having our jobs threatened, of being told we are perverts and being compared to pedophiles.

    I don't have a desire to "impose" my will. I want to know that if my partner - who has a serious medical condition - ends up in the hospital again I can visit and make decisions without any problem. I want to know that we can jointly inherit from each other without penalty. I want to know that I won't be fired if my boss finds out I am gay. I want to know that we can walk down the street holding hands and not be threatened.

    Stopping us from being able to marry does nothing to "support traditional marriage." It just stops same-sex-couples from having the same protections you have.

  • MIchelle Orme Provo, UT
    April 16, 2014 11:38 p.m.

    My mother did a great job of being a mom. But since my parents were divorced, I didn't receive as much parenting from my dad. Yet I did genuinely need my dad. More 'mom' would not have helped me, a heterosexual female, negotiate the world outside my home. He did the best he could with the amount of time we had when we were together. Children do need parents of both genders, they do better raised in a stable family with both genders.

    While same sex couples love each other and love the children they have, there is something missing that can't be made up with deconstructing traditional family.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 17, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    @MIchelle Orme;

    Using your argument, you should have been taken from your mother and placed with a two-partent opposite sex family. Children of single heterosexual parents should be removed from those homes if that is your only reasoning for denying marriage to LGBT couples.

    As many have stated before, denying marriage to LGBT couples does nothing to promote stable, heterosexual families. That is the responsibility of the heterosexual family and no amount of denying gays the privilege of marriage is going to help "traditional marriage".

    Unless you apply your standard across the board, to everyone, that is discrimination. If the ONLY group you single out is LGBT, that, ma'am, is bigotry.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 17, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    @MIchelle Orme

    It takes a village to raise a child. My mom and dad showed me a lot of things. But one Girl Scout leader showed me how to really lead and makes a difference. A neighbor woman taught me about caring for kids with special needs. My aunt introduced me to feminist writers, then taught me to evaluate and form my own opinions.

    My uncle insisted girls need to know how to work on mechanical things, and made me (and my sisters) get my hands dirty fixing my bike and, later, working on my car. I don't like it, but I can do basic maintenance myself, and I know when a mechanic is talking smack.

    My parents taught me a lot of things, but without the rest of the village I would lack so much of who I am today.

    My kids, being raised by two moms, also have a village. My parents. My brother and his wife, sister and her husband. My cranky uncle. Our friends at church. The gay and lesbian couples we know. They all contribute, are all part of our village.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 21, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    @ WTZ "If SSM is legitimized so must all other forms of potential marriage combinations, including polygamy, incest, children, siblings, anyone who loves anyone else."

    That is what known as the Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy and not valid in law. You assume that that there is a constitutional right to harm and abuse along with the marriage presumption of intimacy with children and siblings.
    That is quite a stretch of imagination don't you think?

    Keep in mind that at the most basic level, by requiring that classifications must be justified by an independent and legitimate purpose, the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) prohibits classifications from being drawn for “the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law." Romer, 517 U.S. at 633. There is simply no logical reason whatsoever to demean and disadvantage the children of same-sex couples by denying them access to stability and legal benefits that civil marriage law provides. Meanness and desire to harm are not a legitimate state interest.